4 ms·

Slightly off-topic, but: anyone know where I can find a solid debate / discussion on the political issues raised by illegal immigration in the U.S.? My own vie

Slightly off-topic, but: anyone know where I can find a solid debate / discussion on the political issues raised by illegal immigration in the U.S.? My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something.

mirimir 8y ago
The key issue isn't allowing or not allowing illegal immigration. It's about how supposedly illegal immigrants are treated.
DubiousPusher 8y ago
I don't know a good resource but I think it largely comes down to how you see someone who commits a crime or breaks a rule. People on the right tend to see everyone as capable of following all the rules. To break them is a clear choice which has consequences. People who break the law or rules suffer from a character flaw. If a lot of people are breaking the law or a rule then there is some moral breakdown in society or a failure to enforce the law. People on the left tend to see breaking the law or rules as a natural consequence of ones needs. If a lot of people are breaking a law then there is something wrong v with that law or the systems around it. People on the right basically have faith in laws, law enforcement and are skeptical of the motives of law/rule breakers. People on the left basically have faith in people and their reasons for breaking laws/rules and the circumstances around their act. They are skeptical of law enforcement. Edit: I realize I failed to connect this to illegal immigration. So someone on the left will say, "this person crossed illegally or overstayed their visa for some good reason. So many people are doing so because the system or laws are cutting too strongly against human needs/nature. Whereas someone on the right will say. This person broke the immigration laws out due to a lack of character, ie. they didn't have the patience to wait or they have some I'll intent. Regardless, they've shown a lack of character, there should be consequences and we don't want flawed people here anyway. So in this regard is comes down to what you think law/rule breaking says about someone's integrity or nature.
- hippich 8y ago
  I think what you described are sides of authoritarianism and libertarianism, not right and left. From my observation, both left and right are trying to enforce something with laws, but things they want to enforce are different. These two spectrums are orthogonal imho (i.e. you can have authoritarian right and libertarian left)
  - DubiousPusher 8y ago
    I'm a big fan of the political compass model. I think it does a great job of creating enough space to lay out most people's political values. But regarding immigration and law enforcement, at least right now, the right in America tend to be pretty authoritarian while the left tend to be fairly libertarian. Of course that flips when you jump to the issue of pursing white collar crimes and regulatory violations. BTW, in this context I'm using 'right' to mean the group of people that largely votes Republican and 'left' to mean the group of people that largely votes Democrat.
    - hippich 8y ago
      I can't see how the left being libertarian on immigration while at the same time voting for large social welfare programs can work. you can have only one: no borders or social welfare. You can't have both at the same time (until globalization will even out income in the whole world) Perhaps we could go 100% libertarian first (no borders, no taxes) and after a while go 100% social (not sure how globe-wide social welfare can work tho)
      - DubiousPusher 8y ago
        I'm not sure. That's a huge issue which I'm woefully under-qualified to have a strong opinion on. I do know that Switzerland has generous social programs for citizens but allows people to live and work there without full citizenship. Which is one partial solution. Though they now have the pretty ridiculous problem of having 3rd generation Swiss immigrants who aren't Swiss citizens. Problems of immigration and citizenship go all the way back to republican Rome. The answers are crappy and few epspecially with several global humanitarian crises underway.
leibwiht 8y ago
There's not really a whole lot to debate. You can bring up statistics and data, but the heart of the issue is not ignorance, but identity. People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with). These people don't want immigration because they see this country as their home and feel it should belong to them and them alone. Immigration obviously gives people with whom they do not share an identity a stake in the present and future of this home. The people in favor of immigration typically either want more material wealth (the economic argument) or do not have an identity that differentiates between natives and immigrants, and so see refusal to allow them as oppression (the social justice argument).
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with). Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    A lot of the immigration hawks are extremely explicit about immigrants "destroying" our culture, and tend to dogwhistle a lot. A few are explicitly white supremacists. The wanting more immigrants from "nations like Norway" was a huge tell too.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Half of the anti-immigration crowd is absolutely explicit about their racist animus.
dragontamer 8y ago
> My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something. Congress and CSpan are good starting points. Yeah, everyone hates Congress. But its literally their job to raise up points in national debate. They kind of talk past each other, but listening in on the debate tends to be a good "introduction" to any particular topic of politics. The House has less time per member, leading to rapid-fire but low-information kinds of debates. Senators keep talking on-and-on-and-on... so you can spend 10+ minutes with just one speaker giving their point of view. A back-and-forth on a particular topic can last literally hours in the Senate. So listen in on House debate issues if you want a quicker summary of points. Listen in on Senators if you want deeper discussions and a bit more back-and-forth between members. Bonus points: the Senate and the House are where the laws are written. So learning about the political viewpoints of those in power tends to be more useful than the opinions of random pundits on news channels. Its not like anyone on Fox News or "Colbert" will actually change a law, ya know?
mbo 8y ago
If your views skew right perhaps checking out a liberal podcast like Pod Save America, or a leftist podcast Chapo Trap House or Citations Needed. If they skew left, Crowder, Shapiro, Jones or Limbaugh ought to do it. Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.
- TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
  Shapiro is doing great work with his Sunday Special, where he sits down with someone and they just talk about certain problems. His regular show sometimes panders a bit too much instead of focusing on making logical arguments in favor or against certain things. Even though I disagree with him on certain things, I think it's healthy to get exposed to a wide range of ideas. Crowder is a mixed bag for me. I'd say he's a bit of parallel to John Oliver at times. You can't take everything that they say completely seriously. I'm a big fan of his "Change My Mind" series, where he goes out to have discussions with people and he puts em up unedited. Although the quality can fluctuate a lot based on how familiarized each person is with the issue being discussed. I'd also add Joe Rogan's podcast to the list. He's very good at talking things through with people, trying to understand why they think a certain way. It's like a journey of exploration. It never gives me a vibe of someone trying to shove down a specific political agenda down my throat. It's also very long and unedited, so they have time to really dive into complex issues and you know that the other person's views aren't being misrepresented.
- jymbo 8y ago
  no no no, Alex Jones is basically the national enquirer, and CNN basically gave up and went full Alex Jones after 2016. And now millennials who just started watching the news are actually believing that ICE is killing babies. Can we just talk honestly about it?
wmil 8y ago
I'd recommend watching Stefan Molyneux's interviews with Jason Richwine. They're on Youtube.

