I hope you realize how dangerous it is to restrict yourself to sources of data that are ideologically aligned with you? Science has no biases, it's just what it is.
And of course, you are free to refuse to believe it and declare that scientists are all leftist agents whenever they don't agree with you, but that is inimical to the universal human objective of gaining the right knowledge.
Science has no biases, but shitty leftist scientists do, and boy there are many of those these days.
Why would i choose them to believe out of all the options, i don't know.
Says the fellow that's trying to victim blame women who got murdered by their husbands.
Victim blame my ass, keep the leftist attack terms to yourself and read what i quoted again, it's well explained.
Who hasn't? I, along with my fellows, believe that immigration is a safer option to raising population. Milton Friedman has already laid out how beneficial illegal immigration is to host countries.
Are you playing tactical libertarian?
Free market supporters of immigration controls often quote Milton Friedman in support of their position: There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite.
www.adamsmith.org
Mass immigration is less safe than sacrificing raising population, that is what i and my fellows believe.
The Friedman immigration view is one of Saudi-Singaporean style of immigration where migrants work for a proverbial bowl of rice and have only a right to shut the fuck up and work or else.
As long as bleeding hearts and civil rights exist in our countries, and the migrants have any access to welfare state, simply not doable, and instead what he warns will happen in such a scenario happens - infinite immigrants, and he's not saying it like it's a good thing, unlike you.
If you want to use Friedman's argument for illegal immigration, you have to acknowledge that all the western countries are having completely wrong policy on treating immigrants to use that argument, and Saudis are the closest to doing it right.
Are you willing to stand by Saudi immigration policy with Friedman?
I'd have reservations even to that style of immigration, but i still think it would be vastly superior to the current setup that is a disaster, and meeting the political conditions to make it work would be even harder than cutting migration overall.
It's either that or falling into an eternal recession.
How did most of the world in the past not have an eternal recession before feminism and mass immigration? In fact most of the countries that got rich, got rich before that.
And those who do it are declining rich countries, trying to halt their decline, while only succeeding at trading one set of problems causing it to another, even more visible kind.
Do we need to pretend to be stupid in this way to avoid offending left-liberal sacred cows and act as if there is no new and unusual problem to address?
Once again, read up on Milton Friedman. And yes, as someone who has sisters, nieces, and a mother, I do support the protection and fair rights of women.
So no rights that men don't have, so no feminism, no affirmative action, no women's rights, only citizen's rights. Otherwise you are a feminist, and so on, a leftist useful idiot.
I'll start respecting feminists when they start caring about equal numbers in garbage collection and prisons as much as they care about equal numbers in CEOs and business leaders.
Leave that purity spiral to the leftists.
Yes, and leave them feminism to.