-->
@FLRW
Are you angry she didn't claim fake asylum like most illegal invaders?
Stay angry then. Stay Angry.
Immigration
Posts
Total:
73
-->
@Danielle
fact that the U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants.
Says who, if I might ask?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Says who, if I might ask?
“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong,”
-George Washington
"America offers a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes.”
“This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there, by warning their taskmasters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers, and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government.”
-Thomas Jefferson
"Through this Golden Door has come millions of men and women. These families came here to work. Others came to America and often harrowing conditions. They didn’t ask what this country could do for them but what they could do to make this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history. They brought with them courage and the values of family, work, and freedom."
-Reagan
“We really need people, but it has to be through a legal process and a process really of merit,”
"We do want people coming into our country. They have to come in legally.”
-Trump
Would you guys let me into America? My granny was born there.
-->
@Greyparrot
“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong,”-George Washington
Let's see about that. *Checks notes*
Washington president during: April 30, 1789 – March 3, 1797
"The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character"
"The Act repeated the limitation in the 1790 Act that naturalization was reserved only for "free white person[s]"
I'm gonna have to press "X" to doubt on that one.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well he did say "Hoped" lol!
But yes. The realities of your post show that the Legislators at the founding KNEW a Nation without naturalization isn't really a nation at all. For a nation to exist there must be laws. For laws to apply there must be jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to apply there must be an established citizenry. It's an inevitable chain.
-->
@Greyparrot
Well he did say "Hoped" lol!
Fair enough. Tee hee
-->
@Greyparrot
But yes. The realities of your post show that the Legislators at the founding KNEW a Nation without naturalization isn't really a nation at all. For a nation to exist there must be laws. For laws to apply there must be jurisdiction. For jurisdiction to apply there must be an established citizenry. It's an inevitable chain.
Well then, I have no problem with having laws or forcing naturalization. My issue is with how many and the characteristics of who is allowed.
But generally, people that say "fact that the U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants." are likely to quote one very specific thing. Supposing Danielle does respond, I'd like to see if the response is as expected.
-->
@Danielle
… that immigration drives down wages (disagree, and if there is an impact on wages, it's negligible);… but forcing a small business owner to hire more expensive workers is somehow okay even if that hurts their business.
How do you reconcile these two apparently contradictory claims?
-->
@Greyparrot
This is a great point. What would legislation look like if you were to propose something workable people could agree on?
You know that point about accepting economic migrants was actually a Republican position not too long ago. “Our immigration system should be open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here" - Ronald Reagan. The Bush's shared similar sentiments, although some populists might argue that was just to keep capitalists rich.
I have some ideas for things we could do although I certainly don't have all the answers. Essentially I would call for much easier immigration policy: just security and disease checks for the most part, and then significantly increase the penalties for illegal immigration or hiring illegal immigrants to ensure documentation of everyone within the States. That would be imperative for security and other things.
One idea is to allow people to come and live + work here, but not make them eligible for the privileges of citizenship for a certain amount of time - say 10 years. So they can work but employers do not have to pay them minimum wage, and they would pay taxes but not be eligible for things like Social Security or Unemployment until they become citizens. Essentially that's what's happening now except they never become citizens, and often do not report a lot of crimes that happen to them (rape, theft, kidnapping, violence) out of fear of deportation. I'd also make them wait ten years to vote. Do you see any issues with these suggestions?
Side note: my brother-in-law was almost turned away from working a temp job in South Korea for health reasons. They took his blood pressure when he arrived at the airport, and it was a little high so they almost made him go home and not obtain a work visa so as to discourage any burdens on their healthcare system. Fortunately he convinced them to take it again and after he calmed down a bit it went back to normal levels so he could stay. I have mixed feelings on this and feel like as a policy it could be abused and/or become a significant rights issue, even for native Americans, so I'd pass on that policy for now.
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m not going to debate abortion.
I wasn't expecting you to. I'm just pointing out that we make up who is eligible for rights based on arbitrary things all the time. If someone has to "wait in line" as a requirement for U.S. citizenship, then surely it is reasonable to make waiting for consciousness or waiting until they can actually LIVE on their own outside the womb a logical prerequisite to citizenship as well.
What’s the moral of the story? Everyone wants to be nice but we don’t have the resources to accept everybody and it’s immoral per your own argument to discriminate against people living in India vs Latin America.
