7 ms·

I was listening to Dan Savage today, and he mentioned that the racism of Trump is nothing new, we did it with Catholics, Irish, Chinese, Italians, it seems most

I was listening to Dan Savage today, and he mentioned that the racism of Trump is nothing new, we did it with Catholics, Irish, Chinese, Italians, it seems most every nationality got it's brief turn as the "other". His point was that the right will eventually look back with shame on this moment too, when they demonized Mexicans and innocent refugees from Syria. His point reinforced sort of the opposite in me, something else that I have been feeling for a long time: we need to understand that many people, now and in the future will have significant problems with immigration. Whether it's right, wrong or just illogical, we on the left do ourselves no favor by writing off their feelings as racism and not at least attempting to address them. Furthermore, this is a democracy, where they should have their viewpoint at least somewhat addressed, they certainly have the numbers to warrant it. It doesn't mean we buckle to racism, but it means we accept that wariness and fear of immigration is something that has existed in this world for a long time, and these sentiments are tied to real feelings people have to feel secure. True, the real solutions to these insecurities are based on education and economic growth, not limiting immigration, but perhaps it's time we on the left said loudly "We hear you, and we understand."

buss 10y ago
> but perhaps it's time we on the left said loudly "We hear you, and we understand." Yes! A friend of mine was expressing exactly this sentiment to me the other day. One good result of this election is that it's made me aware of the sense of unhappiness and despair that a large portion of the country has; a portion of the country that I never think about or really ever sympathize with. These people have real grievances with the system that didn't help them, but those grievances are being overshadowed by their overtly racist and xenophobic solutions. Everyone should take this away from this election: lots of people are unhappy for legitimate reasons and we need real solutions to help them, or the racist solutions will have a strong appeal.
- gohrt 10y ago
  Marco Rubio tried that, everyone mocked him.
- donw 10y ago
  A book titled "Hillbilly Elegy" goes into this in great detail, and is a very important read for anybody trying to make sense of the insanity that is modern American politics (on both sides of the aisle, really).
xupybd 10y ago
One problem people seem to skip over is that the current state of immigration is broken. Regardless of the number of immigrants you think should be allowed in, none of those should be illegal. The presence of illegal immigrants hurts everyone, especially those who have no legal status. They are removed from normal legal protections, this needs to be fixed. You can not have a large part of the population in such an exploitable position. Some people who agree with what Trump is say are swayed by this side of the argument and it's valid.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  > Regardless of the number of immigrants you think should be allowed in, none of those should be illegal. The obvious technical solution is to greatly increase the number of legal immigration slots--boom, problem solved, everyone now has legal status. Unfortunately this solution would not change the conversation. Why? Because most anti-immigration folks are not concerned about protecting immigrants from exploitation, they are concerned about Mexicans and Muslims. A bunch of legal Mexicans moving into their town is no better to them than a bunch of illegal Mexicans. In fact they prefer to keep the system the broken way it is now, because it gives them a "rule of law" fig leaf to place over their racism.
  - someguydave 10y ago
    It's good that casting aspersions on large groups of strangers is limited only to most anti-immigration folks.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  > The presence of illegal immigrants hurts everyone There is a tremendous amount of work and economy in cities like Houston done by illegal immigrants. Ethics aside, there are those who benefit from this arrangement.
  - xupybd 10y ago
    True, but where they paid fair wages? Did they pay taxes? If not there is also a negative impact from all that work they did. Don't get me wrong the taxes argument is crap when you look at the tax dodge most large companies are doing via Ireland, but still.
visarga 10y ago
It's going to get much worse, especially in Africa, which is predicted to grow by 3 billion people until 2100. Asia will top out in 2050 at a little over the present population level. Europe, USA and Latin America leveled out. There are going to be 3 billions of people born in Africa, wanting to emigrate to Europe or USA. It's not going to work out, and it will get desperate unless Africa becomes a place where they want to live.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  Add in the effects of climate change and it will make the Syrian problems trivial in comparison.
rdiddly 10y ago
You're on the right track. But it has to start with realizing that there are practical, rational reasons for opposing unfettered immigration. That it's not always a fear and an insecurity, which someone needs to be "educated" out of. That it could be a well-considered position arrived at by an intelligent adult equal to yourself. As soon as you treat people as your equal (ironic ain't it) you might have a shot with them.
millstone 10y ago
