Debate on the U.S.'s long term strategic and technological goals in an increasingly multi-polar world.

[Blasterbot]

See, I don't like illegal immigration, but this leads to far worse problems: a) now it's harder to prove citizenship, and b) (far worse) the creation of a permanent underclass of illegal non-citizens in the US that grows over time. That doesn't lead to good places.

but the system we currently have is kinda made to make this happen. like that is why we have encouraged people to cross the desert and bring any child we won't check if their yours. it also creates a class of people that can't compete with the cheap labor provided by the illegal aliens and get left by the wayside. the only thing to do is get them out or just say fuck it everyone can come in who cares.

 

[Abhorsen]

Making it unpleasant to be here illegally is the point. The systemic bias against illegal aliens is the point.

You are missing my objection: if we have an underclass that's permanent, we basically are creating a huge, systemic problem. They will not have homes/family outside of the US, because they would have lived here for generations. They won't likely have any citizenship, so we still cannot send them anywhere, because no place will accept them. They won't be able to do anything legally in America either. So we won't be able to kick them out at that point (because no one will accept them). Congrats, you've created a mafia with a legally enforced omerta (as if one is found, all there family are due for arresting).

I will agree with your point about reduction vs elimination. However, sufficiently strict controls would limit the scale of the problem of an underclass. If your illegal alien population is small enough they aren't an underclass, they're just the small portion of the population that are criminals. Right now we have a problem in the scale of tens of millions. If the problem can be shrunken to hundreds of thousands that's not an underclass, that's a statistic.

No. You don't seem to understand: police control is helpless versus supply and demand after a point. All it can do is increase the cost to come over. But you'll get decreasing marginal returns (as is the case with anything) as more money and effort is sunk into it.

The only real solution is to get rid of minimum wage and the welfare state. But barring that, we will always have millions of illegal immigrants. Increased border security can do some (stopping caravans is easy, the remain in Mexico thing is another benefit on false refugee applicants), but it's ultimately not going to slow the tide that much.

And I take exception to the first two lines. The correct analogy would be "Arrest the bootleggers and there will be less bootleggers" and "arrest the drug dealers and there will be less drug dealers".

I mean sure, you can claim that, but it's also not true. It actually increases the number of people who have done drug dealing as every time you arrest them, you open up a spot to replace them (so that's two people who've now done drug dealing). The demand didn't get affected at all. And here, the demand is for cheap labor.

but the system we currently have is kinda made to make this happen. like that is why we have encouraged people to cross the desert and bring any child we won't check if their yours. it also creates a class of people that can't compete with the cheap labor provided by the illegal aliens and get left by the wayside. the only thing to do is get them out or just say fuck it everyone can come in who cares.

No, it's design stops the worst result of this: people coming here illegally for jobs (the vast majority), and then raising generations of illegal stateless people that we can't deport, but also can't be employed legally. It's how to kickstart a mafia, not just a gang.

 

[Scottty]

No, it's design stops the worst result of this: people coming here illegally for jobs (the vast majority), and then raising generations of illegal stateless people that we can't deport, but also can't be employed legally. It's how to kickstart a mafia, not just a gang.

Because you must be a citizen in order to be employed? Why?

Surely the whole "taking a test to show that you understand how the government is supposed to work" thing should be for allowing people to vote or hold public office, specifically.

 

[Abhorsen]

Because you must be a citizen in order to be employed? Why?

Surely the whole "taking a test to show that you understand how the government is supposed to work" thing should be for allowing people to vote or hold public office, specifically.

Not a citizen, but a legal resident. There are laws designed to keep illegal residents from working in the US (which, fair enough in the current scenario, but that plus generations of illegal residents in the US leads to problems.

 

[Scottty]

Not a citizen, but a legal resident. There are laws designed to keep illegal residents from working in the US (which, fair enough in the current scenario, but that plus generations of illegal residents in the US leads to problems.

