Sure, you might think of it as "people with citizenship of another nation."
But I suspect it's more along the lines of "people who don't look like me."
White Afrikaaners are welcome (we'll even invent persecution and call them refugees), but folk from elsewhere (ie actual refugees), um, less welcome.
The trope about "culture assimilation" also comes up. It's OK for Irish and Italian immigrants to keep their culture, adding to the melting pot, but Mexicans and Africans less so
And sure, lots of people are friendly to "the immigrant they know" while at the same time being very against "immigration". One need look no further than the last few elections to see this in action.
When the Black Panthers armed up in the 60s, that was when California, at the time a Republican state with legal open carry, very suddenly grew the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Thinking that immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture isn’t “hating immigrants.”
Many of the people doing this are themselves children of immigrants. They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes.[1] Don’t assume people are irrational just because they don’t agree with you.
[1] Trump narrowly won the naturalized citizen vote. Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
> immigration should be slow enough that they can be thoroughly assimilated before they change American culture
I support your idea. Would you agree that all immigrants that arrived in America after, let's say, 1493, have to leave America and apply for citizenship?
If you don't agree, can you propose another immigration year after which you'd have to leave America again? Would you agree on 1783?
Your joke inadvertently shows the error in your logic. “America” (in the sense of the nation) didn’t exist in 1493. Various Indian nations existed in this land. British people didn’t “immigrate” to those Indian societies. They created a new society on the land. They were settler colonizers, as the kids say these days.
You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Nothing! If a superior civilization comes to America and wipes it out and builds a new society in its place, then those people will also be “settlers” not “immigrants.”
This entire thread is filled with people willfully lying about history like you are right now. It’s incredible to see. I can’t tell if it’s because this is a simple is vs ought distinction and you are having a hard to reconciling your ought with the is.
In his last book “The Dawn of Everything” David Graeber very convincingly argued that the idea of modern democracy came from Indian tribes in Northern America.
And it is also interesting how easily European countries went back to authoritarian or even totalitarian states given the opportunity. Yet US is more resilient and one explanation is subtle influence of Indian culture that still affects US.
As for technological advantage of Europe then 3000 years ago Ancient Egypt was way more advanced than Europe. 1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance and 500 years ago China was more advanced. And Europe was lucky that China was focused on internal problems and not territorial expansion.
I think you have to be on drugs to think that American democracy came from Indian tribes. I grew up in the Midwest, so this mirror universe explanation for the origins of my country isn’t going to work on me.
>1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance [sic] and 500 years ago China was more advanced.
Yeah real life isn’t your science fiction fantasy. None of this is true. I am aghast at how ostensibly smart people have, just in the last couple years, adopted a view of history that is completely at odds with the written record.
Eh. I wouldn't say only but it was the biggest advantage. The Europeans brought better tech and bad racism along with the terrible diseases. If they had established trade without disasters we might have seen the natives be very successful too.
> Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
Nothing, but it is our right, as Trump does, to call that an invasion and forcibly reject it.
The legally correct term is “Indian.” Obviously they had their own names for themselves. “First Nations” and “Native” are terms that are not rooted either in Indians’ names for themselves nor in the U.S. government’s name for them.
Of course native people didn’t call themselves Indian prior to settlers assigning them that name, with legal consequences. But native people usually refer to their tribe identity, like Diné or Lakota, rather than the generic term Indian.
As an actual Indian from India I do get annoyed that Columbus's misconception has lived on this long, although I understand there's nothing I can do to change that.
There's nothing I would rather be
Than to be an Aborigine
And watch you take my precious land away
For nothing gives me greater joy
Than to watch you fill each girl and boy
With superficial, existential shit
Now you may think I'm cheeky
But I'd be satisfied
To rebuild your convict ships
And sail them on the tide
I like how you think you’re dunking on immigration restrictionists but in your hypothetical you implicitly admit there’s a hierarchy of belonging and claim to a nation, and temporal proximity to its discovery and founding is quite obviously one of the most important.
It slows down the flow, which facilitates assimilation of the smaller pool people who go through the process. You’re much more likely to assimilate if you’re not living in a place with thousands of other people from your origin country.
The things you’re describing are superficial. My wife’s dad is a Japanophile and she grew up eating sushi, etc. That doesn’t make her Japanese.
Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
I’m not. I have a Bangladeshi sense of the flow of time, I have basically traditional beliefs about family structure, raising children, social obligations to elders, etc.
But I appreciate and enjoy Americans the same way I appreciate and enjoy the Japanese.
> I’m not. I have a Bangladeshi sense of the flow of time, I have basically traditional beliefs about family structure, raising children, social obligations to elders, etc.
Why don't you live by your principles and return to Bangladesh? To use your own argument (not mine), your culture is both inferior to the American culture and Americans have voted to not have "your kind" here.
One way or another, you are being disingenuous, either through your words or your actions.
