Economy Should we provide migrants with housing, welfare, medical, etc..?

[blackheart]

B

We get it that you don't actually care about the Minority neighborhoods that illegal immigration affects the most...

I do, which is why I want those minority neighborhoods to have healthcare, affordable housing, and gun control reform so there are fewer gun deaths in them. You don't care about those people, which is why you don't support those policies. You're just making this bad-faith and dishonest argument because you think it will hold weight with me as a leftist. You just said you want housing and food to be more expensive then you turn around and try to say you care about poor minorities. Sure thing pal.

But I wouldn't expect someone that lacks any common sense to understand that's exactly who is the most affected by mass, illegal invasions.

Appeal to Common Sense

Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not.We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Description: Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not. We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is. This is a more specific version of alleged certainty.

Logical Form:

It's common sense that X is true.
Therefore, X is true.

I hope that's helpful.

 

[Rygu]

Refugees? Sure.

Migrants? No.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

It’s actually extremely complicated.

Firstly, our border is about 3145 miles long, and the Rio Grande River makes up about 1000 miles of it. You can’t build a wall on either side of it, nor can you (nor would you want to) build some sort barrier down the middle of it. Mountains also make up some of this, where building a wall or barrier just isn’t feasible. The mountain itself is the barrier, but isn’t insurmountable.

Additionally, much of the land on the US side of the border is private land. It belongs to American citizens, mainly farmers and ranchers. What George W Bush found when he tried to build walls and fences on that land is, citizens challenge eminent domain claims, it goes to court, and typically the government loses. If the government wins, you hurt American citizens and directly harm these ranchers and farmers.

Thirdly, it’s pretty much agreed by anyone who studies the issue, that an actual full closure of the border would be an absolute economic catastrophe.

Don’t get me wrong, the border and the immigration issue in general is a shitshow, no doubt. But usually people who say “just close the border down” are people who don’t fully understand the geography of the border, the treaties and trade deals involved, the dependence that the southern states have on Mexico as an import/export partner, and the dependence southern states have on migrant workers to maintain their own exports and economy.

Oh when I say it's simple, it's actually extremely complicated. But first it starts with the political will to do it. That's straight fwd. Once you you have determined that it's a matter of national security, which it is, then the rest is just execution. The USA are notoriously efficient when it comes to implementing stuff. I don't buy that any of the reasons you listed is a real motive for letting things like they are now. The real reason is an ideological rift.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Only if you want to incentivize the entire 3rd world to make the trip.... which is evidently what these imbeciles intend to do.

 

[My name is]

No

 

[tenniswhiz]

The Heritage Foundation is a partisan, activist organization, though. Their "findings" are already determined before they do any studying because their object is not the expansion of knowledge but advocating for conservative policy. And the specific study they're talking about is contradicted by real research (multiple studies) and has been shredded by more serious researchers. I suspect you just thought that MMA fans wouldn't be familiar with them.

This is true of sociological and political studies in general.
It happens at the opposite end as well. Nearly any study out of academia will “find” something that just happens to be 100% consistent with values from the far left.
Furthermore, these are the only types of studies that CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WashPost will provide space for.

 

[Lucas1980]

I do, which is why I want those minority neighborhoods to have healthcare, affordable housing, and gun control reform so there are fewer gun deaths in them. You don't care about those people, which is why you don't support those policies. You're just making this bad-faith and dishonest argument because you think it will hold weight with me as a leftist. You just said you want housing and food to be more expensive then you turn around and try to say you care about poor minorities. Sure thing pal.

Laughing...Those neighborhoods where the gun deaths are the highest have some of the strictest Gun laws in place so kick rocks with that nonsense. You support mass immigration strictly for votes which will hurt the minority communities the most just proving as a leftist you really don't care about the minorities at all as long as they stay on the plantation. I said I wouldn't mind paying more for food and housing if it meant a secure border and we weren't be invaded by thousands of unvetted immigrants from all over the world on a daily basis. But ever since 2021 can food and housing even get any higher.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is true of sociological and political studies in general.
It happens at the opposite end as well. Nearly any study out of academia will “find” something that just happens to be 100% consistent with values from the far left.
Furthermore, these are the only types of studies that CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WashPost will provide space for.

No, it's not true in general, and the last sentence is completely batshit. It certainly happens sometimes that studies reflect the bias of researchers (though not necessarily political bias), but that's humans failing to meet their ideals. The Heritage Foundation doing shoddy work to support rightist talking points is not a failure--it's the mission. I mean, I'm sure they'd like to be able to do good work, but not if it conflicts with the goal of generating a tool for rightists to use in arguments.

I would also say that if you're really as nihilistic and cynical as you claim, you'd reject the idea of doing any research, and you still wouldn't defend Heritage. Instead of arguing, as I think is reasonable, that Heritage's study is worthless because the result is known in advance, the study was poorly done, and the "findings" contradict other work, you'd be arguing that it's worthless because no one ever wants to know what's true and no one ever attempts to find out--including them.