Transcription
What's the argument that it's ethically wrong to give amnesty? And I assume that this is through a consequentialist lens.
It would be through Deontology.
Now, do you I'm sorry. Do you switch your ethical theories depending on which argument you're making?
Quite frankly, you need to subscribe to Renyald.
Yes. So, I'd like to debate on immigration.
What about it?
I would say I would say that ICE is justified. It's going to be like a moral I'd say it's going to be like a moral agent that has justification to enforce immigration law.
Okay. What do you when you say ICE is justified? What do you what do you mean?
Like some I don't know if you guys disagree with us on immigration law or like enforcement in general.
So do you guys because some people do?
Well, it depends on the context. I don't like the way the immigration laws in the United States right now.
What do you mean what context?
It's too broad of a question. Do you agree with the system? I agree with aspects of the system. I disagree with other aspects of the system.
Ask if you agree with the enforcement. However, asked if you agree with the system like do you agree with mass deportation?
That's too broad. Do you do you agree with conversations? Like I I I don't know. It's too broad of a question. Like when you said what the system mass deportation?
No, I don't agree with mass deportation. I think it's a horrible policy.
Why? Why is that?
Because it's just not successful in any of the aims that it aims to achieve. It seems like in order to do it, you need to violate a bunch of people's rights, which I think is unjust. I think that the amount of force that you have to put uh doesn't give any proportional gain. And I think that amnesty is just a better I think amnesty is a better policy than mass deportation on almost every single metric.
because I would appeal to consequentialism. Right.
I'm a consequentialist too. So perfect.
What's that?
I'm a consequentialist too. So that'll be perfect.
Awesome. So you should support mass deportation then because do we both agree that illegal aliens pay around 90 billion in taxes? Correct.
Uh I don't know the number off the top of my head. I can grant it for now. It's
around 90 billion. Mhm.
Is is the host speaking? He's kind of muted.
talking to me. Don't [ __ ] No [ __ ] I'm muted. You guys are talking. I'm not going to talk to you. I'm talking about YouTube.
Oh, my fault, twin. Jeez. I was just making sure you were trying to talk to us. I was going to say your your little microphone ain't working. But all right. Yeah. So, I just wanted to go through with you, right?
Mhm.
Just some um things that like prove I just want to go through like some systems that like states have implemented because obviously I do agree that like illegal aliens obviously they're not eligible for like you know food stamps uh like you know all those other government programs. However, what California has done, for example, which is one of the 35 states have done this as they implemented state funded healthcare. It's called Medic, and they've dedicated around 12.5 billion dollars annually just for that program.
Do you agree with that?
Do I agree with what them doing that?
I don't think it's relevant to the argument that I'd make. I'm saying that mass deportations are better to the counteractual.
I'm saying that mass deportations are better to
I'm I'm saying that mass deportations are not better than amnesty, right? So you wouldn't just have to prove that mass deportations are better than this situation,
right?
Yeah. You said you're a consequentialist though, are you?
Correct. That's why I support amnesty over mass deportations. Yes.
I understand. But I'm now proving to you that illegal aliens are not a benefit to the um like they're
I agree. That's why I want to give them amnesty.
I understand. But they take more than they um give. This is just basically
again this is just a dialogue tree. Why are you not comparing it against my counterfactual policy? Why are you only comparing it against the current situation? Right. I think that there's a better policy that we should be pursuing instead of mass deportations because mine will get rid of any deficit that anybody perceives. Mine will get rid of any deficit that anybody perceives. It's better for you know every economic measure than mass deportation is and it doesn't involve the violation of rights and the violent perpetration of ICE. Right. So
I disagree with amnesty. I can tell you why in a minute. Right. I we can touch on
just touch on that. Touch on why mass deportation is a better policy than that.
No worries. Right. Okay. So, we'll touch up on your system, the amnesty, correct? We can go through it.
So, just like give me a step by step of how amnesty would work in your own like ideology. How would your system work?
I would probably just more or less uh recreate the IRCA that was passed under Reagan.
So, you just Okay. So, you're basically the same thing they did in the 80s, right?
Roughly the same process. Yeah.
Okay. So, um like exact the same.
Um
just run me through. As far as I'm aware, as far as I'm aware, the processes by which amnesty was granted in 1986 was something that I think was all right. It seems like it ran well. It seems like it had good economic benefits. So, I see no reason why to why we shouldn't just redo the IRCA. Well, no. I'm asking though, cuz then did the R RSCA did they have like security regulations as well? Because I know a lot of AMC policies obviously they have to run through um security measures and stuff. Correct. They don't just uh automatically make you assess them.