But there is a difference between being a resident and being a citizen, surely?
So having requirements for Citizenship that not all people there are able or willing to meet doesn't have to mean making them into criminals just for being there.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

But there is a difference between being a resident and being a citizen, surely?
So having requirements for Citizenship that not all people there are able or willing to meet doesn't have to mean making them into criminals just for being there.

Yes, there is a difference between Legal Resident and Citizen though I really can't detail the particulars. Illegal Aliens qualify as neither.

 

[Scottty]

Yes, there is a difference between Legal Resident and Citizen though I really can't detail the particulars. Illegal Aliens qualify as neither.

The point is here - revoking the Citizenship of people who shouldn't have it need not mean they are now Illegal Aliens. They could still be Legal Residents.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The point is here - revoking the Citizenship of people who shouldn't have it need not mean they are now Illegal Aliens. They could still be Legal Residents.

I don't think anyone has advocated revoking the Citizenship of anyone. Limiting who gains citizenship in the future certainly has been discussed.

 

[Abhorsen]

But there is a difference between being a resident and being a citizen, surely?
So having requirements for Citizenship that not all people there are able or willing to meet doesn't have to mean making them into criminals just for being there.

I'm not sure I'm getting what you are proposing here in regards to birthright citizenship. The proposal issued was to allow birthright citizenship for people with at least one parent who's a legal permanent resident.

Now either illegal's kids get citizenship, permanent residence, or nothing. Citizenship is what we have, permanent residence results in birthright citizenship either a) delayed a generation or b) if there's a pathway to citizenship, they pass a citizenship test when they are 18 or so. I'd be fine with this if I had to compromise, but a) that's not going to happen (a movement able to get rid of birthright citizenship isn't likely to settle here), and b) doesn't seem to solve many of people's problems with birthright citizenship.

The other option is keeping them as illegal, which leads to the problems stated above: basically setting up a mafia of stateless people.

If you want to instead make it so that only citizen's kids have citizenship, you end up without the mafia, but now have a large permanent underclass of non-citizens who can't join and we can't kick out (as this applies even to legal immigrant kids, and with enough generations they become stateless). That just breeds division in the US and sets up bad stuff long term.


Seriously, the immigration problem has a conceptually simple solution: get rid of federal minimum wage and the welfare state. Everything else will lose just like the war on drugs and prohibition. It's not just a US problem, the USSR even with the NKVD couldn't stop black markets. Incentive driven mass behavior is more powerful than any enforcement.

 

[Skallagrim]

Seriously, the immigration problem has a conceptually simple solution: get rid of federal minimum wage and the welfare state. Everything else will lose just like the war on drugs and prohibition. It's not just a US problem, the USSR even with the NKVD couldn't stop black markets. Incentive driven mass behavior is more powerful than any enforcement.

Look, I completely agree with you on getting rid of any federal minimum wage and the bloated welfare state, but how does that preclude what @Scottty suggested? You keep coming back to this binary, where someone is either a citizen or an illegal alien. It's completely possibly to create a non-binary categorisation.


1. First, do just as you suggested, and get rid of the federal minimum wage and the welfare state. Great.

2. Additionally, I'd propose legalising all drugs, too -- not because I'd advocate drug use, but (as with alcohol prohibition), the prohibition of drugs essentially just means you make the cartels strong. Legalising drugs makes them cheap, meaning the cartels go broke, and ends the danger of tainted & poorly-refined drugs. Without the welfare state, junkies can't leech off the public, and with drugs now cheap and no 'minimum wage barrier' keeping them jobless forever, the vast majority will not have to resort to crime to get a regular fix. At least as important, though: if you bankrupt the cartels in this way, South America benefits enormously (crime goes down + they can grow and export cocaine legally). This reduces the amount of illegal migrants!

3. Now we get to the additional step. You make it pretty easy for migrants to become non-citizen residents. They enjoy all the rights any citizen does, with the exception that they cannot vote and cannot hold public office. Now, the remaining illegal migration vanishes, because legal migration is made easy. But the considerable numbers of migrants hat will now appear can't just start unduly influencing politics.

