The US should end illegal immigration with open borders so nobody would be here illegally

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#1
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
Common counter arguments to this idea:

Adopt them if you care about them
No.  I don't want to adopt anyone citizen or undocumented.  This is totally different than a citizen or undocumented moving into a home 5 blocks away with a consenting landlord and them paying rent.

They might murder or r@pe
So execute them if they do that, but most are fine.  Same standard for the native born.

They're on welfare
So are the trailer parks; at least the migrants want the welfare; trailer parks call their welfare socialist as an insult.  I'd easily rather give welfare money to immigrants who don't insult the help over trailer parks that do by calling it socialist.  I'd rather give money to the grateful.

They get to vote
If that's the case, then who cares?  The immigration test 1/3 of Americans can't pass and they can vote.  Either let anyone vote regardless of documentation status or require passing the citizenship test to vote regardless of if you're born here or not.

They would help the democrat party win all future elections
Who objectively cares if the GOP dies?  It's not your kid dying; it's an organization being dissolved (and this has happened all throughout history).  The Whigs died out; the federalists died out, they were just replaced with new parties.  It's just the GOP's turn to die.  Don't worry, some other party will take their place.  At this point, Trump is the GOP, if Harris dies, the democrats find someone else.  If Waltz dies, then the democrats find someone else.  If Trump dies, then the GOP MAGA base are lost sheep; Trump is their party; if the assassination attempt on him succeeded, then who would be the GOP party head?  JD Vance?  He's not a popular guy (when he wants to ban porn and undisputedly supports project 2025).  Sometimes parties die.  There's historical precedent for it.

They are both too lazy to work and they are taking all the jobs
Make up your mind.  The fact that you say this implies you just bandwagon whatever you hear from MAGA media.  It's not being racist; but it's being a bandwagoner that can't think for themselves.

They are both increasing the price of housing and they are decreasing the price of housing
Make up your mind.  The fact that you say this implies you just bandwagon whatever you hear from MAGA media.  It's not being racist; but it's being a bandwagoner that can't think for themselves.

If America has open borders, then we are no longer a nation
Cap; you can easily be an open borders nation.

Topic's author
#2
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@Barney
@oromagi
@HistoryBuff
Thoughts on this?
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@RemyBrown

What does this mean?
Topic's author
#4
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.
A. You can harm someone else if:

1. They are threatening you (with a bill that you didn't cite).
2. Same thing as 1.
B. No duty to retreat if the person is not where they legally can be.

The bolded part should be modified to, "No duty to retreat if the person is on your private property without your consent."  Someone is on your private property without your consent; you can do what is needed to get them off; someone is on public property; you can't shoot them if they are harmless.
#5
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 5,414
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
No bad could happen if China literally put 100 million fighting age men to cross into America and vote for Chinese interests over American interests or just buy weapons and patrol the streets.

Nothing bad could occur here and op is definitely not a retard
Topic's author
#6
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@WyIted
China won't do that.  It they won't do that to Mongolia, then how would they do it to America?  It would be like England colonizing America before they colonized Wales.
#7
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@RemyBrown
Would it be accurate to say that the bill "Arizona GOP Bill Legalizes Killing Undocumented Migrants"?
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,574
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown

Fortunately America had open borders when the Pilgrims landed in America on December 21, 1620, at Plymouth Harbor, Massachusetts.
#9
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 5,414
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@RemyBrown
China won't do that. 
I guess we are just taking it on faith that countries won't do what is in their own best interests if the United States has border security.

I like how your solution to criminals coming over was to arrest then after they victimize Americans. Something that is definitely not retarded and something that definitely happens in every case despite 33% of homicides go unsolved and about 90% of rapes are never prosecuted. 

It's also a great idea just to eliminate border security and let a bunch of unactivated ms13 members to come through unchecked. How very intelligent of you to propose this policy
Topic's author
#10
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Would it be accurate to say that the bill "Arizona GOP Bill Legalizes Killing Undocumented Migrants"?
I would say yes and I can prove that by contradiction.

Lets say the answer to that is no.  Then the AZ state government would have modified that text to something extremely similar to what I would have stated.

This did not happen and AZ is worried about their state turning blue (and if you're a republican politician, then this is scary and undocumented immigrants are a big reason why because although they can't vote, they talk to Citizens who can, those people gain respect for the undocumented, and they vote blue whereas otherwise they would have voted red).

