https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...PBdW55YU&noredirect=on&utm_term=.c47de730592e
petro dollars 1- congress 0
petro dollars 1- congress 0
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
General News Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GatoDelFuego
- Start date
- Status
What if you
Wanted to block arms sales
But TRUMP said
Veto
Wanted to block arms sales
But TRUMP said
Veto
But EU has laws on minimum wage. They aren't going to be paid less than minimum wage.
gotta love the extremely based enlightened centrist position of "unchecked immigration is good for the economy because it allows us to expand the number of industries which can exploit the third world via economic imperialism." somehow the most common opinion is far less palateable than almost any other immigration opinion.
yah i sure do wonder why that stance is more popular than 'lets lock humans in cages'
also could you briefly explain how unchecked immigration expands industries 'economic imperialism' activities?
"let's lock humans in cages" is exactly why i had the word "almost" in that sentence.
My point is that jobs which can't outsource to 3rd world sweatshops (e.g. cleaning, construction) can hire poor migrant workers for horrible working conditions--which natives can reject because of a stronger social support network making unemployment not a death sentence--instead of being forced by the market to provide fair compensation. it's basically bringing economic imperialism in-house.
is it bringing economic imperialism in -house or is it just 'the economy' and you've attached 'imperialism' as this scary buzzword to it? claiming immigrants are what allows the 'natives' to focus on 'imperialism' instead of cleaning their houses is just lol, the actual imperialist policies of the US in installing rightwing regimes to hand over countries to drug lords to keep food prices low and the cocaine running is much more significant in fomenting the arrival of immigrants to the US. Why not have an amnesty to ensure these immigrants can work legally and pay income taxes? then they can't be underpaid for housework etc because 'the market' won't allow it. And also crack down on firms hiring ppl into these horrible working conditions seems like it could also be a better idea than 'no immigration because thats economic imperialism' which might as well be 'no immigration because the brown ppl are stealin my cultural (economic) heritage'
I think you guys are misconstruing my argument so maybe I should have made it more clear what I'm responding to with a quote-post
i.e. "Europe needs an exploitable underclass for its underpaid manual labor"
as i understand economic imperialism, it's the practice of the first world using economics to obtain the third world's resources (especially human capital) at a cheaper rate than they could get those from their home countries. I think this perfectly describes the attitude of allowing immigration with the explicit justification of exploiting them for cheaper labor.
and some disclaimers: of course actual imperialism is also bad, of course importing skilled workers also hurts the home countries, and of course i'm not saying immigration is always bad. i'm just responding to the extremely common attitude expressed in cress's post (which i guess i should have made more clear in the first place).
it's a sticky situation anyhow because for the individuals who immigrate, it's generally their best option (and we exploit that) but taking away that option without providing a better alternative is obviously not what i am proposing. though i am unsure of what the better option is, but i at least want to call out the attitude that the current situation is a good thing because it gives us cheap labor.
Historically, it would be difficult to call the use of migrant labor to make an argument of imperialism. While, yes, this removes a portion of the workforce from a poorer country, migrant workers would earn considerably higher wages than they could at home, and then most would return home with those wages, or send a portion home from each paycheck. This generally speaking was a net positive for the source country. Source countries generally made it easy to do so as a result.
I do agree that it’s somewhat more “imperialistic” in modern times with migrant labor being increasingly permanent and less temporary, at least relative to history, (ironically in the US case due to tightening the border making the routine crossings necessary for temporary work harder lol) but I also return to my earlier post about high skilled workers which is a stronger form of this imperialism, since in the “brain drain” situation, they’re more likely to bring their family, move permanently, and not send remittances.
All that said, I think the whole argument of migration is bad because it’s imperialistic is nonsense. The notion that a country has any inherent right to the labor of its people, forbidding their freedom of movement, is nonsense.
I do agree that it’s somewhat more “imperialistic” in modern times with migrant labor being increasingly permanent and less temporary, at least relative to history, (ironically in the US case due to tightening the border making the routine crossings necessary for temporary work harder lol) but I also return to my earlier post about high skilled workers which is a stronger form of this imperialism, since in the “brain drain” situation, they’re more likely to bring their family, move permanently, and not send remittances.