mirimir 8y ago

The key issue isn't allowing or not allowing illegal immigration. It's about how supposedly illegal immigrants are treated.

DubiousPusher 8y ago

I don't know a good resource but I think it largely comes down to how you see someone who commits a crime or breaks a rule. People on the right tend to see everyone as capable of following all the rules. To break them is a clear choice which has consequences. People who break the law or rules suffer from a character flaw. If a lot of people are breaking the law or a rule then there is some moral breakdown in society or a failure to enforce the law. People on the left tend to see breaking the law or rules as a natural consequence of ones needs. If a lot of people are breaking a law then there is something wrong v with that law or the systems around it. People on the right basically have faith in laws, law enforcement and are skeptical of the motives of law/rule breakers. People on the left basically have faith in people and their reasons for breaking laws/rules and the circumstances around their act. They are skeptical of law enforcement. Edit: I realize I failed to connect this to illegal immigration. So someone on the left will say, "this person crossed illegally or overstayed their visa for some good reason. So many people are doing so because the system or laws are cutting too strongly against human needs/nature. Whereas someone on the right will say. This person broke the immigration laws out due to a lack of character, ie. they didn't have the patience to wait or they have some I'll intent. Regardless, they've shown a lack of character, there should be consequences and we don't want flawed people here anyway. So in this regard is comes down to what you think law/rule breaking says about someone's integrity or nature.

