On borders, enforcement was an issue with democrats before, who blamed open border policy on the Koch brothers who wanted to lower wages. Ive heard several democratic leaders peak out on this, including Obama and Clinton. Official stance seems to have changed under Biden.
In Europe we used to have efficient borders. I remember fondly vacations of which in many cases, part was waiting at the French border, waiting to be allowed into a new realm, exchanging guilders for francs… that was very nice.
You can laugh all you want.
Laugh until you shit yourself as far as I am concerned.
But you might want to ask yourself why you are so scared of a man offering bas passes to people about to lose their medical coverage to pay for yet another tax break for billionarres.
WTF is wrong with you?
Scared? What does it have to do with me? I live in the Netherlands. That you think Im scared just because I think the guy is probably as untrustworthy as any politician tells me you’re in the cult. That you think it’s not laughable that someone would think that to criticize a politician who makes some promises is a logical fallacy of all things, confirms that you’re in the cult.
Noted, Im making a fool out of myself by laughing at the idea that to criticize mamdani is a logical fallacy, and by denying I am scared of mamdani when I just said I dont trust him, and by observing that you’re suddenly using straw men to discredit a critic of politician.
I must say this doesn’t make me distrust your dreamboat any less. I made it clear in the OP that my main objection to him is about speech restriction policy, not about bus passes. The way you rearrange this in your mind tells me this guy is probably just another psyop.
Fuck. Your world view is pretty twisted.
You should get your head out of social media for an hour each day, and go and find some sunshine and nature. If you have any left where you live.
What is my position? I ONLY say that im not sure I can trust the guy. Thats literally my position. If you think even that is defenseless, you are really the definition of a zealot.
What world view? That I like freedom of speech? That Im not against bus passes?
You are being brainwashed as we speak.
Or - wait - do you think I am taking my idea that he wants to increase the budget to fight against ‘hate speech’ by 800 percent from secondary sources? I didn’t, the guy actually said that on video.
Fuck. I don’t know if 2 occurrences count as a pattern, but it is radical political zealotry to an extent Ive never seen:
First a guy said to me that to not trust Mamdani equals a logical fallacy -
Now @sculptor says that to not entirely trust the guy is a “defenceless position”.
Thats something fanatical Christians say about God.
But it doesn’t put people out of work permanently. Their labor is still valuable, and net demand for goods and services should increase due to the increase of net wealth (caveat distribution effects). So while their wages may be suppressed, they are not suppressed to zero – in fact some studies find that local wages increase, but that’s a more controversial claim. In any cas, as long as they remain well above zero (which is not controversial), the net effect is an average increase in wages even if local workers wages end up lower.
You’re right, definitely that example leaves a lot of stuff out. The number of people isn’t the only criterion, there are other things that make a road more or less valuable (e.g. maybe a road between a college and science lab is more valuable than road between a bar and a brothel).
But the point is that the same resource has a different value depending on where it is. That’s true of roads, and it’s true of human labor as well. The talents of people in poor countries are wasted because they can’t move their labor to where it’s most valuable.
First, my claim is about net effects on all workers, and across all workers it would decrease the need for social services (on the reasonable assumption that an increase in wealth decreases the need for social services). Even if poor countries don’t provide social services, it doesn’t mean the people there don’t need them.
And while most tax systems are poorly designed, there are plenty of tax systems that can capture that increase in wealth. So again this isn’t a problem that is best solved (or solved at all) by immigration restrictions.
Between European states and US states, sure. But migration into Europe and the US is enforced enough that people risk their lives in improvised boats or running across the desert at night rather than just driving in. That’s enforcement, even if it’s not 100% effective (just as the existence of crime doesn’t entail that laws aren’t enforced).
Yeah, it’s just the impression I get, not rigorous. But I get a similar impression in Europe: EU law seems to more closely resemble the laws of its wealthiest states (Germany, France, the Netherlands) than of its poorer states (Italy, Greece). Is that not true?
We’ve disagreed about this before, and I won’t rehash that debate here, but it’s interesting how we see the issue differently. I see immigrants running from repressive regimes towards the openness of the West, and you see them invading with the goal of spreading those repressive regimes. Certainly there are both among millions of immigrants, and it’s a question of which is the dominant motive.
I think because it’s so good for newcomers, we should allow it even if it’s bad for present-day Americans.
But I actually think the case it pretty strong that on net immigration is a net benefit to everyone (at least economically, you can’t have immigration without a change in culture and whether that’s good or bad is much more subjective).
For New York, it’s hard to argue that immigration is bad for the city or its people, it’s been a hub of immigration for centuries and it’s thrived.
Projection.
a psychological defense mechanism where an individual unconsciously attributes their own unwanted thoughts, feelings, or motives onto others. This process helps reduce internal anxiety or guilt by shifting uncomfortable emotions outward, often causing the person to see in others what they cannot accept in themselves. For example, someone feeling anger may accuse others of hostility instead.
Trying to draw attention from what was said. Not going too work and its okay. You think Mamdani is the infallible messiah. Many do, and that’s very amusing.
They’ve been putting homeless people into concentration camps, jails, or letting them die by exposure of the weather elements for several decades and nobody has protested that in mass for decades domestically whatsoever, but all of a sudden when cheap foreign labor becomes threatened where the capitalists stand the chance of losing their corporate profits everybody starts losing their minds. Hypocrisy at its finest.
You are just wrong here. You can’t reasonably claim that “people are not allowed to question … immigration” when the current administration is disappearing immigrants and challenging birthright citizenship. Clearly someone is questioning immigration.
Rather than acknowledge that your claim is ridiculous, you’ve raised a non-sequitur of some other group of people whose presence people are clearly allowed to question. That has nothing to do with how wrong you are about immigration.
Ever see a dead body picked up in the middle of winter outside of an unhoused homeless person? I have too many times in my lifetime when I was forced to live that lifestyle myself for many grueling countless years.
Then there is the violence and drugs compounded on it even further which kills the homeless population even further. There’s the lice and scabies infested homeless shelters that are very dirty or uncleanly where they’re so overcrowded that if you cannot get a bed inside you’re sleeping on a concrete slab outside overnight if you’re lucky. From the years 2001 to 2024 of last year there was no public outrage over the homeless deaths, mistreatment, and general abuse from either political party over people who are our own citizens, but you expect me to believe the mistreatment of people who come to this nation illegally deserves more precedence in the general public conversation now.
Of course this has nothing to do with human rights, it has everything to do with this nation’s addiction to cheap foreign labor which is hollowing it from the inside out as it is doing to all western nations. It’s all about lowering wages for the most poorest segments of the working class and increasing the corporate capital profits of CEOS everywhere. I am not fooled by the false emotional appeals of you and others on this subject.
Interesting what just came out - the video where the impeccable one says that he would be okay with abolishing private property if it means being able to house everyone.
What that would mean is that all property goes into the hands of the state, which in turn would be in the hands of a few oligarchs - among whom mr smiley smile might maybe hope to count himself?
The last part is a question. In any case he is willing to rob everyone of their property in order to house a hundred thousand homeless people. Thats a bit heavy handed, wouldn’t you think? And yes he did actually say it.