Zetice

I didn’t make any statements about any of that, he said he shat in the street uncontrollably. That’s a medical issue.

My family and neighbors aren’t occupying 3.7 million square miles and aren’t numbered in the hundreds of millions, so the analogy does not hold.

Why not?

You feel sorry for my family because you shat in the street and refuse to accept that you drinking Starbucks is not a valid reason to do that?

No, coffee doesn’t cause people to involuntarily shit, that’s not what a strong laxative is or does.

I am, you aren’t. If it meant what you suggest, coffee wouldn’t be served.

It absolutely is grounded in reality, because in reality billions of people wouldn’t move to the US. You’re trying to claim realism but then applying absurd hyperbole.

A reductio isn’t going to work here, sorry.

I’m not predicting anything.

If your regular bowel movement involves shitting in the street, you need immediate mental health intervention.

Your citation is irrelevant; being unable to control your bowels to the point of shitting in the street is not healthy, and you should seek a doctor.

No, because they can still manage their bowel movements.

I don't think anyone cares if you are "here" or not.

It is not "reality" to claim that Americans would lose out if more immigrants came to the US.

Nothing, and many do. Many also are free to come here.

Yes and yes. People want to contribute, people want to work, the more people in the US the better off the US is, full stop.

Existing control givers are corrupt and selfish, possibly evil.

My view is not optimistic, it's reflective of reality.

This isn't a regular bowel movement.

And yet 30% of people aren't shitting in the street.

No, it's meant to determine which people have agreed to the social contract. Citizenship is not some sacred thing you must earn; simply agreeing to give up some freedom is all it takes to benefit from the social programs offered by a government.

The bureaucratic concept of "citizenship" is just a way for people to construct barriers of hate around the benefits offered by a nation while still forcing people to accept the sacrifices.

There is no "pragmatic" limit. As more people arrive, more jobs are needed to support them, more jobs are made available as a larger pool of workers able to do a wider variety of tasks for wages that allow for corporations to turn a profit. It's a self sustaining cycle.

The general rule here is that unless there's an obvious reason to deny equal people something you've given other people, you shouldn't deny it in the first place.

I literally just said this isn’t what the person I replied to was talking about. I’m mistaking nothing.

No, as these people who are part of the influx, once accepting the social contract, are no better or worse than anyone else who has agreed to the social contract, citizen or no.

Besides, all evidence suggests immigrants benefit a society substantially more than they harm it. In the US for example, noncitizens consume significantly fewer national resources while still paying the full amount of taxes expected of citizens.

Because it is backwards, state governments ought to supply and maintain enough bathrooms that the streets remain sanitary.

Sanitation is one of the main things we need a government for; failure here is unacceptable.

Half a million people who wish to leave their country for America would no longer be able to.

A great many of those people are operating out of necessity.

Deserve means everything in this context, because I, as an American, am discussing with my fellow Americans how our country works and the principles upon which we ought to rule ourselves.

Those principles are heavily founded in “deserve”. You are watching some infinitesimally small part of that “ruling” process.

It is factually incorrect to claim a request from someone with power is bound by law.

You can absolutely do those things as a matter of law. You can’t do those things as a matter of policy, however. You were trained on policy, written out of an abundance of respect for the law, training it’s clear needs to be more common, but the law itself is less clear.

Idiotic argument, nobody's house is 3.7 million sq miles, nor do 350 million people live in anybody's "house".

...none of this is what the parent comment was talking about in their claim that there is a "war on free speech".