

Inside Job said it best: “Libertarians are just anarchists in a suit and a tie!”
Most of the “anarchists” you see on Lemmy aren’t the British punk rocker “let’s build a functioning world for the people” anarchists. They’re the “there should be no rules so survival of the fittest can kill the unworthy” kind. And in a state-capitalist system, they mean the poors either need to start generating capital for the state, or starve to death.
Remember, these are the same people who say that China has no homeless people, and criticize the US for having for-profit prisons, while somehow glossing over that their economy is being held up by the “work” camps holding all of China’s “totally not homeless, we gave them a 6ft cube” population. Logic is already dead to these people.




To be clear, I am extremely pro-immigration, but many of the immigration policies as written are tools used to suppress wages. This is the reason we see so many immigrants, often with degrees and training we refuse to recognize in Canada, in low paying, minimum wage jobs. I personally had the pleasure of working with a wonderful woman from the middle east who was a qualified teacher, stuck working 30 hours a week in a grocery store deli because we refused to recognize her degree or decade of experience. She spoke perfect English, was incredibly pleasant, and visibly intelligent and well-mannered, but she’s a brown immigrant, so fuck it, minimum wage for her.
We can take immigrants at the rate we have been while not using them to further wealth inequalities. But as a friend of mine says, the purpose of a system is what it does, and the current iteration is not about creating a multi-cultural nation.
For additional clarity, this isn’t to say that you’re wrong and immigration isn’t being used as a scapegoat. I’d just argue that the problem is more substantial than simply calling the issue a scapegoat suggests. There is a real problem, but it’s not in that we’re accepting immigrants at all; it’s the conditions we’ve agreed to accept them under.