And how much does the Trump administration understand and embrace the values and worldview that created the American political system. How much do they agree with the Founding Fathers? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’?
Honestly, not very well. Trump is from an immigrant background. He doesn’t talk like an American (unlike Obama or Bush or Clinton). The American right these days is filled with people from recent immigrant ancestry whose understanding of American values is something of an impersonation of the real thing.
The founder’s America ceased to exist at the national level with the election of FDR.
>>Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.
Now you are just bullshitting bc you think you have ran out of substantive things to say, which you never had, to begin with.
Do you think that kids born in America (or anywhere for that matter) don't care about fitting in with the other kids? Did you? When you were a kid were you more concerned about your Bangladeshi heritage or not being an outsider amongst your peers?
And yet I'm sure you didn't lose respect for your family and background, because one can do both things simultaneously. But those other brown people are different and bad and have bad culture that ruins things, right?
> - i started watching football with my american friends
And I'd assume and hope parts of your native culture rubbed off on your American friends.
As someone whose ancestors have been American for quite a while (1850s) I can't make sense of the idea espoused by some on this thread* that "American culture" is something that needs to be strongly protected from changing and that's why we need to virtually lock-down immigration.
The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it.
* (not you, this is just a convenient jumping off point for me to chime in on)
> But is that true? Massachusetts is one of the most functional states in the country. It is both affluent and prosperous, but also orderly and well governed. What’s a good part of Massachusetts culture that doesn’t come from the original British settlers and their descendants?
I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
> Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?
I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
> I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.
Those are all superficial. Without those cultural influences, Massachusetts would still be basically the same state, just with worse food.
> I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.
“Vibrant” is a euphemism for “chaotic and dirty.” Nobody ever says Copenhagen is “vibrant.” Massachusetts is objectively better than New York in almost every way. It has great schools while New York has shit schools, but Massachusetts spends 25% less per student. Massachusetts has much lower corruption, greater state capacity to perform public works, etc. Those are the measures of a place—not whether it is “vibrant” or “interesting.”
They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Assimilation takes generations, and the point of integration is that some of their culture is retained. That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples), or how languages evolve.
For example, I am from Amsterdam area. The culture there was heavily influenced by Jewish diaspora, and the dialect by Yiddish and Bargoens. The street language nowadays is a mish-mash of English, Jewish, and Arabian culture, as well as that which influenced Dutch language before (mainly English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and I am probably forgetting to mention some). Some parts of our culture are still artifacts from past, we just take them for granted. Last name for example, was introduced by Napoleon. The Austria-Hungarians had influence on the south, and religiously the Catholics are mainly from south (as well as entire Belgium) with the North (above the rivers) being rather Protestants. Language-wise, Belgium's history of three languages is of interest, you could say the same about Switzerland. I wouldn't call USA solely English-speaking either. Heck, just look at the names of places around SV.
Also, would you tip if the food was terrible? I wouldn't. They should be happy I paid (my wife before I knew her once had soup so salty, she send back to kitchen. Chef said was normal. They didn't resolve, yet the soup was on the bill. She and her friends just left).
My recommendation to you? Well, I am not from USA but been in Cali a couple of times. Pivot to people who accept you for who you are. Don't hide where you're coming from, use it to empower you instead.
I feel like we agree on a lot so I don’t get your conclusion.
> They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.
Correct. But why is it “hatred” for people to not want immigrants to bring foreign customs and values with them? Customs and values are substantive! The customs and values of people around you affect your life, especially in a democracy where those people get to vote on the laws that govern you.
> Assimilation takes generations
Correct! You and Stephen Miller are on the same page about that.
> That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples)
Correct again! Why is it “hatred” and “stupidity” if you think the pizza wasn’t worth the mafia?
> For example, I am from Amsterdam area
My hypothesis is that New York City would be cleaner, more polite, better governed, and more orderly if it was still New Amsterdam. But the food would be crap. Do you disagree?
Stop with your logic, please. Obviously they must complete American Nationalism training, readily available in whatever country they come from, which they can learn from Voice of America.
> ...They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes
You should also consider the other side of the equation, which is that immigration is the only thing that's keeping the US workforce and total population growing.
The size of the workforce and overall population has real economic, fiscal and quality of life impacts that every American feels on a daily basis and there's a very strong argument to be made that if your interest is in maintaining US wealth and "strength" globally, you don't want to become Japan, South Korea, Italy or Germany.
This is not to say that immigration policy should be made thoughtlessly or recklessly, but I rarely see the staunchest immigration opponents mentioning the stark demographic reality that faces the country.
56% of college grads are still looking for their first job 2 years later up from 25% for millennials. If you want to “grow the workforce” why not just hire the people already here?
Even if your statistic is true (which I don't believe it is), there are two issues here.