That's a good point if you can expand on it. I'm concerned about infrastructure. Which resources do you think would take the hardest hit?
If my parents can do it, so can everyone else. They don’t deserve to cut the line because my parents did everything legally.
It is objectively untrue that just because your parents did it, that it's a realistic option for everyone else. There is no "line" for the vast majority of immigrants. Most do not have the necessary family or employment relationships to get in line, and even those that do finally get in line often have to wait years given the backlog of applicants, lottery policy and other laws - especially immigrants from Mexico. They often wait between 19 and 24 years for visas to become available.
Data shows that in 2018, more than 100,000 legal immigrants (which is 28% of the family‐sponsored and employment‐based lines with quotas) waited a decade or more to apply for a green card. Wait times have doubled since 1991. In fact some green card categories have wait times of 100 years. There are currently more than 5 million people waiting in the backlog including 1 million skilled migrants. Comparing your parent's experience to theirs is not analogous. It all varies and the "lines" look different for all. For example, because Indians have reached the country limits in the categories for employees with bachelor’s and master’s degrees, the law requires them to wait about a decade to immigrate, while applicants from all other countries except China may apply for their green cards almost immediately, cutting ahead of Indians in the line.
I could go on and on about further disparities, but the point is that "waiting in line" is not a realistic or great option. I might take my chances immigrating illegally, especially if my kids became naturalized citizens. We can change the rules to be more equitable and just without advocating that anyone "cut" the line.
But let’s not forget the national security reasons of having a pourous border too. Just recently CBP caught terrorists at the border. Eliminate borders and the drug trade skyrockets with cartel violence seeping across the border.
I'm not for open borders - immigrants should be subjected to rigorous security checks. Plus they'll be spied on like everyone else in the U.S.
-->
@Wylted
I thank you for being the only person to address my specific questions about lockdowns vs. immigration restrictions.
You said that paying someone $2 an hour is exploiting them. How is it exploiting them if they literally risked their lives for the opportunity to make $2 an hour in this country? How is it exploiting them if they are desperate to work for those wages -- are you saying they have a better opportunity in their home country? Apparently not.
It's pretty telling that you equate Americans with white people, Wylted. You should really explore that a bit further on your own time. However my question is why an employer is required to pay "white people '' anything above what the market says they are worth. Explain why it is "unethical" to pay a low skilled worker low wages. Is the government controlling the market (labor supply) what you consider to be liberty and freedom? Sounds like some "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx stuff to me.
-->
@Wylted
This is actually what Trump stated many times he wanted to do. He may have clothed it in tough rhetoric, but his plan was to make legal immigration a lot easier, while simultaneously preventing illegal immigration.
He didn't make immigration easier and I don't think he ever wanted to. He genuinely believes along with Bernie Sanders that immigrants take work away from low-skilled Americans and drive their wages down. It's not true though (or rather not the whole picture).
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Why are you using an alias?
I think it's split on how immigrants feel about U.S. culture assuming we even have a unified American culture. People coming from the Middle East and Asia don't seem to adapt quickly whereas Latin Americans and Europeans are obviously more westernized. The children of all immigrants are very likely to assimilate. It's always been the case. The whole plot and punchline for almost all movies, television and comedy about immigrants is the kids becoming more Americanized against the parent's wishes. So I definitely see the utility in assimilation, but I don't think it's a problem that should impact immigration laws.
You bring up a good point that we have a lot of arable land even though a lot of it is regulated out of utility. It's worth noting in the immigration discussion that we have a lot more land than we need to sustain the population. We could certainly afford to expand, but bringing up fossil fuels and any other impact on the environment is a great argument against that. It's a shame conservatives won't use it because then they'd have to acknowledge that fossil fuels are really a problem. Womp womp. But I do think that is one of the best arguments against more immigration I've come across; it's directly related to my concerns about infrastructure. Thank you for bringing it up.
I also think your point about immigration hurting the rest of the world and its resources is a good one. That can seemingly be addressed by more acceptance of outsourcing though which I would be fine with and maybe even prefer. Perhaps that's a compromise for nativists to consider: less immigration in exchange for less protectionism.
-->
@thett3
If I’m being perfectly honest most of my intense opposition to immigration has always come from the viewpoint that people who I know for a fact have an intense hatred of people like me have been openly enthusiastic about using immigration as a bludgeon against us for my entire life.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
“I like things the way they are” is a perfectly valid reason to oppose the mass movements of peoples and it’s essentially my reasoning.
