American birthright citizenship has been a necessity throughout its period of settlement (by european foreigners) because otherwise the USA wouldn’t exist today. That doesn’t mean that jus soli is a law of nature.
If you take a look at this map, you’re gonna recognize we europeans do just fine without Rule of the Land.
Jus soli isn’t a law of nature, but it is a law of morality. Anything less is effectively the creation of a caste system of full citizens and second-class citizens purely depending on who one’s ancestors are. This is not a hypothetical; many countries historically have been and many still are in such situations due to the lack of birthright citizenship. The fact that most of this map is red is nothing short of an affront to human morality.
what does “psyop” mean in that context? i’m not paid by the republicans if that’s what you mean
also, yes, you’ve been doing just fine WITH Rule of the Land in the past, of course. Though if you believe in Economics 101, you’ll understand Supply and Demand, i.e. if there’s more supply of human labor (more people in the country), then the prices for human labor go down, i.e. the people get paid lower wages, and (i claim) that is the biggest contributing factor to human quality-of-life: the ratio of income to cost-of-living.
Now, if you care about the people’s wellbeing, you want to keep their quality-of-life as high as possible. And that socio-economically entails maximizing the ratio of income to cost-of-living. If a lower supply of human labor, such as by a falling birthrate or reduced immigration achieves that, then i’m all for it.
I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
You know what gives industrialized countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now. And low wealth inequality, which is a definite unrelated problem in the US.
The USA has a low birthrate. And immigration has completely made up for it because they skew young.
From a purely economic quality of life perspective, setting all morals aside, the US should pull in as many immigrants as it can. We’re basically screwed now.
Meanwhile, the fallacy of immigration hurting wages is basically the South Park episode “Goobacks”
I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
“bolstered entire industries”, i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people’s wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that’s what matters.
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now.
That argument is a fallacy and can just as easily be turned around, like:
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees kids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.
“bolstered entire industries”, i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people’s wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
The stock market is one representation of the productivity of a nation. The individual distribution of that productivity is negotiated via labour negotiation.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that’s what matters.
Where did you “learn” economics…? Production works on a scale, meaning that 100 million people working with the same efficiency as 200m people will never be able to be as productive.
An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees kids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.
Lol, only one of those scenarios has any evidence to support it. The reason people had a lot of kids back then is because they required labour to work the land. The kids were the working population you dolt.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
You should watch the video. I used to be an overpopulation doomer, and it completely changed my perspective, especially when I dug into papers backing it up.
It’s worth mentioning that the videos perspective and conclusions are made within the lens of a capitalistic economy. Other economic models differ in their needs for economic stability. It’s also worth noting that capitalism has its own internal contradictions that have no real solution.
If we extend the logical basis of the video we end up with a scenario where the economy requires infinite growth which requires an infinitely expanding population to sustain. This is just not possible within a closed system with finite resources.
In conclusion we have yet to reach a point of overpopulation, however we aren’t very far from it given the compound growth required to sustain the most common economic system we utilize. Humans have used more of our natural resources in the last generation than all generations of the past put together. We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
Of course. 100% agree with this, even if better technology helps. It will have to be pretty soon.
But in the very short term? This is going to be a disaster, and the human population is shooting itself in the foot by not accepting immigration from extreme birth rate countries (where overpopulation is indeed an issue).
Lol, quotes “economics 101” ignores the basic concept that capitalist economies require growth…which requires a larger population every generation to avoid recession. Something that only immigration is projected to be able to provide.
Don’t attempt to utilize your poor interpretation of economics to veil your blatant racism.
I mean, therein itself lies the problem … people are just seen as a statistics, “line must go up” mentality
And your tirade against immigration is in opposition to seeing people as a statistic…?
If your argument is supposedly against “line goes up mentality” maybe a better target of your claims should be aimed against capitalism, not a poor interpretations of economics claiming how immigrants are bad for the economy.
FIne not a Psyop - I for one agree with birthright just because it’s purely American. We’ve always done it that way and that’s what we do - we kick ass. Screw you wanting to change things. Whats next? This entire term has been coming for one freedom after another.
I knew a guy who was born in a European country. He’d never lived anywhere else. But, because his parents had citizenship to a different country, he was a citizen of that country, one he had only occasionally visited. To me, that doesn’t sound like a system that’s working just fine. It’s one that has some major problems.
American birthright citizenship has been a necessity throughout its period of settlement (by european foreigners) because otherwise the USA wouldn’t exist today. That doesn’t mean that jus soli is a law of nature.
If you take a look at this map, you’re gonna recognize we europeans do just fine without Rule of the Land.
Then end it going forward. Don’t retroactively remove it from people who had no choice and who have never known any different.