The first is that even if every graduate was hired tomorrow, it still wouldn't be enough to outpace the number of older workers leaving the workforce. The Social Security worker-to-retiree ratio was about 5:1 in 1960 and is about 2.7:1 now, and still dropping.
The second is that most new college grads aren't filling the jobs that need filling. The most acute shortages are in fields like agriculture, construction, home health/elder care, meat processing, and hospitality. Unless new grads are going to start doing farm work or taking care of the elderly, there still aren't enough American-born workers to meet the needs of the labor market.
So basically, immigration solves a different problem than the one you're referring to. Yours is a big one too but it's a separate issue.
Nobody above said people who disagree with them are irrational.
Nobody said immigration should happen faster than anyone can assimilate.
They said preventing people from applying for green cards while on an existing visa will make it much much harder to immigrate legally.
If you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change. On the other hand if you want to limit immigration to just the wealthy this sounds like exactly the matching policy.
Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way. Even if they all did think the US was perfect and their country of origin was garbage that STILL doesn't mean they think other people from their country are bad, obviously. Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
> you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change.
It reduces the number of immigrants, which facilitates assimilation and reduces the capacity of immigrants to change american culture.
> Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way.
The point is that it’s not just “immigrant” versus “anti-immigrant,” because immigrants themselves are split in views.
> Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.
There’s an assumption baked into your statement: that the government they left is unrelated to the “culture.” That’s hotly debated.
My parents grew up in Bangladesh, and both of them believe that Bangladesh is the way it is because of our culture. Their views on immigration thus are nuanced. They think we should treat immigrants well, obviously. But they are pretty alarmed by Little Bangladesh and the ethnic enclaves that exist now, which didn’t really exist in the 1980s when we came here.
> Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.
There is a very very large Indian community that echoes this sentiment (which you can see in very large expat FB groups) and wants to close the doors. They are extremely vocal and supportive of closing immigration, because their children now have to compete with the continuous influx.
Its just humans being human. Everyone wants to look after their own interests and there are lots of special interest groups, each with their own interests.
I cannot understand why people downvote otherwise civilized posts they disagree with, so I'll upvote.
That said, you are impressively wrong. If someone doesn't agree with me because they choose to believe obviously false or made-up data, that is being irrational.
Is it rational to suppress large-scale studies of vaccination? If someone says "I am against vaccination because there are no large-scale studies", is that rational?
As a rather conservative foreigner in the US I find this to be a very presumptive statement. We've made good friends, conservatives and liberals alike - we're people, that's what matters not the policitcal orientation. No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
I have a family split along classic ideological lines between the northeast and southeast of the US. If you are unfamiliar with conservative's hatred toward immigration, I suggest you travel more.
I just went around the circumference of the US by RV. Kinda hard to travel more.
What I do notice is a clearly liberal HN bubble that does not represent the country I see and the people I talk to and I'm not selective. You're of course entitled to your views, just don't take others' views as unfounded just because you don't agree. (Collective you). I love the US and the values it stands for but dialogue and the "I'm right, you're wrong" has to improve on both sides.
> Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate
It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).
So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.
When you come as a non-immigrant, you agree to not stay permanently. If you want to stay (because life happens and the US is a great country after all) you go through the proper channels. That may mean exiting for the duration of the process - that's entirely legitimate given the amount of abuse. No reason to invoke "hate" of any kind to justify the need for the policy. I know it's not the popular view here on HN and anti-HN-mainstream views get downvoted really fast. Think about that if you value democracy.
- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society
- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)
- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.
This may not be the intent of some conservative voters, partly because some are plausibly immigration friendly, partly because many movement conservatives have more of a opinion-vibe than a policy position on immigration (among other things).
But conservative voters that don’t want much immigration at all (especially from some places/backgrounds) absolutely exist, and more to the point so does leadership that’s determining policy with that goal in mind.
Perhaps you and your circle reflect the more egalitarian policy-driven view. Commendable if so. But it’s not commendable to deny that conservatism has a xenophobic streak a mile wide right now.
GP seemed to be commenting on the Trump administration, not necessarily individuals of conservative persuasion. The Trump administration diverges materially from traditional conservative doctrine in many ways.
> No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
If you look at the rhetoric from the Trump people over the years, they absolutely and clearly do hate immigrants, or are doing their best to seem that way. As an example, consider the following quote^[1] from Trump just a few years ago:
> They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country [...] That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.
It's trivial to find more like that. Weird white supremacist-adjacent rhetoric. Equating immigrants with animals. Etc.
American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
In fact, looking at the Silver Bulletin charts^[2] as of right now, immigration is the only macro issue they track where his approval isn't in free-fall.
That quote you pulled is about illegal immigration. Conflating undocumented immigrants with “anti-immigration” is a false equivalence.
There are no doubt people against immigration entirely but the majority opinion I hear from conservative leaning people is that legal immigration is great and people that skip the system are the problem and the drag on social safety nets.
