#SeizeTheEndowments

[G-Man]

I don't know what your position on immigration is, but unless it's literally "we are the American Borg, you will be assimilated, all of the world will be America" it's going to be pretty hard to come down further from the Cato institute position than me.

I want immigration severely reduced. The Cato Institute are literally arguing for open borders. No one to be kept out for any reason.

https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... en-borders

And you are arguing that this is extremely far away from you position? I suppose Cato is not arguing for the government to actually seek out people to immigrate here, and don't really care about whether they go through our schools or not, but I think that "everyone should be let in" is pretty darn close to "we should actively bring people in."

But that really isn't why you think your position is far away from the Cato Institute's. You are assuming that they are for restricting immigration because they are "right wing."

You obviously have no idea what the Cato Institute's position is.

And you are arguing that other people don't know what they are talking about.

Oh, so they only want rich immigrants who already know posh English and own corporations. Impressive use of bullshit euphemisms, though, I'll give 'em that.

Not remotely close to what they said.

[Worffan101]

I want immigration severely reduced. The Cato Institute are literally arguing for open borders. No one to be kept out for any reason.

https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... en-borders

And you are arguing that this is extremely far away from you position? I suppose Cato is not arguing for the government to actually seek out people to immigrate here, and don't really care about whether they go through our schools or not, but I think that "everyone should be let in" is pretty darn close to "we should actively bring people in."

But that really isn't why you think your position is far away from the Cato Institute's. You are assuming that they are for restricting immigration because they are "right wing."

You obviously have no idea what the Cato Institute's position is.

And you are arguing that other people don't know what they are talking about.

Wow, the Cato Institute--or at least this one member--has completely changed their position in the last few years. I remember in '12 when they backed "self-deportation" and "hostile environments" for immigrants.

They're still implying that they only want rich immigrants, though.

Not remotely close to what they said.

Then I guess you can't read, either.

Also, WHY don't you want more immigrants? Isn't it a good thing to invite people here, increasing our GDP (more people working here + more people SPENDING here, = greater GDP, greater money flow, richer America overall), putting their kids in our public schools, going to our theaters and watching our movies and eating our shitty fast food and drinking our disgusting carbonated drinks and cheap fake beer, thinking of themselves as Americans as they grow up, and then those kids have kids, who are just regular old Americans and join our military and fight for our country and work in our factories and build our houses and so on and so forth?

Seriously, I've never understood why people are so taken with this lunatic idea to build a wall on the border--it's a fucking waste of money for nothing. In the short term, immigrants bring us cheap labor and a larger domestic market; in the long term, they give us a bigger population which means more human capital, more scientists and teachers, so we don't get outcompeted by more populous countries like China.

[G-Man]

Dude, my position on immigrants is literally "start shipping as many people as physically possible to America and put them through our schools so they'll think of themselves as Americans".

Do you have any ideas that don't come from "my friends and I talked about this when we were freshmen in high school and it sounded really cool?"

[G-Man]

Wow, the Cato Institute--or at least this one member--has completely changed their position in the last few years. I remember in '12 when they backed "self-deportation" and "hostile environments" for immigrants.

Here is a Cato Journal piece from 2012 arguing explicitly AGAINST self-deportation and "hostile environments."
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/ ... 2n1-12.pdf
Here's another piece arguing against increased enforcement:
https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... ation-laws
Another piece from 2009 pushing for more immigration:
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/ ... rCrime.pdf
Please find me a piece where Cato is arguing for stricter immigration enforcement.

Oh, so they only want rich immigrants who already know posh English and own corporations. Impressive use of bullshit euphemisms, though, I'll give 'em that.

They're still implying that they only want rich immigrants, though.

Please explain to me exactly what in either of the two articles I originally linked to is a euphemism for "only let in rich immigrants."
https://www.cato.org/research/immigration
https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... en-borders

[G-Man]

Also, WHY don't you want more immigrants? Isn't it a good thing to invite people here, increasing our GDP (more people working here + more people SPENDING here, = greater GDP, greater money flow, richer America overall),

More GDP =/= more GDP per capita.

putting their kids in our public schools,

That sounds like an expense to taxpayers.

going to our theaters and watching our movies and eating our shitty fast food and drinking our disgusting carbonated drinks and cheap fake beer,

At taxpayer expense.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immi ... Households

I also have to point out that you are operating under the assumption that resources are infinite, and increased consumption will simply by necessity create a bigger economy with more production, instead of causing a resource shortage.

thinking of themselves as Americans as they grow up, and then those kids have kids, who are just regular old Americans and join our military and fight for our country and work in our factories and build our houses and so on and so forth?

