The idea is broadly popular but the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits.
But you knew that which is why you construct this rhetorical motte-and-bailey about it being "broadly popular"
> the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits
Source?
> But you knew that
I genuinely don’t. I don’t think many electeds do, either.
The playing field is currently lots of angry non-technical parents looking at Silicon Valley leadership not doing anything remotely reassuring when it comes to taking care of their children. And then a good fraction of them being drawn into a proper pantheon of idiot conspiracy theories. (They’re really stupid.) I would love to see polls considering implementation details because that would at least imply somebody is thinking of them.
Right now, honest answer, I don’t think anyone in government is. Electeds see an easy win—or more accurately, a patchwork of angry, mobilized voters they can scoop into their election-year campaigns with a rushed-out bill that pins them to the issue but which neither they nor those voters really have the technical chops to parse.
Best case, we get tripe. Worst, the process gets hijacked.
>You can know we have the right to set strict regulations, and also object to driving smart hardworking people away from your country for no reason.
But the crux of the problem is this - many of the immigrants we've been sold on as being "smart hardworking people" have not been that and often been the opposite. Your side seems incapable of grappling with the fact that it has fundamentally lost the trust of the electorate on this issue and seems entirely uninterested in doing anything to regain this trust by overhauling the way we filter prospective immigrants.
>bad only for the countries that suffer the brain drain
Except those countries continue to decline and eventually become a global issue. India is on the cusp of a water crisis which is going to turn into a massive refugee crisis - how different would the situation and institutions be if the top 10% of the population hadn't been siphoned off?
It likely wouldn't be meaningfully different, and we don't set immigration policy in the US to help countries abroad.
Or would you rather condemn me to life in a corrupt, dangerous country even though I have everything it takes to build great things and make the lives of other humans better?
That moral argument against immigration, especially coming from an American, is DOA.
And from the perspective of the home countries, you're basically telling whoever happened to be born in a shithole that their only choice is to fix it themselves.
Paxton's decision was incredibly narrow (because it specifically targeted sites that served pornography and only pornography) and it's unlikely the court is willing to grant anymore ground.
Most of these "online safety" acts have been sitting around in congress for half a decade at this point. Mike Johnson keeps blocking them because he has serious doubts about their constitutionality (which keep getting borne out whenever the laws end up in court).
Then offshore the work. Americans aren't getting the jobs anyway and the imported labor now competes for things like groceries, gas, housing, etc. which drives up prices.
Look, I can make a solid economic argument against offshoring and how certain business practices hollow out local economies.
However immigrants are a net increase in investment and GDP. Yes - terms and conditions apply (its economics, when do they not)
Immigrants have to pay rent, buy clothes and groceries from wherever they live. This creates demand which depends the consumption economy. These are positive growth levers. This is despite whatever work they do in that region.
In contrast, asset prices like house prices rising, because they have become stores of wealth, are a different deal altogether. In that situation house owners benefit from just holding onto property, and not renting. The asset appreciates all the same.
The issue which can be brought up is wage depression, and paying immigrants under the table. This should depress wages for American labour.
One solution for this is to increase minimum wage, and to ensure that everyone is paid minimum wage.
This is a simplified model of the situation, but in general immigrants put more into the system than they take out.
The idea is broadly popular but the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits.
But you knew that which is why you construct this rhetorical motte-and-bailey about it being "broadly popular"
reply