Who cares if illegal immigrants vote exactly? I mean, they live in the country, they pay taxes, they work (probably more than you)
Firstly, they do not pay taxes, aside from like sales tax (which even tourists pay), income taxes, and taxes taken out of their wages, which tend to be below minimum wage because their employers can get away with it because they are not citizens.
Not only that, but it is unfair to those who legally immigrate or those who are naturalized within America to just let anyone vote, because the idea behind citizenship is that they are invested in the soceity that naturalized them and contribute back into it.
The issue with this logic also is that it potentially justifies bringing in an unlimited number of immigrants to certain states to win elections because they all tend to vote for one party, meaning that the American population which either was born and raised here or chose to forgo other nations in order to become an American citizen does not get a say. For every illegal vote cast, you disenfranchise one legal vote cast, regardless of who it was for. Besides, if you bring in millions of people to turn elections in your favor, are you really considering the consent of the governed or are you just trying to ensure you maintain power? Because that does not represent the will of the general population as much as the ability for the bourgeois to bring in more de-facto slave labor to keep themselves in control.
The only difference between them and you, is that you crawled out your mother's demonic American vagina, and they were born in a country devastated by American imperialism.
No, the difference is that they crossed the border illegally and are benefiting off a system they did not contribute into and do not have social obligations towards.
What is complicit in the American System is the idea of the social contract, in that the people of America choose to vote a government into power in exchange for protection of the nation, her people, and their rights from unjust tyranny and oppression. The state has obligations to the people and the people has obligations to the state. By illegally entering a country and taking advantage of its social programs and society without contributing to it, it is akin to robbing the people of the system they have established.
It also deprives the country they came from of their labor and skills, which they can use to improve their country and improve the economy.
Tell me this: what is the moral argument that if these countries are so bad and devasted, and the US is so prosperous by comparison, why do we not just invade these countries and establish our own governments there? What moral counter do you have as if life under the American system is so much better that we should not just become an outright empire rather than displace the entire population?
I can answer it fairly simply based on my beliefs of consent of the governed and the right to self-determination, but I want to know what your justification is.
And with regards to underaged voters being registered to vote: I highly doubt that they are actually going to do that, it would give dems too much of an advantage (democrats don't actually want to win as that would mean actually having to do something for once)
Democrats definitely have more political willpower than the Republicans, but it is almost entirely to preserve their own corruption and power, not to do anything that they promise. Expect wars in the Middle East, Transpacific Partnership-level deals, centralization of power in ,and suppression of our rights and freedoms. Joe Biden's gun control plans are insane, HR1 is insane, and the woke ideology they used to rise into power is insane. They do not have the consent of the governed and it shows in their actions and their fears of their own people. They use appeals to morality in order to get into office, and then do everything they accuse others of doing. It is outright Fascistic.
Also felons still live in your country, so should still have a say in the laws that affect them. Pretty sure most felons in the USA are done in for drug charges (something that shouldn't be illegal anyways)
They violated the social contract, therefore they forgo their right to vote. Whilst I agree that offenses for the use of drugs shouldn't be criminalized, it doesn't change the fact that if you violate the rules established by society, you forgo certain liberties because you have established that you do not care about the consequences. They still have access to the protections under the Bill of Rights and other laws, but it means that they have given up the right to vote because of their deeds.
The thing about the bots is stupid also BTW. What do you think someone is going to register a bunch of people to vote and then show up to vote like: "uhhhh... yeah I'd like to cast my 500 ballots please thankyou clerk", or do you think that they'd show up wearing various fake moustaches throughout the voting period? Perhaps none at the post office will notice when thousands of ballots are being mailed out to a one bedroom apartment?
Get real.
Voting from fake addresses has been demonstrated in the last election, as well as people coming in with suitcases full of ballots and other shit. Just look back in this thread and I have provided a shit ton of evidence for it, as well as other issues like backfilling ballots, weighting votes, etc.
You may close your eyes to the fact this kind of corruption happens, but all the evidence suggests it does and no one gives a shit as long as its for the guy the Establishment wants in charge. If you want to frame it as an absurd concern, be my guess, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
Look at what the bill contains again. It's going to get rid of gerrymandering, something so obviously undemocratic it makes me audibly laugh looking at these districts.
Yes, but its not something that exclusively republicans do. But if you look at the actual bill, this is what it says:
Congress also finds that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise”. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Congress finds that the right of suffrage has been so diluted and debased by means of gerrymandering of districts. Congress finds that it has authority pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to remedy this debasement.
This is not going to get rid of gerrymandering, instead it will make it so the Federal Government does the Gerrymandering based on whatever the current party in charge is. The reason you want to do this on the state level is because local people are going to be more aware of how the states divide or which groups are most similar or share customs, whereas that understanding is lost on a top-down bureaucratic process. All this bill will do is ensure that local people have fewer and fewer rights and say in their local government as they get more and more federalized.
Not to mention this is the only time in the entire bill it mentions Gerrymandering by name, so it's not the priority of the bill.
It also introduces some campaign finance reforms (the real reason that your favourite commentators tell you to get mad at it)
like limiting foreign lobbying, and forcing super PACs to disclose their donors.
It also supports overturning Citizens United. (the overtly corrupt decision by the supreme court to open the floodgates for corporate donors in politics, making the expenditures unlimited)
There is a difference between law and law enforcement. Is anyone going to question how much money Biden got from the CCP and how much the Saudi's oil money have funded? If it benefits whoever is currently in charge, I doubt it.