But immigration IS the way things are - there has been non-stop immigration in perpetuity to the U.S. for the last 500+ years. I do appreciate the honesty of this position though I disagree that it's valid. It's the appeal to tradition fallacy.
I also don’t think it’s as simple as saying immigration is good and or bad for the economy because there are different kinds of immigrants.
That's true, but there is a significant body of research that shows almost all immigration is a net positive for the economy.
I can accept the other relevant factors people mention (like culture); however, people never seem to want to address the immorality of what happens when people are NOT allowed to immigrate legally in tandem with the other factors that they do want to discuss. I'm not only talking about the poverty or danger people are relegated to just by the very nature of where they're born, but also the fact that enforcing immigration laws is often brutal and inhumane. We all saw the pictures of Haitians being rounded up by agents on horseback like cattle. Yesterday a 7 year old Venezuelan girl drowned in the Rio Grande as she was attempting to cross into Del Rio with her mother. The mother lost her grip and the child was swept away. These are things to consider in the complexity of the discussion as a whole.
I’ve always been skeptical of the narrative that Americans can’t do the job, though.
The current "labor shortage" is more about not having enough people willing to work certain jobs for certain wages because they have more options and opportunity (but notice how nobody's talking about low unemployment and rising wages under Biden like they were for Trump). Your local Taco Bell might be staffed by white teens, and that's great, but there are plenty of memes, angry Facebook posts and data from the Dept of Labor showing a lot of jobs simply aren't being filled. I've had bad experiences from staff shortages.
I'ma go watch TV but I'll respond to the ones I missed later if warranted.
-->
@Danielle
You said that paying someone $2 an hour is exploiting them. How is it exploiting them if they literally risked their lives for the opportunity to make $2 an hour in this country? How is it exploiting them if they are desperate to work for those wages -- are you saying they have a better opportunity in their home country? Apparently not
I understand the argument. I was a libertarian a few years ago myself. This is a race issue to a certain extent. It's not white immigrants getting paid below minimum wage in terrible conditions.
Employers are not on equal footing with employees, like libertarian philosophy suggests. There is a very real power differential, and in terms of illegal immigrants the power differential is further widened, by the lack of opportunities for immigrants to find gainful employment.
You might be trying to infer something I am not. Illegal immigrants aren't our enemies. They are not bad people for trying to make a better life for themselves. They are doing things, I would hope I had the courage to do in their situations.
So when you say "do they have better opportunities in their home country", I feel like it implies I am blaming illegal immigrants.
We should help Mexicans and those from south America to form better national policies, so they don't feel the need to flee their homelands to start with.
One way you do that is by making things harder in the short term. The reason the Mexican government encourages immigration, is because it gets rid of dissidents that would throw out all the corrupt politicians and physically fight for a better country.
We have to help these people fleeing by refusing to be that escape valve and by working to pressure their government to stamp out corruption and encourage a better economy.
Allowing American companies to pay them wages that they can barely feed their families on is not a long term solution. Neither is allowing them to work extreme conditions that we ourselves wouldn't tolerate, just because we feel that they somehow deserve it, and we are doing them a favor.
These people deserve to be treated better. Women crossing the border are often raped and brutalized. Pedophiles pretend to be parents of kids they kidnapped from Mexico, we have men and women who are made into virtual slaves upon arriving in the country.
Anybody with empathy for these people should be discouraging illegal immigration. My number one strategy to attack illegal immigration would be to physically arrest employers who hire illegal aliens.
-->
@Danielle
But immigration IS the way things are - there has been non-stop immigration in perpetuity to the U.S. for the last 500+ years. I do appreciate the honesty of this position though I disagree that it's valid. It's the appeal to tradition fallacy.
This isn't actually the case. There was almost zero immigration to the US between the revolution and the civil war, which was followed by the big immigration wave everyone remembers in the 1870s-1910s from Southern and Eastern Europe. Then after the 1920s there was virtually no immigration for almost a half century, the current immigration wave didn't really pick up until the late 1970s.
