the best logicHotep logic.
Trump is against LEGAL immigration too: COME TAKE THE NEW MERIT-BASED IMMIGRATION TEST
- Thread starter Berniewood Hogan
- Start date
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
it's up to the US government to teach English and provide welfare to immigrants, are the same expectations presumed and demanded of other countries toward Americans and other immigrants?
many of you have demands for the USA towards immigrants, but then are suddenly understanding and have much lower expectations or none, for other countries towards immigrants. So it's clear you don't care about the policy, you're just a political ideology sheep
many of you have demands for the USA towards immigrants, but then are suddenly understanding and have much lower expectations or none, for other countries towards immigrants. So it's clear you don't care about the policy, you're just a political ideology sheep
the cac mamba
Veteran
Who has EVER made the second half of that argument?
this is the same place where "you arent mad enough/scared enough about trump" = trump supporter 
take the cut in half on legal immigration. we're talking about the american legal immigration backlog. one of the most fukked up, backed up, bureaucratic systems on the planet. a system that is backed up 2 or 3 years, about the time until trump can actually be voted out of office
and dudes are in here talking about how trump and co are going to go in and precisely and efficiently weed out every non white person in there to the point that it will effectively manipulate population numbers
the SENTIMENT might be there, but to act like that can efficiently be accomplished by this administration is insane Isaiah Bradley
Banned
I recall reading this story earlier in the year. The backlog in the system is so bad, other countries are aware of it and are considering using it against the US, the same way being overly PC and excessively liberal are used against the US
take the cut in half on legal immigration. we're talking about the american legal immigration backlog. one of the most fukked up, backed up, bureaucratic systems on the planet. a system that is backed up 2 or 3 years, about the time until trump can actually be voted out of office
and dudes are in here talking about how trump and co are going to go in and precisely and efficiently weed out every non white person in there to the point that it will effectively manipulate population numbers
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...3/02/mexico-trump-immigration-trade/98521504/
I tried to get HL ready to have this difficult conversation with democrats on another thread here: The Atlantic: How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration
The left's immigration problem
The left's immigration problem
The center-left has a serious immigration problem — one that could prove to be a serious political handicap. That it's also intellectually incoherent only makes it worse.
The occasion for the latest demonstration of politically self-destructive thoughtlessness from the left was the Trump administration's Wednesday announcement of new immigration restrictions and the unflinching defense of it by senior adviser Stephen Miller.
The administration's immigration policy — which would cut legal immigration in half — deserves careful scrutiny and criticism, and it's perfectly appropriate for center-left analysts to make a strong pragmatic and even moral case against President Trump's policy, if that's what they are convinced is warranted. But what we're hearing in response to the administration isn't just a criticism of the consequences of this particular policy of cutting rates of certain kinds of immigration to the United States. It's a denunciation of any immigration restriction at all, on the grounds that all such restrictions are morally illegitimate.
Consider the following exchange on Twitter between Vox's Zack Beauchamp and a reader:
In response to several people who took Beauchamp to be saying that the only way to avoid the charge of racism is to support a completely open-border policy, another reader rose to Beauchamp's defense:
To which Beauchamp responded:
He's not the only one.
It's still relatively uncommon for center-left policy intellectuals and politicians to explicitly advocate for open borders (unless, like Hillary Clinton, they're speaking privately to banking executives). But it is common for them to reject the moral legitimacy of any policy that falls short of open borders. As The New York Times' Ross Douthat noted in his own tweet obliquely commenting on the ruckus surrounding Beauchamp's remarks: "Liberalism's current relationship to open borders is asymptotic: Not for it, but for every step toward it."
Vox's Dylan Matthews recently made precisely this all-but-open-borders case in terms of a support for "egalitarianism" that cuts across national boundaries, arguing that "any center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the U.S. but for everyone." Such sentiments are pervasive in the neoliberal leadership of the European Union as well.
This is a politically untenable position. I mean that both in the sense that it's bound to prove politically unpopular and in the sense that it's incompatible with a recognition of the moral legitimacy of politics as such.
Politics in all times and places involves a bounded community defining itself, and its citizens ruling themselves, in contradistinction to other bounded communities. The community can be a village, tribe, or city-state; a nation-state; or an empire. Certain forms of government are better suited to certain sizes than others. (A small community can work as a pure democracy, for example, but a vast empire never could.) But regardless of the community's size, it always has limits (a border), and it always draws a distinction between those who are permitted to join the community and those who are not; between who is and who is not a citizen; and between who does and who does not get to enjoy the privileges that come with citizenship, including a say in making such determinations in the future. This may in fact be the most elemental political act of all, the basis of everything else the political community does. To declare that this act is prima facie illegitimate is to declare a foundational political act to be illegitimate. It is to treat politics itself as in some sense morally compromised.