But the legal immigration system is broken and they did that on purpose. And how is your immigration status relevant to your contribution to taxes?
It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.
It’s still a false equivalence and the concern isn’t paying something to taxes. The bottom 30-40% of all federal tax payers contribute less than they receive back. So even in a tax argument, adding additional low income earners is not a good thing for the system.
But taxes aren’t the point, we have a process for legal immigration that works for millions of people a year. This is just like every other country (with even less stringent requirements than many other countries). Why should undocumented immigrants be granted the privilege of ignoring the law? Do you argue that Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, and/or Norway should do the same?
It’s fine that many conservatives still feel this way, but they are not electing officials implementing fair, mature immigration policies. They’re electing immature people who aren’t willing to systematically think through immigration policy, and instead say whatever hateful blurb gets them the most attention.
It’s frankly despicable, and I don’t respect conservatives who continue voting for politicians who are obvious liars and at a minimum are not campaigning on bringing level-headed reasonable ideas to immigration policy — only on how much they hate immigrants. Which reflects very, very poorly on conservative voters.
There are some that try and they get roasted as “RINOs”. The problem with the two party system is that you either vote for a despicable person that implements your major beliefs or someone pleasant that wants to implement policies you think directly result in murder/famine/societal collapse.
Trump can get far worse before the calculus changes for someone who thinks abortion is murder to start voting for Elizabeth Warren.
Whatever man. Do you remember his comments last year about Ilhan Omar ("garbage") and Somalis?
> I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,
> Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,
> I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
> We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? [...] Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.
> [Minnesota is] a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,
Some other selections I found with zero effort:
> I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,
> Our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and I say, 'Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?' Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? Let us have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Do you mind?'
> I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist ten or 15 years ago.
> And I think [Europe] better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security. You’re changing — look at what’s happening. I mean, you take a look. I mean, look at what’s happening to different countries that never had difficulty, never had problems…. I do not think it’s good for Europe and I don’t think it’s good for our country.
What do you call this rhetoric if not anti-immigrant? None of this is specific to illegal immigration; he commonly targets legal immigrants with his denigratory, hateful rhetoric (see above), and his second term immigration policy has in several high-profile instances targeted legal immigrants for deportation, as well as making it more difficult to obtain residency/citizenship (see: the subject of this post).
I guess he's specifically calling out immigration from "shithole countries" (brown/black people) while he is explicitly (though apparently hypothetically) fine with white people ("people from Norway, Sweden, just a few") coming in. Maybe he's just openly racist? Is that better, easier for "conservative leaning people" to swallow? When they say "legal immigration is great", is "legal" just a wink-wink shorthand for "white"?
---
Edit: I alluded to this in a reply below, but thanks to everybody replying to this comment for demonstrating that the theoretical "conservative I know" and "conservative leaning people" are, apparently, not universally representative of conservatives.
I hope you will not be offended if I don't reply to you individually, but I'm just not interested in having a conversation about whether these attitudes are valid. It's off topic, for one thing—the fact that they exist, that they surface in this context, is the only relevant takeaway here.
In my original comment in this thread, I said this:
> American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
Thank you for demonstrating what this looks like, I guess?
By most accounts Somalia is a beautiful country. It’s currently at war, in part because of its colonial legacy. But if that stopped I would love to visit.
Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s almost as if they’re lying.
You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
No matter how many times you repeat your evasions, they are unlikely to persuade anyone that you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
What "evasions"? I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy. I don't support the policy. I think the argument advanced by the administration is wrong. I want you to tell me why you believe that, instead of just screaming "liar!" because you disagree. But you can't do that, to the extent that you'd rather attack me, even though I already agree with you.
Calling your opponent a liar convinces nobody. Making a constructive argument has a chance of doing so. But that's harder than insulting people.
> you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
You don't understand what Motte and Bailey means. I am not making an argument in favor of the policy, then backing away from that argument to a different position. I am making an argument against calling people names in lieu of actual debate.
I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening
I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations
Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm
I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were
So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort
We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success
But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that
And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age
It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times
My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that
I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding
I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs
Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
> The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
> You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
No, that is literally not what the comment said. I'm actually sort of amazed that you can get that from what I wrote, and treat is as some kind of "gotcha", when it's the top of this thread, and literally the same message I've been repeating throughout:
> Or maybe, when you say that the platform is “built upon hatred”, that’s just your opinion, and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric, then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric, is everything that is wrong with political debate in the US right now.
To wit: stop calling people liars. Make an argument instead.
