Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Democrats' Deceptive Narrative on Immigration" video.

No, it's just that socialists need to hide their own brand of xenophobia. On another instance Sanders claimed they didn't need more Hispanics coming in because of high unemployment among the ethnic group. Making it sound like he cares about them is a cheap trick. If it was a humanitarian aspect, he would make all immigration legal. But no, because Socialists can't have people coming in all the time and strain their government programs. Socialists want wealth redistribution/equality but only among their own. If outsiders come in, they reap the benefits without ever contributing. The Socialists can't have that or their pipe dreams fall apart even sooner than thought. Concerns over ilegals taking jobs away from the legals is still "they're taking our jobs away". Again, if all immigration was legalized everyone would be in equal footing and nobody would be working in slave conditions to get the job, but Bernie Sanders doesn't want unemployed people draining his precious programs so there has to be a limit on who can come in.
1
Justin Bayley It's not a simplification. Trying to stop people from moving freely is an act of aggression. One can't be humanitarian while implying that "what's ours belongs to us and we can't share it with anyone else". There's also the issue that Sweden is a poor example of "socialism". They have very broad socialized programs but it's important to note that they were founded thanks to the wealth generated by businesses. When such programs started eating into that wealth Sweden has cut back on those programs. Even the Danish prime minister has made remarks about not liking Denmark to be described as socialist. Sanders and Cruz may not have the same goals with their opinions on immigration, but the principle is always the same. And the end result is the same.
1
Justin Bayley It's still not democratic socialism. When you pool your resources (involuntarily) and you realize you can't share that pooled wealth with everyone who comes along you have to draw a line in the sand. That's why Bernie wants it to be rainbows and sunshine, but to even pretend that can work the US can't become the world's soup kitchen. It's for "us", but only "us". >"so how is it aggressive?" If any legal action is taken against someone who never committed aggression, that is a violation of their rights. Trying to stop a non-violent person from roaming the Earth is an act of aggression. >"And I can be humanitarian and have a border." All a border is good for is to violate the rights of people who cross the imaginary line. Or in case of communist countries, the ones trying to leave. If you don't feel the need to bring anyone who comes through to the Law, you don't need a border. >"I can promote human wellbeing without having to give my wallet and sharing my house with someone who does not have one." It's your property. But do you own your country? >"I'm unclear what principle and result you're referring to" Either way you look it's because a) employment (or lack thereof) and b) drain on programs. Wording those beliefs in a different way doesn't make them better. >"Bernie just wants those who are here now illegally to have a path to citizenship which is quite literally a sort of amnesty" But what about those trying to cross "illegally"? >"That's humanitarian because it protects those who would otherwise be marginalized, and exploited, and abused (which is happening and it's abhorrent) and thus promoting human welfare" Strong words considering that in most cases they're better off in the US. It also wouldn't promote human welfare because by making them legal they'd be in equal footing with unemployed Americans. Now they'd be unemployed unless they consented to the same levels of exploitation as before.
1
Okay then. After they changed the definition, why did the number keep rising? Or did the definition of deportation change every year?
1
How about not legitimizing the political process with participation? Participating means consent to the result, whatever it may be. Voting for the lesser evil is still evil.
1
Shane XYZ The problem is, again, the voting system is broken and voting doesn't actually matter. You can participate in self-defense voting, but even assuming that the voting system was 100% honest, you'd have millions voting for Trump. Swimming against the current isn't that great, especially if you don't live in a swing state. I don't agree with Murray Rothbard's opinion that parents being required to feed and clothe their children is a positive right - that's called neglect and is usually considered child abuse. I also don't agree with a lot of Spooner's beliefs. The fact that they didn't believe that legitimizing the political system through voting is a thing is supposed to discourage me? It's the literal embodiment of the "consent of the governed". If you're here, and if you truly know Sander's record, you can't tell me that he is not the "lesser evil". My statement took nothing for granted, your analysis is spot on for a statement made in a vacuum but in the real world it's supported by more than just itself. You don't say vote for Sanders, you say that an economics junkie should have Sanders as his man. That makes zero sense considering his economics make zero sense.
1