U.S. Politics - are you born on this board?

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

Acknowledging the obvious might not make you a xenophobe (this is debateable) but supporting policy decisions regarding immigration is a completely different ballgame.  

 

Just to be clear, is it possible in your view to advocate for an immigration policy that lets in fewer immigrants from Mexico without being xenophobic?

[Ramsay Gimp]

double

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

 

Just to be clear, is it possible in your view to advocate for an immigration policy that lets in fewer immigrants from Mexico without being xenophobic?

 

I support more control on immigration from Mexico and Central America. But I believe that doing so by evoking the shade of Qin Shi Huang and building a giant wall and then paying for it at least in part by holding hostage the transfer payment of American Citizens and legal residents and extorting one of our largest trade partners is hugely impractical and morally reprehensible.

 

Instead of building our own Maginot Line, instead patrol the border with drones and increase enforcement on business that hire undocumented workers. Practically, net immigration from Mexico is already very low, so I don't think it's as pressing an issue as Trump and the American version of the UKIP, FN and AFD contend. America will become more Latino, but that's due to the people already here. I don't see us managing to kick them all out without establishing an American Gestapo.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'm just not sure what kind of weight the accusation of xenophobia is supposed to have in this context. We're talking about membership in a nation. Nations are, by definition, exclusionary communities of interest. The whole premise of the nation-state is that it defines itself in positive terms in contrast to the rest of the world. 

 

I do think it's interesting that so many of the liberals here appear to be just flat out opposed to the idea of nation-states in general. If that's really what people are feeling then I think we should explore that line of discussion and what it would ultimately mean in practice - completely open borders and either no citizenship or 'universal' citizenship to anyone that wants it and is willing to reside within the geographical confines of America. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I'm just not sure what kind of weight the accusation of xenophobia is supposed to have in this context. We're talking about membership in a nation. Nations are, by definition, exclusionary communities of interest. The whole premise of the nation-state is that it defines itself in positive terms in contrast to the rest of the world. 

 

I do think it's interesting that so many of the liberals here appear to be just flat out opposed to the idea of nation-states in general. If that's really what people are feeling then I think we should explore that line of discussion and what it would ultimately mean in practice - completely open borders and either no citizenship or 'universal' citizenship to anyone that wants it and is willing to reside within the geographical confines of America. 

I've said before that the American conception of it's nation is different from the blood and land conception in the old world, but didn't succeed in articulating what the American version is. I still don't have an answer, but I do have this:

 

http://i.imgur.com/YVR2GGF.jpg

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

And the absolute dumbest political grandstanding of the day goes to Donald Trump promising to undo Obama's renaming of Mt. McKinley to Denali (also starring soon to be forgotten guest star John Kasich, who at least has the excuse of being Governor of Ohio, McKinley's home state). 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I've said before that the American conception of it's nation is different from the blood and land conception in the old world, but didn't succeed in articulating what the American version is. I still don't have an answer, but I do have this:

 

http://i.imgur.com/YVR2GGF.jpg

 

I am certainly not disputing that the American conception of nationhood is different than European ideas of nationhood. This is fairly well mapped out in political science circles. On the one hand, Europe has a strong sense of ethnic nationalism. On the other end of the spectrum is the idea of civic nationalism. A third position, cultural nationalism, is sometimes considered the mid-point between the two. Some idealists would portray America's nationalism as civic, although I think it has historically been much closer to cultural nationalism with recurrent strains of ethnic nativism. 

[lokisnow]

Go Ninja, Go Ninja, GO!

Here’s what Trump said:

“I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it’s outrageous,” Trump said. “I want to lower taxes for the middle class.”…

“The middle class is getting clobbered in this country. You know the middle class built this country, not the hedge fund guys, but I know people in hedge funds that pay almost nothing and it’s ridiculous, okay?”

Utterly amazing, as the article suggests, perhaps trump is running as a manchurian candidate?