The fact that the current US administration lies is indisputable. I'm not calling them liars because they "disagree with [my] rhetoric" but because they have been shown to have repeatedly lied. Saying that Trump is a liar is not "calling names" but reminding of a well-known fact. But ok, I'll indulge your bad-faith argument:
1. The administration has claimed to oppose only illegal immigration in order to encourage legal immigration. [0]
2. The administration has consistently lied about and demonized immigrants who came legally. [1]
3. Recent policies have made legal immigration more difficult. [2]
4. The effect of these policies will be to reduce legal immigration, contradicting the administration's earlier stated goals. [3]
5. The administration has repeatedly expressed white nationalist sentiment. [4]
I didn't ask you to make an argument that the administration has lied. That's trivial. And though you're getting closer with "the administration has lied about immigration issues in the past", again, that's trivial and non-responsive. And telling me that the administration is against immigration is telling me that water is wet. So what if they are? Elections have consequences, and this is not a sudden discovery.
I asked you to rebut the arguments in front of you, instead of just calling people liars. It isn't hard, if you're even a little bit intellectually curious. I'm tired of responding, so I'll just model the behavior for you, and then I'm done.
First, five reasonable arguments against this change, none of which involve calling people liars:
1) It targets the very people who are most likely to contribute positively to US society.
2) It's clearly against the intent of the original status adjustment legislation.
3) If it's actually applied to H1B visas (which is unclear), it's clearly against the intent of the 1990 immigration reform act, which established dual-status visas.
4) It seems intended to eliminate / dramatically reduce green card issuance without legislative intervention. I am against this because it is unconstitutional.
5) It discourages smart people from moving to the USA.
OK, 6:
6) It's especially cruel to families where one family member is already a US citizen or permanent resident.
Now, five arguments in favor of it:
1) It's appropriate to ask people on non-immigrant visas (e.g. tourists, students) to return home at the end of those visas, rather than creating a limbo class of people who are sitting around waiting for status transitions, which is both real (i.e. I personally know people in this situation) and a problem.
2) It distributes the review load around the world. Obviously true.
3) It was never the intent of the 1960 status adjustment legislation to allow non-immigrant visas the ability to transition directly to permanent residence.
4) However blunt the approach, it does eliminate a major incentive problem for gaming the short-term immigration system, if you know that you have to return to wherever you came from, and wait for approval.
5) While I don't think it's appropriate to make this change for pending applications (and to be clear: we don't know if that's what's happening), I think it's completely fair to announce it as a policy change going forward.
Okay, I'm surprised by how much you are missing the point, so let's imagine a dialog taking place in the 1930s in Europe.
A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national security.
B: I think that your argument in favor of genocide is based on animus and not offered in good faith.
A: How dare you call me a liar! Why don't you actually engage with my argument??
Sorry for the crude analogy, but that is what you are saying. You are completely missing what is shocking about this scenario.
Everyone already knows the arguments for and against legal immigration. We've been having that discussion for decades, or centuries, and there are valid and coherent arguments on both sides. There is no need to reiterate them here.
What is unique about the current situation is that the current administration is not engaging with valid arguments against immigration: they are offering transparently nonsense justifications, which we are not used to seeing from our government to this extreme degree -- even the bad-faith arguments for the Iraq war were dressed up in real argument clothes. No matter how you feel about immigration, you should be shocked by the administration's behavior. Not just that the arguments are unreasonable, but transparently so. Pointing that fact out is completely relevant, as it is IMHO more novel to our society and dangerous to democracy than simple immigration policy. Furthermore, treating the administration's arguments as valid just gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.
The people in favor of these policies are not making thoughtful decisions for the good of the nation and it does no one a favor to pretend that they do. They will not be persuaded by the well-reasoned arguments you point us towards because reasoning is not part of their decision making process. That's why everyone in this thread is calling you a tool, and why pointing out the bad faith is completely relevant.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I don't think I'm "talking past" the people I'm replying to -- I understand exactly what they're saying, I get that these are emotional outbursts, and I'm simply trying to re-iterate the futility of it, in the hopes that someone will get it -- but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time.
> It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other
We definitely agree on this.
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed.
> but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time
To briefly clarify, I don't believe it's pointless, that wasn't what I intended to convey, what my position is, is that the current mode of communication demands more of us, so as a result at least I and people like myself engage with it less often, but when we do, we do so wholeheartedly and if it looks like the other party isn't engaging in good faith, try a little, but are willing to wrap up, at least in my case after taking a few stabs at it
I personally find that this strategy both makes me feel more empowered and engaged in these situations as well as gives me hope that if my strategy is more sustainable, then it will slowly be adopted, which is good, I would be delighted to engage with someone who's also following this approach or something like it
> If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed
I don't think it's quite that negative, from my perspective this has become a very negative value game (in the Von Neumann sense) and being mindful of the fact that it is very much being treated like a game, adopt a strategy that allows for people to engage with it like discourse, deescalate and clearly signal my willingness to engage with the other party, yet however still be a reasonable move in that game are all goals that should be met when I communicate in these sorts of contexts
Given there's likely multiple other ways to hit those objectives, the route I'm taking only being one of them, I'm satisfied to continue tilling the odd windmill here and there
Once again, thanks for engaging, have a great day!