So yeah; the AZ GOP politicians are willing to kill people to stay in power.


Topic's author
#11
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@WyIted
I guess we are just taking it on faith that countries won't do what is in their own best interests if the United States has border security.
Obviously every nation is going to act in their best interests no matter what.  My contention is if the US has open borders, then it is in China's best interests to not send 100 million people to the US to try and annex California. They won't even do that for Mongolia.

China annexing America when they didn't annex Mongolia is like England colonizing America before they colonize Wales (actually less sense). 

Wales was more powerful than the 13 colonies in the 1300s but they were closer (one con, one pro to annexing Wales before you annex American territory).  With Mongolia vs the US, the US is both farther from China than Mongolia is and they are more powerful.

China will not plausibly annex America regardless of America's immigration policy.

I like how your solution to criminals coming over was to arrest then after they victimize Americans. 
Yes; just like how if someone illegally buys an AR 15 in a state where they are banned, then I only support prosecuting them if they actually murder people (not the AR 15 owner that doesn't murder people).

All victimless crimes should be abolished, and driving from Mexico to Texas without papers is 100% victimless.

Something that is definitely not retarded 
You are acting like such a snowflake with SJW like insults.  Smh.

It's also a great idea just to eliminate border security and let a bunch of unactivated ms13 members to come through unchecked. 
Yeah; and if they murder, then you kill them, but the vast majority of undocumented immigrants won't murder or anything like that and if MS 13 murders, then the individuals that murdered or r@ped should get executed.

In 2016, this nation voted more republican than they did in 2012 (because the incumbent party usually does worse once their guy is no longer POTUS).  Despite that, the border states (who deal with the most amount of illegal immigration) voted much more blue (every border state).  This means the American Citizens that know undocumented immigrants the most want them here and don't need randos telling them what is and isn't a problem.

There's a reason why as of the time of this comment getting posted, I'm getting likes on my comments and you're not.  This is not a one off either; this is a general trend.  Left wingers often make good points that resonate with other left wingers; right wingers rarely make good points that resonate with other right wingers.  We the people have spoken and America is a blue country by popular vote.  Might makes right!
Topic's author
#12
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Fortunately America had open borders when the Pilgrims landed in America on December 21, 1620, at Plymouth Harbor, Massachusetts.
Yes, and they were mooching off the native governments.  Fucking freeloaders (sarcasm)!
#13
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,574
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Biden administration officials say that because they have increased and enhanced their vetting, they have expelled 4 million migrants so far, double the number deported under former President Donald Trump. The Biden administration prioritizes criminals and other public safety threats for deportation, but it isn’t clear how many of those deported have criminal records.
Topic's author
#14
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@FLRW
I don't agree with Biden on that.

Nobody should get deported under any circumstances.  If they're murderers or similar, then you execute them.  Latin America shouldn't have to deal with them; makes more sense to kill murderers and similar and leave the harmless alone!
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,574
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown

 If they're murderers or similar, then you execute them.  Latin America shouldn't have to deal with them; makes more sense to kill murderers and similar and leave the harmless alone!
Tru-dat!
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@RemyBrown
Would it be accurate to say that the bill "Arizona GOP Bill Legalizes Killing Undocumented Migrants"?
I would say yes
Underdog I presume.


and I can prove that by contradiction.
No, you cannot.


Lets say the answer to that is no.  Then the AZ state government would have modified that text to something extremely similar to what I would have stated.
Why?



Topic's author
#17
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Underdog I presume.
Who's he?

No, you cannot.
How is my proof incorrect?

Why?
Because bills take a long time to make; so they try to iron out all vagueness in the bill.  I figured out in 5 seconds how it could all be ironed out; a bunch of politicians can easily do the same (especially with their law degrees where their brains are trained to find loopholes in the law; I was able to do it and I'm not even a lawyer).
#18
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@RemyBrown
No, you cannot.
How is my proof incorrect?
You didn't make an argument.


Why?
Because bills take a long time to make; so they try to iron out all vagueness in the bill.  I figured out in 5 seconds how it could all be ironed out; a bunch of politicians can easily do the same (especially with their law degrees where their brains are trained to find loopholes in the law; I was able to do it and I'm not even a lawyer).
Since it was vague it must mean "It is lawful to kill undocumented migrants"?

