Maybe. I’m more cynical.
I see Labour and the Democrats coldly calculating that “If the working class won’t vote for us any more, we’ll just import a new working class that will.”
And we don’t want to have a better chance to win elections 18 years from now? It’s been almost that long since the Gore-Bush election, and that seems really recent to me.
As I said upthread, I’m all for immigrants because they support my party. If they didn’t, I’d see them as a threat, for sure.
Sure, of course. I guess I’m playing the role of “honest Democrat” in this thread, and I say: politics ain’t beanbag. Disingenuousness is part and parcel of the game. Just like with gay marriage, you say soothing things to the nervous middle until they are ready to take a stronger dose of progressive policy. To do otherwise would be foolish and play right into the GOP’s hands. [Edited to add: you don’t seriously maintain that Republican moves to cut back on early voting and same day registration are anything but a blatant play to suppress Democratic votes? Right? And presumably you don’t expect them to be honest about that; I wouldn’t if I were in your shoes either.]
Except that blacks made huge economic gains under Clinton. How do you explain that away?
As others have said, immigration is a mixed bag. It’s not at all clear cut that it’s bad for blacks or for the working class more broadly.
I’m not complaining about the disingenuousness, at least not for the purposes of this thread. I’m complaining about appealing to people they believe to be racists while condemning Republicans for the same. So I’m complaining about the hypocrisy here.
But I guess Democrats can claim they only pretend to be racists, so that makes them better.
The other thing about disingenuousness is that the other party can call you on it. Then the Democrats call the Republicans dirty liars for pointing out what Democrats actually want to do, then Democrats turn around and do it at the first opportunity after swearing up and down that they wouldn’t. the gay marriage debate was a particularly rich example, since many Democrats cited religious faith as part of their reasoning. There’s disingenousness, and then there’s just outright lying in the lowest way possible. Falsely claiming religious beliefs is about as low as it gets.
To sum up, quit mistaking pragmatic politics for moral stands. Or intentionally obscuring the difference between the two. All Dopers should be “honest Democrats or Republicans”. We don’t need to carry water for anyone here, nor does it do us any good anyway.
There are 15 other GOP candidates who are being handed their own Sister Souljah Moments here. Any of them could step forward and denounce the nativist faction of their party, and thereby set themselves apart as the responsible adults.
But none of them are - they’re only denouncing Trump himself, and for his McCain idiocy, not the party’s ugly nativism. Isn’t that because the roused rabble are the base, not a fringe element?
The Democrats won’t denounce nativism, because more Democrats want to see less immigration than more:
But if Democrats don’t want those votes… Is your suggestion actually a moral stand, or fear that Republicans could win that 32% of Democrats who want to see reduced immigration?
Trump is *still *surging in the polls. Unbelievable! Not only is he leading the field with a plurality of 28% (and another 10% call him their second choice), but his overall favorability rating with Republicans is a robust 57%. Just, wow.
Out of all the eye-popping information in this poll, what might be the most stunning is this:
If McCain sees this poll finding in particular, that’s gonna sting.
I strenuously reject this logic. I am an atheist, and a progressive, and I know that the first part of that is not really acceptable to the middle of the electorate. I suspect some Democrats are secretly atheists as well,* but keep it under their hats for obvious political reasons.
And I unhesitatingly support their doing so. Why should they throw away the opportunity to effect progressive change because reflexive honesty pushes them into the buzzsaw of the superstitious prejudices of the hoi polloi? We’ve had some great leaders in our history who would have been screwed politically if they were forthright about their (lack of) religious faith, preeminent among them Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
*President Obama, for instance, whose mother was an atheist. Which is why I always kind of chuckle at the right wingers who think he’s a Muslim: to me, it’s so obvious that this is the completely wrong direction, as most Muslims are more religiously devout than most Christians.
In any case, at least we seem to be in agreement that it’s really all politics.
Yes, and Democrats are in the power position, especially given the trend over time.
Personally, I don’t like immigration because immigrants support my party. I like immigration because immigrants support my country. If we had the laws I’d like to see passed, illegal immigration (with all of the problems it causes) would be eliminated entirely: They’d all be legal immigrants (who would be covered under the same labor laws as all other legal residents, and who would be able to seek redress from the courts without fear of deportation if they were being exploited).
With no limits whatsoever on numbers? If 400 million Chinese and 300 million Indians wanted to come over right now, that’s okay?
Jefferson was a Christian/Deist. He read the bible and believed in an afterlife. He believed in the teachings of Christ, but did not buy into the miracles cited in the bible. Famously, he had his own bible in which he excised those portions.
I never said he was a strict atheist in a modern sense. Just that his beliefs were (and still are) out of step with those of the public. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lincoln believed in some kind of vague afterlife as well, but he was still a “freethinker” by the standards of the day (and, again, of today as well).
Sorry, I didn’t meant to imply you said he was an atheist. I just wanted to point out that while Jefferson’s religious ideas were indeed a minority view, they were not all that unique. There were quite a few Deists, particularly among the elites.
Of course it’s OK for them to want to come over right now. Heck, they already want to come over, and it’s not our laws that are stopping them.
The vast masses of people who don’t come over right now, it’s because they don’t have the resources to make the trip. And of those who do have the resources, they’re largely already doing just fine in their home country, and see no need to emigrate. The people who do actually come over are the ones who have a drive to improve their lot in life, and who are resourceful enough to make it possible. In other words, people that we’d really like to see more of here.
Actually, in his day, Jefferson was routinely attacked for his positions on religion, which did not keep him from two terms as president.
But you are proposing (if I understand you correctly) getting rid of any legal limits whatsoever on immigration. The implication seems to be that this means citizenship for anyone who arrives…or maybe just green cards? What if China, Russia, or any other country that feels like directing mischief at us (and removing a burden for themselves) sees our new “open border” policy, spots an opportunity, and organizes a flotilla for a new Mariel boatlift on steroids? (A modern-day version of this is already going on in Myanmar.) Think of what a temptation it would be for poor countries to empty their prisons and mental hospitals for the cost of a boat ride to U.S. shores.
You are right that the people who come (either legally or illegally) while we have immigration restrictions are generally those who have drive, pluck, grit, etc. But if we got rid of all restrictions, I wouldn’t bet on that staying the case.
ETA: Tomndebb, your link indicates both that Jefferson did in fact question the existence of God, that people got hopping mad and called him a “howling atheist”, and also: “Following the 1800 campaign, Jefferson became more reluctant to have his religious opinions discussed in public. He often added requests at the end of personal letters discussing religion that his correspondents be discreet regarding its contents.” That seems quite in line with the point I was making.
There’d have to be some sort of path to citizenship, of course, but I don’t see any reason to change it from what we have now. As for other countries using us as a dumping grounds for their unwanted population, what stopped that from happening back when we were actively courting immigration?
I am pretty sure there has never been a time when we took any immigrant from any country.
You’d be wrong. We didn’t really restrict immigrants at all for a long time (though we did restrict citizenship). Eventual restrictions started with people who were sick with the plague and the like. Actual restrictions other than disease weren’t implemented until after the Civil War.