You kicked off this subthread by saying (among other things):
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Here's one of the ways that you're evading answering that question:
> I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy.
No one here required you to publicly marry yourself to the policy. We're all aware of situations where we can speculate on possible reasons for a position without agreeing with it in the end. So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
If you don't want to answer the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" one way of resolving the tension left by your assertion that such reasons exist would be to say something like "I don't want to speculate on specifics, I acknowledge that this weakens any assertion that such reasons exist, but I still think we shouldn't just call the reasons given dishonest." Perhaps there are other ways of resolving that tension.
But saying "I don't support the policy" is not in any way adequate. You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
> I want you to tell me why you believe that
I don't think I've personally staked a position in this discussion regarding the administration's policy, much less whether or not they're lying, so it's not clear why I'd have any obligation to defend a position before we hear what your reasons are for asserting the administration "actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
It's also not clear why someone who has staked a position that the administration's reasons are pretextual and dishonest would be obligated tell you why they think that before asking you to back up your assertion that other reasons exist, though of course you are also free to ask people why they believe something (and some people have at least mildly elaborated on specific reasons they believe the administration is not honest).
And I understand perfectly well what Motte and Bailey means. I specified exactly what I identified as your Motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) and your Bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy). Repeating your Bailey does not defend your Motte. Insisting that people are misrepresenting your Motte as a defense of the new policy does not defend your Motte, it is simply repeating your Bailey.
Your original position was "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?" and you have retreated to "I don't defend this policy so I have no obligation to defend my assertion that the other side has actual reasons I just want better discussion."
If you want better discussion, an explicitly acknowledged retreat from "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider" will look more honest and less evasive. You could also speculate on what those reasons might be, and that would also strengthen your asserted position that "the other side actually has reasons" to the extent those reasons look credible.
Some people may also be considering the possibility that your claim that you disagree with the administration's position is not honest (as well as approaching the admin as dishonest actors). That's always discouraging of course -- we certainly want to be perceived as honest when we believe we are, and it's also convenient to be perceived as honest even when we are not. I haven't staked my criticisms of your engagement on whether or not you are dishonest: I allow room for the possibility that you're honestly wrong, and even some for the possibility that you may eventually make a substantial counterargument as yet unconsidered. Still, dishonesty is a real possibility to be reckoned with, and bringing it under consideration is reasonable enough. In that light, reducing reckoning with that possibility to "just screaming 'liar!'" also looks like rhetorical evasion.
> In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Great. Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo. So instead of saying "I don't believe the people making the policy have legitimate reasons, because those people are liars and their reasons are all lies" (which is ~essentially the comment I was replying to) you can instead rebut them.
> So saying "I don't supporting the policy" is a non-sequitur.
No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact. I don't support the policy. I didn't write it. My advocacy for a policy I don't agree with is irrelevant to my argument here, which is: "don't just call people liars."
> You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
You're deflecting. If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument.
> Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo.
You could have done that in response to the person who asked you what reasons they had not considered. That would have been one reasonable way to engage, it would have mildly trespassed the bounding attempt in their statement that they had considered the memo, but it would have introduced substance backing up your claim and let you interrogate their claim that they had in fact evaluated the reasons given in the memo.
You didn't do that, though. For some reason you instead chose "I don't support the policy" which, as stated, is a non-sequitur in response to the question ""what reasons have I failed to consider?"
If you'd like to talk about the reasons in the memo or other reasons not in the memo, no one has been stopping you.
> > So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
> No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact.
A non-sequitur can be entirely factual. This means affirming something as a statement of fact is not an adequate defense against the charge of non-sequitur, it is actually a further non-sequitur.
> my argument here which is "don't just call people liars."
This may be the argument you intended to make. But because you also asserted that legitimate reasons for the policy existed and then refused to defend that assertion with a reasonable response to the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" (including "the reasons in the memo" up until this level of the discussion) and also appear determined to avoid that quality of engagement, you've ended up engaging in a way that works against a general ethos of better discussion and the micro-dynamics which support it.
There's also the fact that it's reductive to assert anyone has "just" called the administration liars. Given that the federal judiciary has retreated from traditional presumption of regularity when fulfilling their judicial responsibility[0] (ie, that the executive is acting in good faith), that's compelling reason to believe the judiciary has found a pattern of admin dishonesty in the social/institutional setting where honesty is most critical. Retreating from the presumption of honesty in lay discussion is a pretty reasonable step. This in addition to my previous argument that dishonesty certainly exists in general and reckoning with that should not simply be reduced to "screaming liar."
I can also see how someone may nevertheless feel that calling the memo transparent pretext is not adequate. The productive response to such a failure where you feel it has occurred would be to bring the official reasons from the memo into the discussion, then ask people what they specifically think is wrong with those reasons.
