Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
by far the weakest arguments in favor of immigration are the ones that focus on "labor shortage"
like, believe it or not immigration is actually good because it's generally preferable for people to have freedom of movement (and generally preferable to avoid wasting resources on restricting freedom of movement when those resources could be better spent elsewhere) not because business owners can benefit from exploiting immigrant labor-which does not help immigrants (who believe it or not also want to be paid a living wage) and does not help domestic born workers.
and frankly, when people make critiques of immigration that focus on how it might affect wages and employment, you should be countering that by offering methods to protect wages and employment that are more effective than anti-immigration policy (for example job guarantees, minimukm wage, better labor protection overall, etc) not dismissing those concerns as unimportant or, worse, framing low-paid labor as some kind of benefit.
if you do the latter, you've made it clear that you don't actually care about the well-being of immigrants.
I understand you are communicating that using the "labor shortage" as a pro immigration argument dehumanizes immigrants.
But your words also gave me the impression that maybe you think domestic born workers do not benefit from immigration? And although I find it disgusting how the biggest debates on immigration are on how it affects non-immigrants, but facts are important.
Statistics show that immigration has an overall positive impact on the US economy and domestic born workers do benefit from immigrant labor. Domestic born workers would benefit even more if non-citizens had better labor rights.
So one doesn't need to frame immigrant labor as a benefit; the reality happens to be that immigrant labor is a benefit to U.S. citizens.
I don't agree with the centrist liberal politics of the sources but they have relevant information:
Introduction and executive summary Immigration has been a source of strength for the U.S. economy and has great potential to boost it even m
immigration to the United States has contributed greatly to growing the economy, and foreign-born workers have been complementary to U.S. workers and expanded opportunities for them. From an economic and labor force perspective, continuing or increasing immigration levels is not something to be feared if the right polices are in place and governance is improved. The challenges and potential pitfalls that must be addressed are mainly the result of workers lacking equal rights in the workplace due to their immigration status.
Our nation’s immigration policy continues to be an issue of debate among policymakers, particularly the impact on the U.S. labor force. Mich
Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans.
But your words also gave me the impression that maybe you think domestic born workers do not benefit from immigration?
if anything I've said gives that impression then there's clearly a miscommunication occurring because I absolutely do think domestic born workers benefit from immigration on the whole
my point rather is that when people express anxieties about how immigration might affect employment or wages, it's better to point to studies like the ones you posted to demonstrate that immigration generally isn't detrimental to employment and wages, and is on the whole a net positive for workers,and also to push for job guarantees and labor rights, since if everyone is guaranteed a job and a good wage, that gives less power to scare tactics about how employment or wages might be affected by immigration.
what i'm criticizing is certain arguments-often associated with the more right-libertarian immigration advocates- which either explicitly or implicitly dismiss concerns about wages or employment as unimportant, or worse, treat the notion of immigration pushing down wages as a benefit, which is the subtext of the "labor shortage" and "jobs americans don't want to do" arguments. people who make these sort of arguments harm the immigrant rights cause more than they help it.
Oh ok yes, my interpretation was inaccurate. I did not realize people use the specific detail that the lack of labor rights non-citizens have allow them to be exploited for their labor as a legitimate pro-immigration argument. But you are correct, that is definitely the subtext of "doing the jobs Americans don't want to do".
not because business owners can benefit from exploiting immigrant labor-which does not help immigrants (who believe it or not also want to be paid a living wage) and does not help domestic born workers.
what i meant here is domestic-born workers don't benefit from the exploitation of immigrants. domestic workers benefit from immigration in other ways, but the exploitation of immigrants by their employers only helps their employers. but yeah my bad, I could have worded that more clearly.
I would have to say that it is not cut and dry that domestic-born workers don’t benefit from the exploitation of working-class immigrants as many economic conditions they inadvertently enjoy *rely* on the existence of exploitation.
The price per hour is the defining trait of the exploited immigrant and in certain industries, such as food production and domestic/hospitality services, these economics have flow-on effects to the live-style of the domestic-born worker.