Even then, one good section of a larger bill does not discredit the bad, especially when the bill
Just look at who is against the bill. The Heritage foundation being the big one. Ring any bells? They are they guys who have been making America as plutocratic as they possibly can since Reagan.
Guilt by association does not mean that they are wrong. If the Heritage Foundation is against a bad bill, regardless of whether or not we are partisan for or against them, it does not change the fact the bill is still bad.
You've been duped into thinking this bill is scary-oh-no-bad, when in reality it is just a plaster being placed on the gaping wound that is US "democracy".
We do need election reform, and the 2020 election showed us that with how every attempt to hold anyone to account failed despite overwhelming evidence of impropriety and malpractice at best. We're not getting it under this administration, unfortunately.
who gives a shit about the constitution. It's a piece of paper used to justify the laws of whoever is in power. I couldn't give a fraction of a percent of a damn about whether or not the minimum wage increase is "constitutional" or not.
Yes, who gives a shit about the rules by which we run our nation and limit the power of government so we can ensure a more fair and just society and prevent tyranny and oppression.
Are you, by chance, a Fascist masquerading as a leftist in order to gain political capital? Because it sounds like you are when you want to use the rules that the PEOPLE WHO REVOLTED AGAINST ONE OF THE GREATEST SUPERPOWERS IN THE WORLD TO ENSURE as toilet paper just for the sake of your political will.
People need this to survive. I for one don't want people to starve, unable to pay the rent, all because some dumbfuck slave-owning wig-wearing dipshits 7million years ago wrote on a piece of paper that we shouldn't.
For one, stop with the hyperbole, it just makes you look unhinged.
Secondly, this does not address the fact you can raise your minimum wage locally or in your state, and not have to raise the minimum wage everywhere.
Thirdly, it will lead to less jobs just as a fact because it will raise the costs of production and therefore mean that less people can be employed. This is a basic economic principle in both Neoclassical, Keynesian, Behavioral and Neo-Keynesian economics. Prices will have to go up, or it will be non-binding.
Also your points against the £15 minimum wage are debunked bullshit.
Metastudies show that a minimum wage increase has an insignificant impact on the economy. See below:
>£15
Britbong detected, commence throwing tea into the harbor!
All joking aside, a $20.76 minimum wage will definitely lead to worse outcomes because the economies of each state is different.
Both your studies were written before COVID and do not account for the prime areas that a raise in minimum wage will effect, which is the working class or poor, as the rest will have it be non-binding as they are already being paid more than minimum wage.
If you care about those "starving," then why are you looking at the overall economy and NOT specifically low-skill jobs or entry level jobs? Especially because rural economies will have more of those jobs as opposed to cities with higher inflation rates. It's very strange.
Also, two metanalysis papers from half a decade ago under VERY different economic conditions than a COVID one do not debunk the general principle, given we're looking at minimum wage and how it affects the lower rings of society, and not the middle class and bourgeois who tend to account for most of GDP. You know. The opposite of the people in the concerned group.
Another question: how are you reconciling your immigration views with this considering that they can work for lower than minimum wage and will just increase the supply of the labor market, making labor LESS valuable, and thereby making so more low-skill jobs are taken and limiting poor people have for options?
Also you speak as if automation (and labour offshoring) isn't happening anyways? Like dude, the problem is not automation, it's how the profits of automation are distributed. That it's not being done to make workers lives easier, and instead being used to lay off those workers, and give more money to your boss/employer/capitalist owning class.
I said that it will INCENTIVIZE businesses to put more money into automation, leading to jobs like Cashiers or other low-skill jobs not being needed as they will be replaced by machines. Why would you have a worker when a machine can do the work for them and save you more money in the long run aside from costs for maintenance and repair? It's not as simple as "we should make workers live's easier with technology," when it's clear that businesses have to be driven by the profit motive more than anything else to stay in business.
If your[sic] so concerned about working class people then perhaps we should have more government jobs programs? Or regulations on businesses to force them to operate in a manner that benefits more than just their board of directors? Or perhaps we could have some democracy in the workplace? (e.g. unionisation, worker representation, worker co-operatives)
But you probably oppose those? Whatever man.
Several points:
I feel you misrepresent me in that I am for regulating businesses so they have to respect the rights of their consumers and workers, including all the rights laid out in the Constitution of Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, and non-discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, and have to serve the public indiscriminately regardless of political, religious, or philosophical belief if all other factors are equal. I also think we should take antitrust actions against Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc. for their blatant disregard of human rights and policing of public discourse. Other than that, I'd recommend putting tariffs on China for both human rights concerns, environmental reform, and general imperialism.
You just have to look at the DMV to realize that government jobs are so wildly ineffective as to be nearly pointless. It's why I want a public option for healthcare and not to abolish private healthcare because of how much redtape and bureaucracy is involved in those businesses because they do not have to turn a profit.
I'm not against people starting worker Co-ops, but I don't think they will work solely because of inefficiency and the fact that unlike government, businesses need a hierarchy to function properly and can't leave everything to vote, and will need someone who is willing to make risks to keep it going, as well as a clear chain of command and sense of direction. Worker Co-ops don't really solve those issues because it assumes everyone is equally qualified or competent, which they aren't. An ideal business should be ran like a meritocracy with the focus on a competence hierarchy, but because of how humans work, they are unlikely to go through with that due to nepotism, greed, and human laziness. Obviously someone who works hard at their job should not have the same say as the workers who don't care about their jobs and do nothing.
@Loghtan
I feel like this is what happens when you watch too much Vaush and have no other reference beside Breadtube for politics, economics, or philosophy
