I have 2 ideas that would solve the immigration crisis forever.1. Citizenship comes from your parents. Therefore no more anchor babies.2. We only allow legal immigration from countries where vice versa it would be safe for an American to immigrate

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 36b944a79426f03⋯.jpg (465.43 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, 1337964958520.jpg)

Anonymous 07/31/17 (Mon) 08:19:39 No.61930

I have 2 ideas that would solve the immigration crisis forever.

1. Citizenship comes from your parents. Therefore no more anchor babies.

2. We only allow legal immigration from countries where vice versa it would be safe for an American to immigrate to. No more niggers, spics, gooks, and durkas

Anonymous 07/31/17 (Mon) 08:43:05 No.61932

>>61930

Did you get the wrong board or something? This isn't /pol/.

Anonymous 07/31/17 (Mon) 08:55:51 No.61935

File: ae1aab2719f71bb⋯.jpeg (129.7 KB, 850x1311, 850:1311, ae1aab2719f71bba5a89c04de….jpeg)

I have 2 ideas that would solve the immigration crisis forever.

1. No borders.

2. No nations.

Anonymous 07/31/17 (Mon) 20:57:56 No.61990

File: 40590fffb40e27e⋯.gif (223.37 KB, 600x552, 25:23, 1446558096858359027.gif)

>>61930

thanks :(

t. pole

Anonymous 07/31/17 (Mon) 22:05:16 No.62045

>>61935

>no borders

No NATIONAL borders. A society without borders is madness.

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 07:35:57 No.62103

>>61935

Globalist filth get out.

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 09:25:31 No.62109

>>62103

That's not Globalism though. He's not calling for a one world state.

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 10:30:06 No.62113

>>61930

>b-but I need my sheltered hugbox!

pathetic

just come out and say that you're afraid of open competition in the labor market

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 13:26:43 No.62116

File: 77f54a98e2b53ce⋯.jpg (47.6 KB, 500x351, 500:351, b66065f2368f5a900514ff0c4b….jpg)

>>62113

Not op or /pol/, but immigration typically means an expansion of state programs at the citizens expense in order to take care of these new residents. I for one an "anti-immigration" in the sense that it is the state importing people to be used as excuse to expand its own control.

If there where no state, there wouldn't be a problem because immigrants would have to work to provide for themselves, rather than using the unneccissary social net established by "us" for "us"

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 13:44:16 No.62118

>>62045

>I know what you meant but I will deliberately misunderstand it so I can appeal to neo-Nazis from /pol/

Kill yourself

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 14:40:22 No.62124

>>62116

this is just circular thinking

open labor labor market is bad because of welfare state

so we need welfare state to protect us from welfare state

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 15:07:55 No.62125

>>62124

Did you only read the first portion of my post or something?

I said eliminating the state would mean that moving here would no longer offer any incentive for people who only want to move here because we have redundant welfare institutions because thisr welfare institutions would no longer exist.

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 17:22:34 No.62134

>>62125

>Did you only read the first portion of my post or something?

it doesn't matter if you're pro open market when there's no state

you're pro state de facto right now just because state already exist

you need state to protect you from the consequences of its own actions

you're just in a damned cycle, and with that kind of logic you will never break out of it

you could as well become a Keynesian at this point

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 22:46:56 No.62173

File: 97b0855a71f499d⋯.png (94.54 KB, 698x478, 349:239, e044ea40fe963b2ebceaa045a0….png)

>>62134

I was using the term "anti-immgration" loosly to describe the fact that I disagree fundamentally with the notion of having a state funded welfare system that encouraged people to move here who wouldn't otherwise, I understand that I chose my words poorly but I was not saying we need a state to fix a problem that the state made in the first place by introducing the concept of a "safety net" system that offered a way to make a living off of simply being poor. This is open to interpretation as to whether we get rid of welfare or the state in general, I never mentioned which option of the two I supported.

Also my flag slipped off, so I see where you could have just mistaken me for a /leftypol/ shitposter

Anonymous 08/01/17 (Tue) 22:49:32 No.62175

>>62173

Fucking flag

Anonymous 08/02/17 (Wed) 15:28:02 No.62243

File: f32795073fd3530⋯.jpg (56.57 KB, 780x840, 13:14, 15390966_1043469182447033_….jpg)

>>61935

I've got two better ideas for ya

1. Freedom of association and therefore exclusion and secession

2. Yes nations, no states.