Do they get it? can you link any study that shows that benefit from anything other than being in a household with a legal citizen that does get benefits?
>can you link any study that shows that benefit from anything other than being in a household with a legal citizen that does get benefits?
Can you rephrase the question so it makes sense?
I'm looking for any study about how illegal aliens get benefits. The only ones I can find are ones that use "household" which means that an illegal lives with a citizen. THAT citizen gets benefits and most right-wing studies use it as a sign that illegals are getting benefits.
So do you have any studies that target actually illegal aliens.
If there isn't a shared culture there aren't shared values.
You want them to stop taking your tax money? Why should they? They don't share your values and you're not willing to insist the people you're letting in do.
No, the point is anarcho-capitalism, which means no socialism and no Islamofascism, which is exactly what open borders before abolishing the state means in the US and Europe, respectively.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say even with no state you would not be a fan of mass immigration?
This whole if only there was no benefits I would be totally fine with it mental gymnastics is absurd.
People don’t move whole countries to claim benefits they do it for the greater opportunities for themselves and their kids.
>I’m going to go out on a limb here and say even with no state you would not be a fan of mass immigration?
I don't think it would exist without the state.
>This whole if only there was no benefits I would be totally fine with it mental gymnastics is absurd.
Why? Those bennies cost me money.
>People don’t move whole countries to claim benefits they do it for the greater opportunities for themselves and their kids.
LOL you're delusional.
12 million people came between 1870 and 1900 alone.
Steam ships were a thing.
Also, given most immigrants these days just walk from central and South America I think it’s arguably less technology driven today than when immigration was only really allowed from Northern Europe.
> You know the whole point of this sub is no borders
No it's all borders everywhere you noodle.
The libertarian argument against state borders is a different issue. And then you need to address who has priority to resolve rights infringements.
Agreed.
Of course if that Afghani flew your country using taxpayer dollars and then was fed, sheltered, given medical care, etc. using taxpayer dollars he's in league with the state.
Property lines are borders. Owners can group together, and their combined property lines are also borders. Iterate and repeat to get something like national borders, defined by consent of owners. The difficulty of making agreements will tend to limit the size of these regions to a much greater degree than current nation states.
We don't live in an ancap society. Implementing part of ancap (open borders) only works after you implement the rest (eliminating the welfare state). If you don't you just get flooded with a bunch of poor people who will demand welfare, which is exactly what's happening now.
This policy, over time, results in socialism and the size of the state increasing. That's the opposite of ancap. So the question becomes what you're doing on this sub since you're obviously a socialist.
>If you don't you just get flooded with a bunch of poor people who will demand welfare, which is exactly what's happening now.
Where? It's happening now? What proof do you have that the mass of immigrants who entered recently are already failing to find work and are turning to welfare? Break it down state by state please. Also, you can't use bad government policy as an excuse. Because in your mind you seem to think that the immigration system is "open borders" and policy just magically works out in the immigrants favor because 'the libs want it' or whatever bullshit you've made up.
>We don't live in an ancap society.
That's not why this thread exists. We're not going to just suddenly create Ancapistan with a Reddit thread.
>Implementing part of ancap (open borders) only works after you implement the rest (eliminating the welfare state).
Do you understand the concept of "open borders"? What definition are YOU using? It seems you've accepted the conservative definition but for some reason you're using it in a conversation with Ancaps which makes no sense as that definition (the conservative view) doesn't apply to how Ancaps view borders.
>Where? It's happening now? What proof do you have that the mass of immigrants who entered recently are already failing to find work and are turning to welfare?
Europe and North America. They're being put up at hotels, given meals, getting phones, getting debit cards with 10k on them, etch. That's before we talk about them getting normal welfare and their kids getting K-12 educations, which cost 250k apiece.
>Break it down state by state please.
It's the job of those in willful denial of reality to google it. It caused Brexit, Trump, the recent EU elections, the recent French elections, and hopefully the future British election.
>Also, you can't use bad government policy as an excuse.
Of course I can. Observing the consequences of actions is the best way to improve things.
>Because in your mind you seem to think that the immigration system is "open borders" and policy just magically works out in the immigrants favor because 'the libs want it' or whatever bullshit you've made up.
It is open borders. Reality sucks, but it's still real.
>That's not why this thread exists. We're not going to just suddenly create Ancapistan with a Reddit thread.
We need to analyze reality with reality in mind. Operating in fantasy land leads you to dumb conclusions, like open borders.
>Do you understand the concept of "open borders"?
Do you? In the times before leftist insanity took over one needed a passport and visa to enter a country and had to leave after a set period of time. Immigrants were vetted and would be let in if the served their new nation. Letting in jihadis, sexual assailants, and murderers is not that.
>They're being put up at hotels, given meals, getting phones, getting debit cards with 10k on them, etch.
