I don’t think that, but I do know that if 1 singe American is having a hard time while we are helping 1 illegal immigrant, then we are doing something wrong and it will breed resentment.
You are a bad faith argumenter. I’ve never said science is fake, I’ve said that social science (though it also happens in the natural sciences to a lesser degree) is not really science, not with any degree of certainty as physics etc. here’s a little summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?wprov=sfti1

but searching in Google Scholar or JSTOR will bring up many many studies about the problem. So when people say “the science backs this” using a social science study that is not replicable, it takes two brain cells to realize that no, there is no science backing such a claim.

Yes I also meant farms which are also very often corporations. And that’s what I said in my very first comment, the Trump administration says a lot of things that are right (they say a lot more that are wrong but they are not wrong about everything ), but they use it to serve their interests instead of actually solving the problems. Farmers are the biggest enemies of any of the solutions to many of the problems in America, we should nationalize the whole industry at this point because it cannot exist without government subsidies and yet they use the money to lobby against environmental and immigration reforms. They like the status quo. But if you don’t want to nationalize them we can stop subsidizing them and simply subsidize their wages directly in such a way that they can pay living wages instead of relying on immigrant labor.

But again you are arguing in bad faith and I do not think that you have any coherent ideology that isn’t “oppose everything the other guys do”.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

See, the problem is that you think immigrants don't deserve basic human dignity, while we do. I don't care if someone is born in Missouri or Mexico City; they both deserve guaranteed access to basic services, and we as a country are more than wealthy enough to provide it.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I never said the opposite. But social nets have their limits because resources are not infinite. First we need to make sure the material needs of our people are met before we can help others. I don’t understand how this is a controversial thing to say.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The idea that we don't have the resources to help everyone is patently false. We could provide for everyone on Earth with about 40% of total production. The problem is not the very poor, crammed into tiny apartments and eating bad food. The problem is the ultrawealthy controlling orders of magnitude more wealth than they could even remotely need.

Secondly, again: claiming we need to help 'our own' before 'others' is inherently exclusionary. I count every person on Earth as 'our own'. You apparently don't.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well

And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nope. Other countries having bad policy is no excuse for our country to. We're the fucking wealthiest country on Earth. Oh, and people like you who insist that structural change is impossible is the reason change is impossible. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy that continues our country's policy of commiting social murder. You are the problem.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.

I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.

[–] Tippy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So to sum up:

You think punishing immigrants will fix issues caused by capitalists somehow, don't worry about it they deserve it anyways
Whatever sciences you dislike (you keep saying social sciences, which I assume is a dogwhistle for anything you consider woke as you won't give specifics) are fake, but you can't prove it, just google it bro, you'll find the truth
You believe the fascist regime is doing a lot of things right

But it's us leftists that argue in bad faith and have no ideology, and are wrong for opposing things like fascism.

Thanks for playing.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 days ago

Wow my guy, just wow. Bravo, you’ve turned this into an art.