4. It's still possible for non-citizen residents to become citizens, but that takes some extra effort, so "citizen" becomes a merit-based class for newcomers. This ensures that forever after, only the most dedicated migrants enter the citizenry, and thus the body politic.


It seems obvious to me that this would address all major issues involved, and create a stable and naturally meritocratic system.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Legalising drugs makes them cheap, meaning the cartels go broke, and ends the danger of tainted & poorly-refined drugs. Without the welfare state, junkies can't leech off the public, and with drugs now cheap and no 'minimum wage barrier' keeping them jobless forever, the vast majority will not have to resort to crime to get a regular fix.

This isn't born out by recent history. There are hordes of illegal pot farms in the US. They are there b/c they can grow and sell without getting regulated and taxed. This product is cheaper to buy, and the reason that many addicts still purchase from illegal drug dealers...EVEN in places where it's legal to buy and smoke dope.

3. Now we get to the additional step. You make it pretty easy for migrants to become non-citizen residents. They enjoy all the rights any citizen does, with the exception that they cannot vote and cannot hold public office. Now, the remaining illegal migration vanishes, because legal migration is made easy. But the considerable numbers of migrants hat will now appear can't just start unduly influencing politics.

I'm on board with this.

4. It's still possible for non-citizen residents to become citizens, but that takes some extra effort, so "citizen" becomes a merit-based class for newcomers. This ensures that forever after, only the most dedicated migrants enter the citizenry, and thus the body politic.

Ditto this.

 

[Abhorsen]

Look, I completely agree with you on getting rid of any federal minimum wage and the bloated welfare state, but how does that preclude what @Scottty suggested? You keep coming back to this binary, where someone is either a citizen or an illegal alien. It's completely possibly to create a non-binary categorisation.

Did you even read the thing I wrote above the part you quoted? I didn't treat it as a binary thing at all, and I haven't been. I literally walked through every combination in that post.

Points 1-3

I agree with all of these.

4. It's still possible for non-citizen residents to become citizens, but that takes some extra effort, so "citizen" becomes a merit-based class for newcomers. This ensures that forever after, only the most dedicated migrants enter the citizenry, and thus the body politic.

Part 4 basically already exists: spend 18 years growing up in America, or spend however many of years as a green card holder then apply. Either way, birthright citizenship isn't a huge problem at this point. If getting rid of birthright citizenship is a goal in and of itself, sure, do it then, but I still see it causing some problems, sorta like I pointed out in my post here:

If you want to instead make it so that only citizen's kids have citizenship, you end up without the mafia, but now have a large permanent underclass of non-citizens who can't join and we can't kick out (as this applies even to legal immigrant kids, and with enough generations they become stateless). That just breeds division in the US and sets up bad stuff long term.

Obviously, not a perfect response (as they can join as citizens), but some won't be able to, and either a) the bar is low enough that the generations of non-citizens aren't self-sustaining via intermarriage and passing the bar, at which point I don't see getting rid of it as useful but whatever, or b) there's a selfsustaining population, at which point you get into the problems in the quoted part. The last thing the US needs is more divisions.



Though, one amendment to birthright citizenship that I think works for everyone here is the following: there's still birthright citizenship, but it only takes affect if one spends, idk, a good majority of time (maybe 70%?) of their first so many years in the US (anywhere from 1-5ish, long enough to reliably deport someone arrested pregnant just across the border, but young enough that it's not a huge deal). Alternatively, combine it with dreamers: any kid that spent ~70% of their childhood in the US has residence, and can apply for citizenship.

There's still inherited citizenship as well, along with all the other ones (adoption, etc).

It neatly solves birth tourism and anchor babies without causing long term problems, and could perhaps be sold along bipartisan lines (necessary to get it by congress and the states).


Also, another thing would be to improve funding and speed up the judicial system in regards to deportations generally.