I didn't engage your comments to defend or attack the policy -- I probably could do that, but it certainly didn't seem to be where you've focused. Instead you've focused on the quality of the discussion, and seem to be confused about why people have been critical and even hostile towards your engagement. It seemed like if you wanted better discourse, explaining how some of your engagement draws that criticism would help. It's strange if you're not interested in that, given that your stated position is about policing the quality of engagement in general, but no one can make you focus on what you don't want to, only point out the contradiction in that as well as the problems of your engagement.
The only thing I've targeted as wrong is how you argue. That's what I hate, and with amply described reasons.
I've spent a lot of words on it under the charitable assumption that you were truthful in your desire for better discussion. At this point, you've persuaded me that was overly charitable.
Instead it appears you're determined to maintain a fictional posture implying bad behavior in others whether or not it exists so you can claim whatever fruits of grievance you're here to harvest.
If the time comes when I care about defending or attacking the memo, I'll do so effectively. I haven't taken a position on the memo. I've only asked you to sustain positions you've taken or honestly retreat from them. And not pretend other people are taking positions that they aren't, which is apparently a big ask.
It's hard because you continue to love pretending that people are calling you names even when they're not. It's hard because you find it convenient to demand people defend arguments they're not making.
My position is that your arguments are bad. I've made my arguments why. I don't have to argue about the policy, because I haven't staked a position on it.
I haven't called you names, so it's disingenuous to respond as if "Don't call people names" is on topic. For sake of contrast, saying something like "You're a dishonest piece of troll shit" might be calling you names; it's pretty clear most of my discussion has instead been focused on pointing out the problems with your arguments, positions, and rhetoric, which is part of why you're finding things so hard.
Though at this point your dishonesty is manifest to anyone following along.
This is not a debate about immigration policy. This is a debate about government-sanctioned racist scapegoating under the guise of immigration policy. Honest discussion requires calling a spade a spade.
Having a debate about the policy on their terms is exactly what they want. How well did that go when for a week in 2024 everyone was asking "Do Haitians really eat cats and dogs"
> If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not engage with bad-faith arguments because the other side has already abandoned rational debate. That's what "bad-faith" means. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, rehashing tired old pro- and anti-immigrant arguments.
I think the policy is wrong, and allegedly so do you, but that's not relevant, because the validity of the policy is not the problem here. The fact that the government has abandoned the pretense of rational policy in favor of feeding raw meat to its rabid audience in favor of openly racist policies is much more problematic. Saying, "Aktshually, immigrants on average contribute to the GDP!" is going to change exactly no one's mind.
Seriously. I wish I could find any positive-constructive [0] results/values to frame Trumpism in terms of. I understood why people voted for him in 2016, or at least I thought I did. But based on his actual results, I've been trying to steelman for ~6 years now. I haven't been able to come up with any positive values, the only things I'm ever able to come up with are destruction, spite, and hate.
Trump supporters should be perfectly capable of articulating some positive values they see Trump as actually championing. There's really no reason to be arguing for them. But rather instead, I just see fewer and fewer flags up as the damage to our country grows and grows. I guess the reality is finally setting in?
[0] eg "deport immigrants" isn't a positive result as it's framed around a negative (immigrants not being here). "Fix the economy for manual labor" or "Restore X/Y/Z cultural values (that immigrants are supposedly disrupting)" would be positive values. But of course Trump hasn't actually made either of those examples better.
> thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to lend undeserved legitimacy to a corrupt policy-making apparatus that does not deserve it.
Well yeah, they are lies. It's quite obvious to everyone who's not caught up in the lies. Those people can't be convinced anyway, so they're not the target audience.
> OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable.
> If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate?
You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts.
For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff?
None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down.
Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts.
Let me show you how that works:
> Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?
We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy.
For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to:
> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.
Look man there are several different ways people argue and calling someone a liar or saying a policy is cruel despite the official line is entirely reasonable. If you’re taking that so personally that you have to personally respond to everyone about that then I have to wonder if you’re just trying to defend the policy in a motte and then retreat to the bailey of “I don’t support the policy I just don’t like how you’re arguing.” Calling someone cruel or a liar is not a slur, they’re calling out what they view as shameful acts. I think it’s within the bounds of civility to call someone cruel or a liar. I really think you’re just trolling with repeated requests for civility here.
Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric
The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.
I’m tired of people acting so naive past the point of zip-tying entire apartment buildings and building concentration camps. White supremacist manners and politeness are disgusting.
In the nineties usian professor of philosophy Rick Roderick produced a series of lectures for The Teaching Company called The Self Under Siege. Perhaps they might change your view that this is a recent development.
In 2011 the usian professor of political science Corey Robin published a book on conservative thought, which is a pretty succinct and easy read. Here's the second edition:
"Rights" is not the point. You're correct that a country doesn't have to welcome you.
