4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    Upholding an unjust law is not ethical. The right thing to do is repeal the law. It is absurd to say refugees and fruit pickers living on next to nothing are cutting in line, as though they are in an equal position to German mechanical engineers with PhDs.
    - sp527 10y ago
      I don't subscribe to Utopianism. I'm a pragmatist. And what you're describing is patently naive.

by sp527 10y ago

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.
- sevenless 10y ago
  Upholding an unjust law is not ethical. The right thing to do is repeal the law. It is absurd to say refugees and fruit pickers living on next to nothing are cutting in line, as though they are in an equal position to German mechanical engineers with PhDs.
  - sp527 10y ago
    I don't subscribe to Utopianism. I'm a pragmatist. And what you're describing is patently naive.