What do you mean security measures? I mean you have to make an application to a board. I think they checked your criminal background in your home country.
I understand. So what enforces that though exactly what enforces that these illegal would do that? Does ICE still exist under your amnesty?
You wouldn't get you wouldn't get the citizenship if you didn't do it.
I understand. So does ICE still exist to enforce this?
It dep uh ICE as it stands. No. There would be some sort of replacement for removal operations.
Will be immigration enforcement.
Correct. Yeah. That's why I asked what you meant by ICE or like what do you support ICE? I support you understand that there's a difference between supporting some sort of apparatus to remove deportable people.
There's a reason why you can't let me finish my statements. You understand that there's a difference between some sort of apparatus to remove illegally present people and ICE, right? Or mass deportations, right? You understand the difference between those two concepts, right?
Yes. But I asked you if you agree with the system.
No, you asked me if I agree with massport system.
No, you asked me if I You asked me if I supported mass deportations. I told you no, right?
Yes. So, if you support I asked this I asked the system. I asked US immigration system. But if you support an answer, right? Obviously, you're going to contradict your own belief. And
what was what was my answer for if I support the system?
It was a yes.
Unless you want to backtrack, you can.
Are you sure? Are you sure it was a yes?
Do you want I asked in what what way do you mean the system? And then you asked, do you support Do you support the current US system of u preventing illegal aliens from entering the country?
The current US system? No, I don't support the current US system. No.
All right, we can walk through that. Why Why do you not support it? I think that the current US system of, you know, Wait, okay, wait, hold on. Are you talking about the system that is like strictly written in the law or the way that Donald Trump is doing it? Sorry, I have to be hyper predantic with you.
In theory. In theory, not an execution. Not
in theory, I think it's probably too hard to enter the country legally right now and it's incentivizing people to come here illegally, but I don't think the systems are necessarily flawed. I just don't think there's enough resources allocated in order to make it work expeditiously.
Right. So you're for like more funding to um border enforcement or like just uh USCIS in general.
I wouldn't say enforcement measures per se. Like I wouldn't want to give it to border operators to put like barbwire on the border or whatever. But yeah, I think more money going to the immigration process would be good. Yes.
understand. So do you agree though if like So if you support the current US system,
is this all going to be like internal critique or are you ever going to make an argument for mass deportations? Just
I was making an argument, remember? But then you cut me off.
What was the argument that you were making? consequentialism.
Okay. You understand that consequentialism is an argument, right? That's a lens by which you make moral proposition.
I would appeal to it to say that deportation is going to be the moral agent and getting rid of this immoral act of crossing the border illegally because I would argue that crossing the border illegally is going to be immoral by appealing to that moral theory.
So, I mean then the question is which system is better to address illegal immigration? Because I agree illegal immigration isn't ideal. What system is better between AMC and deportations? We haven't made that argument that mass deportations
getting rid of these getting giving them citizenship will not get rid of the uh systems in place that these states have placed [snorts]
and also pro
yeah giving the citizenship will not get rid of the deficit and I can prove it as well if if you want systems
did the IRCA get rid of the deficit for these people
well also in the during the 80s CA recipian California wasn't giving free healthcare to illegal aliens in the 80s.
Well, I'm basically did IRCA recipients did they like did they cause some sort of deficit like fiscal?
Once again, it's going to be a different time because California now provides free healthcare to illegal islands. Same with New York. New York
these people would be citizens. So, they're going to be paying federal income tax. They're not going to be illegal immigrants. So, I'm asking you, do you have any evidence that IRCA recipients pay income tax? Do you have any evidence that IRCA recipients were a fiscal deficit? That's all I'm asking.
Once again, that's not my claim.
Okay. So, if we were to give them amnesty, what's the argument that they would be fiscal deficits if we it wasn't the case?
The systems uh benefiting them will still be in place because these systems
were the systems benefiting them not in place in the 80s.
Why are we arguing for the 80s? I'm arguing for the current Amnesty. because you said you gave you gave you gave a perceived symmetry breaker between these two situations, but those two situations existed in both situations, right? You can't say, "Oh, well, the symmetry breaker is that they would have these >> benefits, but that these people had benefits in the '8s, too, right?" And actually, you know what's crazy is that afterwards, the rate of use of of different benefits actually went down for IRCA recipients.
