No one wants to say it, but immigration is a huge driver of housing un-affordability. Skilled H1b immigration and/or foreign buyers drives up home prices, and unskilled illegal immigration drives up rents.
Can you elaborate on why you think this?
Otherwise, you're just driving down wages and boosting corporate/business profits with imported labor while exposing the government to domestic welfare program costs for unemployed and underemployed citizens.
https://thehill.com/lobbying/4170972-15-an-hour-isnt-enough-...
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/t...
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-immigration-doesnt-reduce-...
Some people say the immigrants will help because they'll contribute to construction. I think this is true but not an important point, and besides it probably annoys the construction unions to say it. Rather, immigrants can move to parts of the US that are cheap and starting to experience disinvestment, which is still most of it.
Besides that, housing isn't per-person, so if immigrants are more willing to live in families or have roommates it's less pressure than a lot of singles. And they pay taxes which you can use to build the housing.
As wages rise, so do rents. This is just a natural effect of people with more money being willing to pay more for the same limited supply apartment.
The only way to reduce rents is to build more apartments or have population decline.
> unskilled illegal immigration drives up rents.
Unskilled and being able to pay those higher rents sounds like they're delivering plenty of value and they're living in the area where they work so what right to you have to claim housing more than them?
Second, while you're distracted worrying about who gets to come in to the US, you're going to ignore an equally important question: How can you get out?
The 'Right' is a mix of strange bed fellows.
The Right -> Support Business which desires immigrants, they need cheap workers and to keep wages down.
The Right -> The people displaced by immigrants that want to ban them.
The Right is a bit schizophrenic.
It is just a curiosity how the 'business' side with money, has convinced the poor Christians that Jesus was for free-markets and guns. How do they do it? Is it all marketing and posturing? Why are US Christians so un-Christian and so easily fooled?
Seems that even among Christians that passage is a little in debate. Was it a metaphor for spiritual sword? Was it just for show? or Real defense?
"the sword that Jesus commands His disciples to acquire is not an iron sword but the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-did-jesu...
"Maybe this explains why Jesus replied with “that is enough” in Luke 22:38 upon hearing that the disciples already possessed two swords: their purpose was for show, not for action. (Alternatively, He may have been frustrated with their resolute tendency to accept His teachings literally)."
However, instead of thanking Peter for protecting Him, Jesus gives His disciple His own earful — of chastisement! “‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Additionally, He heals Malchus’ ear.
Here I attempt that. I think I arrive at a fairly convincing answer.
Luke 22 is the story of the Last Supper. It begins with Jesus' apostles planning the Passover feast. It includes the betrayal by Judas, and the handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities. Here also are the famous words of the Eucharist.
When he tells his apostles to buy swords, it appears at one level that he is trying to muster a defense against the Romans who have come to capture him. Yet this does not completely make sense. Two swords seems inadequate, yet he says they are enough. And in the next line or two there is a mention of prophecy, so it is as though the purpose of the swords is not really to mount an effective defense, but to adhere to some earlier prophecy. But which prophecy?
(Some people have argued that the translation "sword" is wrong, but I think it is correct; it is a kind of short sword, a weapon.)
So what prophecy is this all done to fulfill? After some research, it appears to be Isaiah 53:12.
It is also worth reading Matthew 26, which is another account of the same events. In particular, Matthew 26:52 is relevant to this discussion: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
So when we put all this together, what are we seeing? Jesus demands swords basically to be used as props, so that the events that transpire that night conform to the earlier prophecy of Isaiah.
Here we have a real man who is obsessed with living according to the written narrative. The Word made Flesh. In order to bring about good.
I think of left-activists who pay a lot of attention to the Image that they create at a protest. They themselves are probably thinking of someone like Tank Man. Often they bother me, seeming almost narcissistic. But there is an element of utilitarian consequentialism in this too. The Image does inspire others. Well, take this same thinking and put it into Judeo-Roman society around the turn of the millennium -- adapt it to the minds of these people with their religion -- and it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
This is all about making real events conform to existing prophecy, so that they will take on powerful meaning.
It does raise another question for me, though: To what extent is the sword a deliberate provocation of the Roman authorities? Is this "suicide by cop"? Clearly he doesn't want his apostles to be killed (Matthew 26:52). But is the whole point to get himself killed, to satisfy the narrative? The whole framing is that these events have been prophecied and are inevitable. But are they? How much agency does Jesus have in this scene?