Reframe the illegal immigration debate as a climate change issue.
The ecosystems these people use cant survive the excess population. We live in a scarcity of resources. We need regular counts of population and those populations contributing to their communities so that we can properly manage our resources.

Whooolllllleeee basis of the legitment removal of illegal immigrants.
Contribute to your local community or leave.

>>510062617 (OP)
>cant survive the excess population
If anything illegals are being imported en masse because billionaire business owners fear what the steady decline in native birth rates means for their bottom line in the future. An "excess population" is exactly what most elites are hoping for as the alternative is an eventual decline in their revenue streams. Your entire thread starts off on a false premise.

>>510062617 (OP)
the problem with that is it is not real. Ecology for the sake of climate change is like looking for UFOs for the sake of aviation safety. Both are only administrative methods that obscure what is actually occurring.
>We live in a scarcity of resources
you can begin with that and eventually arrive at a conclusion much greater than immigration

>>510062810
Your hypothesis implies capitalists are in control.

>>510062617 (OP)
The criticism should really start with the decline in global birthrates. This really should not be happening. It surprised everyone. There is no economic method being practiced today that can manage current affairs with a declining global population, because as population begin to decrease there is no way to manage the complexity of technological infrastructure we have invested in. About the same time this begins to occur oil reserves will have past the threshold capable of supporting a consumer lifestyle. This is no coincidence. It is no coincidence that the modern urban lifestyle everywhere in the world is incapable of reproducing itself.

This is really all much more about just immigration. It is about the very basic things living systems need to survive

>>510063289
>Your hypothesis implies capitalists are in control
2 things here:
a) No one is in control. Control is an off switch. Everything about modern life is consuming as much as possible unbounded by limitation including communism. It is perhaps shocking to realize that limitations are not a part of any political idea in the past 300 years so introducing that in any way would technically be a revolutionary act alone.
b) There is no capital. oil is not capital. Capital is a store of value and everything we produce and consume is made with oil. When that oil becomes to expensive to mine, the value of that infrastructure will be zero. By this definition it cannot be capital. You will need a different energy source altogether that does not depend on hydrocarbons and this does not exist currently.

>>510062617 (OP)
>Reframing
yes you are pointing in the right direction however this is a massive topic. It's not just a new talking point