You mean, “then arrange for a constitutional convention at which you can propose the repeal of the 14th amendment, and then have people vote on it”.
The president has no ability to end either form of birthright citizenship, it can only be done by modifying the constitution.
Jus soli isn’t a law of nature, but it is a law of morality. Anything less is effectively the creation of a caste system of full citizens and second-class citizens purely depending on who one’s ancestors are. This is not a hypothetical; many countries historically have been and many still are in such situations due to the lack of birthright citizenship. The fact that most of this map is red is nothing short of an affront to human morality.
We’ve been doing just fine WITH Rule of the Land, this is a psyop
what does “psyop” mean in that context? i’m not paid by the republicans if that’s what you mean
also, yes, you’ve been doing just fine WITH Rule of the Land in the past, of course. Though if you believe in Economics 101, you’ll understand Supply and Demand, i.e. if there’s more supply of human labor (more people in the country), then the prices for human labor go down, i.e. the people get paid lower wages, and (i claim) that is the biggest contributing factor to human quality-of-life: the ratio of income to cost-of-living.
Now, if you care about the people’s wellbeing, you want to keep their quality-of-life as high as possible. And that socio-economically entails maximizing the ratio of income to cost-of-living. If a lower supply of human labor, such as by a falling birthrate or reduced immigration achieves that, then i’m all for it.
Do you have any more questions?
I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
You know what gives industrialized countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now. And low wealth inequality, which is a definite unrelated problem in the US.
The USA has a low birthrate. And immigration has completely made up for it because they skew young.
Take that away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
From a purely economic quality of life perspective, setting all morals aside, the US should pull in as many immigrants as it can. We’re basically screwed now.
Meanwhile, the fallacy of immigration hurting wages is basically the South Park episode “Goobacks”
“bolstered entire industries”, i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people’s wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that’s what matters.
That argument is a fallacy and can just as easily be turned around, like:
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of
retireeskids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.The stock market is one representation of the productivity of a nation. The individual distribution of that productivity is negotiated via labour negotiation.
Where did you “learn” economics…? Production works on a scale, meaning that 100 million people working with the same efficiency as 200m people will never be able to be as productive.
Lol, only one of those scenarios has any evidence to support it. The reason people had a lot of kids back then is because they required labour to work the land. The kids were the working population you dolt.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
You should watch the video. I used to be an overpopulation doomer, and it completely changed my perspective, especially when I dug into papers backing it up.
It’s worth mentioning that the videos perspective and conclusions are made within the lens of a capitalistic economy. Other economic models differ in their needs for economic stability. It’s also worth noting that capitalism has its own internal contradictions that have no real solution.
If we extend the logical basis of the video we end up with a scenario where the economy requires infinite growth which requires an infinitely expanding population to sustain. This is just not possible within a closed system with finite resources.
In conclusion we have yet to reach a point of overpopulation, however we aren’t very far from it given the compound growth required to sustain the most common economic system we utilize. Humans have used more of our natural resources in the last generation than all generations of the past put together. We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
Of course. 100% agree with this, even if better technology helps. It will have to be pretty soon.
But in the very short term? This is going to be a disaster, and the human population is shooting itself in the foot by not accepting immigration from extreme birth rate countries (where overpopulation is indeed an issue).
Lol, quotes “economics 101” ignores the basic concept that capitalist economies require growth…which requires a larger population every generation to avoid recession. Something that only immigration is projected to be able to provide.
Don’t attempt to utilize your poor interpretation of economics to veil your blatant racism.
I mean, therein itself lies the problem … people are just seen as a statistics, “line must go up” mentality
also i’m not racist
And your tirade against immigration is in opposition to seeing people as a statistic…?
If your argument is supposedly against “line goes up mentality” maybe a better target of your claims should be aimed against capitalism, not a poor interpretations of economics claiming how immigrants are bad for the economy.
Just have the same ideas as racist, sure…
FIne not a Psyop - I for one agree with birthright just because it’s purely American. We’ve always done it that way and that’s what we do - we kick ass. Screw you wanting to change things. Whats next? This entire term has been coming for one freedom after another.
👍
There’s no borders on “law of nature” neither
well, you could consider the skin a natural border
“we europeans do just fine”
Do you?
I knew a guy who was born in a European country. He’d never lived anywhere else. But, because his parents had citizenship to a different country, he was a citizen of that country, one he had only occasionally visited. To me, that doesn’t sound like a system that’s working just fine. It’s one that has some major problems.
If he was a resident his whole life, why didn’t he apply for citizenship?
It’s notoriously hard in the country he grew up in, and the people are notoriously racist. He doesn’t look like them.