 

[Bassoe]

Point is, the mainstream Right doesn't want to stop illegal immigration, their ideal world is one where the illegals are allowed in but are kept from citizenship so they can't vote Left while the Right's billionaire backers profit from an even-more-overcrowded housing market, underpay them for their labor and threaten to reveal them to ICE if they complain, essentially acquiring a slave caste. The mainstream Left on the other hand, wants exactly the same thing, only with the illegals given citizenship so they can vote Left.

This is proven by the fact that all mainstream anti-immigrant rhetoric targets the immigrants directly rather than the people employing and selling to them. A "boarder wall" is a complete waste of money when the majority of illegals simply overstay their visas rather than sneaking in and it'll inevitably be torn down by the next democratic president. If you actually wanted to stop them, you'd set up a tip line for doxing people employing them with fines taken directly from their employers and given to snitches, sufficient that it became more profitable to hire natives.

 

[Bassoe]

A sound strategy is one of strategic reserves and independence.

The most important things right now are fuel and micro-electronics foundries. Far too many microchip foundries are in China or places China could invade.

Resource dependency is one of, if not the greatest weaknesses in modern neoliberalism/globalism.

Take the Saudis for example. They did 9/11. We know they did 9/11. Nevertheless, they're not a smoldering crater, Iraq is and they're still officially our "allies". Because we need them to keep selling their oil in American dollars to keep our currency valued despite the constant inflation. Or Russia, they're blatantly engaging in conquest and no matter how much the EU hates that, they've got no choice but to shut up and still trade with them because they need Russian oil, with the only thing their little temper tantrum of attempting sanctions will plausibly accomplish being the election of populists campaigning on reestablishing trade.

This is, or at least, should be, the big issue of modern nationalism.

>US capitalists outsource semiconductor production to Taiwan for cheaper labor costs
>developing an important industry right next to a geopolitical enemy where it will become a long term liability[
>nooo, you need to defend the island or we lose our semiconductors!!!
How can anyone in the DoD can look at this and not realize they are 100% capital's bitch and cleaning up after the retarded decisions of the free market?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Snip...

You do know that the US is currently in the process of standing up three different semi-conductor plants, right?

EDIT: and when I say US, I really mean Texas and...Indiana iirc. Wrong again me! It's Ohio.

 

[Blasterbot]

You do know that the US is currently in the process of standing up three different semi-conductor plants, right?

EDIT: and when I say US, I really mean Texas and...Indiana iirc.

wasn't the intel plant gonna be in ohio?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

wasn't the intel plant gonna be in ohio?

You are correct. My memory was in error.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Honestly the only change I would make for birthright citizenship is that at least one parent needs to be an American citizen or legal resident themselves at the time of birth.

Agreed.

Do you think you could pass that test?

I had to look up one answer for a practice test: 2008 Civics Practice Test | USCIS

The one I had to look up was asking about the Federalist Papers.

I took this test, it was trivial, I would be genuinely concerned with someone's basic knowledge if they scored less than a 75%. I would feel quite comfortable not allowing someone who couldn't pass that test to vote.

I'd actually make it harder, if anything.

Well Russia has proven they are a paper tiger militarily so.

This. I don't think the war in Ukraine has reinforced the idea of a multi-polar world at all. If anything, its reinforced that the US is the only nation with a proven ability to project force internationally.

We can mess up the entire Middle East from halfway across the globe. Russia can barely project force into Ukraine without making its logistics into a joke.

Sure, the US has had serious difficulty holding land, but if there's one thing the 20th century taught us, its that you can't hold land without committing enough war crimes to break the spirit of the enemy nation. Anyone who tried to do that would face much more severe consequences than Russia.

 

[bintananth]

I took this test, it was trivial, I would be genuinely concerned with someone's basic knowledge if they scored less than a 75%. I would feel quite comfortable not allowing someone who couldn't pass that test to vote.

I'd actually make it harder, if anything.

I took the practice test again a few times. The questions vary and are randomized.

It's designed to test general knowledge of the US, not minutiae.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I took the practice test again a few times. The questions vary and are randomized.

It's designed to test general knowledge of the US, not minutiae.

The point still stands, then. Especially since it's general knowledge.