My reference is South East Asian and European countries tbf so maybe it’s different in the US.
I mean my personal hunch would be that money saved through lowering labor costs would mostly just be used to pad profit margins rather than reduce the price of the product.
by far the weakest arguments in favor of immigration are the ones that focus on "labor shortage"
like, believe it or not immigration is actually good because it's generally preferable for people to have freedom of movement (and generally preferable to avoid wasting resources on restricting freedom of movement when those resources could be better spent elsewhere) not because business owners can benefit from exploiting immigrant labor-which does not help immigrants (who believe it or not also want to be paid a living wage) and does not help domestic born workers.
and frankly, when people make critiques of immigration that focus on how it might affect wages and employment, you should be countering that by offering methods to protect wages and employment that are more effective than anti-immigration policy (for example job guarantees, minimukm wage, better labor protection overall, etc) not dismissing those concerns as unimportant or, worse, framing low-paid labor as some kind of benefit.
if you do the latter, you've made it clear that you don't actually care about the well-being of immigrants.
I understand you are communicating that using the "labor shortage" as a pro immigration argument dehumanizes immigrants.
But your words also gave me the impression that maybe you think domestic born workers do not benefit from immigration? And although I find it disgusting how the biggest debates on immigration are on how it affects non-immigrants, but facts are important.
Statistics show that immigration has an overall positive impact on the US economy and domestic born workers do benefit from immigrant labor. Domestic born workers would benefit even more if non-citizens had better labor rights.
So one doesn't need to frame immigrant labor as a benefit; the reality happens to be that immigrant labor is a benefit to U.S. citizens.
I don't agree with the centrist liberal politics of the sources but they have relevant information:
Introduction and executive summary Immigration has been a source of strength for the U.S. economy and has great potential to boost it even m
immigration to the United States has contributed greatly to growing the economy, and foreign-born workers have been complementary to U.S. workers and expanded opportunities for them. From an economic and labor force perspective, continuing or increasing immigration levels is not something to be feared if the right polices are in place and governance is improved. The challenges and potential pitfalls that must be addressed are mainly the result of workers lacking equal rights in the workplace due to their immigration status.
Our nation’s immigration policy continues to be an issue of debate among policymakers, particularly the impact on the U.S. labor force. Mich
Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans.
But your words also gave me the impression that maybe you think domestic born workers do not benefit from immigration?
if anything I've said gives that impression then there's clearly a miscommunication occurring because I absolutely do think domestic born workers benefit from immigration on the whole
my point rather is that when people express anxieties about how immigration might affect employment or wages, it's better to point to studies like the ones you posted to demonstrate that immigration generally isn't detrimental to employment and wages, and is on the whole a net positive for workers,and also to push for job guarantees and labor rights, since if everyone is guaranteed a job and a good wage, that gives less power to scare tactics about how employment or wages might be affected by immigration.
what i'm criticizing is certain arguments-often associated with the more right-libertarian immigration advocates- which either explicitly or implicitly dismiss concerns about wages or employment as unimportant, or worse, treat the notion of immigration pushing down wages as a benefit, which is the subtext of the "labor shortage" and "jobs americans don't want to do" arguments. people who make these sort of arguments harm the immigrant rights cause more than they help it.
Oh ok yes, my interpretation was inaccurate. I did not realize people use the specific detail that the lack of labor rights non-citizens have allow them to be exploited for their labor as a legitimate pro-immigration argument. But you are correct, that is definitely the subtext of "doing the jobs Americans don't want to do".
not because business owners can benefit from exploiting immigrant labor-which does not help immigrants (who believe it or not also want to be paid a living wage) and does not help domestic born workers.
what i meant here is domestic-born workers don't benefit from the exploitation of immigrants. domestic workers benefit from immigration in other ways, but the exploitation of immigrants by their employers only helps their employers. but yeah my bad, I could have worded that more clearly.
Even in situations like this when the 'roles are reversed', they aren't really reversed. She is still wearing her makeup, has her hair done, her nails done, wears jewellery, is wearing clothes that aren't comfortable and that are ornamental, I could go on.