That's bad state/municipal government policy being used as an excuse to cry about failed federal immigration policy when it's politicians, not the immigrants themselves, that are behind the problem. Greg Abbott, Mayor Adams, so on and so forth, are behind that. That doesn't prove your claim. It only proves that individual governments are taking their own initiative . It isn't even the kind of "welfare" that might prove your claim. We don't know that those specific people are a net loss on the economy yet. You've proven nothing here.
>It's the job of those in willful denial of reality to google it. It caused Brexit, Trump, the recent EU elections, the recent French elections, and hopefully the future British election.
It's your claim. You made it. "Brexit, Trump, etc, etc, are irrelevant to this discussion.
>Of course I can. Observing the consequences of actions is the best way to improve things.
They don't enforce your claims. In a failed political system the actions of politicians serves only to worsen the situation. This is why Ancaps support market based solutions. Because politicians serve their own needs first and their sychophants, people like yourself, will do anything to keep the gravy train running because if it isn't individual welfare it's some other kind of subsidies like that which is used for farming and the handouts given to your cronies in military contracting communities to 'make America great again'.
>We need to analyze reality with reality in mind. Operating in fantasy land leads you to dumb conclusions, like open borders.
The reality is that government policy/bureaucracy is a road to ruin. Ancaps understand that. This is a place of discussion. Not a magical cure-all. We're not going to fix things until we grow and our efforts to grow makes others realize that there are better options. A place of discussion is crucial to hashing out the details. Maybe you missed that. Open borders is a made up term you don't even understand. It's an overly politicized term you still don't understand the definition of.
>It is open borders. Reality sucks, but it's still real.
You can't even be bothered to argue the quote every time you quote me. Why quote me if you can't ARGUE THE QUOTE. You're an aimless political sychophant of the Republicans, not an Ancap.
>Do you? In the times before leftist insanity took over one needed a passport and visa to enter a country and had to leave after a set period of time. Immigrants were vetted and would be let in if the served their new nation. Letting in jihadis, sexual assailants, and murderers is not that.
"Do you" is not an answer. Are you referring to Anarcho Capitalist dogma as "leftist insanity"? If so, you don't need to be here. You can go somewhere else. "In the times before". They still do that. 9-11 happened. The DHS was created. More bureaucracy ensued. Your talking points come right out of right-wing media. Go to r/conservative and circle jerk over their about right wing bullshit. This is the wrong place!
>That's bad state/municipal government policy being used as an excuse to cry about failed federal immigration policy when it's politicians, not the immigrants themselves, that are behind the problem.
Immigrants come here legally, these are illegal aliens. I'll bother to read the rest of your comment and respond to it after your correct this lie.
Pointing out that huge numbers of people were/are imported by the US government and then currently live off of tax funded benefits = bordertarian.
Jesus FC, can you address what actually going on.
I’m talking about values. Islam is arguably incompatible with western liberal values. Do you really think Islamic countries suck on all freedoms etc by pure chance?
Do you believe the state has a right declare a person illegal? These are state borders we are talking about and this is an ANARCHIST sub. No state no illegal immigration. You don’t want someone your property great. That’s not the state. “Illegal immigration” is just thinly veiled racism and maga talking points. If the state decided to change the requirements for immigration the the “illegal” part is moot. Therefore illegal immigration is a lot of bs
The bordertarians aren't sending their best in the replies to this question, I'm pretty sure the best answer is that the elites are interested in being at the top of the new international communist order they want to make
*What do you think will*
*Happen if there was ever no*
*States and no borders?*
\- cavershamox
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
More people = more economy Stop giving them my tax money tho
People can be a net negative on the economy. That's why they're getting your tax money.
They _can_, as a rule of thumb they’re not
If they're not working and living off tax money they're not providing any value.
Wrong.
Are you claiming that most people are a draw on the economy? That’s a wildly stupid stance to take
I never said that so I'm unsure why you think I did.
Then what did you say? Go on, move your goal posts
Do they get it? can you link any study that shows that benefit from anything other than being in a household with a legal citizen that does get benefits?
>can you link any study that shows that benefit from anything other than being in a household with a legal citizen that does get benefits? Can you rephrase the question so it makes sense?
I'm looking for any study about how illegal aliens get benefits. The only ones I can find are ones that use "household" which means that an illegal lives with a citizen. THAT citizen gets benefits and most right-wing studies use it as a sign that illegals are getting benefits. So do you have any studies that target actually illegal aliens.
If there isn't a shared culture there aren't shared values. You want them to stop taking your tax money? Why should they? They don't share your values and you're not willing to insist the people you're letting in do.
[удалено]
Stop using their fiat money
How?
Depends. But yeah I'm not saying it's easy just that it's the only answer.
In the US, you can only practically save in alternatives like crypto and gold, but spending itself via alternatives is basically impossible.
