slashdev

You’re arguing with a strawman you’ve built from my comment.

> If you mean that the constraints put on the US by itself to not police immigration in overly violent or cruel ways mean that it does not control immigration.

I don’t mean that. I’m saying you do have to control the borders and you do have to deport people who break the rules and enter our stay illegally.

It seems we agree that at least some of that is necessary, and we can both disagree, at least partly, with the way it’s currently being handled.

> The riots in Europe are not primarily about immigration.

Where did you get that idea? The riots are caused by the immigrants. Look at them, there’s hardly a single European among them. These are undesirables they let into their country and they’ve been paying a price for it ever since.

The term combines two concepts: Nation: A group of people who identify as belonging to a shared community. State: A political entity with a defined territory, a government, and sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.

I would argue this requires at least some sovereign control over borders.

The EU defines their borders as a bloc. States are not nations - and that’s one of the reasons why.

Border control is an important expression of state sovereignty. If you have zero controls the state would experience net migration until conditions declined below the global average and nobody wants to move there anymore. That’s pretty self evident, it’s how economics works and how systems maintain an equilibrium.

Both legal and undocumented immigrants in the US show lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans in major studies; the picture in Europe is different, with clear overrepresentation for non-Western and asylum-related groups. Fiscal impacts depend heavily on skill/education level rather than legal status alone, with low-skilled migrants (legal or not) more often a net cost over their lifetimes.

So control over borders is important, and having standards is a good thing.

There is no magic soil. A nation is the people who make it up. Bring in the violent, stupid, and culturally incompatible people from the shithole countries they are trying to escape and things will trend downwards to some average between those terrible places and our desirable countries. That’s not racist our xenophobic, it’s acknowledging the facts.

People are not equal. Countries are not equal. Education and culture and religions are not equal. There are better and worse versions of all of them. Again just facts. To ignore that is to live in fantasy land that doesn’t exist in the real world.

I have traveled to nearly 50 countries. I have lived in the developing world. My ancestors have had to flee countries and been refugees. I know what I’m talking about. You sound very idealistic and naive.

That’s an extreme take. What other laws do you think should be ignored? Traffic laws? Building codes? Tax laws?

A nation is literally defined as an entity that has control over its borders. If it permits just anyone to enter or exit, it is technically not a nation anymore.

I’m all for changing immigration laws, giving more people a legal route to becoming temporary workers, students, residents, and citizens. But being choosy about who gets in and who does not. Attract the best and brightest to lift your country up, not freeloaders and criminals that tear it down. Look at the riots in Europe right now - and learn from their mistakes. Immigration is good but there have to be limits, laws, and control over borders.

Those things may be worthwhile, I’m not smart enough to know. But you can’t fix the deficit without also cutting entitlements.

How so?

You’ve misdiagnosed the problem. Taxing billionaires more is worthwhile, but it’s not causing the deficits and won’t fix them.

That’s kind of funny because Nvidia’s biggest moat is arguably CUDA, the software ecosystem around their chips

Exactly, that’s the low margin part of the market. They don’t care about it.

That's less an issue than the new emissions going forward from Asia and Africa.

We can't very well tell them to stay poor. They're going to increase their energy usage and they're right to do so.

Hopefully renewables and EVs are competitive enough to reduce the impact of the rest of the world developing to Western levels. Which they may well, thanks to China and Elon Musk's Tesla for jump starting that transition.

The population in the US has grown 17%, but emissions have reduced 18%. I think it's doing a good job and merely needs to continue that trajectory. The Trump administration is making some poor decisions there, but won't last much longer, it matters more if that's a long-term Republican position or merely an aberation.

China also built more coal than the US has in total. Don't forget the scale is different there.

But yes, it's sad to see America about face on climate change under Trump.

Per capita is rather pointless when talking about climate change, but yes, it doesn't absolve responsibility.

You'll note that's not what I said, just that the US is doing well at reducing CO2 emissions. The population has grown 17%, but emissions have reduced 18%. That's a good job.

US manufacturing has not decreased either, it has just not increased while offshoring elsewhere. So for the most part that decrease in CO2 is not simply moving the problem elsewhere.