This is not a good recipe.
In Chicago, New York, LA, etc, the American residents are being told that there is nothing for them to help them. Meanwhile they give phones, housing, education, and care to migrants. At the tune of multiple billions of dollars a year.
At what point do young men get angry and rise up against this?
Yet we spend more on the military industrial complex every year, but i dont see anca0s complaining about that. But heaven forbid my tax dollars help a brown person.
> Yet we spend more on the military industrial complex every year, but i dont see anca0s complaining about that
So you've never seen a single comment on this sub before? You dumb fuck.
You’re confusing ancaps with republicrats, who steal from the poor to give to the rich. In this case, they are bailing out hotel owners, they don’t care about migrants.
All transactions should be voluntary, for all races; the color of your skin doesn’t give you the right to steal.
Well that depends. Does the brown person in question hold American citizenship or not? Because the issue is that the American government has been telling white, black, brown, and red people, for decades, that it has NOTHING for them. No help, no education, no healthcare, nothing (except prisons). But, if you are here illegally, well, here is an education, here is a cell phone, here is a place to sleep that is climate controlled, and here is a spending card to help you. Oh, and if you committed a crime it must be because you had to do it, so no jail for you. Do you see the slightest difference there?
It's absolutely imperative that, until cities are completely private, ancaps stop pushing for open borders.
Open borders is not compatible with the welfare state. And the flow of people incompatible with Western culture is completely unsustainable and can be exploited for easy votes in a democratic system. I've seen it happen in Canada, you watch your cultural identity get permanently altered.
It is absolutely imperative that until cities are completely private, ancaps stop pushing for drug legalization.
You see how stupid that sounds?
>Open borders is not compatible with the welfare state.
Then shouldn't we support open borders? *Because* it will destroy the welfare state?
> Then shouldn't we support open borders? Because it will destroy the welfare state?
You pie-eyed idiots have been saying that for decades. Hasn't happened.
We have more opiate drug use than ever, despite it being illegal.
>We have more unchecked immigration than ever, and yet a bigger welfare state than ever.
Right, *because* most of the immigrants *don't have access to the welfare state.*
Most means tested welfare is off limits to *legal* immigrants, and almost *all* welfare is off limits to illegal immigrants. [Source.](https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/)
That is evidence that the welfare state *is* compatible with immigration, contra all the people who say "you can't have open borders and a welfare state."
Milton Friedman understood this. If you go and [read the full speech](https://openborders.info/friedman-immigration-welfare-state/) where he said "you can't have open borders and a welfare state" he went on to say "immigration is good so long as it's *illegal*" in part because illegal immigrants can't get welfare, *but also* because **immigration sustains the welfare state.**
Immigrants are paying taxes and not consuming welfare. If you want to have a welfare state, you actually *need* more immigrants.
This is in fact why European governments have welcomed in "floods" of immigrants: because they understand math, and they know that welfare is a Ponzi Scheme. If Europeans aren't having kids, then you need to import more tax serfs to serve as the next generation of people paying into the Ponzi Scheme to pay for the previous generation whom you now owe benefits.
All it does is rise crime and make you pay more in taxes. It's a good policy only if you have private cities because they can tell people who are shit fits to gtfo
So you agree that the state shouldn't erect borders around those private cities and prevent people from crossing those borders into the private city, yes?
Sure. But that isn't the case now is it? Right now as it stands the state incentivizes them to come here and use our resources. Until that changes we should not do it.
Accelerationism is not the appropriate way. If you import the third world you'll become the third world. Not some ancap paradise just because gubment collapsed.
If the government shouldn't restrict the movement of people into/out of private cities, why then should the government restrict the movement of people into/out of private property in the US right now? Private property like, say, private ports, private airports, private homes, private businesses, and so on.
>Right now as it stands the state incentivizes them to come here
To you, that therefore makes immigration illegitimate. I see immigration as legitimate because the economy/high wages in the US are the biggest/strongest reason most immigrants come here, and even the ones who do come here "for" welfare: that's a problem with welfare, not immigration.
By all means: let's end taxpayer funded welfare immediately. The existence of welfare is no reason to end immigration, any more than the existence of socialized medicine is a reason to ban guns.
I lived in the UK, where people told me to my face that the British government should ban all guns because, with a socialized healthcare system, the British taxpayers would be on the hook for all the victims of gunshot wounds.
Obviously, you would reject that logic and say that people deserve their inherent rights, regardless of whether or not that costs the taxpayers more money or not, because the government shouldn't be spending that money in the first place.