I I disagree because um
You disagree with what? uh with your claim that these systems existed in the 80s.
What what s Okay, hold on. What systems are you
medical? Medical was my primary example.
So medical is going to make IRCA recipients deficits.
Yeah.
What's the argument for that?
Well, if you'd let me walk through it. Basically, it's just argue it. My argument is right if uh these people are made citizens, it's not going to get rid of the it's not going to get rid of the system in place. And also by creating, right, that's also gonna be a um cost deficit
because it's still gonna cost money to enforce.
Yeah, I would also not support because
low tier. By the way, that's not an that's not an argument. That's a claim.
So I'm asking you what's the argument for that claim?
Let me speak. I understand. But so I would
I asked you for an argument, then you said claim, claim, claim. I'm asking you for the argument for the first claim you made.
What's the argument that there are deficit? You just said there a deficit.
What claim do you want me that there are deficit? Yeah, I asked you what the argument for that was and then you just restated your conclusion.
Uh yeah, my argument for that is that they pay 90 billion a year of taxes and they take 110 billion. Therefore, they are taking 20 billion a year from US
who are
illegal aliens.
Oh, that's crazy because what I'm proposing is that they get amnesty, right? So it would pay more.
It's not going to sell it. I've told you three times.
Isn't that crazy? And then the IRCA, again, I just do a study that said the IRCA recipients actually use public assistance less. Well, no. No, dude. It's not. Oh my gosh. Um, these systems were not in place. I'm not talking about I'm not talking about like emergency. What?
Okay, so I'm going to ask you again. Well,
do you Wait, do you understand that amnesty recipients get citizenship?
What systems were you referring to?
Do you understand that amnesty recipients get citizenship?
Yes.
Okay. So, if they're amnesty recipients, then emergency medical aid isn't all they're going to be susceptible for. They're going to be susceptible for every program that a citizen is because they're citizens, right?
Oh my gosh, you're so literier. I don't know.
You just called me low tier. I asked you for an argument. You made a statement. Never call me You I You said that your argument was consequentialism. Never call me a low tier again, you [ __ ] idiot. It is.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Wait. Yeah. Define it then. What do you think it is?
Define what?
Consequentialism.
Consequentialism is a lens that you put moral propositions through to determine the morality of those statements.
Okay. And what does it say?
That you ought maximize the best consequences. Okay, awesome. So, we have a basic understanding. It's exactly what I was arguing for.
That's saying consequentialism isn't an argument, big dog.
I just want to let you know
I I never said consequentialisms is the argument. I gave you an argument using consequentialism, right?
Okay. Do you want do you want to formalize the argument you gave me? Do you want to formalize the argument you gave me real quick?
Yeah. What do you want to premise by premise?
Yeah. All right. I'm pull up. You'll pull it up, right? [laughter]
Each um
by the way, I'm not even a Phil guy. You're just like pathetic, bro.
What do you mean?
Pull it up. Let me What did Andrew Wilson say yesterday?
All right, so [laughter] he won. All right, that's one. You pull one more tab for the systems that they receive.
For the other week that for the systems that who receive
for the systems that who receive?
Illegals.
Illegals. Okay. So, when you're a recipient of amnesty, what does that make you?
No. No. Illegals and also low incomes receive us. [snorts]
Okay. When you're a recipient of amnesty, what does that make you
by dedicating this funding?
When you're a recipient,
when you're a recipient of amnesty, what does that make you?
Just just look I understand it makes you a citizen, but look up
makes you a citizen. Okay. So, I don't know why you keep citing me numbers for illegal immigrants when I'm talking about citizens. [clears throat]
Look look at um just look up Madau if you're on desktop
because I don't you don't understand.
This is again I'm sorry to give the same speech. This is the problem when you have dialogue trees because you just don't know how to go off of them if you're encountered with a counter argument that you don't have. So all of this guy's counter arguments are designed for illegal immigrants receiving medical when that has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that amnesty is a better policy than deportations. And if you're bringing up the problem that oh well that means they're going to rely on public assistance. Actually IRCA recipients you would know this because I already said this. IRCA recipients were actually less likely to rely on public assistance. citizen counterparts, right? So, what I'm going to ask,
what's Okay, now that's a different argument. What's the argument that it's ethically wrong to give amnesty? And I assume that this is through a consequentialist lens.
It would be through Deontology.
Now, do you I'm sorry. Do you switch your ethical theories depending on which argument you're making?