Its not a logical fallacy because I'm not making an objective claim, but rather a claim about how I, and many others, would like things. We all have the right to vote after all and should have a say in our local communities. As an aside, despite understanding why they did it, I think allowing totally unrestricted travel between the states was a huge mistake from the founding fathers. If states could control their own border policies immigration policy wouldn't be a problem at all because people would be able to choose
I can accept the other relevant factors people mention (like culture); however, people never seem to want to address the immorality of what happens when people are NOT allowed to immigrate legally in tandem with the other factors that they do want to discuss. I'm not only talking about the poverty or danger people are relegated to just by the very nature of where they're born, but also the fact that enforcing immigration laws is often brutal and inhumane. We all saw the pictures of Haitians being rounded up by agents on horseback like cattle. Yesterday a 7 year old Venezuelan girl drowned in the Rio Grande as she was attempting to cross into Del Rio with her mother. The mother lost her grip and the child was swept away. These are things to consider in the complexity of the discussion as a whole.
But that happened because they felt that if they could just make it here they would be allowed to stay and become citizens. Migrants make the dangerous journey BECAUSE of the perception of open borders, not because of a strong border policy.
The current "labor shortage" is more about not having enough people willing to work certain jobs for certain wages because they have more options and opportunity (but notice how nobody's talking about low unemployment and rising wages under Biden like they were for Trump). Your local Taco Bell might be staffed by white teens, and that's great, but there are plenty of memes, angry Facebook posts and data from the Dept of Labor showing a lot of jobs simply aren't being filled. I've had bad experiences from staff shortages.
They could always raise wages. If an immigrant would work a job for a wage a native born citizen wouldn't doesn't that proof that immigration negatively impacts wages? If they won't ameliorate the labor shortage by working for the low wages being offered, what's the point?
This kind of goes back to the birth rate thing in my other thread too. There simply isn't going to be a never ending supply of cheap labor forever, immigration or no. It's not 1990 anymore and the number of people willing to totally upend their lives and leave everything they've ever known behind to work at Pizza Hut continues to dwindle by the year. May as well just get used to it and focus on building a technological economy that doesn't require never ending streams of cheap labor. Raise wages where you can and automate the rest. I always hear about "who will pick the crops??" if we don't have illegal immigration...machines will!
10 days later
-->
@Wylted
We should help Mexicans and those from south America to form better national policies, so they don't feel the need to flee their homelands to start with.
Nobody wants to spend the money or resources on that. We could help people fleeing poverty by improving the economic conditions in their countries through freer trade, but nobody wants to outsource either.
Anybody with empathy for these people should be discouraging illegal immigration.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm saying it should be legal for them to immigrate.
Fantasies about how we could somehow improve the conditions of countries all around the world when we can't agree on metrics and spending to improve our own country might make you feel good - it might make you feel like you've come up with a "solution" to the immigrant problem, but it's not realistic and it ignores the facts.
The facts are that despite the risks - despite the potential rape, pedophilia, human slavery, sex trafficking and threat of being rounded up or imprisoned by enforcement agencies , millions of people decided that the risks were better option for them then staying put. Even the ones that didn't take huge risks to come here chose to stay, live as noncitizens and accept the subsequent risks while leaving all they knew behind. Because it is very hard to deter these folks, the question is how we should treat them. If we make them citizens they will be eligible for the rights and benefits that we share and will not be treated poorly (as you claim is your concern). We could also consider options like the ones I mentioned in my response to Greyparrot, e.g. letting people come to live + work here and qualify for full citizenship after a certain amount of time, say 10 years.
-->
@thett3
I'm disappointed that you didn't expand on how those who "hate people like you have been openly enthusiastic about using immigration as a bludgeon against you for your entire life." Understanding the visceral pushback would help to elucidate your values.
This isn't actually the case. There was almost zero immigration to the US between the revolution and the civil war,
It wasn't that long. There were about ~40 years with little immigration during the infancy of our country between 1790-1830; the immigrant population actually exploded decades before the Civil War largely in part to the Irish potato famine. However even though the influx of immigration changed over time, my point is that this country has seen a significant amount of immigration since its inception. Yes there was a temporary lull between the 1920s and 1960s, but that was 60 years ago. What are you - like 30 years old? There have been 30+ million immigrants that came here since you were born with the last two decades bringing more immigrants than ever before. So for you to say you "like the way things are" just seems weird since the number of immigrants doubled over the span of your life. The way things are = diversity. And going back to a previous topic, a lot of immigrants tend to be (at least socially) conservative which would seem to increase the chances of preserving the cultural elements you value. You probably have more values and political views in common with a Mexican immigrant than a native Californian.
We all have the right to vote after all and should have a say in our local communities.