It's not true that Trump's base is composed of communities who have "significant problems with immigration;" in fact Trump does worse in these areas. Contact with immigrants makes people less likely to support Trump. [1] I agree that the left does no good by labeling Trump supporters as racists. This at best shuts down dialogue, and at worst falsely accuses well-meaning citizens. But that doesn't mean the left must buy into a false narrative about Trump as a reaction to immigration or economic anxieties. Any such anxieties are a rationalization of Trump's support, not its driver. Efforts by the left to address these "anxieties" won't move the polls at all. [1] http://www.vox.com/2016/8/12/12454250/donald-trump-gallup-trade-immigration-study http://www.vox.com/2016/8/12/12454250/donald-trump-gallup-tr...
sevenless 10y ago
The nation-state is founded on the ideal of a sovereign state for a specific ethno-cultural group, and immigration fundamentally contradicts this. However, that is not a reason to oppose immigration. Mass immigration in sufficient volume will ultimately destroy the national culture. However, that culture has no inherent existence rights, not should the world be so arranged to preserve national cultures. Consider, too, that a wealthy democracy could simply refuse to help a poor neighboring nation, and let them all starve to death. That would be unjust, even though it would be perfectly democratic. This indicates that there is a fundamental problem with democracy; democracy is wrong. The flaw is not hard to find: the people most affected by the democratic decision are not those who get to make the decision. The basic problem of democracy is how the demos is defined. It is very probable that many people have xenophobic and racist instincts. Racism may be biologically ingrained. Probably 10-20% of people would like all immigrants deported. They will never be happy as long as they are not living in an ethnically 'pure' state. That is a good reason for not allowing those views any political representation. We should exclude immigration from being a legitimate democratic issue, because democratic votes on migration always turn into racist populism. Just like we shouldn't put minority rights to a vote, neither should immigration be put to a vote. Yes, immigration disrupts the way people live, but so does (for example) industrialization. The interests of the indigenous population and immigrants do conflict. But there is still no ethical reason to stop people moving to improve their lives, to limit immigration, or to confer migration veto rights on their present of former inhabitants.
sp527 10y ago
Actually there are identifiable factors at play in what we're labeling 'racism' (and maybe it is for a lot of these people who knows) that could have nothing to do with racism. For instance, it's not at all weird to feel like immunity for illegal immigrants would be unfair given that there is an immigration backlog for even highly skilled foreign workers. When there are millions of people in Africa and Asia who are both more qualified and more in need than the average illegal immigrant from Mexico, it's tantamount to arguing that geographic proximity should imply preferential treatment. Chances are the legal (voting) Hispanic demographic has reached a sizable enough proportion of the electorate that Dems have decided they're worth annexing with some platform concessions. Slap on a veneer of compassion and all of a sudden it's a part of the progressive agenda. That they got away with it so cleanly and we're no longer questioning the logic of these policies is a demonstration of one way in which the liberal left can be bamboozled as easily as the Tea Partiers.
- millstone 10y ago
  The question of improving H1-B visa geographic allotment or whatever is very shaky ground on which to build a national campaign. The movement to grant immunity to illegal immigrants is both ethical and pragmatic. Ethical because illegal immigrants who have been present in the US for more than a decade (more than half of them!) are de facto Americans, and it's wrong to deport Americans. Pragmatic because there's millions upon millions of them, and any deportation effort will be both very expensive and sure to accidentally sweep up some legal Americans. Conservatives often pair this grandfathering-in with increased border and interior security. This is at least a thoughtful and consistent response. The idea that Democrats have consciously decided to "annex" Hispanic votes gives far too much credit to the Democratic party: the hostility of Republicans explains Hispanic voting patterns much better. For example, in Florida, there are 40% more unaffiliated Hispanics than Republican-registered Hispanics [1]. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/09/democratic-edge-in-hispanic-voter-registration-grows-in-florida/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/09/democratic-e...
  - sp527 10y ago
    That's a valid opinion. Here's a different one: the ethical thing to do would be to repatriate Mexican citizens to Mexico, thereby demonstrating that we have a zero-tolerance policy for cutting the line and breaking our laws. It will cost more and take considerably more effort, but upholding our laws is the ethically correct thing to do. Time spent here does not constitute legal status. The only point of contention I can think of is what should be done with anchor babies.
nhebb 10y ago
Trump doesn't have a problem with immigration. He has a problem with illegal immigration, which is why he said - over a year ago - that there would be "a big, beautiful door in that wall so that people can come into this country legally." There's a big difference, and to make it sound like he has a blanket objection to immigrants is just plain false.
- millstone 10y ago
  This makes no sense at all. Most illegal immigrants did come into the country legally.