If the roles really were reversed, she would be wearing comfortable and functional clothes, she'd be bare faced and she wouldn't be so focused on making herself 'look presentable'.
The fact that she's still doing all of these things leads me to believe that this is still a male fantasy, a fetish for him. Under that full burka, is he shaven? Is he dehumanisingly ornamented for the female gaze? Does he obsess over his weight or his complexion? Most likely no, because he can take it off and go about living his life while she must still perform for him even in a situation were the 'roles are reversed'.
"Must still perform". No, she doesn't have to. Women cause their own problems by slathering their skin in cancer causing chemicals. It's time to grow up ladies, and take responsibility for your decisions to participate in and uphold patriarchy. Not everything is mens fault.
absolutely outlandish discourse happening in the notes here.
at the risk of stating the obvious, women putting more effort into their appearance because they have been socially pressured to do so are the victims of patriarchy not it's perpetrators.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
love island should introduce a "scheming eunuch" islander who is like a smart and completely asexual islander exempt from being kicked off or being made to participate in any challenges and they're just there to provide advice and be a sort of sounding board for the other islanders when they need a disinterested party to talk things through with. but the scheming eunuch has secret goals unbeknownst to anyone e.g. a cash prize for talking a certain couple into breaking up etc.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
KATHMANDU: Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s renewed political engagement has reignited debate over the prospects of left unity in Nepa
KATHMANDU: Former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s renewed political engagement has reignited debate over the prospects of left unity in Nepal, with her recent initiative to bring together four former communist prime ministers widely interpreted as an attempt to position herself at the center of a possible realignment.
Although the CPN-UML had long shown little enthusiasm for broader left unity, the party’s weakening political position has prompted even UML Chair KP Sharma Oli to publicly endorse greater cooperation among communist and democratic forces. Political observers, however, argue that while Bhandari’s activism has revived discussion, there is still no consensus that she is the natural leader of a unified communist movement.
The speculation intensified after Bhandari invited leaders from rival communist factions to a program marking the 75th birth anniversary of the late Madan Bhandari. The event brought together Oli, Nepali Communist Party coordinator Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda ‘, co-coordinator Madhav Kumar Nepal and leader Jhala Nath Khanal—figures who have spent years divided by political rivalries.
While the gathering was seen as a symbolic breakthrough, none of the leaders explicitly endorsed Bhandari as a future leader of a united left. Analysts say that simply assembling them on one stage was itself a political success that strengthened Bhandari’s standing as she seeks an active return to politics.
People close to the former president say she is interested in playing a leadership role in the communist movement. Members of her secretariat, however, argue that the country’s political circumstances—not personal ambition—have created the need for her leadership.
Can Bhandari revive Nepal’s communist movement?
Political analysts caution that Bhandari’s return alone is unlikely to restore the declining influence of Nepal’s communist parties.
They argue that communist parties have steadily lost their connection with working-class and grassroots voters, making it difficult for any individual leader to rebuild public trust without broader institutional reforms.
UML Central Committee member Naresh Rokaya believes Bhandari could provide transitional leadership if left unity materializes but says such an arrangement should only be temporary.
“Nepal’s political landscape has changed significantly,” Rokaya said. “She may be able to lead during a transition, but leadership should ultimately pass to the second or third generation through a democratic convention.”
Former UML minister Gokul Baskota expressed a similar view, arguing that leaders who have already occupied the highest offices cannot realistically claim they alone can revive the communist movement.
Instead, he said communist parties must first acknowledge their mistakes and apologize to the public before pursuing another round of unity.
“The public is carefully watching every step,” Baskota said. “Without self-criticism, calls for unity will have little credibility.”
Nepali Communist Party central committee member Aarti Lama also supported a transitional arrangement, saying parties should eventually elect a new generation of leadership through democratic processes.
Are other communist leaders ready to accept Bhandari?
The participation of four former communist prime ministers at Sunday’s event fueled speculation about Bhandari’s growing influence.
Alongside Oli, Prachanda, Madhav Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal all expressed support for greater communist cooperation, although none suggested Bhandari should lead such an alliance.
