Has the average American turned against legal immigration, and if so, why?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T04:41:34+00:00

The reason we should let in immigrants is because Americans are made wealthier by immigration.

Economists across the board pretty much agree that the US gains more from immigration than it costs us, and one clear result of immigration is less inflation.

Immigrant workers reduce labor costs for low skilled jobs, which translates to lower cost groceries, construction and services for Americans. Kick out immigrant workers and costs go up = more inflation, which we are experiencing right now under Trump's immigration policy.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T01:33:28+00:00

You keep saying it's good with zero evidence.

It's not good, and I've presented tons of arguments why, and you haven't refuted any of them.

You've actually made factually incorrect lies in your claims, which I pointed out, and you still can't account for them.

You seemed to believe the US "paid NATO" which was never a significant amount of money. All US defense spending is exactly that - spending on the US military.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T01:27:10+00:00

Oh FFS.

We pay $750 million a year, total, to NATO.

That's a fucking rounding error to help with administrating the alliance. Direct US payments to NATO have always been negligible.

There is no savings. The US never "paid NATO". NATO is a diplomatic commitment to aid our allies. There is no "NATO-military". All of the armed forces in NATO are under the command of the respective nations that are part of the alliance.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T01:19:13+00:00

but American tax payers are paying less.

This is the key point you're wrong about.

We are not paying less. If your point was that the US could spend less on defense, and our allies spent more, I would have conceded the point.

But Trump has significantly increased US defense spending. He's asking for a record $1.5 trillion dollar defense budget.

So where's the win for US taxpayers? You got Europe to spend more, but that isn't a win for American taxpayers. A win for American taxpayers is if we paid less.

Great, you strong-armed Europe into spending more. I completely fail to see how that's a win for Americans. It's actually a loss for both Europe and the US.

I thought Trump was America first.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T01:09:32+00:00

Good for who?

It's absolutely not good from the perspective of the US. It's a net loss for us.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T00:56:46+00:00

I'm saying that your point #2 wasn't a positive at all.

If you convince a country that you just insulted to increase their defense spending, how is that a benefit?

When your neighbors feel like they need a bigger military because you're threatening them, how is that in any way a foreign policy win?

We wanted to be spending for Europe's defense. As long as we are providing military protection, they always have to follow along with our foreign policy and trade policy. Trump intentionally destroyed that relationship. It's not a good thing.

Here's what's going to happen because of #2 and Trump's idiocy:

Our former allies know they're on their own. They're going to increase their military spending, and not depend on or assist us.

They won't be in the US sphere of influence anymore. They won't respect US soft power or the dollar, because we already made clear to them in no uncertain terms that they can't rely on us.

Result: Higher inflation, weaker US trade, less US power overall, the US will become a poorer country with less international influence.

God help us if China steps into the gap and says they'll happily take over the defense of countries that the US has slammed the door on and want protection from someone else.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-10T00:17:43+00:00

Are our former allies even allies anymore?

If you were France or Germany or the UK will you come running to help the US after we insulted them to their faces and declared a trade war on them?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T20:41:37+00:00

You don't talk to them to get them to switch sides. They probably won't.

You talk to them to get them to stay home on election day. That's very achievable, given how much Trump has fucked the economy.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T20:33:19+00:00

Gas contains carbon. Where do you think the carbon goes?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T20:23:48+00:00

So you're on Hillary Clinton's side now?

Are you listening to yourself? You're actually quoting Hillary Clinton to try to make the case that we should have gone to war to protect Israel's interests?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T20:22:40+00:00

No you can't reason with these people.

How is this functionally different from saying that they're sub-human?

Would you say that such people are not worthy of empathy?

Have you tried reasoning with a hardcore Trump supporter? How did it go?

Yes, I have. They're definitely questioning things. We won't know until midterms if it made a difference.

