That’s an interesting claim. One thing to keep in mind is that leftists continuously conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration. The open borders crowd in particular, etc.
Standard lefty boilerplate - “We are a nation of immigrants!”
While this is about as meaningless a statement as can be made the speaker is clearly conflating controlled legal immigration as was done in the past. No comparison whatsoever.
That looks like a deliberate misquote.
It’s not implied. I’m asserting it. The people who side with Trump’s views on immigration are, with few exceptions, prejudiced and ignorant on the subject of immigrants.
I’m not saying this is good messaging for the Democratic candidates. It isn’t. But I see no reason to censor my opinions to appeal to you on a message board.
It’s perfectly easy to extend things like Medicare or college only to citizens, if we want to. Indeed, we already do.
And your talk of the effect on wages is false. That doesn’t make it not politically powerful. It is very powerful propaganda. But not as powerful as the propaganda I’m proposing to counter it.
FWIW, the vast majority of immigrants who have come to the US did not come subject to legal immigration protocols. The Irish were not getting H1-B visas, my friend.
Is there an “open borders crowd?”
I am for anyone coming here who wants to come here to make a better life for themselves and their family.
We have plenty of room, and the economy does better with immigration than without.
If we had a serious issue with criminals or terrorists coming in with the immigration, then we can ask them a few extra questions to determine that they really are coming here to make a better life for themselves and their family, but it’s really not that important to screen them too thoroughly, as we already have plenty of criminals that are born right here, so a few coming in won’t make a difference.
It’s not an open border, you should still pass through a checkpoint, we should still be able to tell who is in our country, but it shouldn’t be a closed border, in that no one should be turned away that wants to be here. Anyone who wants to be here will make here a better place.
The only reason that we have illegal immigration is because there are people who really want to be here, they really want to make a better life for themselves and their families, and we won’t let them in legally.
One thing that I discovered about human nature long, long ago, is that if there is no legal alternative to poverty, deprivation, war, or other intolerable conditions, then people will turn to illegal alternatives. It is not in societies bets interests to make the alternatives to intolerable conditions illegal, because that doesn’t’ just encourage people to break the law, it practically demands it.
I don’t know if that puts me in the “open borders crowd”, but if it does, then at least I guess I have better company than the isolationists.
Some right wingers seem to insist that ALL Democrats want open and uncontrolled borders. This is bullshit and a clear lie. If you believe it, you are wrong. If your leaders are telling you democrats believe this, they are intentionally lying to you.
So telling Democrats to “rethink” a policy the vast majority of democrats don’t desire is, on the face of it, bullshit.
I certainly don’t think that open borders are something we should strive for in the future, and I doubt “many” or “most” people think it’s a desirable thing either.
What is your evidence that this ideal of yours is widely shared?
I think this was a defensible opinion on the state of the parties in 2004. In 2017, it’s pretty clear that a large part of the GOP is not OK with legal immigration. The party has moved toward Steve King and away from George W. Bush on immigration issues. More and more you see them making arguments about preserving “American” culture against foreign invasion.
As Rep. King put it, “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
@Common Tater -
The way you have added ellipsis has changed the meaning of the quote in the first instance, and not actually removed anything in the second instance. Here is the original quote:
For reference:
[quote=“C_K_Dexter_Haven, post:11, topic:369395”]
Text inside
[QUOTE]
tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may **not ** add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
Do not do this again.
[/moderating]
Wonder if Black and Latino unemployed feel they are losing their White Privilege.
To be fair, not being American I have no problem with other people being privileged.
To be fair the Triangulating upper Democrats like Hillary, and their foreign ilk such as Blair, really have a very strong distaste for any welfare state. ‘Deadbeats’ was what she called those on benefits.
And the more money one spends on lazy native layabouts the less one can spend on War.
You can if immigrants are a net positive to the economy. Or if welfare has strings attached, like residency requirements.
Let’s not conflate them. Would you approve historical levels of immigration into America, if only they were all legal instead of illegal?
There’s some all over the spectrum. Libertarians. Anarchists. Neo-liberals. Some socialists. Some right business elite. Hard to defend a free movement of capital but not of labor, especially if you think it’s holding back economic growth. Imagine the economic damage if there were a militarized border arbitrarily placed in the middle of America. Or if every state became its own country with its own borders.
This is correct. Unfortunately, it is broadly true of the people in charge of the party, on both the hardcore progressive and the big business gentry wings.
In fairness, it’s also true of the vast majority of the GOP power brokers, too.
The plurality of white people say immigration makes the US worse. Black people say it makes America better by a 2:1 margin, and Latinos by a 3:1 margin.
It is a problem for the “economic anxiety” explanation for anti-immigration sentiment that the sentiment is so common among white people and so rare among people of color.
Part of the explanation is that partisan affiliations, formed for other reasons, drive immigration opinions. Part of the explanation is rural-urban geography and economics. But part of the explanation is also white privilege and xenophobia.
Economic anxiety as an explanatory variable does a pretty bad job of explaining anti-immigration sentiment.
You don’t want to live in a world where people can live wherever they want? You think the current status, where people are stuck where they happened to be born, is the best possible future?
The trend, in most of the recent few decades, has been for freer travel and more open borders in many places (particularly Europe). Do you think that trend is a mistake in general, or maybe is ok as far as it goes, but should go no farther?
I would not (and did not) claim “most”. The philosophical ideal of open borders is well-known, although you are certainly right that nowhere near a majority of people supports it.
Not my term but Fareed Zakaria’s. So your guess is as good as mine.
If you were born in Alabama, should you be able to live and work in California? If you were born in Birmingham, should you be able to live and work in Mobile? If you were born on Graymont Avenue, should you be able to live and work on Center Street?
The “trend” in Europe was driven by a very specific economic union and is under heavy stress right now, in case you didn’t notice Brexit or the refugee crisis. How would you describe the success of the trend in Asia, North&South America and Africa currently?
And this thread is about American political strategy. Very few Americans are worried about open borders so they can move to Canada or Mexico. Very few cast their vote based on which party will allow the most foreigners to live wherever they want.
This line of reasoning is nonsense to me. You’re first part does nothing, absolutely nothing to support your conclusion in the second part. Your line of reasoning is basically that since white people disagree with minorities then it must be because there is something wrong with white people.
This is absolutely ridiculous. If we’re just going to compare populations and leave out any important information to actually begin to establish a causal relationship we could just as easily say that the reason white people disagree is because they are more highly educated and score better on IQ tests - as well as having in their population far more people that have taken and passed a basic economics course. This would be an equally ridiculous and needlessly dismissive argument - but one that that could be just as easily made with the premise you have given.
Even the people who here said they’d someday like to see worldwide open borders in the future world of the future realize that’s a very small minority opinion.