Even Oli, who had previously been reluctant to discuss left unity, called for communist parties and democratic forces to work together in pursuit of socialism.
Madhav Nepal, however, insisted that meaningful unity would only be possible after party leaders openly acknowledged their past mistakes—a remark widely interpreted as directed at Oli.
Political analyst Shyam Shrestha said Bhandari could emerge as a consensus figure only if major communist leaders explicitly supported her leadership.
“So far, there has been no indication that the four leaders are ready to hand over leadership to Bidya Bhandari,” he said.
He also noted that younger leaders across communist parties appear increasingly unwilling to return senior leaders to power, reflecting broader public sentiment in favor of generational change.
Leaders close to Prachanda similarly indicate that he is not prepared to step aside in favor of Bhandari. Analysts also believe Oli has shown little willingness to elevate her to lead the broader communist movement.
Former prime minister Jhala Nath Khanal dismissed speculation over leadership, saying discussions have focused only on the principle of left unity.
“We support left unity, but there has been no discussion about who should lead it,” Khanal said.
Former Maoist leader Devendra Paudel also argued that communist parties must first examine their own failures before discussing organizational unity.
Meanwhile, communist thinker Ghanshyam Bhusal warned that another rushed merger, similar to the 2018 Nepal Communist Party experiment, could repeat past mistakes. He argued that senior leaders should make way for younger generations if the movement is to regain credibility.
Unity beyond the major parties
Observers say Bhandari’s efforts have so far focused largely on bringing together the UML and Prachanda-led Nepal Communist Party, while many of Nepal’s two dozen smaller communist factions remain outside the conversation.
Leaders including Bhim Rawal have recently called for broader left consolidation involving all communist groups.
Political analyst Mumaram Khanal argued that genuine unity remains unlikely because senior leaders continue to prioritize personal positions over collective sacrifice.
“There is little willingness among top leaders to give up power,” he said. “Broader communist unity requires dialogue among all factions, not just two major parties.”
Analysts agree that sustainable unity would require leaders to reconnect with ordinary citizens, listen to public grievances, acknowledge past failures and demonstrate greater willingness to compromise.
Although discussions on left unity have resumed, they say meaningful progress remains uncertain without significant political reform and generational renewal.
What does Bhandari want?
Rajkumar Rai, a member of Bhandari’s secretariat, confirmed that the former president intends to return to active politics after renewing her UML membership.
He declined to say whether she specifically seeks to lead the communist movement but said she would be prepared to accept such responsibility if party leaders reached a consensus.
“If leaders conclude that broader communist unity is necessary and believe she should lead it, she is willing to shoulder that responsibility,” Rai said.
Sources close to Bhandari say she is also being discussed internally as a possible alternative to Oli within the UML, at least on an interim basis.
According to one leader close to her, a future Central Committee decision to dissolve existing party committees and appoint an interim organizing committee could potentially pave the way for Bhandari to assume temporary leadership before a general convention.
However, the same source acknowledged that many second- and third-generation UML leaders remain unconvinced that replacing one veteran leader with another addresses the party’s deeper challenges.
“The current political mood favors younger leadership,” the source said. “Even if she were accepted as a transitional leader, that arrangement is unlikely to continue through the next general election.”
For now, Bhandari’s recent activism suggests she is positioning herself either to lead a broader communist realignment or to emerge as a viable alternative within the UML should circumstances permit. Whether Nepal’s fragmented communist leadership is prepared to embrace that role, however, remains an open question.
by far the weakest arguments in favor of immigration are the ones that focus on "labor shortage"
like, believe it or not immigration is actually good because it's generally preferable for people to have freedom of movement (and generally preferable to avoid wasting resources on restricting freedom of movement when those resources could be better spent elsewhere) not because business owners can benefit from exploiting immigrant labor-which does not help immigrants (who believe it or not also want to be paid a living wage) and does not help domestic born workers.
and frankly, when people make critiques of immigration that focus on how it might affect wages and employment, you should be countering that by offering methods to protect wages and employment that are more effective than anti-immigration policy (for example job guarantees, minimukm wage, better labor protection overall, etc) not dismissing those concerns as unimportant or, worse, framing low-paid labor as some kind of benefit.
if you do the latter, you've made it clear that you don't actually care about the well-being of immigrants.