One of the odd paradoxes of Trump’s rise has been that even as he is little more than an entertainer, his willingness to say what other Republicans won’t has forced out into the open genuine policy debates among Republicans that had previously been shrouded in vagueness or imprisoned within party orthodoxy. His call for mass deportations has unmasked GOP evasions over what to do about the 11 million, forcing something close to a real debate on that question. His vow not to cut Social Security benefits has led some to ask whether GOP voters might actually disagree with party dogma on the need to cut them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/28/morning-plum-donald-trump-wants-to-tax-the-rich-will-republican-voters-agree-with-him/

[ThinkerX]

Found this among many like articles cluttering up my Facebook.

Some counties in Texas take action:

http://americannews.com/the-great-state-of-texas-stops-giving-birth-certificates-to-babies-of-illegal-immigrants/

Now, several Texas counties are refusing to issue birth certificates for children that are born to undocumented parents. This policy could now threaten the state’s relationship with Mexico, the country warns.

The notice was released in a brief filed in support of illegal immigrant parents who are suing Texas after being denied birth certificates for their children. The refusal came even after they provided ID cards used by the Mexican Consulate.

Thousands of comments, mostly in favor.

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if the KKK didn't luck into some money and go on a recruiting drive.

[Hayyoth]

Go Ninja, Go Ninja, GO!

Utterly amazing, as the article suggests, perhaps trump is running as a manchurian candidate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/28/morning-plum-donald-trump-wants-to-tax-the-rich-will-republican-voters-agree-with-him/

The mainstream Repub candidates know damn well this would play well to the base, a good chunk of which are fiscal liberals wrapped in a culturally conservative coating. They don't advocate for it because PAC money says they can't. I think Trump's a grandstanding huckster but the way he's going he's a lock for the Republican nomination. How will a Dem candidate handle a right wing populist like Trump? (grabs popcorn)

[ThinkerX]

But did you grab enough popcorn (and booze) for the Trump/Sanders debates?

[Darzin]

I do think it's worth pointing out that in many nations it's not really possible for anyone to immigrate to. Take Madagascar unless you are ethnically Malagasy you cannot get citizenship no matter what, on what are essentially racial grounds. And even first world countries such as Japan have effectively no immigration sure you can go live in Japan for years even, but become a citizen?  It's just not going to happen.  Even under Trump's draconian plan the laws about citizenship would still be quite liberal on a global scale.

 

Also the lax attitude we have towards illegal immigrants creates problems for people wanting to visit legally. From most third world countries it's nearly impossible to get a tourist visa, the embassy assumes that all people will stay illegally and it's up to the person applying to prove that they won't and will return to their country. This surely must cost us a lot of tourist dollars, I have dozens of friends who would like to visit America but simply can't. This crazy strict system makes sense though in that people who do get regular student visas regularly "disappear" and work illegally. This shouldn't be possible, if I were to try this in Tajikistan where I used to live, I would be found out within a matter of months and deported with massive fines. I feel like we should be able to manage immigration better than a post-soviet kleptocracy but at the moment it doesn't seem like we are.

[Darzin]

dp

[Fez]

 

I am certainly not disputing that the American conception of nationhood is different than European ideas of nationhood. This is fairly well mapped out in political science circles. On the one hand, Europe has a strong sense of ethnic nationalism. On the other end of the spectrum is the idea of civic nationalism. A third position, cultural nationalism, is sometimes considered the mid-point between the two. Some idealists would portray America's nationalism as civic, although I think it has historically been much closer to cultural nationalism with recurrent strains of ethnic nativism. 

 

If it could be argued that recent immigrants (documented or undocumented) were not assimilating into the US the same way immigrants in the past have, and were altering the country's identity in a way that betrayed the country's basic principles, then yeah, I'd be all for an extreme curtailing of immigration. People have the right not to have their societal contract forcibly altered due to people entering it from the outside.

 

However, I have seen no evidence that recent immigrants are acting any different than previous waves. First generations almost all remain outsiders to some degree, its their children and grandchildren that fit right now. And since I see immigration as a major boon to the country, I want to see it continue.