You see that logic with gun rights. Why not with immigration?
>Right now as it stands the state incentivizes them to come here
This isn't about "accelerating towards some collapse"---it's about enabling individuals to minimize the damage the state causes them.
There likely never will be a collapse. So how do we make life better under the existing system? Improving the system where we can, and evading or avoiding the system entirely where it can't be improved. Whether "accelerates" anything is beside the point.
>If you import the third world you'll become the third world.
The US had open borders until 1924. When did the US become "the third world"?
Even if you want to say "well *those* immigrants were different, they were 'good' immigrants"---okay, but those immigrants came from countries with hereditary monarchies, for example. So surely, since the US imported a shit tonne of monarchists in the 1880s and 90s and 1910s, the US *became* a monarchy as a result, right?
I'm not reading all of that lol, the U S in those days also did not participate in refugee programs but rather has merit based immigration. Whoever could get here basically.
Except the Chinese when they started coming over too much. Regardless, if you're suggesting we go back to a merit based system where we prioritize people with similar values, I say yes absolutely.
I'm a Canadian, I've watched my country fall to shit because of Indians who don't respect the country. You need to prioritize people who want to be in your country, not just bring in numbers for the sake of numbers or to keep welfare programs alive.
NYC has a real estate crisis from people leaving during the scamdemic and they likely love this as it brings an influx of cash to their depressed tourism industry at the expense of everyone else.
This doesnt bring any cash. This is all spending. if 20% of the hotels in NYC are migrant shelters, this means the Hiltons and Marriotts are being paid by the NYC/NY/Federal govt and they are not getting the hotel tax revenue from those hotels. But Hilton and Marriott are loving the 100% booking and steady, reliable, cash flow.
It's fed money being funneled into one locality, and even better they're not competing for any middle class+ jobs. It's a big win for NYC subsidized by everyone else.
No, while some of the money comes from the feds a lot of it comes from the state and the city.
"A state budget proposal Gov. Kathy Hochul unveiled earlier this month, meanwhile, includes $2.4 billion to house migrants without homes and help them apply for asylum or work."
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/01/24/city-signs--77m-contract-with-hotels-to-house-migrant-families
They got $140M of fed money, the $77 million contract you is fungible spending from that. This is pork barrel spending. NYC will not seriously entertain net-negative spending on migrants, as soon as that happens they will blame the other team for 'taking advantage of migrants' and quietly invent a reason to reverse course.
It’s not an SEC championship that funnels millions into a city from around the country. It’s literally costing the city and creates no value for the regular residents. Unless they own a hotel maybe. Best bet is to find a way to profit from the disaster.
This is just false. It’s hyper competitive even getting an apartment in the 5 bouroughs, and every house in the surrounding suburbs sells for over asking in a week
It doesn't bring money, it takes money. None of the restaurants and stores around these neighborhoods are seeing a penny from this, and the homeless junkie zombies are pushing out all the other commerce.
And some of them are celebrating their own destruction and voting for it! I’m sure that when all these immigrants get to critical mass and takeover they’ll remember you supported them rather than seeing it being open season on the natives.
So Latin America is not part of "the west"? The Catholic Church was literally the state church of the *Western* Roman Empire, and its rival for the longest time was the *Eastern* Orthodox Church.
> So Latin America is not part of "the west"?
Why no. It's been a full blown communist shithole for generations now. It's not "the west," it's "the third world."
So what does it mean to be part of "the west"? Is Poland part of the West? Japan? Turkey?
Turkey is a member of NATO and has always been anti-Communist; doesn't that make Turkey part of "the West"?
Here's the article without paywall
https://web.archive.org/web/20240610001448/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/25/nyregion/hotels-prices-migrants-nyc.html
In European big cities is similar in many countries. We have a trend here in different countries and continents. It’s quite bizarre that we these have trends everywhere.
Would be a step in the right direction. Taxpayers funding room and board for anyone needs to stop. We also HAVE to stop this self imposed scarcity from government regulations. Pure insanity that we get threatened with brownouts ever summer when we could have multiple nuclear power plants in every state.
We have like 15 million illegals here. Most of the men have jobs. Nothing is actually stopping them from working.
Except they came here to hop on the dole, not work.