Except they don't just think of themselves as "regular old Americans." That's the type of high-school fantasy I was referring to earlier. Look at the recent fight over selective schools ion New York City. That was definitely a fight between rival ethnic groups (Asians vs. blacks and Latinos) who viewed things in terms of their ethnic groups' self-interest.

And let's also be very clear; this recent push for all of these identity politics is completely antithetical to idea of everyone being just "regular old Americans." Reparations, bilingual education, all of these things are in complete opposition to an assimilative culture.

I'm not necessarily arguing that it is wrong to practice identity politics, but you can't defend it from one side of your mouth and then push the idea that everyone is "just regular old Americans" on the other.

Seriously, I've never understood why people are so taken with this lunatic idea to build a wall on the border--it's a fucking waste of money for nothing. In the short term, immigrants bring us cheap labor and a larger domestic market; in the long term, they give us a bigger population which means more human capital, more scientists and teachers, so we don't get outcompeted by more populous countries like China.

This only works if you assume that people are interchangeable widgets, that resources are unlimited (or at least always increase proportionately to the population, and that cheap labor is really cheap (instead of heavily subsidized with hidden costs).

[Worffan101]

So basically, G-Man, you think that we should run on pure blood-right nativism?

OK. I guess that I, a white man, should leave America and go back to my homeland of...somewhere in Europe, and spend the 1/16 of my time that's proportional to my approximate Native American blood (Potawatomi great-great grandparent on my mother's side) here in the States? The blacks should all be deported to Africa? All the Poles and Irish and Italians and Germans who fueled our meteoric manufacturing boom in the 19th century were wastes of oxygen? All the Chinese who built half our major railroads weren't worth their salaries? The Mexicans who've picked our fruit for decades upon decades didn't deserve fair pay or a labor union?

Get real. You have nothing but unsubstantiated accusations that immigrants are a drain on the economy, when in fact the very history of this nation--a nation founded and dominated by immigrants and their descendants, might I add, that grew at the direct expense of the native inhabitants of this continent who the immigrants straight-up ethnically cleansed like something out of a far-right conspiracy theory except it's more like a far-right fantasy because the alt-right prefers to masturbate to the idea of white people killing non-white people regardless of the situation (or their "supreme gentleman" murdering women, or that scumbag Fields driving his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters, or that shithead from New Zealand murdering a bunch of people in a mosque, or any number of other insane fascist terrorists)--proves unequivocally that the opposite is true. The whole reason we have the POPULATION to take advantage of our massive land area and uniquely potent trade networks was and is our relative openness to immigration and the relative weakness of nativist sentiment even during its heyday in the 19th century.

You might want to consider learning some actual history, and not the made-up kind they teach on Breitbart News. Until then, welcome to my ignore list.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So basically, G-Man, you think that we should run on pure blood-right nativism?

But wait where did this come from?

[Worffan101]

So basically, G-Man, you think that we should run on pure blood-right nativism?

But wait where did this come from?

...His posts? Where he endorses blood-right nativism and claims that immigrants are a drain on the economy and society, when in fact throughout human history the opposite has been true?

[G-Man]

Until then, welcome to my ignore list.

Well, given that a large portion of this thread consists of you getting the Cato Institute's position on immigration wrong, refusing to admit that you got it wrong, and accusing other people of not knowing what they are talking about because they actually know what their position is, I would say that ignorance is something you are pretty good at.

[G-Man]

Or we could, I don't know, raise taxes on rich people, and make the capital gains tax less of an obvious tax dodge for super-rich layabouts like Twitler and Romney?

Yes, that would be even better solution.

Do you think anything should be done to control college tuition costs? Just forgiving the debt, or making taxpayers pay the debt, etc., means the universities have a blank check to raise tuition as high as they want, because everyone going to college knows they will never have to pay it back anyway. I guess it is a better solution if you want the colleges to be able to gouge taxpayers.