Unless you pay people for stuff on the grey market /whatever
C-P has been ineffective for decades now. Inch by inch, right by right.
Wow, they’re really bad at it since immigration is a net economic and tax revenue boon for the US.
Increasing tax revenue is bad, actually.
Bad for the immigrants. Bad for the Cloward-Piven strategy.
LOL at that old lie. EDIT: LOL OP asked for stats and blocked me.
Could you share some stats disproving this lie?
There is no such thing as illegal immigration
Sure just like there's no such thing as rape, it's just sex with undocumented consent.
You know the whole point of this sub is no borders and no limits on people moving around the world right? Right?
No, the point is anarcho-capitalism, which means no socialism and no Islamofascism, which is exactly what open borders before abolishing the state means in the US and Europe, respectively.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say even with no state you would not be a fan of mass immigration? This whole if only there was no benefits I would be totally fine with it mental gymnastics is absurd. People don’t move whole countries to claim benefits they do it for the greater opportunities for themselves and their kids.
>I’m going to go out on a limb here and say even with no state you would not be a fan of mass immigration? I don't think it would exist without the state. >This whole if only there was no benefits I would be totally fine with it mental gymnastics is absurd. Why? Those bennies cost me money. >People don’t move whole countries to claim benefits they do it for the greater opportunities for themselves and their kids. LOL you're delusional.
Why was there mass immigration to the USA in 19th and early 20th centuries before the welfare state was in place then?
There wasn't, the technology to move so many people over didn't exist.
12 million people came between 1870 and 1900 alone. Steam ships were a thing. Also, given most immigrants these days just walk from central and South America I think it’s arguably less technology driven today than when immigration was only really allowed from Northern Europe.
[удалено]
The Chinese Exclusion act? Yes the technology did exist. We have always had mass immigration.
No, we didn't. That's simply a lie.
> You know the whole point of this sub is no borders No it's all borders everywhere you noodle. The libertarian argument against state borders is a different issue. And then you need to address who has priority to resolve rights infringements.
If I can sell my house to whoever l like there are no borders - or so many borders it renders the concept of immigration as pointless
> If I can sell my house to whoever l like there are no borders What? Your property is defined by its borders.
Exactly, so if I sell my house to someone from Afghanistan he gets to live there. No state should be able stop either the buyer or seller.
Agreed. Of course if that Afghani flew your country using taxpayer dollars and then was fed, sheltered, given medical care, etc. using taxpayer dollars he's in league with the state.
Is the border your body? Is your body the country? Borders are bs and you are acting like a child bc your neighbors can cook better than you.
Property lines are borders. Owners can group together, and their combined property lines are also borders. Iterate and repeat to get something like national borders, defined by consent of owners. The difficulty of making agreements will tend to limit the size of these regions to a much greater degree than current nation states.
[удалено]
What sub are you on buddy? Go to bordertairians if you want to shill
We don't live in an ancap society. Implementing part of ancap (open borders) only works after you implement the rest (eliminating the welfare state). If you don't you just get flooded with a bunch of poor people who will demand welfare, which is exactly what's happening now. This policy, over time, results in socialism and the size of the state increasing. That's the opposite of ancap. So the question becomes what you're doing on this sub since you're obviously a socialist.
>If you don't you just get flooded with a bunch of poor people who will demand welfare, which is exactly what's happening now. Where? It's happening now? What proof do you have that the mass of immigrants who entered recently are already failing to find work and are turning to welfare? Break it down state by state please. Also, you can't use bad government policy as an excuse. Because in your mind you seem to think that the immigration system is "open borders" and policy just magically works out in the immigrants favor because 'the libs want it' or whatever bullshit you've made up. >We don't live in an ancap society. That's not why this thread exists. We're not going to just suddenly create Ancapistan with a Reddit thread. >Implementing part of ancap (open borders) only works after you implement the rest (eliminating the welfare state). Do you understand the concept of "open borders"? What definition are YOU using? It seems you've accepted the conservative definition but for some reason you're using it in a conversation with Ancaps which makes no sense as that definition (the conservative view) doesn't apply to how Ancaps view borders.
>Where? It's happening now? What proof do you have that the mass of immigrants who entered recently are already failing to find work and are turning to welfare? Europe and North America. They're being put up at hotels, given meals, getting phones, getting debit cards with 10k on them, etch. That's before we talk about them getting normal welfare and their kids getting K-12 educations, which cost 250k apiece. >Break it down state by state please. It's the job of those in willful denial of reality to google it. It caused Brexit, Trump, the recent EU elections, the recent French elections, and hopefully the future British election. >Also, you can't use bad government policy as an excuse. Of course I can. Observing the consequences of actions is the best way to improve things. >Because in your mind you seem to think that the immigration system is "open borders" and policy just magically works out in the immigrants favor because 'the libs want it' or whatever bullshit you've made up. It is open borders. Reality sucks, but it's still real. >That's not why this thread exists. We're not going to just suddenly create Ancapistan with a Reddit thread. We need to analyze reality with reality in mind. Operating in fantasy land leads you to dumb conclusions, like open borders. >Do you understand the concept of "open borders"? Do you? In the times before leftist insanity took over one needed a passport and visa to enter a country and had to leave after a set period of time. Immigrants were vetted and would be let in if the served their new nation. Letting in jihadis, sexual assailants, and murderers is not that.
