3 ms·

Immigration would help this issue, but half the nation believes nativist and xenophobic rhetoric, so expanding immigration is a non-starter.

Press2forEN 6y ago
I assure you if immigrants arrived in the US and immediately assimilated and voted for right wing causes, you'd see a comprehensive plan for a wall on Joe Biden's website.
- Bhilai 6y ago
  Immigrant arrived in America centuries ago.
  - linksnapzz 6y ago
    Millenia ago, even.
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
I'm sure it's unintentional, but to reach a 50% number, your comment perhaps lumps together two groups that are worth treating separately: (a) Persons who oppose large-scale immigration in general. Some of whom (perhaps a majority) oppose it for reasons you abhor: racism, cultural elitism, etc. (b) Persons who oppose only illegal immigration. Some (most?) of whom do so for reasons entirely unrelated to racism or cultural elitism. People sometimes refuse to differentiate (a) from (b), perhaps on the assumption that most persons espousing (b) are actually using it as a fig leaf for (a). Personally, I'm in (b-not-a), and it's very frustrating to discuss the topic with people who refuse to believe that I'm arguing in good faith.
- minikites 6y ago
  The idea of there even being a "right way" to immigrate is very recent and tied to racism. The "legal" immigration process is so artificially arduous and strict that unless someone who believes (b) is out there arguing and voting for sweeping and comprehensive immigration reform, they essentially believe (a) by default.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    Thanks for explaining. Yours is one of the first articulations I've been able to understand regarding (a) == (b). Here's why I still see (b) as a sensible position. (I'm sure some of my reasoning only seems valid if you share certain core ideological beliefs about virtue) : - Civic virtue in a democratic nation. It seems to me that a democracy relies on people accepting laws that they don't agree with, at least in most circumstances. The alternative (AFAICT) is that laws are merely suggestions for those inclined to act that way anyway. Or perhaps, laws are for other people, not oneself. (I'd agree that it's morally imperative to break certain laws, but I don't usually hear this distinction made regarding illegal immigration.) - Fairness to persons who aren't willing to break the law. By ignoring illegal immigration, we're basically rewarding people who ignore the law over those who are willing to await legal entry/residence. This includes would-be immigrants, legal employers, and legal job-seekers. - Communicable diseases. To the extent that the spread of communicable diseases can be reduced by imposing screening, vaccination, etc. at border crossings, illegal immigration burdens current residents with greater risk.
throwaway068 6y ago
Immigration is fine, as long as we stop importing cheap products from China and bring factory jobs back.

Press2forEN 6y ago

I assure you if immigrants arrived in the US and immediately assimilated and voted for right wing causes, you'd see a comprehensive plan for a wall on Joe Biden's website.

Bhilai 6y ago
Immigrant arrived in America centuries ago.
- linksnapzz 6y ago
  Millenia ago, even.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

I'm sure it's unintentional, but to reach a 50% number, your comment perhaps lumps together two groups that are worth treating separately: (a) Persons who oppose large-scale immigration in general. Some of whom (perhaps a majority) oppose it for reasons you abhor: racism, cultural elitism, etc. (b) Persons who oppose only illegal immigration. Some (most?) of whom do so for reasons entirely unrelated to racism or cultural elitism. People sometimes refuse to differentiate (a) from (b), perhaps on the assumption that most persons espousing (b) are actually using it as a fig leaf for (a). Personally, I'm in (b-not-a), and it's very frustrating to discuss the topic with people who refuse to believe that I'm arguing in good faith.

minikites 6y ago
The idea of there even being a "right way" to immigrate is very recent and tied to racism. The "legal" immigration process is so artificially arduous and strict that unless someone who believes (b) is out there arguing and voting for sweeping and comprehensive immigration reform, they essentially believe (a) by default.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  Thanks for explaining. Yours is one of the first articulations I've been able to understand regarding (a) == (b). Here's why I still see (b) as a sensible position. (I'm sure some of my reasoning only seems valid if you share certain core ideological beliefs about virtue) : - Civic virtue in a democratic nation. It seems to me that a democracy relies on people accepting laws that they don't agree with, at least in most circumstances. The alternative (AFAICT) is that laws are merely suggestions for those inclined to act that way anyway. Or perhaps, laws are for other people, not oneself. (I'd agree that it's morally imperative to break certain laws, but I don't usually hear this distinction made regarding illegal immigration.) - Fairness to persons who aren't willing to break the law. By ignoring illegal immigration, we're basically rewarding people who ignore the law over those who are willing to await legal entry/residence. This includes would-be immigrants, legal employers, and legal job-seekers. - Communicable diseases. To the extent that the spread of communicable diseases can be reduced by imposing screening, vaccination, etc. at border crossings, illegal immigration burdens current residents with greater risk.

throwaway068 6y ago

Immigration is fine, as long as we stop importing cheap products from China and bring factory jobs back.