5 ms·

> The controversial part of the Great Replacement Theory is the claim that Democrats are deliberately engineering demographic change for the purpose of changing

> The controversial part of the Great Replacement Theory is the claim that Democrats are deliberately engineering demographic change for the purpose of changing the electorate so they can gain more power. Of course no Democrat has ever suggested that. I'm confused. So is the article claiming that demographic change 1) is happening, and 2) is deliberate (i.e. immigration policy and (lack of) border protection aren't acts of God that politicians have no sway over), and the theory only fails 3) is done by Democrats to win elections? If so, would that really give comfort to someone afraid of replacement? Presumably they consider the replacement itself bad, regardless of the motives or identity of those pushing it.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> So is the article claiming that demographic change 1) is happening, and 2) is deliberate (i.e. immigration policy and (lack of) border protection aren’t acts of God that politicians have no sway over), and the theory only fails 3) is done by Democrats to win elections? No, he is only claiming (1), and grouping your (2 and 3) both the “deliberately engineered” and “by Democrats to win elections” together as the controversial part.
- Bran_son 3y ago
  Could you explain how 2) is controversial? I'm not from the US myself - is the amount of immigration not a product of political policy? At least legal immigration, which I believe is significantly larger than illegal. As for 3) part 1 ("by Democrats"), that's more than controversial - it's outright false, at least the implication that it's only Democrats. Dig up any graph of yearly legal immigration to the US, and there's no significant reduction during Republican administrations.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Could you explain how 2) is controversial? I didn’t claim it was, I claimed that the article did. (That said, I will now claim it: #2 is controversial.) > is the amount of immigration not a product of political policy? At least legal immigration, which I believe is significantly larger than illegal. (1) A thing can be a product of political policy without being a deliberate effect; (E.g., there are unlimited categories in US legal immigration, e.g., close family of US citizens; the quantity that do immigrate in this category is a “product of” that policy, but the specific quantity is not a direct policy choice; rather, a policy choice has been made that it splitting close families of citizens by limiting immigration in that group is undesirable, irrespective of quantity), and (2) The amount of immigration is not the same thing as the demographic shift, it is only one contributor to it; things like relative birthrates among demographic groups in society, intermarriage rates, and lots of other things play roles.
tonetheman 3y ago
[dead]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> So is the article claiming that demographic change 1) is happening, and 2) is deliberate (i.e. immigration policy and (lack of) border protection aren’t acts of God that politicians have no sway over), and the theory only fails 3) is done by Democrats to win elections? No, he is only claiming (1), and grouping your (2 and 3) both the “deliberately engineered” and “by Democrats to win elections” together as the controversial part.

Bran_son 3y ago
Could you explain how 2) is controversial? I'm not from the US myself - is the amount of immigration not a product of political policy? At least legal immigration, which I believe is significantly larger than illegal. As for 3) part 1 ("by Democrats"), that's more than controversial - it's outright false, at least the implication that it's only Democrats. Dig up any graph of yearly legal immigration to the US, and there's no significant reduction during Republican administrations.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Could you explain how 2) is controversial? I didn’t claim it was, I claimed that the article did. (That said, I will now claim it: #2 is controversial.) > is the amount of immigration not a product of political policy? At least legal immigration, which I believe is significantly larger than illegal. (1) A thing can be a product of political policy without being a deliberate effect; (E.g., there are unlimited categories in US legal immigration, e.g., close family of US citizens; the quantity that do immigrate in this category is a “product of” that policy, but the specific quantity is not a direct policy choice; rather, a policy choice has been made that it splitting close families of citizens by limiting immigration in that group is undesirable, irrespective of quantity), and (2) The amount of immigration is not the same thing as the demographic shift, it is only one contributor to it; things like relative birthrates among demographic groups in society, intermarriage rates, and lots of other things play roles.

tonetheman 3y ago

[dead]