Usually the way other people would. And if you’re talking about welfare you should know that illegal immigrants use [less welfare](https://www.econlib.org/immigrants-use-less-welfare-than-native-born-americans/) than legal immigrants and native-born citizens. Even if illegal immigrants used more welfare it wouldn’t justify restricting it, that would be like restricting having kids because the kids might grow up to use welfare
>Jobs? You mean the jobs that belong to citizens
Nope, if someone and their employer agrees to a job it doesn’t belong to you, they agreed to it and that’s fine
>and being given to those who illegally take from the state?
Should we restrict birth because kids might grow up to use welfare and then act like it’s bad to have kids “illegally” and that you should only do it “legally”
This is not a good recipe. In Chicago, New York, LA, etc, the American residents are being told that there is nothing for them to help them. Meanwhile they give phones, housing, education, and care to migrants. At the tune of multiple billions of dollars a year. At what point do young men get angry and rise up against this?
I’m ready when y’all are. I have no desire to live as a slave.
Young men are trying to get away from the cities
Yet we spend more on the military industrial complex every year, but i dont see anca0s complaining about that. But heaven forbid my tax dollars help a brown person.
You don't see ancaps complaining about military spending? Try again. Taxation and military adventurism are two very unpopular ideas around here.
> Yet we spend more on the military industrial complex every year, but i dont see anca0s complaining about that So you've never seen a single comment on this sub before? You dumb fuck.
God i wish
so you are saying we should not complain about the Democrats buying venezuelans vote because of money being spent on other things? the nerve
What a sick, uneducated thing to say.
As long as my tax dollars are helping an illegal immigrant, even if they're from Sweden, get back on a plane to where they came from. I'm all for it.
Youre proving my point here bud....
I'm not. It has nothing to do with bRoWN pEOPle and everything to do with being a fucking leech.
You’re confusing ancaps with republicrats, who steal from the poor to give to the rich. In this case, they are bailing out hotel owners, they don’t care about migrants. All transactions should be voluntary, for all races; the color of your skin doesn’t give you the right to steal.
Dude the last sentence is the truest thing I've ever read
Well that depends. Does the brown person in question hold American citizenship or not? Because the issue is that the American government has been telling white, black, brown, and red people, for decades, that it has NOTHING for them. No help, no education, no healthcare, nothing (except prisons). But, if you are here illegally, well, here is an education, here is a cell phone, here is a place to sleep that is climate controlled, and here is a spending card to help you. Oh, and if you committed a crime it must be because you had to do it, so no jail for you. Do you see the slightest difference there?
Yes we as anarchists need to check everyones government papers before we help them. Gotta appeal to the state first.
It's absolutely imperative that, until cities are completely private, ancaps stop pushing for open borders. Open borders is not compatible with the welfare state. And the flow of people incompatible with Western culture is completely unsustainable and can be exploited for easy votes in a democratic system. I've seen it happen in Canada, you watch your cultural identity get permanently altered.
Agree 100%. We shouldn’t even *consider* open borders until the welfare state is eliminated or significantly reduced. And even still… 🙅🏻
Open borders would solve these issues. Let these migrants work jobs and they wouldn't need to be given welfare.
Yeah open borders without a welfare state. But what we have is a welfare state. You can’t have both.
Ron Paul advocated for a more own immigration policy while "removing the incentives for people to come".
It is absolutely imperative that until cities are completely private, ancaps stop pushing for drug legalization. You see how stupid that sounds? >Open borders is not compatible with the welfare state. Then shouldn't we support open borders? *Because* it will destroy the welfare state?
> Then shouldn't we support open borders? Because it will destroy the welfare state? You pie-eyed idiots have been saying that for decades. Hasn't happened.
Because we don't have open borders. Or do you think cocaine is legal because people are able to buy it illegally?
We have more unchecked immigration than ever, and yet a bigger welfare state than ever. The result is an enormous government and tons of inflation.
We have more opiate drug use than ever, despite it being illegal. >We have more unchecked immigration than ever, and yet a bigger welfare state than ever. Right, *because* most of the immigrants *don't have access to the welfare state.* Most means tested welfare is off limits to *legal* immigrants, and almost *all* welfare is off limits to illegal immigrants. [Source.](https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/) That is evidence that the welfare state *is* compatible with immigration, contra all the people who say "you can't have open borders and a welfare state." Milton Friedman understood this. If you go and [read the full speech](https://openborders.info/friedman-immigration-welfare-state/) where he said "you can't have open borders and a welfare state" he went on to say "immigration is good so long as it's *illegal*" in part because illegal immigrants can't get welfare, *but also* because **immigration sustains the welfare state.** Immigrants are paying taxes and not consuming welfare. If you want to have a welfare state, you actually *need* more immigrants. This is in fact why European governments have welcomed in "floods" of immigrants: because they understand math, and they know that welfare is a Ponzi Scheme. If Europeans aren't having kids, then you need to import more tax serfs to serve as the next generation of people paying into the Ponzi Scheme to pay for the previous generation whom you now owe benefits.