buss 10y ago

> but perhaps it's time we on the left said loudly "We hear you, and we understand." Yes! A friend of mine was expressing exactly this sentiment to me the other day. One good result of this election is that it's made me aware of the sense of unhappiness and despair that a large portion of the country has; a portion of the country that I never think about or really ever sympathize with. These people have real grievances with the system that didn't help them, but those grievances are being overshadowed by their overtly racist and xenophobic solutions. Everyone should take this away from this election: lots of people are unhappy for legitimate reasons and we need real solutions to help them, or the racist solutions will have a strong appeal.

gohrt 10y ago
Marco Rubio tried that, everyone mocked him.
donw 10y ago
A book titled "Hillbilly Elegy" goes into this in great detail, and is a very important read for anybody trying to make sense of the insanity that is modern American politics (on both sides of the aisle, really).

xupybd 10y ago

One problem people seem to skip over is that the current state of immigration is broken. Regardless of the number of immigrants you think should be allowed in, none of those should be illegal. The presence of illegal immigrants hurts everyone, especially those who have no legal status. They are removed from normal legal protections, this needs to be fixed. You can not have a large part of the population in such an exploitable position. Some people who agree with what Trump is say are swayed by this side of the argument and it's valid.

snowwrestler 10y ago
> Regardless of the number of immigrants you think should be allowed in, none of those should be illegal. The obvious technical solution is to greatly increase the number of legal immigration slots--boom, problem solved, everyone now has legal status. Unfortunately this solution would not change the conversation. Why? Because most anti-immigration folks are not concerned about protecting immigrants from exploitation, they are concerned about Mexicans and Muslims. A bunch of legal Mexicans moving into their town is no better to them than a bunch of illegal Mexicans. In fact they prefer to keep the system the broken way it is now, because it gives them a "rule of law" fig leaf to place over their racism.
- someguydave 10y ago
  It's good that casting aspersions on large groups of strangers is limited only to most anti-immigration folks.
bdcravens 10y ago
> The presence of illegal immigrants hurts everyone There is a tremendous amount of work and economy in cities like Houston done by illegal immigrants. Ethics aside, there are those who benefit from this arrangement.
- xupybd 10y ago
  True, but where they paid fair wages? Did they pay taxes? If not there is also a negative impact from all that work they did. Don't get me wrong the taxes argument is crap when you look at the tax dodge most large companies are doing via Ireland, but still.

visarga 10y ago

It's going to get much worse, especially in Africa, which is predicted to grow by 3 billion people until 2100. Asia will top out in 2050 at a little over the present population level. Europe, USA and Latin America leveled out. There are going to be 3 billions of people born in Africa, wanting to emigrate to Europe or USA. It's not going to work out, and it will get desperate unless Africa becomes a place where they want to live.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
Add in the effects of climate change and it will make the Syrian problems trivial in comparison.

rdiddly 10y ago

You're on the right track. But it has to start with realizing that there are practical, rational reasons for opposing unfettered immigration. That it's not always a fear and an insecurity, which someone needs to be "educated" out of. That it could be a well-considered position arrived at by an intelligent adult equal to yourself. As soon as you treat people as your equal (ironic ain't it) you might have a shot with them.

millstone 10y ago

It's not true that Trump's base is composed of communities who have "significant problems with immigration;" in fact Trump does worse in these areas. Contact with immigrants makes people less likely to support Trump. [1] I agree that the left does no good by labeling Trump supporters as racists. This at best shuts down dialogue, and at worst falsely accuses well-meaning citizens. But that doesn't mean the left must buy into a false narrative about Trump as a reaction to immigration or economic anxieties. Any such anxieties are a rationalization of Trump's support, not its driver. Efforts by the left to address these "anxieties" won't move the polls at all. [1] http://www.vox.com/2016/8/12/12454250/donald-trump-gallup-trade-immigration-study http://www.vox.com/2016/8/12/12454250/donald-trump-gallup-tr...

