The Political & Philosophy Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

Pull your head out of your ass. This isn't focusing on "America first regardless of color and religion." This is threatening to tear apart mixed status families and dismantle economies and communities dependent on immigrants.

News flash: if you deport thousands or millions of people, you take jobs away with them. Less cosumers equals a smaller market and therefore, less jobs. That is a direct threat to cities and regions around the country. Learn to think rather than swallowing whatever propaganda you're fed.

I don't know about citizenship rights in the Middle-East, but if you're talking about all immigrants (including the millions of Mexicans and other Hispanic illegals), children inherit their parents' citizenship while gaining American citizenship. No one has to be torn apart; the children can go to Mexico with their parents.

 

[J.]

The answer is you get nothing. But on a larger scale you get nothing for anything. What do you want something materialistic? Money to buy something materialistic? None of that matters, eventually you will die and lose it all. You get nothing but the satisfaction of being a good human being that helps others.

So we relocate some refugees, give them a bunch of free shit that tax payers have bought and im suppose to pat myself on the back. Got it.

Thank you for answering.

 

[arg]

Pull your head out of your ass. This isn't focusing on "America first regardless of color and religion." This is threatening to tear apart mixed status families and dismantle economies and communities dependent on immigrants.

News flash: if you deport thousands or millions of people, you take jobs away with them. Less cosumers equals a smaller market and therefore, less jobs. That is a direct threat to cities and regions around the country. Learn to think rather than swallowing whatever propaganda you're fed.

There may be a period of instability but the economy and communities will readjust and emerge stronger when the jobs vacated by illegals are filled by citizens and legals.

The answer is you get nothing. But on a larger scale you get nothing for anything. What do you want something materialistic? Money to buy something materialistic? None of that matters, eventually you will die and lose it all. You get nothing but the satisfaction of being a good human being that helps others.

If you want to be a good person that's great, but don't use other people's money to do it; that's theft and burden-shifting.

 

[Einherjar86]

Is this really true? If it is, it's worth mentioning that an out of work drug addict is much less harmful than an out of work gangster. Just ask a parent who has a dead child due to stray bullets etc.

Would you rather live next to a heroin addict or gang HQ? (Edit, beat to it by CIG)

Probably true, but not the point.

My point is that we're fine offering apologies for poor whites, but not for poor blacks. Get rid of "gangs" and replace it with "crack dealer," if you want.

In other words, poor whites can't get work and turn to dealing meth - "Not their fault, immigrants are taking their jobs."

Poor blacks can't get work and turn to dealing heroin - "They're a bunch of law-breaking thugs."

And yes CIG, this is really true.

After I survey and emotionally engage in the plights of those close and closer to me, I more or less run out of fucks to give for people on the other side of the world. Let those closest to them help them, we have our own problems.

That's one way of living in the world.

Ironically, low SES Americans (which includes blacks significantly, something the left loves to mention as an example systemic racism) are the ones most harmed by unskilled cheap foreign labor. If liberals were indeed concerned about improving job prospects of blacks etc then they would be against immigration.

False choice. Sounds nice, though.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I don't know about citizenship rights in the Middle-East, but if you're talking about all immigrants (including the millions of Mexicans and other Hispanic illegals), children inherit their parents' citizenship while gaining American citizenship. No one has to be torn apart; the children can go to Mexico with their parents.

Why would they want to take their kids to a country with poorer education and less opportunities? Also, there's subtle racism embedded in this proposition. American citizens, mostly Latino, should have to leave the own country? It's a subtle form of eugenics.Also, there are many inter-status couples for whom dual citizenship wouldn't address the issue.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Why would they want to take their kids to a country with poorer education and less opportunities? Also, there's subtle racism embedded in this proposition. American citizens, mostly Latino, should have to leave the own country? It's a subtle form of eugenics.Also, there are many inter-status couples for whom dual citizenship wouldn't address the issue.

They have two options.

1. Stay with your parents in Mexico until 18, then legally come back to America as an adult thanks to extremely liberal immigration laws.
2. Stay in America, finding a legal guardian, and perhaps visit family in Mexico for the holidays. Enjoy a superior education system and quality of life courtesy of taxpayers.

That's not forcing them, that's freedom of choice. It's the parents that made the decision to have their child within American borders. If they feel being separated from their children is too much, then they always have their fallback option of just raising your children in the country you're a citizen of.

I don't know what you mean by "inter-status" couples, please elaborate.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

They have two options.

1. Stay with your parents in Mexico until 18, then legally come back to America as an adult thanks to extremely liberal immigration laws.
2. Stay in America, finding a legal guardian, and perhaps visit family in Mexico for the holidays. Enjoy a superior education system and quality of life courtesy of taxpayers.

