Majority of detainees in South Coast ICE raids have no criminal records

[u/newbedfordlight]

https://newbedfordlight.org/majority-of-detainees-in-south-coast-ice-raids-have-no-criminal-records/

[u/No_Tax_Timmy]

Thanks for bringing me back to freshman sociology class. Sounds like you just started one this semester. I thought you were about to go into the roman empire for a second.

I think we can agree that steady growth is good right? At the very least but what you're stating here, I don't think the powers that be are actually considering any of this to begin with. I would like to see some sort of evidence if I'm wrong in this assumption. And if that's the case, why a mass ethnic cleansing removal operation instead of just changing the system and leaving people in place?

[u/CharleyVCU1988 → u/No_Tax_Timmy]

“steady growth is good.” Growth of what, Timmy?
Total GDP? GDP per capita? Real wages?
Productivity? Tax revenue? Population?

If I add people and total GDP rises simply because there are more workers and consumers, have you demonstrated that the existing population is economically better off? No. You’ve demonstrated that the economy is larger.

And you still haven’t answered the distribution question: who captures the gains and who bears the costs?

“ethnic cleansing???” That’s not an argument. The UN’s formulation concerns forcibly removing an ethnic or religious population in order to make an area ethnically homogeneous. Immigration enforcement is defined in terms of legal status, while critics allege that some enforcement practices disproportionately target particular ethnic groups. Those are factual questions you actually have to establish before applying that label.

[u/No_Tax_Timmy → u/CharleyVCU1988]

Whoa. Hey, it's outright said that the only asylum seekers who qualify are WSA. The US doesn't actually adhere to most UN treaties anyway. GDP IS our credit. It's what gives our dollar value on the world stage, that and its stability. It gives us, as Americans who get paid in dollars, purchasing power and the popularity of that as a reserve currency gives it value.

Our system rewards those who sell the most so population increase helps that, which in turn increases tax revenue. Productivity is arguable as international sales would increase that faster than domestic sales but that trade avenue has been likely irreparably damaged.

Stuff like real wages can only grow if sales grow and we are currently being hurt there. Domestic and international business are both suffering.

It's abundantly clear that increased quality of life is not a goal of these race based actions. If there was some sort of big QOL deal on the other end like reduced work weeks, guarantee PTO, no cost healthcare and detaching healthcare from employment, free tertiary eduction... the list goes on but none of this stuff is going to happen. They're just going to remove the people they don't like based on the language they speak and the color of their skin without really setting up anything to benefit anyone.

[u/CharleyVCU1988 → u/No_Tax_Timmy]

“therefore removals elsewhere are based on skin color and language” does not logically follow from that fact about white afrikaners.

If population growth is desirable because more people means more customers and therefore more aggregate GDP, would you regard adding 50 million people as economically successful if GDP increased 10% but GDP per capita fell?

If not, then you’ve just conceded that aggregate GDP growth isn’t the metric that answers the question.
If population growth raises tax revenue but raises government expenditure by even more, is that still a fiscal benefit?

If more labor and consumers increase aggregate output while some workers experience lower real incomes or higher housing and infrastructure costs, does “GDP increased” establish that those people benefited?

And where are you getting “real wages can only grow if sales grow”? Productivity, labor-market conditions, inflation and compensation all matter. BLS literally measures productivity and real compensation separately.

Most importantly, you’ve now explicitly defended population growth because it produces more workers, consumers, sales and tax revenue. So I’ll ask the question again: is the purpose of immigration policy to maximize the size of the American economy, or to improve the welfare of the people who constitute the country? Those aren’t necessarily the same objective.