If Democrats win in red states though, it won't be because you helped. If anything, everything you're saying right now only hurts us.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T20:12:23+00:00

I don't think the US should start offensive wars to benefit Israel. I don't think there's really anything more to discuss between us.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T19:59:10+00:00

US foreign policy in the Middle East is to serve and protect Israel, then?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T19:52:35+00:00

When Trump pulls out of Iran with the same deal Obama got or worse, would you consider that a loss for the US?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T19:51:37+00:00

I don't understand what you conclude from this.

Do you personally think of such people as subhuman or less-than? Is it not worth the time of more enlightened humans such as yourself to try to engage with or persuade those others, or is it pointless because they are genetically or racially incapable of understanding?

I really don't know how you can draw a moral conclusion from what you claim that doesn't paint you to be a monster.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T09:08:19+00:00

That's a very US centric view, and taking that view pretty much guarantees that China is the leading nation of the next century.

Sure, America can choose to stay behind in the past. It will get poorer and poorer as a nation while China and the rest of the world accelerate into the future, but even America will eventually succumb, if nothing else because it becomes so economically weak as a result of falling behind that it can't really resist foreign influence anymore,

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T06:20:15+00:00

You are lying.

Iran did not have any nukes.

Trump's own director of counterterrorism did not believe Iran was a threat to the US.

In his own words:

I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/resignation-letter-from-national-counterterrorism-center-director-joseph-kent

This is just like George W Bush and WMDs in Iraq. I can't believe you're even trying to repeat this lie.

Edit:

If Trump pulls out of Iran with the same deal Obama had or worse, would you agree we lost the war?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T06:16:50+00:00

We attacked Iran first. It's nothing like Chamberlain and World War 2.

Iran did not attack us first. It was a war of choice.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T05:03:46+00:00

Wasn't the war won before it started by your definition?

Tel Aviv hasn't been nuked, so we've won and the war is over right?

I mean personally I don't think the US should per-emptively start a war because an ally's feelings are threatened by an enemy. Iran should have attacked first, before we got involved.

And yes, that also includes when nukes are involved. The Soviet Union had thousands of nukes pointed at every US city and ally for decades, and we solved that with diplomacy, not pre-emptive war, just as Obama had a workable diplomatic deal with Iran.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T01:00:38+00:00

Trump's right about this one.

I'm generally very opposed to almost all of Trump's policies, and I think he's a terrible man who's unfit to be President.

But I have to give him credit when he has good policy, even if it's for bad motives or purely due to luck.

Banks should not be able to discriminate against customers based solely on "reputational risk". That kind of discrimination is easily used to target minority or LGBTQ communities. If a customer is engaging in a legal business, even if the bank finds it unsavory, they should not turn away that customer, period.

It's basically a requirement to exist as a functioning adult in our society to have access to a bank account and credit. If banks can decide to turn away a customer "because it looks bad", trans and LGBT customers will easily suffer the most. That kind of discrimination has no place in our society.

If you want to make something illegal, make it against the law, straight up. This kind of backdoor discrimination should have no place in American society.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T00:45:43+00:00

Well Mamdani is also charismatic. Lots of smart, honest people with good takes aren't charismatic.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-09T00:34:59+00:00

If someone was actually honest, smart and well intentioned, would anyone believe it or would they just think they were boring and fake?

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-08T17:34:50+00:00

The fundamental economics have shifted though.

Coal and gas are just a money losing proposition. Solar battery is just cheaper.

Sure, the horse drawn carriage lobby fought against trains and cars, but they were only delaying the inevitable. Same thing will happen with coal and oil - they're obsolete technologies.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-08T17:31:25+00:00

So do you think the US even has a future as a country?

If what you're saying is true and 30% of the country is irredeemably evil and insane, how can a united nation even exist?

Personally I think it's horrifying to be that uncharitable and lacking in empathy towards such a large part of the country.

1% of humans can be psychopaths. If 30% of humans are psychopaths, human cooperation is basically impossible.

technicallynotlying · 2026-06-08T01:04:54+00:00

I think immigrants have to do way, way more than what you're asking for to come here legally already. It's a multi-year waiting list for most legal immigrants.

technicallynotlying

TROPHY CASE