6 ms·
> Opposing it means you oppose ... If life were so simple. Of course, the reality is this bill covers everything from child tax credits, paid leaves, to god k
by nverno 5y ago
> Opposing it means you oppose ...
If life were so simple. Of course, the reality is this bill covers everything from child tax credits, paid leaves, to god knows what else.
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoOh no, god forbid we try to drag ourselves into the 21st century, and get somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cscurmudgeon 5y agoNo other country (democracy or not) has such a huge influx of legal and illegal immigrants and a laughably porous border. The US admits more people than the populations of some these democracies that people compare the US with. You can have a huge welfare state or open borders but not both. Unless the US invents a perpetual motion machine. Edit: downvotes and running away, the mark of a rational mind
- m_eiman 5y agohttps://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960 https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigrati...
- hihihihi1234 5y agoCongratulations, you've proved that someone somewhere has written a book that argues for open borders. There's also a book called "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook", which argues that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax staged by the Obama administration as a pretext to take everybody's guns away. People can write and publish books about anything. Care to make an actual argument?
- sofixa 5y agoAre you sure? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_mig... I see Austria, Belgium, UK, Germany, Denmark, Italy accepting more immigrants per capita than the US. In many of those countries, the "huge welfare states" have prerequisites ( for instance you can't just come in as an economic migrant and ask for unemployment benefits). Furthermore, i thought the US was the richest country - it certainly has by far the most expensive military. But the flying spaghetti monster forbid money goes to other people.
- throwawaysea 5y agoNone of those countries offer birthright citizenship: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-who-offer-birthright-citizenship.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-who-offer-birt... That changes the political and migration dynamics significantly.
- reillyse 5y agoActually they do, just in combination with other ways of granting citizenship. To pick Italy off your list, if a child is born in Italy and it’s parents are unknown or unable to transfer their citizenship(stateless, unknown citizenship etc) the child becomes an Italian citizen. Most modern first world states provide pretty solid protections for children born on their soil.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago> (stateless, unknown citizenship etc) How often does that happen? HN often becomes a mental gymnastics competition in these matters.
- shkkmo 5y ago> That changes the political and migration dynamics significantly. How exactly?
- 5y ago
- canarypilot 5y agoThe downvotes are likely because you’ve made an outlandish claim that is unlikely to hold up to investigation - that America admits more immigrants than the population of some democracies that criticise it. Total estimated population of unauthorised migrants in the US is around 11.4 million and declining (around 3% of population). 310,000 unauthorised migrants arrive in a year https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/Pop_Estimate/UnauthImmigrant/unauthorized_immigrant_population_estimates_2015_-_2018.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigra... It looks like somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people each year step to the next stage of their path to naturalisation in the US, this is probably the most reasonable way to count migrants. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigration https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/l... That would give a total of around 500,000 migrants a year, the population of the smallest G8 country (Canada) is around 38 million. The only way to get close to Canada’s population is to take the all-time estimated immigrant population (around 45 million, or 13.7% of population). The closest you can get with the present-tense “admits” rather than “over 60 years has admitted” is to take all I-94 entries, which are explicitly non-immigrant entries, include tourists and office-visit visas, and would not be part of any welfare state. There is no need to invent a perpetual motion machine to support people who are (broadly) supporting themselves (if through a legal migration route) or whose total size accounting for deaths and those who leave by choice is stable (if through an unauthorised route).
- refurb 5y ago500,000 migrants per year? 1 million get US citizenship each year.
- canarypilot 5y agoYou are right, I’ve read a quarter’s numbers as the numbers for the year in the naturalisation source. Multiply my estimates for lawful naturalisation by 4 and get to between 400,000 and 800,000 (backed up by 2017-2019 data https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/21_0824_plcy_naturalizations_fy2019.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigra... ). That’s still a long way short of the population of Canada (and you have overshot by a bit).
- maccolgan 5y ago>every other modern democracy You realize how retarded this statement is, right?
- roenxi 5y agoYou say that, but I get the feeling we've been here before. Pretty much every time there is an ambitious and expensive spending bill after a couple of years it turns out that the 21st century is still ahead. Eg, Obamacare would probably have been described as dragging the US into the 21st century and getting somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades. And yet it turned out not to, the rhetoric is still that US healthcare is pretty bad. There needs to be some scepticism about what these bills actually achieve rather than what people would like them to attempt to achieve. And when trillions are involved there is going to be massive corruption in the political process.
- allendoerfer 5y agoFallacy. A step in the right direction is still better than taking no step at all.
- ben_w 5y agoPoliticians always claim that what they want to do is a step right direction, are they correct? I don’t know US politics, US law, economics, so I can’t possibly tell if this bill is actually good or bad for anything.
- pessimizer 5y agoThis is simply not true. If a car is barreling towards you, taking a small step towards safety is wasting the time you could have spent jumping out of the way. Not only do you end up just as dead as you would be if you had done nothing at all, but you've wasted the effort of making a decision and moving; effort you could have spent on more pleasant thoughts if you had just decided to die from the outset. Even worse, a moderate decision is harder to make than a firm one. Instead of just doing what could be effective, you have to figure out what could be effective, and cut it in half. By the time you've finished your calculations, you won't even have time to make the useless step.
- allendoerfer 5y agoA democracy does not work the same as a human brain trying to prevent an accident. It works with compromises and majorities. Therefore my point still stands.
- cm2187 5y agoSo it seems you agree this is not about climate change.
- Aunche 5y agoI'm sure many of these things are worthwhile, but a climate change is a big enough problem by itself. If you try to do everything at once, you're likely fail them all.
- xondono 5y ago> get somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades. Yes, just come closer to the clusterfuck the rest of us have. In every country most people say “healthcare in this country is a mess”, and yet, my best experiences with healthcare have been in the US.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]