hippich 8y ago
I think what you described are sides of authoritarianism and libertarianism, not right and left. From my observation, both left and right are trying to enforce something with laws, but things they want to enforce are different. These two spectrums are orthogonal imho (i.e. you can have authoritarian right and libertarian left)
- DubiousPusher 8y ago
  I'm a big fan of the political compass model. I think it does a great job of creating enough space to lay out most people's political values. But regarding immigration and law enforcement, at least right now, the right in America tend to be pretty authoritarian while the left tend to be fairly libertarian. Of course that flips when you jump to the issue of pursing white collar crimes and regulatory violations. BTW, in this context I'm using 'right' to mean the group of people that largely votes Republican and 'left' to mean the group of people that largely votes Democrat.
  - hippich 8y ago
    I can't see how the left being libertarian on immigration while at the same time voting for large social welfare programs can work. you can have only one: no borders or social welfare. You can't have both at the same time (until globalization will even out income in the whole world) Perhaps we could go 100% libertarian first (no borders, no taxes) and after a while go 100% social (not sure how globe-wide social welfare can work tho)
    - DubiousPusher 8y ago
      I'm not sure. That's a huge issue which I'm woefully under-qualified to have a strong opinion on. I do know that Switzerland has generous social programs for citizens but allows people to live and work there without full citizenship. Which is one partial solution. Though they now have the pretty ridiculous problem of having 3rd generation Swiss immigrants who aren't Swiss citizens. Problems of immigration and citizenship go all the way back to republican Rome. The answers are crappy and few epspecially with several global humanitarian crises underway.

leibwiht 8y ago

There's not really a whole lot to debate. You can bring up statistics and data, but the heart of the issue is not ignorance, but identity. People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with). These people don't want immigration because they see this country as their home and feel it should belong to them and them alone. Immigration obviously gives people with whom they do not share an identity a stake in the present and future of this home. The people in favor of immigration typically either want more material wealth (the economic argument) or do not have an identity that differentiates between natives and immigrants, and so see refusal to allow them as oppression (the social justice argument).

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
> People who are anti-illegal immigration generally only use it as a more polite and socially acceptable proxy for what they really want, which is to reduce or end immigration altogether (except perhaps from places that they share a common identity with). Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  A lot of the immigration hawks are extremely explicit about immigrants "destroying" our culture, and tend to dogwhistle a lot. A few are explicitly white supremacists. The wanting more immigrants from "nations like Norway" was a huge tell too.
village-idiot 8y ago
Half of the anti-immigration crowd is absolutely explicit about their racist animus.

dragontamer 8y ago

> My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something. Congress and CSpan are good starting points. Yeah, everyone hates Congress. But its literally their job to raise up points in national debate. They kind of talk past each other, but listening in on the debate tends to be a good "introduction" to any particular topic of politics. The House has less time per member, leading to rapid-fire but low-information kinds of debates. Senators keep talking on-and-on-and-on... so you can spend 10+ minutes with just one speaker giving their point of view. A back-and-forth on a particular topic can last literally hours in the Senate. So listen in on House debate issues if you want a quicker summary of points. Listen in on Senators if you want deeper discussions and a bit more back-and-forth between members. Bonus points: the Senate and the House are where the laws are written. So learning about the political viewpoints of those in power tends to be more useful than the opinions of random pundits on news channels. Its not like anyone on Fox News or "Colbert" will actually change a law, ya know?

mbo 8y ago

If your views skew right perhaps checking out a liberal podcast like Pod Save America, or a leftist podcast Chapo Trap House or Citations Needed. If they skew left, Crowder, Shapiro, Jones or Limbaugh ought to do it. Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.

TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
Shapiro is doing great work with his Sunday Special, where he sits down with someone and they just talk about certain problems. His regular show sometimes panders a bit too much instead of focusing on making logical arguments in favor or against certain things. Even though I disagree with him on certain things, I think it's healthy to get exposed to a wide range of ideas. Crowder is a mixed bag for me. I'd say he's a bit of parallel to John Oliver at times. You can't take everything that they say completely seriously. I'm a big fan of his "Change My Mind" series, where he goes out to have discussions with people and he puts em up unedited. Although the quality can fluctuate a lot based on how familiarized each person is with the issue being discussed. I'd also add Joe Rogan's podcast to the list. He's very good at talking things through with people, trying to understand why they think a certain way. It's like a journey of exploration. It never gives me a vibe of someone trying to shove down a specific political agenda down my throat. It's also very long and unedited, so they have time to really dive into complex issues and you know that the other person's views aren't being misrepresented.
jymbo 8y ago
no no no, Alex Jones is basically the national enquirer, and CNN basically gave up and went full Alex Jones after 2016. And now millennials who just started watching the news are actually believing that ICE is killing babies. Can we just talk honestly about it?

wmil 8y ago

I'd recommend watching Stefan Molyneux's interviews with Jason Richwine. They're on Youtube.