3 ms·

"use illegal immigration for meat packing" isn't a broadly-held right-wing position, it's something certain unprincipled business owners do (and I'm not even su

"use illegal immigration for meat packing" isn't a broadly-held right-wing position, it's something certain unprincipled business owners do (and I'm not even sure that they're universally right-wing). In contrast, "increasing wages" and "increasing mass immigration" are broadly-held left-wing positions. Again, this doesn't suggest incoherence on the left.

happytoexplain 4y ago
I think your use of the word "mass" is causing a lot of confusion, but I'm not sure who's "fault" it is. According to your edit on your original post, you say you're using it to mean "less selective" immigration, which, to me, is a way different sentence - but it's completely possible this is a domain-specific use of the word "mass" that I am just not familiar with.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Fair enough. The idea was that the left wants to lower the barrier for "asylum seeking" or perhaps just admit more asylum seekers irrespective of their educational value or their ability to support themselves (i.e., minimal selection criteria). This isn't a criticism or value judgment.
Spooky23 4y ago
Please. It’s deeply embedded in GOP power brokering. Principles are for the mass of idiots. The only difference today is that after years of taking the votes of reactionaries and doing little, the populist blocs of reactionary voters are the tail wagging the dog.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  So what's the idea? Republicans secretly favor the cheap labor that immigration provides, but they obstruct themselves at every turn by opposing said immigration? Anyway, we're talking about "right wing" people generally rather than GOP politicians specifically--these two groups often have somewhat different agendas (yes, even in a representative democracy).
scarface74 4y ago
“Unprincipled” business owners, farmers, and basically every other company that wants cheap labor in “rural America”.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Maybe, but that doesn't support the generalization that this is a broadly-held right-wing position, which is what we were debating. Note also that plenty of ostensibly left-wing companies want cheap labor as well.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    How is it not broadly held? What business is saying “we really wish we could spend more on labor, that would be great!” Politicians on the right have been playing lip service to “illegal immigration” for years. But they all knew just what would happen if they actually did it. Business interest and farmers would crucify them. Even Trump supporting farmers were complaining about not being able to find anyone. Just like they were all for the wall until the government started using eminent domain to take their land to build it.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > Politicians on the right have been playing lip service to “illegal immigration” for years. But they all knew just what would happen if they actually did it. Business interest and farmers would crucify them. It's the same thing with climate change on the left (Democrat politicians never manage to pass any kind of carbon pricing because they know they'd get crucified by business interests), but I wouldn't say that the left-wing broadly opposes carbon pricing.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > I wouldn't say that the left-wing broadly opposes carbon pricing. The left wing does not, and much of it actively supports it. The Democratic Party-in-government, dominated by its center-right faction, does oppose it, or at least does not actively support it.

happytoexplain 4y ago

I think your use of the word "mass" is causing a lot of confusion, but I'm not sure who's "fault" it is. According to your edit on your original post, you say you're using it to mean "less selective" immigration, which, to me, is a way different sentence - but it's completely possible this is a domain-specific use of the word "mass" that I am just not familiar with.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Fair enough. The idea was that the left wants to lower the barrier for "asylum seeking" or perhaps just admit more asylum seekers irrespective of their educational value or their ability to support themselves (i.e., minimal selection criteria). This isn't a criticism or value judgment.

Spooky23 4y ago

Please. It’s deeply embedded in GOP power brokering. Principles are for the mass of idiots. The only difference today is that after years of taking the votes of reactionaries and doing little, the populist blocs of reactionary voters are the tail wagging the dog.

throwaway894345 4y ago
So what's the idea? Republicans secretly favor the cheap labor that immigration provides, but they obstruct themselves at every turn by opposing said immigration? Anyway, we're talking about "right wing" people generally rather than GOP politicians specifically--these two groups often have somewhat different agendas (yes, even in a representative democracy).

scarface74 4y ago

“Unprincipled” business owners, farmers, and basically every other company that wants cheap labor in “rural America”.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Maybe, but that doesn't support the generalization that this is a broadly-held right-wing position, which is what we were debating. Note also that plenty of ostensibly left-wing companies want cheap labor as well.
- scarface74 4y ago
  How is it not broadly held? What business is saying “we really wish we could spend more on labor, that would be great!” Politicians on the right have been playing lip service to “illegal immigration” for years. But they all knew just what would happen if they actually did it. Business interest and farmers would crucify them. Even Trump supporting farmers were complaining about not being able to find anyone. Just like they were all for the wall until the government started using eminent domain to take their land to build it.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Politicians on the right have been playing lip service to “illegal immigration” for years. But they all knew just what would happen if they actually did it. Business interest and farmers would crucify them. It's the same thing with climate change on the left (Democrat politicians never manage to pass any kind of carbon pricing because they know they'd get crucified by business interests), but I wouldn't say that the left-wing broadly opposes carbon pricing.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I wouldn't say that the left-wing broadly opposes carbon pricing. The left wing does not, and much of it actively supports it. The Democratic Party-in-government, dominated by its center-right faction, does oppose it, or at least does not actively support it.