That's not forcing them, that's freedom of choice. It's the parents that made the decision to have their child within American borders. If they feel being separated from their children is too much, then they always have their fallback option of just raising your children in the country you're a citizen of.

You make a traumatizing decision sound like choosing between a Toyota and a Honda.

I don't know what you mean by "inter-status" couples, please elaborate.

One person is a US citizen, the other person is undocumented.

 

[J.]

You make a traumatizing decision sound like choosing between a Toyota and a Honda.

If they had stayed in their country, they wouldnt have to make that decision.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So simply living in Mexico is trauma? Should we literally open our borders to every nation as poor or worse than Mexico (probably over 100 of them)?

Not seeing what's complicated about that scenario. Marrying an American citizen is one of the easiest ways to receive citizenship, isn't it? Perhaps that won't be so easy with Trump in charge and making access to green cards more difficult, but whatever, real life isn't Romeo & Juliet, they can always find another partner that lives within their own country.

 

[Dak]

Pull your head out of your ass. This isn't focusing on "America first regardless of color and religion." This is threatening to tear apart mixed status families and dismantle economies and communities dependent on immigrants.

News flash: if you deport thousands or millions of people, you take jobs away with them. Less cosumers equals a smaller market and therefore, less jobs. That is a direct threat to cities and regions around the country. Learn to think rather than swallowing whatever propaganda you're fed.

"Dismantle economies dependent on immigrants". "Jobs go with them". There are hundreds of thousands of able bodied, adult age Americans in need of jobs and currently scraping by on government benefits. If x number of jobs open up because non-Americans are no longer available to undercut Americans, how is the economy dismantled? The benefit to the national budget is also present, since illegals have to work under the table which means no taxes. Your economic scare mongering is 100% propaganda.

You know what else happens when those illegals go back to their own country? They create jobs there! They can also go about making a positive difference in their own country since apparently if you were to be believed, these people are little moral and economic miracles. Mexico will be far better off. Speaking of which.......

Why would they want to take their kids to a country with poorer education and less opportunities? Also, there's subtle racism embedded in this proposition. American citizens, mostly Latino, should have to leave the own country? It's a subtle form of eugenics.Also, there are many inter-status couples for whom dual citizenship wouldn't address the issue.

So simply living in Mexico is trauma? Should we literally open our borders to every nation as poor or worse than Mexico (probably over 100 of them)?

People against illegal immigration are engaging in "eugenics" (literally Hitler!!!1!!!) but one of the richest nations in the world is a traumatizing shithole. It amazes me, the cognitive dissonance present in US liberals. Such subtle embedded bigotry.

Edit: US conservatives have their own dissonance issues but they aren't necessarily surrounding moral issues they get screeching mad about.

False choice. Sounds nice, though.

Looks like a pretty straightforward tradeoff.

 

[Einherjar86]

Looks like a pretty straightforward tradeoff.

We can maintain immigration policies and give our attention to poor blacks. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Dak]

We can maintain immigration policies and give our attention to poor blacks. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Immigration policies say illegal immigrants are illegal. Increased enforcement would help poor blacks.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks for the tautological reminder.

There will always be illegal immigrants. Our new policies won't change that or have much effect. What's happening right now in the White House is the beginning of a fucking nightmare. No real concern for citizens here, only concern for its image.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There will always be illegal immigrants. Our new policies won't change that or have much effect.

Based on what? Not saying Trump's policies are the most effective (a wall is meaningless outside of symbolism and he doesn't have any plan to punish employers hiring illegals at sub-minimum wage), but "there will always be X" is never a good counter-argument to "X can be reduced".

 

[Dak]

What's happening right now in the White House is the beginning of a fucking nightmare. No real concern for citizens here, only concern for its image.

I don't agree with the specifics of most of Trump's prerogatives but it's kind of refreshing to see a politician at least attempting to follow through on promises right off the bat that don't shaft *everyone*. Throw in the screeching in the background and it's certainly going to be a preferable 4 years to the alternative. At least we get the benefit of some pushback from the Republican Congress on some of it. Dems are much more lockstep.

 

[CiG]

At this point, seeing cf, Ein, Baroque etc argue against an open borders policy would be more constructive, because from what I'm seeing you don't really seem to have any reason not to just support the dismantling of borders between America and Mexico.

Poor blacks can't get work and turn to dealing heroin - "They're a bunch of law-breaking thugs."

Ironically, Trump specifically talked about the black community and the way they've been screwed over and have no job opportunities. So the big bad literal Hitler talks about out of work blacks exactly as he does out of work whites. In fact he's the only one that talks about the unemployed without unnecessarily fracturing it by race and making excuses for one side, not the other, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

Based on what? Not saying Trump's policies are the most effective (a wall is meaningless outside of symbolism and he doesn't have any plan to punish employers hiring illegals at sub-minimum wage), but "there will always be X" is never a good counter-argument to "X can be reduced".

