I mean, nothing ideally. Most countries do just fine without a secret police, splendid even. And, for basically the entire history of the United States, immigration has just been a non-issue. It's only been to our advantage.
Just saying it's that doesn't make it that, but okay.
> immigration has just been a non-issue. It's only been to our advantage.
Unfortunately for you, there is a significant plurality of Americans for whom uncontrolled immigration has been to their disadvantage. It distorts the labor market. Not for white-collar jobs like yours. For low-wage jobs.
It also changes the culture, which is something that every country except the USA and the UK is allowed to be quite cranky about -- think of how prickly Quebecers get about people not speaking French, or people who don't like American tourists being annoying in Rome, or Mexico not allowing non-citizens to own property.
And the notion that we just open the borders and walk away with our fingers in our ears -- which is what logically must happen when you "abolish" the only people who are supposed to send people back when they show up, unvetted and uninvited -- is not a winning argument. That's one of the main reasons Clinton and Harris lost, because that's what their rhetoric sounds like.
So, you can of course keep on arguing that unlimited, unvetted immigration (which without any enforcement is the only kind we'll get) is an indisputable boon to our society, but you'll keep losing elections.
And replace with what? Do you think this is a local LEO problem?
I mean, nothing ideally. Most countries do just fine without a secret police, splendid even. And, for basically the entire history of the United States, immigration has just been a non-issue. It's only been to our advantage.
> secret police
Just saying it's that doesn't make it that, but okay.
> immigration has just been a non-issue. It's only been to our advantage.
Unfortunately for you, there is a significant plurality of Americans for whom uncontrolled immigration has been to their disadvantage. It distorts the labor market. Not for white-collar jobs like yours. For low-wage jobs.
It also changes the culture, which is something that every country except the USA and the UK is allowed to be quite cranky about -- think of how prickly Quebecers get about people not speaking French, or people who don't like American tourists being annoying in Rome, or Mexico not allowing non-citizens to own property.
And the notion that we just open the borders and walk away with our fingers in our ears -- which is what logically must happen when you "abolish" the only people who are supposed to send people back when they show up, unvetted and uninvited -- is not a winning argument. That's one of the main reasons Clinton and Harris lost, because that's what their rhetoric sounds like.
So, you can of course keep on arguing that unlimited, unvetted immigration (which without any enforcement is the only kind we'll get) is an indisputable boon to our society, but you'll keep losing elections.
1 reply →
Legal immigration, yes, I agree.