3 ms·

>most vulnerable immigrant population This strategic description really grinds my gears.

by Pigo 9y ago

candu 9y ago
In this sense, GP's references to "sanctuary cities" and "illegal immigrants" are also strategic: they betray an obvious bias towards one side of this debate. (This is leaving aside the barely coded racism - and, ironically, questionable grammar - of their other statements, such as "You're only as good as who you surround yourself".) I see no problem in providing a counterbalancing perspective. After all, it can be simultaneously true that these people have immigrated illegally and that they are among the most vulnerable. Issues like this are complex, and there aren't easy answers. To wit: what about US-born children - do we now split up families in service of proving a moral point? What about the opportunities for children in diverse schools to learn from other cultures and viewpoints? There's also the longstanding "no human is illegal" debate. (As you may have guessed by this point, my own bias is globalist / humanitarian. I'd argue we have a moral duty to help those in need, and that it is fallacious to argue this necessarily takes resources away from others because that presumes economics, aid, etc. are zero-sum games. I also think, in a practical sense, that many of our laws around residency, immigration, etc. ignore the reality of an increasingly mobile and globalized world, and that the sooner we can transcend nationalist bullshit the better. Finally: I believe that American prosperity has had a net extractive effect on much of the rest of the world for the past century, much like the colonial empires of yore. Moral / reparative dimensions of that aside, it certainly creates a less peaceful world.)
- Pigo 9y ago
  I agree with you on the term sanctuary city being strategic. I think these phrases get under my skin because we just parrot back what we hear on CNN/NPR/Daily Wire, without adding anything new to the conversation. I'm not sure I could disagree with you more on a lot of what you said, but it doesn't grind any gears to read your opinion because I doubt you copy/pasted that from a VICE article. I really think you've thought about that, and that is your opinion. It does worry me that there doesn't seem to be any common ground though.
  - omegaworks 9y ago
    The common ground used to be the Dreamers. Children that came across the border without documentation, but have proven themselves contributing members of society through objective, conservative metrics and trust in our institutions. These people voluntarily gave their personal information to the government in a hope that has now proven itself false: that they would be granted some semblance of stability. We have walked backwards as a society, by putting people in power that would consider even that level of humanity to be too great a political burden to bear. > we just parrot Not a parrot, by any means. These people are every bit as real as my neighbors and friends. It's far too easy to fall into a silo when you take a narrow view and consider only the past decade of migrant history. Consider that: before 2003, ICE did not exist. That the first of our immigration laws: The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, was rooted in white supremacist ethnocentrism. Consider: in pursuit of the foreign bogeyman, we have crafted a system of authoritative overreach that extends into a region occupied by 2/3s of our nation's population: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
  - candu 9y ago
    Hey, I'm with you on the "regurgitated thoughts are bad" front :) On the rest, we likely have common ground somewhere; so far, I've stated my position without any nuance, to make its broad outlines relatively clear. Let's start with some extreme examples: we probably agree that no single country can support the entire world's population alone. We probably also agree that nationalism run amok can have terrible consequences, regardless of its potentially beneficial aspects. Most people would generally help out friends / relatives in need, provided they had the means (financial, emotional, logistical, or whatever else it takes) to do so - so we likely have some common ground there. Other common points that come up in discussions like these...I would agree that some people contribute more than others to society. OTOH, I think we can't necessarily know ahead of time who will contribute more or less - in an immigration context, attempts to do so have a long history fraught with racism and xenophobia. (See: Angel Island near SF, Chinese Exclusion Act, refusing Jewish refugees during WW2, etc.)

>most vulnerable immigrant population This strategic description really grinds my gears.

by Pigo 9y ago

>most vulnerable immigrant population This strategic description really grinds my gears.

In this sense, GP's references to "sanctuary cities" and "illegal immigrants" are also strategic: they betray an obvious bias towards one side of this debate. (This is leaving aside the barely coded racism - and, ironically, questionable grammar - of their other statements, such as "You're only as good as who you surround yourself".) I see no problem in providing a counterbalancing perspective. After all, it can be simultaneously true that these people have immigrated illegally and that they are among the most vulnerable. Issues like this are complex, and there aren't easy answers. To wit: what about US-born children - do we now split up families in service of proving a moral point? What about the opportunities for children in diverse schools to learn from other cultures and viewpoints? There's also the longstanding "no human is illegal" debate. (As you may have guessed by this point, my own bias is globalist / humanitarian. I'd argue we have a moral duty to help those in need, and that it is fallacious to argue this necessarily takes resources away from others because that presumes economics, aid, etc. are zero-sum games. I also think, in a practical sense, that many of our laws around residency, immigration, etc. ignore the reality of an increasingly mobile and globalized world, and that the sooner we can transcend nationalist bullshit the better. Finally: I believe that American prosperity has had a net extractive effect on much of the rest of the world for the past century, much like the colonial empires of yore. Moral / reparative dimensions of that aside, it certainly creates a less peaceful world.)

Pigo 9y ago
I agree with you on the term sanctuary city being strategic. I think these phrases get under my skin because we just parrot back what we hear on CNN/NPR/Daily Wire, without adding anything new to the conversation. I'm not sure I could disagree with you more on a lot of what you said, but it doesn't grind any gears to read your opinion because I doubt you copy/pasted that from a VICE article. I really think you've thought about that, and that is your opinion. It does worry me that there doesn't seem to be any common ground though.
- omegaworks 9y ago
  The common ground used to be the Dreamers. Children that came across the border without documentation, but have proven themselves contributing members of society through objective, conservative metrics and trust in our institutions. These people voluntarily gave their personal information to the government in a hope that has now proven itself false: that they would be granted some semblance of stability. We have walked backwards as a society, by putting people in power that would consider even that level of humanity to be too great a political burden to bear. > we just parrot Not a parrot, by any means. These people are every bit as real as my neighbors and friends. It's far too easy to fall into a silo when you take a narrow view and consider only the past decade of migrant history. Consider that: before 2003, ICE did not exist. That the first of our immigration laws: The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, was rooted in white supremacist ethnocentrism. Consider: in pursuit of the foreign bogeyman, we have crafted a system of authoritative overreach that extends into a region occupied by 2/3s of our nation's population: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- candu 9y ago
  Hey, I'm with you on the "regurgitated thoughts are bad" front :) On the rest, we likely have common ground somewhere; so far, I've stated my position without any nuance, to make its broad outlines relatively clear. Let's start with some extreme examples: we probably agree that no single country can support the entire world's population alone. We probably also agree that nationalism run amok can have terrible consequences, regardless of its potentially beneficial aspects. Most people would generally help out friends / relatives in need, provided they had the means (financial, emotional, logistical, or whatever else it takes) to do so - so we likely have some common ground there. Other common points that come up in discussions like these...I would agree that some people contribute more than others to society. OTOH, I think we can't necessarily know ahead of time who will contribute more or less - in an immigration context, attempts to do so have a long history fraught with racism and xenophobia. (See: Angel Island near SF, Chinese Exclusion Act, refusing Jewish refugees during WW2, etc.)