I’m sure you wouldn’t, but you and most other liberals would not consider it a moral imperative to for the US to welcome almost anyone from Russia that wanted to come here. If immigants voted primarily Republicans, Democrats’ current position AT BEST, would be the one they had prior to the Obama years: welcoming to high levels of legal immigration, staunchly opposed to illegal immigration and supportive of strict enforcement.
I point to Democrats still being not particularly eager to bring Cubans in. The Democratic party’s view of Cuban immigrants is no different today than it was during the Clinton years. Their justification is that Cubans have long had special status and shouldn’t have that special status, but I think the reality is simply that being generous to Cubans does nothing for the Democratic Party.
Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that when we Americans
supported repressive/corrupt regimes in the Americas in order to “fight socialism” and/or benefit our corporate interests
turned a blind eye to the corruption of our own elected officials in catering to employers who wanted cheap labor and didn’t much care where it came from
demanded to be provided with goods and services so cheaply that legal workers were priced out of labor markets
refused to pay attention to where our cheap goods were coming from or where our contractors were hiring their labor to provide our cheap services
… then we were, effectively, consenting to “massive immigration flows from the Americas”. Because we incentivized it, rewarded it and didn’t crack down on the illegal activities of our fellow citizens who benefited from it.
Massive flows of immigrants came north of the border largely because we made it profitable and low-risk for their employers to hire them, and helped make it dangerous and unprofitable for them to stay where they were. If you irresponsibly prop up exploitative and illegal practices because all you care about is low consumer prices, then you don’t have much room to complain when the exploitative and illegal practices turn out to have some negative consequences, is all I’m saying.
I don’t consider it a moral imperative (and don’t know of any other mainstream liberal who does) for the US to welcome almost anyone from Latin America that wants to come here, either. This is sliding back towards that “uncontrolled immigration” rhetoric which, again, is not what any liberals in the political mainstream are actually advocating.
Would be nice if they advocated something then,rather than just opposing all enforcement. When you don’t even support workplace enforcement anymore, it’s fair to ask what enforcement you would support.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the Supreme Court has released a Christian woman who had spent eight years on death row for allegedly insulting Mohammed, after a row with neighbors who were mad that she had drunk from a cup of water, thus putting her Christian cooties on it.
So her release is good news. But other details from this case illustrate the barbarity of this religion:
You are kidding yourself if you think this could happen in any non-Muslim country. And this is not some fetid backwater. Pakistan is a nuclear power, with a population larger than Russia, and roughly equal to that of Germany, France, and England combined.
In “Dark-Web”-adjacent news: Jordan Peterson posts condemning the (((echoes))) stigma and antisemitism, gets massive blowback from his twitter followers. I wonder if this might lead him to ask himself why so many of his followers are antisemitic fascists and neo-nazis.
You mean the barbarity of the Pakistani legal code, which is based on a combination of local tribal/cultural mores and a particular interpretation of a particular sect of Islamic teachings?
You’ve apparently learned nothing, and are just doubling down on your own ignorant bigotry.
No. The Pakistani legal system ultimately set her free. Her family now has to flee the country because of this medieval Islamic culture.
Tell me in what non-Muslim country something like this could happen. I won’t even insist that you limit it to large nuclear powers. Not even in those (also admittedly backward) sub-Saharan African Christian countries where they oppress gays, is this kind of thing conceivable.
In the US, someone just killed a bunch of Jews for their religious beliefs. Religious killings are relatively common in many Christian countries. Particularly very poor countries.
Newsflash – backwards and barbaric ideologies (regardless of religious affiliations) tend to be far more popular in very poor countries. Desperate and hungry people are easier to manipulate and use for nefarious purposes. Pakistan is a very poor country.
What reality? You’re spreading hateful and ignorant bullshit. That’s the reality.
There’s plenty of things around the world worth criticizing, including aspects of various sects of Islamic teachings and related cultures. If you made a targeted criticism of the aspect of Pakistani tribal culture and the particular sect of Islam responsible for a particular instance of barbarity, then I’d have no problem at all with it. But you insist on lazy and ignorant broad-brushing.
Hate, ignorance, and broad-brushing are easy. They don’t require effort. What you’re doing requires no effort. Real cultural, geopolitical, and historical analysis requires effort. You’re not doing that. You’re being lazy, ignorant, and hateful. And what you advocate would make America weaker, and those who wish to do us harm stronger.
See? Lazy as hell. Ignorance and hate are easy. Nuance and reasoned analysis are hard.
Making a lazy post isn’t the end of the world. I’m sure I’ve done it before. But when you combine it with ignorance and hatefulness, you’re gonna get called out for it.
No, what actually happens is that you “call out” any post that doesn’t jibe with your politically correct imperatives. Which is fine, but it’s nauseating how you won’t just limit your claims to “I don’t like your ideology, I prefer mine” and instead try to dress it up in this grandiose, self-righteous Manichaean verbiage.