You're cheating. You think that's cheating? What are you doing? [laughter]
I mean, get the [ __ ] out of here. Okay, we're good. I'm good. We can probably move on, Parker. I think I'm good.
All right. [gasps and laughter]
Holy [ __ ]
I'm actually a dontologist now. You actually convinced me not to
see my eyes light up when he said that. What do you mean? [laughter]
That's not fair. What the [ __ ]
Yo,
that dude uh is asking back up, I think. Right
here.
Yeah, sorry. He let me back up.
Yeah, man. Let's Let's see. Let's see what he
Yeah, I was just going to say thing, right? that consequentialism would still be against mass amnesty, right?
Okay. So, I asked you what the consequentialist argument against mass amnesty was then.
Yeah. It's going to be like a morally good policy, which would be of course US immigration law, right? It uh by not enforcing that, you're ultimately going to be rewarding rule breakers, which gets rid of that system. It has uh zero legal implementation. If we had a system that gave 20-year jail sentences to jail jaywalkers, then I'm advocating for a bill to give amnesty to the people who are convicted of jaywalking. Would you say that that's a bad consequentialist policy?
Uh, no. But I would say that that has
Why would you not say it's a bad consequentialist policy when the argument you just made are or makes the same argument for that? It's not going to be equivalent though because you're going have to prove I would I would argue that um that law against jaywalking is not morally justified unless uh unlike illegal immigration.
Amazing. Okay. So then just back to square one. What makes it moral to do mass deportations in this situation or what makes it immoral to give amnesty to these people?
What do you mean? What was your question?
What makes it immoral to give these people amnesty?
Uh because it's not the best overall um idea for society. You're rewarding rule breakers.
What's the better rule for society?
Uh to enforce immigration law.
Okay.
For for uh for it to be equal for all.
Okay. Nobody's arguing for it to be inequal at all. I don't know why you brought that part up. Those are the crazy
Well, am I understand, but AMC uh is inequality, is it not?
No.
So, I understand. Well, no. No.
Wait. Can you make that wait? Can you formalize that argument that amnesty is inequality?
Yeah. If it's not equality, right?
How come people have to wait to become illegal immigrants? However, people can just break the uh system and just become legal immigrants. Is that fair?
Is it your impression that I wouldn't want to cut down on the weight times as well?
Well, it doesn't No, wait times don't. That's not my argument. I asked is it I'm not talking about the weight time. I'm asking just waiting in general.
So, what I'm saying is that it should be essentially as easy as possible to enter the country. Obviously, there's still going to be time to wait to wait for your application amnesty to go in.
Like, what do you mean by easy?
You understand that there's going to be a line that you have to wait in for the application process for amnesty, right? You understand that?
Yeah, but they'll still be inside the country legally. Will they not? Or where will they be kept?
They're going to be in the country.
Where are just like free?
Yeah.
Okay. So, they're basically citizens then. What restrictions do they have that uh we
Do you think being illegally present in the country essentially makes you a citizen? Um I mean it depends on the context of what privileges they receive. However, they would be considered on visa.
They would not be considered on visa.
Okay. So what privileges would they not have then?
Are you asking me what privileges non-citizens have taken away as compared to citizens?
Is that really the question that you want to ask me?
Are they are they legally present in the country during their amnesty application?
You could argue maybe you could give them TPS. I guess
well would you? That's my question.
I wouldn't deport them. I wouldn't see a ne a need to give them either you could keep them in like a facility or you can I'm asking are you
I wouldn't see the need to keep them in a facility. No.
Okay. So they they free room. What restrictions do they have that uh we don't?
So that's what I'm asking you. Are you asking me right now what restrictions illegally present people have that citizens don't? Is that seriously the question that you're asking me right now?
Wait. No. No. No. Because amassy re No. Because if they're undergoing amassy they're not legally present. So, I'm saying they would be illegally present until they get the amnesty. I just wouldn't deport them. Is that really that hard to understand?
Oh, no. Well, it's just kind of It's just kind of an odd ideology or idea.
Well, the ideology is consequentialism. Idea is that this presents the best consequences. I've noticed that you didn't even really contest me on any of the economic metrics, right?
I did. I mean, we can go back to that, but it just be a burden shift. However, um, unless you want to debate economics out of your ass, big dog.
He's laughing. He's laughing at himself.
Laughing at the laughing at my teeth. Yeah, good point, dumbass.
Oh, [snorts] boy. Boy. Oh, boy. [music] [music]