sevenless 10y ago

The nation-state is founded on the ideal of a sovereign state for a specific ethno-cultural group, and immigration fundamentally contradicts this. However, that is not a reason to oppose immigration. Mass immigration in sufficient volume will ultimately destroy the national culture. However, that culture has no inherent existence rights, not should the world be so arranged to preserve national cultures. Consider, too, that a wealthy democracy could simply refuse to help a poor neighboring nation, and let them all starve to death. That would be unjust, even though it would be perfectly democratic. This indicates that there is a fundamental problem with democracy; democracy is wrong. The flaw is not hard to find: the people most affected by the democratic decision are not those who get to make the decision. The basic problem of democracy is how the demos is defined. It is very probable that many people have xenophobic and racist instincts. Racism may be biologically ingrained. Probably 10-20% of people would like all immigrants deported. They will never be happy as long as they are not living in an ethnically 'pure' state. That is a good reason for not allowing those views any political representation. We should exclude immigration from being a legitimate democratic issue, because democratic votes on migration always turn into racist populism. Just like we shouldn't put minority rights to a vote, neither should immigration be put to a vote. Yes, immigration disrupts the way people live, but so does (for example) industrialization. The interests of the indigenous population and immigrants do conflict. But there is still no ethical reason to stop people moving to improve their lives, to limit immigration, or to confer migration veto rights on their present of former inhabitants.

sp527 10y ago

Actually there are identifiable factors at play in what we're labeling 'racism' (and maybe it is for a lot of these people who knows) that could have nothing to do with racism. For instance, it's not at all weird to feel like immunity for illegal immigrants would be unfair given that there is an immigration backlog for even highly skilled foreign workers. When there are millions of people in Africa and Asia who are both more qualified and more in need than the average illegal immigrant from Mexico, it's tantamount to arguing that geographic proximity should imply preferential treatment. Chances are the legal (voting) Hispanic demographic has reached a sizable enough proportion of the electorate that Dems have decided they're worth annexing with some platform concessions. Slap on a veneer of compassion and all of a sudden it's a part of the progressive agenda. That they got away with it so cleanly and we're no longer questioning the logic of these policies is a demonstration of one way in which the liberal left can be bamboozled as easily as the Tea Partiers.

millstone 10y ago
The question of improving H1-B visa geographic allotment or whatever is very shaky ground on which to build a national campaign. The movement to grant immunity to illegal immigrants is both ethical and pragmatic. Ethical because illegal immigrants who have been present in the US for more than a decade (more than half of them!) are de facto Americans, and it's wrong to deport Americans. Pragmatic because there's millions upon millions of them, and any deportation effort will be both very expensive and sure to accidentally sweep up some legal Americans. Conservatives often pair this grandfathering-in with increased border and interior security. This is at least a thoughtful and consistent response. The idea that Democrats have consciously decided to "annex" Hispanic votes gives far too much credit to the Democratic party: the hostility of Republicans explains Hispanic voting patterns much better. For example, in Florida, there are 40% more unaffiliated Hispanics than Republican-registered Hispanics [1]. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/09/democratic-edge-in-hispanic-voter-registration-grows-in-florida/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/09/democratic-e...
- sp527 10y ago
  That's a valid opinion. Here's a different one: the ethical thing to do would be to repatriate Mexican citizens to Mexico, thereby demonstrating that we have a zero-tolerance policy for cutting the line and breaking our laws. It will cost more and take considerably more effort, but upholding our laws is the ethically correct thing to do. Time spent here does not constitute legal status. The only point of contention I can think of is what should be done with anchor babies.

nhebb 10y ago

Trump doesn't have a problem with immigration. He has a problem with illegal immigration, which is why he said - over a year ago - that there would be "a big, beautiful door in that wall so that people can come into this country legally." There's a big difference, and to make it sound like he has a blanket objection to immigrants is just plain false.

millstone 10y ago
This makes no sense at all. Most illegal immigrants did come into the country legally.