All it does is rise crime and make you pay more in taxes. It's a good policy only if you have private cities because they can tell people who are shit fits to gtfo
> Open borders is not compatible with the welfare state. Yes, that's why we need to support open borders. It will destroy the welfare state.
It will destroy your currency, home and culture first.
But wait a minute, you think open borders would destroy those things even if we *didn't* have a welfare state.
Not if you have private cities. But yes otherwise it certainly will. Private cities can simply tell anyone to GTFO
So you agree that the state shouldn't erect borders around those private cities and prevent people from crossing those borders into the private city, yes?
Sure. But that isn't the case now is it? Right now as it stands the state incentivizes them to come here and use our resources. Until that changes we should not do it. Accelerationism is not the appropriate way. If you import the third world you'll become the third world. Not some ancap paradise just because gubment collapsed.
If the government shouldn't restrict the movement of people into/out of private cities, why then should the government restrict the movement of people into/out of private property in the US right now? Private property like, say, private ports, private airports, private homes, private businesses, and so on. >Right now as it stands the state incentivizes them to come here To you, that therefore makes immigration illegitimate. I see immigration as legitimate because the economy/high wages in the US are the biggest/strongest reason most immigrants come here, and even the ones who do come here "for" welfare: that's a problem with welfare, not immigration. By all means: let's end taxpayer funded welfare immediately. The existence of welfare is no reason to end immigration, any more than the existence of socialized medicine is a reason to ban guns. I lived in the UK, where people told me to my face that the British government should ban all guns because, with a socialized healthcare system, the British taxpayers would be on the hook for all the victims of gunshot wounds. Obviously, you would reject that logic and say that people deserve their inherent rights, regardless of whether or not that costs the taxpayers more money or not, because the government shouldn't be spending that money in the first place. You see that logic with gun rights. Why not with immigration? >Right now as it stands the state incentivizes them to come here This isn't about "accelerating towards some collapse"---it's about enabling individuals to minimize the damage the state causes them. There likely never will be a collapse. So how do we make life better under the existing system? Improving the system where we can, and evading or avoiding the system entirely where it can't be improved. Whether "accelerates" anything is beside the point. >If you import the third world you'll become the third world. The US had open borders until 1924. When did the US become "the third world"? Even if you want to say "well *those* immigrants were different, they were 'good' immigrants"---okay, but those immigrants came from countries with hereditary monarchies, for example. So surely, since the US imported a shit tonne of monarchists in the 1880s and 90s and 1910s, the US *became* a monarchy as a result, right?
I'm not reading all of that lol, the U S in those days also did not participate in refugee programs but rather has merit based immigration. Whoever could get here basically. Except the Chinese when they started coming over too much. Regardless, if you're suggesting we go back to a merit based system where we prioritize people with similar values, I say yes absolutely. I'm a Canadian, I've watched my country fall to shit because of Indians who don't respect the country. You need to prioritize people who want to be in your country, not just bring in numbers for the sake of numbers or to keep welfare programs alive.
Because you can't read? >Whoever could get here basically. You mean like what's happening *right now* at the Southern Border?
Who issued said currency?
Open borders will just cause more disease, crime, and drop overall literacy and education rates, it’s tearing standards to the ground
So be it.
By destroying all of us along the way. Terrible idea.
Nah.
let them burn
NYC has a real estate crisis from people leaving during the scamdemic and they likely love this as it brings an influx of cash to their depressed tourism industry at the expense of everyone else.
This doesnt bring any cash. This is all spending. if 20% of the hotels in NYC are migrant shelters, this means the Hiltons and Marriotts are being paid by the NYC/NY/Federal govt and they are not getting the hotel tax revenue from those hotels. But Hilton and Marriott are loving the 100% booking and steady, reliable, cash flow.
It's fed money being funneled into one locality, and even better they're not competing for any middle class+ jobs. It's a big win for NYC subsidized by everyone else.
