3 ms·

Except that there was, in Bannon's famous "there are too many Asian CEOs" radio interview with Trump, they floated the idea of cutbacks on legal immigration, so

Except that there was, in Bannon's famous "there are too many Asian CEOs" radio interview with Trump, they floated the idea of cutbacks on legal immigration, some of which would impact current immigrants seeking to bring over family members. Moreover, if you were a legal immigrant on an H1-B, and you happened to have dual nationality with one of the "bad" countries on Trump's list, you quickly found out that you could no longer risk travel outside the country. A large number of Canadian-Iranian/British-Iranian immigrants found they were suddenly capable of being banned. Acting like the election campaign was no cause for concern is completely ignoring the obvious warning signs, like "We need a TOTAL SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE COUNTRY". If this had been "We need a total shutdown of JEWS", would you be so flippant with people's concerns about the campaign talk?

jrs95 9y ago
> the idea of cutbacks on legal immigration, some of which would impact current immigrants seeking to bring over family memebers So what? They don't have some sort of magical automatic right to be here just because one of their relatives is. >If this had been "We need a total shutdown of JEWS", would you be so flippant with people's concerns about the campaign talk? If Jewish immigrants had been engaging in the amount of terrorism we've seen in Europe recently...yes, I would be just as flippant.
- untog 9y ago
  > If Jewish immigrants had been engaging in the amount of terrorism we've seen in Europe recently...yes, I would be just as flippant. Do you think that white people in America engage in too much mass shooting, and consequently should have additional regulations applied to them regarding gun ownership?
  - jrs95 9y ago
    No, and if you took a closer look at the stats you'd see that it's not even true that they're disproportionately responsible for mass shootings or terrorism generally.
    - cromwellian 9y ago
      The probability of you being killed by a terrorist or a Muslim in the US is tiny compared to your chances of being killed by a native born or white (assuming you're white). The percentages are so small, it makes such an outsized concern obviously racist because from a rational risk assessment point of view, it changes nothing. >So what? They don't have some sort of magical automatic right to be here just because one of their relatives is. We have generally held it is good policy to keep families together. And the times when it was not allowed (e.g. Chinese Exclusion Act) were specifically done for RACIST purposes, not rational ones. Tons of Chinese men were prevented from being reunited with their wives because of that, and still more single ones were prevented from marrying locals by anti-miscegenation laws. These kinds of attitudes are basically the ones that allow you to be manipulated by political parties and have your attention diverted from real issues. Xenophobia works unfortunately, as studies and social experiments from the 60s and 70s show, blaming woes on "the other" is a tried and true tactic. You can take tiny issues related to foreigners or other tribes and blow them up so large they dominate the discussion. Immigration and terrorism are not the largest issues facing this country, yet they completely dominated the election.
      - jrs95 9y ago
        >The probability of you being killed by a terrorist or a Muslim in the US is tiny compared to your chances of being killed by a native born or white (assuming you're white). The percentages are so small, it makes such an outsized concern obviously racist because from a rational risk assessment point of view, it changes nothing. It's a tiny risk because it's a small fraction of an already tiny proportion of the population. Increasing that proportion of the population will lead to a higher level of risk. We've already seen what that looks like in Europe, and that all began to accelerate rather quickly in the last few years. It's very rational to not want that to happen here as well. > We have generally held it is good policy to keep families together. And the times when it was not allowed (e.g. Chinese Exclusion Act) were specifically done for RACIST purposes, not rational ones. Tons of Chinese men were prevented from being reunited with their wives because of that, and still more single ones were prevented from marrying locals by anti-miscegenation laws. While that makes some amount of sense, it also leads to chain migration and ultimately displaces more of the native population economically AND politically. We can't ignore that the one side that supports increased immigration is the side that will ultimately benefit from having their children as voters. >These kinds of attitudes are basically the ones that allow you to be manipulated by political parties and have your attention diverted from real issues. Xenophobia works unfortunately, as studies and social experiments from the 60s and 70s show, blaming woes on "the other" is a tried and true tactic. You can take tiny issues related to foreigners or other tribes and blow them up so large they dominate the discussion. For what it's worth, I had no interest in immigration issues at all until I was bombarded with how evil it was to be against any form of immigration. Voters have the right to an opinion on these issues, and "that's racist" isn't going to stop them anymore.

jrs95 9y ago

> the idea of cutbacks on legal immigration, some of which would impact current immigrants seeking to bring over family memebers So what? They don't have some sort of magical automatic right to be here just because one of their relatives is. >If this had been "We need a total shutdown of JEWS", would you be so flippant with people's concerns about the campaign talk? If Jewish immigrants had been engaging in the amount of terrorism we've seen in Europe recently...yes, I would be just as flippant.

untog 9y ago
> If Jewish immigrants had been engaging in the amount of terrorism we've seen in Europe recently...yes, I would be just as flippant. Do you think that white people in America engage in too much mass shooting, and consequently should have additional regulations applied to them regarding gun ownership?
- jrs95 9y ago
  No, and if you took a closer look at the stats you'd see that it's not even true that they're disproportionately responsible for mass shootings or terrorism generally.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    The probability of you being killed by a terrorist or a Muslim in the US is tiny compared to your chances of being killed by a native born or white (assuming you're white). The percentages are so small, it makes such an outsized concern obviously racist because from a rational risk assessment point of view, it changes nothing. >So what? They don't have some sort of magical automatic right to be here just because one of their relatives is. We have generally held it is good policy to keep families together. And the times when it was not allowed (e.g. Chinese Exclusion Act) were specifically done for RACIST purposes, not rational ones. Tons of Chinese men were prevented from being reunited with their wives because of that, and still more single ones were prevented from marrying locals by anti-miscegenation laws. These kinds of attitudes are basically the ones that allow you to be manipulated by political parties and have your attention diverted from real issues. Xenophobia works unfortunately, as studies and social experiments from the 60s and 70s show, blaming woes on "the other" is a tried and true tactic. You can take tiny issues related to foreigners or other tribes and blow them up so large they dominate the discussion. Immigration and terrorism are not the largest issues facing this country, yet they completely dominated the election.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      >The probability of you being killed by a terrorist or a Muslim in the US is tiny compared to your chances of being killed by a native born or white (assuming you're white). The percentages are so small, it makes such an outsized concern obviously racist because from a rational risk assessment point of view, it changes nothing. It's a tiny risk because it's a small fraction of an already tiny proportion of the population. Increasing that proportion of the population will lead to a higher level of risk. We've already seen what that looks like in Europe, and that all began to accelerate rather quickly in the last few years. It's very rational to not want that to happen here as well. > We have generally held it is good policy to keep families together. And the times when it was not allowed (e.g. Chinese Exclusion Act) were specifically done for RACIST purposes, not rational ones. Tons of Chinese men were prevented from being reunited with their wives because of that, and still more single ones were prevented from marrying locals by anti-miscegenation laws. While that makes some amount of sense, it also leads to chain migration and ultimately displaces more of the native population economically AND politically. We can't ignore that the one side that supports increased immigration is the side that will ultimately benefit from having their children as voters. >These kinds of attitudes are basically the ones that allow you to be manipulated by political parties and have your attention diverted from real issues. Xenophobia works unfortunately, as studies and social experiments from the 60s and 70s show, blaming woes on "the other" is a tried and true tactic. You can take tiny issues related to foreigners or other tribes and blow them up so large they dominate the discussion. For what it's worth, I had no interest in immigration issues at all until I was bombarded with how evil it was to be against any form of immigration. Voters have the right to an opinion on these issues, and "that's racist" isn't going to stop them anymore.