Is this foundational political act based on, as Beauchamp's interlocutor believes, a "fiction that one group has a natural right to live in a place that another group lacks"? The answer may well be yes, in the sense that it's impossible to justify in universal-rational terms this "natural right to live in a place" that has nonetheless been presumed by just about every political community in human history. (Only some nomadic tribes have managed to avoid making such a presumption.)
But then again, neither is it possible to justify in universal-rational terms the right to private property or, really, any form of inherited (unearned) wealth or privilege. The more you think about it, politics (very much including liberal politics) is an activity shot through with norms, practices, and beliefs that can be rather easily exposed as "fictions" once subjected to universal-rational scrutiny.
That's why philosophers as otherwise so profoundly different as Plato and Karl Marx have concluded that the rule of reason and justice demands communism (the abolition of private property). Indeed, Plato went even further than Marx, to suggest that in a perfectly rational and just political system, property communism would need to be combined with communism of families, with children taken from their parents at birth and raised by the community as a whole. After all, isn't deference to a mother's love for her own child based on the fiction that she is always automatically best suited by nature to raise him or her?
The most that might be said for our neoliberal almost-open-border advocates is that they think Plato should have gone even farther in subjecting politics to universal-rational scrutiny and advocated a completely communist state that is also boundless in extent, encompassing all people everywhere, without distinction.
In other words, Plato should have advocated the universal, homogenous state — which is precisely what many on the center-left seem to not-so-secretly believe morality demands.
That such a state is neither possible nor desirable (recall what I said about the largest political communities and their incompatibility with democracy) should be obvious. But then what do our universalist liberals hope to accomplish, not by raising perfectly reasonable objections to specific immigration restrictions, but by denying the legitimacy of having any immigration restrictions at all? There are many, many intellectually coherent answers to the two key questions of immigration policy (Who can come here? And how many of them?) — but many on the left seem to think there is only one legitimate answer to each question (Everyone. And all of them). This is ludicrous.
Politics has its own logic, and part of that logic is the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Those who deny the moral permissibility of making that distinction won't eliminate the need to make it. They will merely exclude themselves from the ranks of those the citizenry will be willing to entrust with responsibility for participating in the rule of the community. And that distrust will be fully justified.
The left's immigration problem
The left's immigration problem
The center-left has a serious immigration problem — one that could prove to be a serious political handicap. That it's also intellectually incoherent only makes it worse.
The occasion for the latest demonstration of politically self-destructive thoughtlessness from the left was the Trump administration's Wednesday announcement of new immigration restrictions and the unflinching defense of it by senior adviser Stephen Miller.
The administration's immigration policy — which would cut legal immigration in half — deserves careful scrutiny and criticism, and it's perfectly appropriate for center-left analysts to make a strong pragmatic and even moral case against President Trump's policy, if that's what they are convinced is warranted. But what we're hearing in response to the administration isn't just a criticism of the consequences of this particular policy of cutting rates of certain kinds of immigration to the United States. It's a denunciation of any immigration restriction at all, on the grounds that all such restrictions are morally illegitimate.
Consider the following exchange on Twitter between Vox's Zack Beauchamp and a reader:
In response to several people who took Beauchamp to be saying that the only way to avoid the charge of racism is to support a completely open-border policy, another reader rose to Beauchamp's defense:
To which Beauchamp responded:
He's not the only one.
It's still relatively uncommon for center-left policy intellectuals and politicians to explicitly advocate for open borders (unless, like Hillary Clinton, they're speaking privately to banking executives). But it is common for them to reject the moral legitimacy of any policy that falls short of open borders. As The New York Times' Ross Douthat noted in his own tweet obliquely commenting on the ruckus surrounding Beauchamp's remarks: "Liberalism's current relationship to open borders is asymptotic: Not for it, but for every step toward it."
Vox's Dylan Matthews recently made precisely this all-but-open-borders case in terms of a support for "egalitarianism" that cuts across national boundaries, arguing that "any center-left party worth its salt has to be deeply committed to egalitarianism, not just for people born in the U.S. but for everyone." Such sentiments are pervasive in the neoliberal leadership of the European Union as well.
This is a politically untenable position. I mean that both in the sense that it's bound to prove politically unpopular and in the sense that it's incompatible with a recognition of the moral legitimacy of politics as such.