However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live.
I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.
This is not true. It’s a pernicious lie that the United States has always been doors open, and this falsity makes discussing this topic increasingly impossible because it’s like there’s two different realities that aren’t reconcilable. The US became the economic powerhouse and world power it did during the most restrictive period of its immigration history. The amount of immigration over the last 30 years, and especially over the last decade, is completely unusual and unprecedented. I can go to neighborhoods in the city I grew up in where I played baseball as a kid and it is quite literally completely foreign. A lot of people, and you seem to be one of them, think that America’s immigration system is a cosmic vacuum cleaner that scoops up would-be Einsteins from around the planet and plops them in US cities where they churn out unicorns between writing an opera and running a 10k. This isn’t the case.
The percent of the US population that is foreign-born is about the same as it was before 1920.
To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars.
(and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births).
Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.
I'm quite fine with that. I drove through an Armenian neighborhood of LA and stopped for a meal at a restaurant whose name I could not comprehend and it was really, fucking tasty. Zhengyalov Hatz in Glendale, if anyone is wondering.
But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes the US awesome. "Would-be Einsteins" are far from the only flavor hard-working people who I absolutely welcome.
Cato is doing their usual thing here where they lie by omission.
>These foreigners, if not properly disposed of, will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.[1]
-Thomas Jefferson
The Founders had a conception of immigration that is completely at odds with the free for all that exists today, and Cato is partially responsible for people incorrectly thinking that the US was “literally built on the idea of immigration”.
Europeans who arrived, seized land, imported enslaved people, broke treaties, then later decided that later arrivals were the real problem? Those Europeans?
Would you prefer the United States didn’t exist or something? What is even the point of this comment. “Bad things happened in history, there was violence and war and conquering, woe is me” this is what you sound like. Profound, truly.
Did you roll a dice and pick one or are you actually familiar with Navajo history or something and that’s why you tried to use this retort as a way to imply you’re not allowed to have opinions on American immigration policy unless you’re from a Native American tribe?
> because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world
"From around the world" more like the "world tour" definition
They were welcoming mostly Europeans. First from WASP countries, then for more southern/eastern ones. And then from East Asia (I'll save the rant about the word "Asian" for another time)
Every piece of data shows some groups excel while some groups lag behind
(of course I haven't forgotten about other groups of people that came to the US but most of those didn't come willingly)
I didn't say it's a good policy. I just said it's not some moral failing to not allow immigration. The implication of all these criticisms of the Republican administration's policy on immigration is that if they oppose immigration, they're racist. I find this to be a very manipulative form of emotional blackmail that abuses the racism allegation.
The current Republican regime’s only pro-immigration policy is white South Africans. Your knee jerk defense to a point no one made is inconsistent with the facts
I'd have more sympathy for that view if it were straightforward regulations being passed that placed strict and objective limits on the process. However what we have in practice appears to be a campaign to spread fear and uncertainty via underhanded regulations while feigning ignorance.
It is a moral failing when many times the immigrants coming to the US are coming from countries destabilized by our direct or indirect involvement. Reaping the benefits of our colonization while washing our hands of any of the consequences is morally wrong.
I don't know how you would possibly quantify the U.S. impact on the stability of other countries. The historical default has been extreme instability. It's only in the last 200 years or so that nation-states as we know them have existed in most of the world. Before that, a lot of the world was ruled by warlords, petty kings, and empires fighting over territory.
So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances.
You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.
I'm not sure that immigration policy is relevant to libertarianism because a nation in some sense is like private property. So one could argue that the people of a country have a collective right to restrict who enters their borders. Transversing a nation's airspace would be a different story. I think if a nation blocked other nations from using its airspace for transversal it would be a violation of other people's rights, by abusing, essentially, private property exclusivity.
That's just a way to rationalize policies that are obviously anti-liberty. Is the Texas/Mexico border my property? Really? All of it? And isn't abuse of private property anti-liberty anyway? You literally just said it is.
Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.
Preventing people from encroaching on your nation is fundamentally no different than preventing people from trespassing on your property. It's not anti-liberty, since we don't have an inherent right to any land on earth. That right to occupy a piece of land, to the extent that it exists, emerges through homesteading and the principle of First Possession.
As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?
Through what right do countries exist and have rights and those rights transfer to their citizens? What causes me to have a right to control the Texas/Mexico border?
A political community can make a claim over a territory because it builds institutions that build and defend it. It's not identical to homesteading, but it's similar. Think of private property and national sovereignty as different layers of ownership that emerge through similar principles.
Non-European origin immigrants, presumably? Like are they against Irish people coming over in small numbers? Just wondering if you’re actually blanket saying they hate immigrants, I hadn’t heard about that.
Well not really. If they make an exception it’s much easier to call them racist. Also what the people in the party or whatever support and what the government actions are are rarely exactly aligned.