 

Also, its important to determine what exactly those basic principles are that must not be altered. Certainly, I'd argue that the guarantee that our basic civic institutions continue to exist and function under the rule of law as determined by the constitution is one of them. And maybe there's a few cultural touchstones as well, but I'd reject any ethnic ones. That's just my opinion though, and I think there needs to be a debate where we decide what exactly America and Americans mean.

 

My point, I think, is that there's no fundamental right for any and all immigrants to come here who want. The state, like all states, only has a responsibility to its own citizens and must implement immigration laws in accordance with its citizens' best interests (and preferences, when possible). Hopefully those preferences don't stem from racism.

[Ormond]

 

Why should a country's native citizens be happy about the country becoming "more bilingual" as a result of immigration? 

 Because among other things, being bilingual is an advantage in many businesses in our increasingly economically interconnected world,

 

and because being bilingual protects against the onset of dementia:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21060095

[James Arryn]

Also, being bilingual makes you 'smarter'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/04/bilingual-children_n_5766966.html

Hence, more worthy of immigration?

FULL CIRCLE.

[Gears of the Beast]

Also, being bilingual makes you 'smarter'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/04/bilingual-children_n_5766966.html

Hence, more worthy of immigration?

FULL CIRCLE.

What the study actually says is that bilingual infants (the participants were six months old) have an advantage in terms of 'visual habituation' over monolingual infants. Here is what they say: 

 

 

infant visual habituation is not a primary or fundamental component of mature intelligence but rather a building block for learning upon which the potential for higher order intelligence may rest. As a result, habituation may predict facility with inhibitory control tasks, as suggested by longitudinal relations observed between infant visual habituation and executive function abilities in young adulthood (Sigman, Cohen, & Beckwith, 1997). Therefore, the bilingual advantage in infant visual habituation may reflect precocity in simple learning that potentiates growth in other cognitive domains

[Dr. Pepper]

And the absolute dumbest political grandstanding of the day goes to Donald Trump promising to undo Obama's renaming of Mt. McKinley to Denali (also starring soon to be forgotten guest star John Kasich, who at least has the excuse of being Governor of Ohio, McKinley's home state). 

I really can't decide if this is dumb grandstanding or if Trump actually has the ability to think ahead.   He potentially gets more out of making a vocal side with Ohio than he does saying nothing or siding with the desires of Alaska.  

[Shryke]

I'm just not sure what kind of weight the accusation of xenophobia is supposed to have in this context. We're talking about membership in a nation. Nations are, by definition, exclusionary communities of interest. The whole premise of the nation-state is that it defines itself in positive terms in contrast to the rest of the world. 

 

I do think it's interesting that so many of the liberals here appear to be just flat out opposed to the idea of nation-states in general. If that's really what people are feeling then I think we should explore that line of discussion and what it would ultimately mean in practice - completely open borders and either no citizenship or 'universal' citizenship to anyone that wants it and is willing to reside within the geographical confines of America. 

 

Yeah, sorry, but this jump from "nation-state" to "xenophobia" does not fly. You are making a big silly assumption to make this connection work. Specifically that since a nation-state has defined limits in terms of who belongs to it (ie - citizenship or some such) that these boundaries must be drawn along "look and speak different" lines. Cause otherwise one can say that discluding people based on their race or language is not a necessary part of discluding someone from immigrating to your country.

 

Or, more simply, a nation-state is not required to be xenophobic just because it has defined boundaries. This isn't about people opposed to the idea of the nation-state it's about you having a really bad idea of what a nation-state is.

[Ramsay Gimp]

And the absolute dumbest political grandstanding of the day goes to Donald Trump promising to undo Obama's renaming of Mt. McKinley to Denali (also starring soon to be forgotten guest star John Kasich, who at least has the excuse of being Governor of Ohio, McKinley's home state). 

 

McKinley was a warmonger whose administration birthed the American empire. Fuck him, and fuck these grandstanders for defending his legacy