Politics in all times and places involves a bounded community defining itself, and its citizens ruling themselves, in contradistinction to other bounded communities. The community can be a village, tribe, or city-state; a nation-state; or an empire. Certain forms of government are better suited to certain sizes than others. (A small community can work as a pure democracy, for example, but a vast empire never could.) But regardless of the community's size, it always has limits (a border), and it always draws a distinction between those who are permitted to join the community and those who are not; between who is and who is not a citizen; and between who does and who does not get to enjoy the privileges that come with citizenship, including a say in making such determinations in the future. This may in fact be the most elemental political act of all, the basis of everything else the political community does. To declare that this act is prima facie illegitimate is to declare a foundational political act to be illegitimate. It is to treat politics itself as in some sense morally compromised.
Is this foundational political act based on, as Beauchamp's interlocutor believes, a "fiction that one group has a natural right to live in a place that another group lacks"? The answer may well be yes, in the sense that it's impossible to justify in universal-rational terms this "natural right to live in a place" that has nonetheless been presumed by just about every political community in human history. (Only some nomadic tribes have managed to avoid making such a presumption.)
But then again, neither is it possible to justify in universal-rational terms the right to private property or, really, any form of inherited (unearned) wealth or privilege. The more you think about it, politics (very much including liberal politics) is an activity shot through with norms, practices, and beliefs that can be rather easily exposed as "fictions" once subjected to universal-rational scrutiny.
That's why philosophers as otherwise so profoundly different as Plato and Karl Marx have concluded that the rule of reason and justice demands communism (the abolition of private property). Indeed, Plato went even further than Marx, to suggest that in a perfectly rational and just political system, property communism would need to be combined with communism of families, with children taken from their parents at birth and raised by the community as a whole. After all, isn't deference to a mother's love for her own child based on the fiction that she is always automatically best suited by nature to raise him or her?
The most that might be said for our neoliberal almost-open-border advocates is that they think Plato should have gone even farther in subjecting politics to universal-rational scrutiny and advocated a completely communist state that is also boundless in extent, encompassing all people everywhere, without distinction.
In other words, Plato should have advocated the universal, homogenous state — which is precisely what many on the center-left seem to not-so-secretly believe morality demands.
That such a state is neither possible nor desirable (recall what I said about the largest political communities and their incompatibility with democracy) should be obvious. But then what do our universalist liberals hope to accomplish, not by raising perfectly reasonable objections to specific immigration restrictions, but by denying the legitimacy of having any immigration restrictions at all? There are many, many intellectually coherent answers to the two key questions of immigration policy (Who can come here? And how many of them?) — but many on the left seem to think there is only one legitimate answer to each question (Everyone. And all of them). This is ludicrous.
Politics has its own logic, and part of that logic is the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Those who deny the moral permissibility of making that distinction won't eliminate the need to make it. They will merely exclude themselves from the ranks of those the citizenry will be willing to entrust with responsibility for participating in the rule of the community. And that distrust will be fully justified.
you're posting this racists content?
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
Here is the receipt you requested sir
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/483908/
I'm not disputing the racist intent of people advocating skill based immigration today, I'm just saying that imo it is the most rational and sensible policy
IMO skill based immigration will diversify immigration instead of having one group dominate the way it is now
Last edited:
AndroidHero
Superstar
I think it's time that greenygreen is permanently banned.
John Reena
Superstar
This immigration shyt is DOA. U think the agriculture, retail giants, and construction farms gone let Trump take away they cheap migrant workers?!
So the guy who argued for it in the 1960s was White Supremacy in intent, but he turned out to be wrong about its effects.
Now that Stephan Miller has had 50 years of results, he can aim for intent and effect.
And I don't see how you can possibly claim this will "diversity immigration" when they're straight eliminating the all countries lottery, the absolutely most diversifying aspect of current immigration law.
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
The inability to separate the initial intent of a concept/philosophy/act from the derived practical application is what held me as a liberal sheep
Unfortunately, many folks either
-still haven't gotten the courage, comprehension, and/or wakeup call
OR
-they are selective when to separate, which usually falls along political affiliations
Isaiah Bradley
Banned
This is the true intentions for the "fight for justice" for the illegal immigrants, so that they could be taken advantage ofThis immigration shyt is DOA. U think the agriculture, retail giants, and construction farms gone let Trump take away they cheap migrant workers?!
You offer a competitive wager and safe working conditions, then none of those industries will lack willing and qualified applicants
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
are you talking about?
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
stephen miller is not a evil genius, his proposal can backfire (from his intent) just like it backfired for this feighan fellow
im just saying skill based is the most rational and fairest way of giving out visas when they are in high demand
it is not ok that the vast majority of visas are given to people from latin america, even under a diversity visa black immigration is a trickle compared to other parts of the world
under a family based system only a few people that have some connection to the us can immigrate to the us, under a skill based system it opens it up to everybody in the whole world