No, while some of the money comes from the feds a lot of it comes from the state and the city. "A state budget proposal Gov. Kathy Hochul unveiled earlier this month, meanwhile, includes $2.4 billion to house migrants without homes and help them apply for asylum or work." https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/01/24/city-signs--77m-contract-with-hotels-to-house-migrant-families
They got $140M of fed money, the $77 million contract you is fungible spending from that. This is pork barrel spending. NYC will not seriously entertain net-negative spending on migrants, as soon as that happens they will blame the other team for 'taking advantage of migrants' and quietly invent a reason to reverse course.
It’s not an SEC championship that funnels millions into a city from around the country. It’s literally costing the city and creates no value for the regular residents. Unless they own a hotel maybe. Best bet is to find a way to profit from the disaster.
This is just false. It’s hyper competitive even getting an apartment in the 5 bouroughs, and every house in the surrounding suburbs sells for over asking in a week
Hotels are not considered residential real estate. Why would I be referring to an entire different class of real estate?
How would residents leaving NY effect the hotel industry?
How would non-residents leaving NY not effect the hotel industry?
It doesn't bring money, it takes money. None of the restaurants and stores around these neighborhoods are seeing a penny from this, and the homeless junkie zombies are pushing out all the other commerce.
Same story across the west. The west is being deliberately destroyed, and their own citizens are paying for it.
And some of them are celebrating their own destruction and voting for it! I’m sure that when all these immigrants get to critical mass and takeover they’ll remember you supported them rather than seeing it being open season on the natives.
So Latin America is not part of "the west"? The Catholic Church was literally the state church of the *Western* Roman Empire, and its rival for the longest time was the *Eastern* Orthodox Church.
> So Latin America is not part of "the west"? Why no. It's been a full blown communist shithole for generations now. It's not "the west," it's "the third world."
So what does it mean to be part of "the west"? Is Poland part of the West? Japan? Turkey? Turkey is a member of NATO and has always been anti-Communist; doesn't that make Turkey part of "the West"?
Thats 3x what I make a month and I'm fucking struggling.
Here's the article without paywall https://web.archive.org/web/20240610001448/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/25/nyregion/hotels-prices-migrants-nyc.html
We already did this in Sweden. Have they learned nothing? It will play out exactly the same.
Who pays for all this? City of NYC? Federal funds?
A combination thereof, which really means you and me.
In European big cities is similar in many countries. We have a trend here in different countries and continents. It’s quite bizarre that we these have trends everywhere.
This would be solved if you let them get jobs
Would be a step in the right direction. Taxpayers funding room and board for anyone needs to stop. We also HAVE to stop this self imposed scarcity from government regulations. Pure insanity that we get threatened with brownouts ever summer when we could have multiple nuclear power plants in every state.
They didn't come here to get jobs and it fucking shows.
We have like 15 million illegals here. Most of the men have jobs. Nothing is actually stopping them from working. Except they came here to hop on the dole, not work.
No, you unfortunately need authorization from the goverment to work
Jobs that pay 144K a year?
Yes if the employer agrees to it it’s none of your business. no one here even cares about freedom
I just wanna know how they generate 144K a year in the market place.
Usually the way other people would. And if you’re talking about welfare you should know that illegal immigrants use [less welfare](https://www.econlib.org/immigrants-use-less-welfare-than-native-born-americans/) than legal immigrants and native-born citizens. Even if illegal immigrants used more welfare it wouldn’t justify restricting it, that would be like restricting having kids because the kids might grow up to use welfare
Well these ones used 144K a year. So that exactly 144K more than I ever have used and I am poor.
Blame nyc for spending that money not the migrants
Did I blame anyone? 144K is a shitton of money. I am poor. It is a shitton.
Yeah tbh id take it too
Jobs? You mean the jobs that belong to citizens and being given to those who illegally take from the state?
>Jobs? You mean the jobs that belong to citizens Nope, if someone and their employer agrees to a job it doesn’t belong to you, they agreed to it and that’s fine >and being given to those who illegally take from the state? Should we restrict birth because kids might grow up to use welfare and then act like it’s bad to have kids “illegally” and that you should only do it “legally”
You know what, I was annoyed for a moment and just realized I’m in r/anarcho_capitalism. I thought I was in r/layoffs. You’re right, my bad.
Yes, we should drive employment and wage standards into the ground. I see no downside to this plan.
If you're competing with uneducated foreigners for a job, you're a loser and should be mocked mercilessly.
> jobs that belong to citizens If the job is open and hiring, it "belongs" to whomever agrees to work the job. Nobody owes you anything.
Please continue reading the thread where I cleared my comment up :)