That’s some weaselly circular argument you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don’t think they, you know, buy things and work?
So you’re actually arguing against a straw man then. You’ve invented this concept of “inhabitant”, as something less than a citizen, and not given any actual evidence for it’s existence, or valid justification for why it deserves less than a citizen.
Irregular immigrants contribute to the communities they exist in. They help their neighbors, they perform work, they pay taxes via sales tax, gas tax, etc. In fact, by the metrics of tax contribution, they contribute a higher percentage of their income back to their local municipalities than most citizens. Saying they don’t contribute is outright racist.
That’s some weaselly circular argument you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It’s really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
So you believe that when a foreigner comes into the country, they simply just exist and take up space? You don’t think they, you know, buy things and work?
Removed by mod
I’ve read the whole thread, how do you think I got down here?
This is what you just said. Can you explain how I mischaracterized it? I feel like I just reworded this sentence pretty directly.
Removed by mod
So you’re actually arguing against a straw man then. You’ve invented this concept of “inhabitant”, as something less than a citizen, and not given any actual evidence for it’s existence, or valid justification for why it deserves less than a citizen.
If your analogy is based on consumption it makes no sense.
Meanwhile, I could drop eat from mine response and the point stands with a dry place to sit.
Removed by mod
Irregular immigrants contribute to the communities they exist in. They help their neighbors, they perform work, they pay taxes via sales tax, gas tax, etc. In fact, by the metrics of tax contribution, they contribute a higher percentage of their income back to their local municipalities than most citizens. Saying they don’t contribute is outright racist.