2 ms·

I'm not trying to malign anyone here. I'm pretty sure more mass immigration is a left-wing opinion, and I thought that much was uncontroversial. I don't underst

I'm not trying to malign anyone here. I'm pretty sure more mass immigration is a left-wing opinion, and I thought that much was uncontroversial. I don't understand the distinction you're making between "any immigration" and "mass immigration". The US already allows a lot of immigration.

duxup 4y ago
>I don't understand the distinction you're making between "any immigration" and "mass immigration". Because the amount matters? If we talk about the impact of migration the amount certainly plays into what if any impact occurs. It really seems like you're stuck on a sort of rhetorical talking point phrase.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Sure, but what's the argument? "The left wants some immigration, but not a lot"? Because we already have "some" immigration, so presumably they want more immigration, and presumably they oppose constraining that immigration by education level or wealth or etc, hence "mass". In other words, "mass" doesn't refer to an amount, but a lack of filtration/selection/etc. Note also that this isn't even an inherently bad thing--there's something noble about wanting America's doors open to everyone: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...".
  - duxup 4y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "what's the argument"? Policies and the impact (something that should hopefully inform a policy) are more nuanced than just "mass migration" "more migration" and so on. Your understanding seems entirely disconnected from actual policy. I can't possibly explain something that is going to be different from person to person or politician to politician, even more so if for you it only ends up being categorized in weird generalities that read like they're someone else's rhetoric skewed talking points / loaded phrases. I don't think you can expect to understand something if you just generalize in that way.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > I don't know what you mean by "what's the argument"? I'm asking "what is your argument?" What argument are you making? > Policies and the impact (something that should hopefully inform a policy) are more nuanced than just "mass migration" "more migration" and so on. Of course, and still we speak in shorthand all the time because regurgitating the complete nuance in every single Internet comment is untenable. If "left-wing folks generally support mass immigration" is inaccurate or incomplete, let's talk about that--what nuance am I overlooking?

duxup 4y ago

>I don't understand the distinction you're making between "any immigration" and "mass immigration". Because the amount matters? If we talk about the impact of migration the amount certainly plays into what if any impact occurs. It really seems like you're stuck on a sort of rhetorical talking point phrase.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Sure, but what's the argument? "The left wants some immigration, but not a lot"? Because we already have "some" immigration, so presumably they want more immigration, and presumably they oppose constraining that immigration by education level or wealth or etc, hence "mass". In other words, "mass" doesn't refer to an amount, but a lack of filtration/selection/etc. Note also that this isn't even an inherently bad thing--there's something noble about wanting America's doors open to everyone: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...".
- duxup 4y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "what's the argument"? Policies and the impact (something that should hopefully inform a policy) are more nuanced than just "mass migration" "more migration" and so on. Your understanding seems entirely disconnected from actual policy. I can't possibly explain something that is going to be different from person to person or politician to politician, even more so if for you it only ends up being categorized in weird generalities that read like they're someone else's rhetoric skewed talking points / loaded phrases. I don't think you can expect to understand something if you just generalize in that way.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > I don't know what you mean by "what's the argument"? I'm asking "what is your argument?" What argument are you making? > Policies and the impact (something that should hopefully inform a policy) are more nuanced than just "mass migration" "more migration" and so on. Of course, and still we speak in shorthand all the time because regurgitating the complete nuance in every single Internet comment is untenable. If "left-wing folks generally support mass immigration" is inaccurate or incomplete, let's talk about that--what nuance am I overlooking?