Of course, I agree. It's just beyond obvious to me that targeting predominantly Muslim countries won't stop terrorists from coming to this country; and if it's innocent refugees we're interested in stopping, then I'm ethically opposed to such a selfish position.

I don't agree with the specifics of most of Trump's prerogatives but it's kind of refreshing to see a politician at least attempting to follow through on promises right off the bat that don't shaft *everyone*. Throw in the screeching in the background and it's certainly going to be a preferable 4 years to the alternative. At least we get the benefit of some pushback from the Republican Congress on some of it. Dems are much more lockstep.

Trump's policies are anything but "refreshing."

I'm sorry man, it's not going to be a preferable four years even to fucking dubya. As far as immigration goes, "extreme vetting" was already happening under Obama. Trump is playing to nationalist fantasies - there's no logic there.

At this point, seeing cf, Ein, Baroque etc argue against an open borders policy would be more constructive, because from what I'm seeing you don't really seem to have any reason not to just support the dismantling of borders between America and Mexico.

Then you're not seeing clearly.

I'm not saying dismantle the border. I'm saying that we already vet immigrants, and we already make people jump through hoops to come here legally.

If they come here illegally, that needs to be dealt with. A wall won't stop it, and blocking Muslims from coming to this country won't stop terrorists.

That none of this makes sense to you guys is seriously dumbfounding.

Ironically, Trump specifically talked about the black community and the way they've been screwed over and have no job opportunities. So the big bad literal Hitler talks about out of work blacks exactly as he does out of work whites. In fact he's the only one that talks about the unemployed without unnecessarily fracturing it by race and making excuses for one side, not the other, etc.

Ironically, Obama talked about implementing serious immigration regulation while he was president - and he fucking did it. If anything, Obama was harder on immigrants than most liberals would have liked.

You guys are praising Trump for a) doing something Obama was already doing, and b) for doing so in the most undiplomatic and arrogant, ignorant, pompous way possible.

 

[Dak]

Trump's policies are anything but "refreshing."

I'm sorry man, it's not going to be a preferable four years even to fucking dubya.

Dubya was indistinguishable from the Clintons and Obama if you really examine policy, so I'm not surprised you would say that. Again, I'm not saying he's "good" per se, but it's at least a changeup of bad, and again, I get to enjoy the screeching and watching Democrats/US liberals have "conniption fits" within just a few years of loling at Republicans for doing the same thing.

As far as immigration goes, "extreme vetting" was already happening under Obama. Trump is playing to nationalist fantasies - there's no logic there.
...................
Ironically, Obama talked about implementing serious immigration regulation while he was president - and he fucking did it. If anything, Obama was harder on immigrants than most liberals would have liked.

You guys are praising Trump for a) doing something Obama was already doing, and b) for doing so in the most undiplomatic and arrogant, ignorant, pompous way possible.

I am aware that the Obama administration was quietly much tougher on immigration than many realized, and that Trump doesn't have a "logic" (ie, a guiding set of rationally cohesive positions) informing the decisions he is submitting. I'm holding out hope that his military foreign policy is accidentally more enlightened than the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuum of intervention/aggression.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Maybe this article will help some of you see past the optics Trump is conning you with:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/51199...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170128

The executive action, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries.

One other thing they have in common, as NPR's Greg Myre writes: "No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades."

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.

He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest."

 

[CiG]

You guys are praising Trump for a) doing something Obama was already doing, and b) for doing so in the most undiplomatic and arrogant, ignorant, pompous way possible.

That's unfair, I don't believe I've praised Trump once in this discussion. In fact I believe my first comment in said discussion was a criticism of the proposed Muslim ban and a criticism of the wall as an expensive symbolism with no actual function.

Obama was harder on immigrants than most liberals would have liked.

That's not really saying a lot though. But in what way was Obama harder on immigrants? What really changed between Bush and Obama?

That's actually a common claim that I've never seen substantiated.

I'm not saying dismantle the border.

I'm not saying you are. I'm saying the positions you guys are taking seem to be sliding to a logical conclusion of let everybody in because it's humane. If you justify letting thousands in, why not millions?

At the very least you're saying, let everyone stay who already arrived here illegally and really, that leads to the same conclusion of why not let them all stay if they all arrive.

At this point, how do you guys justify the border's existence to begin with? Especially considering illegal immigration helps the economy and letting them stay is humane, why not let them all in and achieve a great humanitarian goal plus super power the economy... Right?