OLD CONTENT
Here is Laura Loomer (Jew) pretending not to understand what private property is:
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/laura-loomer-and-illegal-alien-actors-storm-pelosis-yard-set-up-sanctuary-camp-video/We get a lot of this, basically rightists claiming that if we are opposed to a wall to keep out immigrants from the country, we should "similarly" be opposed to walls to keep out immigrants from our own homes also. This is, of course, nonsense. Being opposed to a wall to keep out immigrants from the country merely means we want immigrants treated with the same standards that we treat natives in terms of freedom of movement. And, in general,
we do not let natives into our own homes either.This is one of many false equivalences that in intellectually healthier days used to be considered so stupid that it was unnecessary to debunk them, but the problem with rightists is that they do not stop using an argument because it is stupid, instead they keep using it regardless. And because of the absence of debunking, some people actually end up getting strung along. So it falls upon us to debunk every rightist argument we encounter. If you have come across a rightist argument on the subject that you want debunked, please post it below. Our aim is to gradually build up a comprehensive list of debunked rightist arguments here.
---
I want to eventually collect every anti-immigration argument currently floating around the internet, and debunk them all here, so that leftists can use this topic as a one-stop reference. Ultimately we can make it into a numbered list, and thereafter every time we see the argument posted elsewhere yet again, we can just quote the number and link to the appropriate debunking. This will save leftists a lot of time when debating.
---
"They're taking our jobs!"
Immigrants, just like everyone else, are consumers as well as producers. Immigrants may take jobs, but will also give custom to local businesses for the products and services that they need for daily life. These businesses, in turn, will have to employ additional staff in order to effectively provide these additional products and services. In short, jobs are taken, but jobs are also created.
(Additionally, freedom to migrate applies to everyone. It doesn't just mean that people from A, B and C can look for jobs in D, it also means people from D can look for jobs in A, B and C! All it really means is more opportunity for everyone.)
"They broke the law!"
In saying this they expose only their own disregard for the fundamental principle of law that
the only people obliged to abide by any given law of any country are those who receive protection from the same law in return. For example, we are obliged to not steal because in return the state will protect our property. We are obliged to not run red lights because in return we get to use the safer roads that result from traffic lights. And so on. This principle breaks down when it comes to immigration, because those who abide by a so-called “law” that prohibits them from entering are not in any way protected by this same so-called “law”. On the contrary, they are simply left outside where the state need not care about them at all (and can even bomb them)! Thus so-called “laws” prohibiting immigration are not really laws at all, but tyranny.
"They're voting for big government!"
"They're leeching off of welfare!"
It is a valid political position to oppose welfare in general (for anyone). It is not a valid political position to oppose welfare for immigrants while supporting it otherwise.
---
vdare.com/articles/bernie-s-past-common-sense-on-immigration-will-haunt-him-in-2020
“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive waged down even lower than they are now,” Sanders said in an interview with Lou Dobbs in 2007.
I want to address this very common rightist argument that "economic migration lowers workers' wages". What they are saying is migration adds workers to the labour market in the destination country, which causes a reduction in the value of labour there (as supply increases relative to demand). None of this is untrue. But by the exact same reasoning, migration raises workers' wages by subtracting people from the labour market in the origin country, which causes an increase in the value of labour remaining there (as supply decreases relative to demand).
Every immigrant is also an emigrant. If a worker migrates from A to B, any wage decrease in B caused by this migration is accompanied by simultaneous wage increase in A. Thus it is false to say that economic immigration lowers wages. Only adding new people *coughOrbancough* to the labour market can do this. People already in the labour market moving around inside it can never do this.
(What rightists really mean, of course, is that they prefer others whom they do not care about to be the ones suffering lower wages. This is tribalism.)
Another similarly common rightist argument that "migration by criminals will increase crime" is similarly faulty. Again,
every immigrant is also an emigrant. The total number of criminals is unchanged. Only the location of crimes are changed.(And again, what rightists really mean, of course, is that they prefer others whom they do not care about to be the victims of crime. This is tribalism.)
---
I wonder if it might actually decrease the global amount of crime. If criminals move to a country with a better police force, they're more likely to be punished, right?
---
Yes!
(By the way:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
Warmbier's family were advised to maintain silence about his Jewish heritage while he was under arrest )
---
Here is really stupid rightist "environmentalist" anti-immigration (or, more precisely, anti-"Third-World"-immigration) argument: supposedly, immigration from the "Third World" to the "First World" is bad because it results in more people consuming resources (and hence damaging the environment) at the "First World" level.
The problem with this argument is that it contradicts rightists' own other claim about "Third World" immigrants: that they will not start living like "First Worlders" just by immigrating, but will instead transform the "First World" country to which they have immigrated into another "Third World" country.
Both cannot be true. (As a True Leftist, I am hoping for the latter to be true, which will help the environment.)
Oh, well, at least rightists implicitly admit that "Third World" countries are better for the environment than "First World" countries.
---
Here’s another one: “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everyone!”
Circa Bob Whitaker
---
Short answer: what "white countries"?
Bob Whitaker basically thinks that when "whites" should get to keep for themselves the lands they stole. But why should they? (Answer: the same reason Jews should get to keep Palestine for themselves.) Our response is:
More importantly,
if it's OK for "whites" to live outside of Europe (as hundreds of millions currently do), it's OK for at least the same number of "non-whites" to live in Europe. (We need a graphical version of this latter point.)
This pretty much highlights how it is flat-out logically impossible for WNs to win the ethical debate. If they go with the position that migration is wrong (which they need for criticizing migration by "non-whites"), then they cannot avoid the conclusion that "whites" wronged "non-whites" first, and hence have no authority to complain. The only logical way to avoid incriminating themselves is to go with the position that migration is not wrong, in which case they have no reason to complain. Either way they are screwed.
Their only recourse is to declare that it is OK when "whites" do it but not OK when "non-whites" do it ie. ingroup/outgroup double-standards a.k.a. "It's OK to be white!" In other words, to declare that they do not care about ethics.