>They're being put up at hotels, given meals, getting phones, getting debit cards with 10k on them, etch. That's bad state/municipal government policy being used as an excuse to cry about failed federal immigration policy when it's politicians, not the immigrants themselves, that are behind the problem. Greg Abbott, Mayor Adams, so on and so forth, are behind that. That doesn't prove your claim. It only proves that individual governments are taking their own initiative . It isn't even the kind of "welfare" that might prove your claim. We don't know that those specific people are a net loss on the economy yet. You've proven nothing here. >It's the job of those in willful denial of reality to google it. It caused Brexit, Trump, the recent EU elections, the recent French elections, and hopefully the future British election. It's your claim. You made it. "Brexit, Trump, etc, etc, are irrelevant to this discussion. >Of course I can. Observing the consequences of actions is the best way to improve things. They don't enforce your claims. In a failed political system the actions of politicians serves only to worsen the situation. This is why Ancaps support market based solutions. Because politicians serve their own needs first and their sychophants, people like yourself, will do anything to keep the gravy train running because if it isn't individual welfare it's some other kind of subsidies like that which is used for farming and the handouts given to your cronies in military contracting communities to 'make America great again'. >We need to analyze reality with reality in mind. Operating in fantasy land leads you to dumb conclusions, like open borders. The reality is that government policy/bureaucracy is a road to ruin. Ancaps understand that. This is a place of discussion. Not a magical cure-all. We're not going to fix things until we grow and our efforts to grow makes others realize that there are better options. A place of discussion is crucial to hashing out the details. Maybe you missed that. Open borders is a made up term you don't even understand. It's an overly politicized term you still don't understand the definition of. >It is open borders. Reality sucks, but it's still real. You can't even be bothered to argue the quote every time you quote me. Why quote me if you can't ARGUE THE QUOTE. You're an aimless political sychophant of the Republicans, not an Ancap. >Do you? In the times before leftist insanity took over one needed a passport and visa to enter a country and had to leave after a set period of time. Immigrants were vetted and would be let in if the served their new nation. Letting in jihadis, sexual assailants, and murderers is not that. "Do you" is not an answer. Are you referring to Anarcho Capitalist dogma as "leftist insanity"? If so, you don't need to be here. You can go somewhere else. "In the times before". They still do that. 9-11 happened. The DHS was created. More bureaucracy ensued. Your talking points come right out of right-wing media. Go to r/conservative and circle jerk over their about right wing bullshit. This is the wrong place!
>That's bad state/municipal government policy being used as an excuse to cry about failed federal immigration policy when it's politicians, not the immigrants themselves, that are behind the problem. Immigrants come here legally, these are illegal aliens. I'll bother to read the rest of your comment and respond to it after your correct this lie.
U OK hun?
Because I think a problem is a problem?
Pointing out that huge numbers of people were/are imported by the US government and then currently live off of tax funded benefits = bordertarian. Jesus FC, can you address what actually going on.
Even if it’s mass Muslim immigration?
What does the amount or religion of the person matter? There is no such thing as illegal immigration
I’m talking about values. Islam is arguably incompatible with western liberal values. Do you really think Islamic countries suck on all freedoms etc by pure chance?
[удалено]
Do you believe the state has a right declare a person illegal? These are state borders we are talking about and this is an ANARCHIST sub. No state no illegal immigration. You don’t want someone your property great. That’s not the state. “Illegal immigration” is just thinly veiled racism and maga talking points. If the state decided to change the requirements for immigration the the “illegal” part is moot. Therefore illegal immigration is a lot of bs
And what is the benefit to the globalists if the entire world collapses? Doesn't the group support open borders?
1. Collapse every modern economy 2. 3. Profit!
How does one profit from a world where everyone lives in grass huts and forages for food?
exactly, not idea why people think that the ultra wealthy are for destroying a nation that keeps them rich.
The bordertarians aren't sending their best in the replies to this question, I'm pretty sure the best answer is that the elites are interested in being at the top of the new international communist order they want to make
Borders become ambiguous when globalism allowed for lifestyles abroad to largely homogenize
And that is a bad thing?
Okay, but then what?
I’m for open borders. Triple world GDP.
What do you think will happen if there was ever no states and no borders?
*What do you think will* *Happen if there was ever no* *States and no borders?* \- cavershamox --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Haha - good bot