All that said, I think the whole argument of migration is bad because it’s imperialistic is nonsense. The notion that a country has any inherent right to the labor of its people, forbidding their freedom of movement, is nonsense.
Forbidding freedom of movement is very commonplace. Forbidding the freedom of movement is how we enforce the security. We have trespassing laws. You're not entitled to walk into a bank lock, or are you?
I am not implying that migrant workers are criminals or bad people or anything like that. I'm just saying that we can keep them out if we want.
You're right, the country don't have the inherent right to the labor, which is why I would prefer if we stop taking corporations' whining that we don't have enough workers seriously.
I am not implying that migrant workers are criminals or bad people or anything like that. I'm just saying that we can keep them out if we want.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-4/aliens
You're right, the country don't have the inherent right to the labor, which is why I would prefer if we stop taking corporations' whining that we don't have enough workers seriously.
I didn't say that. Please read more carefully.
This is a pretty narrow view. Companies will underpay everybody they can
Until companies get taken to court, regulations don't exist
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-criminalizing-dissent-antifa-ted-cruz-1450285
im sure free speech ppl will be crying over this, oh wait, not a single one of them has mentioned it, mainly because contemporary free speech activists use their rights as a justification and platform for white supremacy and queer bashing. everyone act like it's normal as the opposition is criminalized.
"
Orr commented that ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection "are responsible for far more deaths in the past year than antifa in the past three decades." She also tweeted that in 30 years of antifascist activity in the United States, there has been one confirmed fatality, while over 20 years of far-right extremist activity from 1990 to 2012 in the U.S., there have been 670 fatalities, more than 3,000 non-fatal injuries and more than 4,000 attacks.
"
im sure free speech ppl will be crying over this, oh wait, not a single one of them has mentioned it, mainly because contemporary free speech activists use their rights as a justification and platform for white supremacy and queer bashing. everyone act like it's normal as the opposition is criminalized.
"
Orr commented that ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection "are responsible for far more deaths in the past year than antifa in the past three decades." She also tweeted that in 30 years of antifascist activity in the United States, there has been one confirmed fatality, while over 20 years of far-right extremist activity from 1990 to 2012 in the U.S., there have been 670 fatalities, more than 3,000 non-fatal injuries and more than 4,000 attacks.
"
Speech and Violence are 2 totally different issues. Antifa is inexplicably violent, and I 100% agree they should be categorized as donestic terrorists. Why is this freaking controversal, and why do you insist on defending their asses? It's sad
Not even close. I don't defend violence by border control (in cases where they are not simply defending themselves rather acting as the provokators), but unlike you I do support border enforcement, because open borders is one of the most mindless, stupid, and irresponsible ideas being even considered in our politics, considering that Dems are the ones manufactoring the issue by straining border judges, not providing beds, and keeping these border stations underfunded and insanely overcrowded. Pretty hypocritical given you care more than me, and those are the people that you largely support. You have some serious gaul to say I don't care or like people coming from our southern border, I'm not racist (for the record: I'm fine if people come in legally through our Southern port of entry, my issue is with those who break the law and essentially cut through the line of legal immigrants. Again why this is controversial to you I have no fucking clue, this is the opinion shared by the majority of Americans). You're misunderstanding of ICE is completely fucked up, and you're only misleading people. But once again though, regardless of your shit opinion of ICE, why the fuck is that your excuse to defend Antifa? You've yet to answer the basis of my reply to you.
Last edited:
'Antifa' is just communities organizing against far-right extremist invaders that come in from the outside to bash queer people and rally around violence against marginalized ppl. Why is my defense of community organizers from neo-nazi groups and rightwing extremists so controversial to you? Here we have a law coming up that assumes any 'leftist' is associated with 'antifa' and that such an association is tantamount to terrorism, and you're complaining to me that this shouldn't be controversial because *repeats for the 1000th time that antifa are the real terrorists* or something... thus we can see that you dont care about violence against ppl you dont like, just as you dont care about free speech for groups that you dont like. it is always fun when the replies to my arguments demonstrate to prove them.
- Status