I understand you are communicating that using the "labor shortage" as a pro immigration argument dehumanizes immigrants.
But your words also gave me the impression that maybe you think domestic born workers do not benefit from immigration? And although I find it disgusting how the biggest debates on immigration are on how it affects non-immigrants, but facts are important.
Statistics show that immigration has an overall positive impact on the US economy and domestic born workers do benefit from immigrant labor. Domestic born workers would benefit even more if non-citizens had better labor rights.
So one doesn't need to frame immigrant labor as a benefit; the reality happens to be that immigrant labor is a benefit to U.S. citizens.
I don't agree with the centrist liberal politics of the sources but they have relevant information:
Introduction and executive summary Immigration has been a source of strength for the U.S. economy and has great potential to boost it even m
immigration to the United States has contributed greatly to growing the economy, and foreign-born workers have been complementary to U.S. workers and expanded opportunities for them. From an economic and labor force perspective, continuing or increasing immigration levels is not something to be feared if the right polices are in place and governance is improved. The challenges and potential pitfalls that must be addressed are mainly the result of workers lacking equal rights in the workplace due to their immigration status.
Our nation’s immigration policy continues to be an issue of debate among policymakers, particularly the impact on the U.S. labor force. Mich
Although many are concerned that immigrants compete against Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans.
But your words also gave me the impression that maybe you think domestic born workers do not benefit from immigration?
if anything I've said gives that impression then there's clearly a miscommunication occurring because I absolutely do think domestic born workers benefit from immigration on the whole
my point rather is that when people express anxieties about how immigration might affect employment or wages, it's better to point to studies like the ones you posted to demonstrate that immigration generally isn't detrimental to employment and wages, and is on the whole a net positive for workers,and also to push for job guarantees and labor rights, since if everyone is guaranteed a job and a good wage, that gives less power to scare tactics about how employment or wages might be affected by immigration.
what i'm criticizing is certain arguments-often associated with the more right-libertarian immigration advocates- which either explicitly or implicitly dismiss concerns about wages or employment as unimportant, or worse, treat the notion of immigration pushing down wages as a benefit, which is the subtext of the "labor shortage" and "jobs americans don't want to do" arguments. people who make these sort of arguments harm the immigrant rights cause more than they help it.
by far the weakest arguments in favor of immigration are the ones that focus on "labor shortage"
like, believe it or not immigration is actually good because it's generally preferable for people to have freedom of movement (and generally preferable to avoid wasting resources on restricting freedom of movement when those resources could be better spent elsewhere) not because business owners can benefit from exploiting immigrant labor-which does not help immigrants (who believe it or not also want to be paid a living wage) and does not help domestic born workers.
and frankly, when people make critiques of immigration that focus on how it might affect wages and employment, you should be countering that by offering methods to protect wages and employment that are more effective than anti-immigration policy (for example job guarantees, minimum wage, better labor protection overall, etc) not dismissing those concerns as unimportant or, worse, framing low-paid labor as some kind of benefit.
if you do the latter, you've made it clear that you don't actually care about the well-being of immigrants.
Yes, but sometimes changing people’s minds requires appealing to their sense of reason for arguments to make sense. If we want to bring more people to this side of the argument, we first need to meet them where they are -rhetorically- in the HOPES that they’ll come to understand the more important, nuanced spirit behind these issues
okay, but if you tell people that the reason immigration is good is because it allows business owners to underpay employees, the average person will say "oh, well I'm an employee, and not a business owner, so that sounds bad to me actually."
like the "labor shortage" argument very specifically only appeals to business owners, who are not the majority of the population. and it's completely repulsive to workers, who are the majority of the population.
"meeting people where they're at" is very specifically what you're *not* doing if you use the "labor shortage" argument.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
kaledo-art
prguitarman
romaincrisis
jbbartram-illu
ellievsbear
blakekathryn
janainaart