Missing a premise.
Topic's author
#19
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You didn't make an argument.
Yeah I did; you just didn't understand it because you have a party to stick too.

Since it was vague it must mean "It is lawful to kill undocumented migrants"?

Missing a premise.
The quote was you can use self defense "in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act."

The people always referencing the, "they're not legally supposed to be here" are conservatives.

You learn to read between the lines when you're politically seasoned.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RemyBrown
Mongolia is a proud nation with closed borders, unlike the USA which hates itself and begs to be annexed.
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
@RemyBrown
You didn't make an argument.
Yeah I did; you just didn't understand it because you have a party to stick too.
100% underdog. Why do people even do this?


You learn to read between the lines when you're politically seasoned.
rofl, alright you can have fun with your fellow idiots I'm satisfied.

Shame, I think I'm just about done with this site.
Topic's author
#22
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Mongolia is a proud nation with closed borders, unlike the USA which hates itself and begs to be annexed.
Mongolia can have whatever rules they want; it's irrelevant.  If China wanted to annex Mongolia, then they could easily.  China's GDP is 1000x that of Mongolia; it's like a human vs a rat in a container.  The rat's will on if they live is irrelevant if the human wants to kill them; the human gets a say in whether the rat lives or dies.

But China has no desire to annex Mongolia; so why would they annex the USA?  They can't even annex Hong Kong without getting international backlash.

If China invaded the US, then China's economy would get decimated; it doesn't matter how many people they plausibly send over here.
Topic's author
#23
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
100% underdog. Why do people even do this?
I learn some things from him, but I can find one big disagreement between me and the underdog.

Here the underdog basically makes a right wing argument on Israel:


(6 months ago; not a huge amount of time)

I disagree with it because there is nothing hypocritical about being pro LGBT and being pro Palestine.  The position consistently believes the 2 following things:

  1. Homophobia is bad.
  2. Homophobia should not be punished with death.

The right on the other hand, advocates the death penalty for Islamic homophobia by implying, "Homosexuals should support the genocide in Gaza because Gazans are homophobes" while they turn a blind eye to white Christain homophobia as, "free speech".  Black Christain homophobia is a mixed signal; they love white people, but they also love christains.

Underdog didn't see it like that though; I don't agree with anyone 100%.
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RemyBrown
But China has no desire to annex Mongolia
So wrong. China had control all the way up to 1911. If Mongolia let them, China would be back in charge.

Also, welcome back Underdog.
Topic's author
#25
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Why isn't China trying to annex Mongolia right now?
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RemyBrown
If Mongolia let them. They aren't. Unlike the USA that lets anyone cross over.
Topic's author
#27
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Undoucmented Chinese people moving to California is not the same as China annexing California.  That's like saying that a bunch of Saint Louis residents moving to NYC without getting regestered by the government is somehow going to lead to Missouri annexing the West side of Manhattan.

It's total lunacy to think that would happen.
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,903
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RemyBrown
I guarantee if half of Texas invaded New York, they would lose their Marxist culture.
Topic's author
#29
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I guarantee if half of Texas invaded New York, they would lose their Marxist culture.
To you, Marxist = someone with left wing opinions, so I'm a proud Marxist by your definition (as is most of the USA).  The label doesn't matter.

But lets say TX invaded NY (having if be half of TX would be hard to compute because which half are you talking about?).  

If that happens, then this expanded TX (TX + NY) would compose of a D+20 NY and a R+5 TX.

TX has more people, but in the 2020 election, this means that this expanded TX would be about D+8 (so TX would be a blue state if they annexed all of the NY State area).

So yeah; let TX annex NY; it's how you turn TX blue.
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@RemyBrown
I don't think this really makes sense. Immigrants fall into 2 categories. Those who are moving for an emergency, IE refugees, and those who are moving for a better life. For those moving for a better life, you want to make sure that them moving benefits your nation. For example, canada has a population of about 38 million people. If they had "open borders" you would probably see millions, maybe even 10's of millions of people move there. There's no way the infrastructure of Canada could handle that. People would come because it would still be better than lots of other places. But for Canadians, the standard of living would fall. 

For the refugees, it's less about "does it benefit your country" and more about helping people in need. But you still want to make sure the number of Refugees doesn't swamp the services available to support them. You also want to make sure that they are actually refugees and not just economic migrants trying to jump the line.