But we all agree there are limitations. What about the people who want to ban guns? Should we get to vote on slavery? What if we can prove it's in the economic interest of the country ? As I said elsewhere, we can't divorce individual rights from the immigration debate. Even if you don't think immigrants qualify for rights per se, what about the Americans who want to hire a foreign worker or sell their house to someone born in another country? Conservatives claim to be the ones who prioritize individual rights whereas leftists tend to be skeptical of private property. I am not. The rejection of immigration rights and the shrugging off of institutionalized bigotry and free trade is far more dismissive of private property rights than anything I believe.
Ultimately I agree with the premise of democracy so I don't want to argue it too strongly for no good reason. I do think people tend to agree more than they disagree overall, and that's why I was curious about your personal experience which is clearly impacting your perspective. That isn't to say that I think your personal experience is any more valid or valuable than mine or someone else's, but it would help me get a better idea of what you're afraid of.
As an aside, despite understanding why they did it, I think allowing totally unrestricted travel between the states was a huge mistake from the founding fathers. If states could control their own border policies immigration policy wouldn't be a problem at all because people would be able to choose.
Yeah, the US was founded with open borders. It has an open borders Constitution. The first major immigration restrictions were not implemented until after the founding fathers were long dead. But it's funny you bring this up since I know a lot of open-border libertarians that use this as a satirical counterpoint. "Do we want more immigrants or more jobs for our kids? Why should job stealing politicians like Bernie Sanders be allowed to move from New York to Vermont and run for Senate? Shouldn’t that job go to some kid from Vermont? Look at all these people exploiting the system to make more money, moving from one state to another for work. These are economic migrants, not refugees. What did Florida ever do to New York to obligate it to take in all these people?"
But that happened because they felt that if they could just make it here they would be allowed to stay and become citizens. Migrants make the dangerous journey BECAUSE of the perception of open borders, not because of a strong border policy.
No that happened because we empower border agents to treat people that way, and because people are forced to choose between a rock and a hard place. Note that more immigrants came after the creation of ICE (2003) than before. They make the journey because they live dangerous, depressing, dead-end lives and want the opportunity for a better one. That's why all immigrants that aren't slaves come here. That's why your ancestors came here. It's interesting how you've chosen to frame and justify the policies that exclude some. I suspect it comes from your intuitive understanding that what they endure is tragic and unjust which brings up some cognitive dissonance. As I was saying to Pie, this is why it's so hard for me to take the anti-choice position seriously as a moral argument from the same group re: abortion. It is inconceivable that conservatives are "horrified" by the death of a human being that isn't conscious, while accepting the death of actual children essentially as collateral damage for unnecessary policies.
If an immigrant would work a job for a wage a native born citizen wouldn't doesn't that proof that immigration negatively impacts wages?
It depends. Historically it's been avoided by immigrants not going for the same jobs and/or natives shifting to other (often higher paying) jobs. This was the same argument that was used to keep women out of the workforce by the way, but wages of both men and women increased as more women entered the workforce. There are several reasons for that we can discuss if you would like to and I'll admit there are plenty of variables. The main thing to consider with immigration or working women is that it boosts labor demand, not just labor supply. When women went to work, they made money to spend. It increased demand for childcare, domestic services, dining outside the home, etc. Immigrants don't just come here to work. They consume.
If they won't ameliorate the labor shortage by working for the low wages being offered, what's the point?
They can ameliorate the labor shortage by simply taking the jobs.
I always hear about "who will pick the crops??" if we don't have illegal immigration...machines will!
That is what happened in the late 1960s after the end of the bracero guest worker visa program. In other words, restricting immigration did not raise the wages of low-skilled native workers; the work was automated instead. Another thing that happened was that low-skilled workers shifted industries which arguably grew the economy in other areas.
To be honest I skimmed your Population thread and just had to go back to it to remind myself what it was about. One thing I find amusing though was noticing YYW mention his Chinese friend. We know Pie's parents are immigrants. My dad is an immigrant. I assume most of us have immigrant friends or friends with immigrant parents. It's disheartening that I'm the only person here to outright refute the idiotic idea that "immigrants don't assimilate." They do and their children definitely do.
Anyway the majority of people on this site are really dim but I appreciate your posts. I do hope you expand on your experience with immigration "being used as a bludgeon against you" but if not the Inheritance thread was more interesting to me anyway.
-->
@Danielle
I think a major issue is if we I'm
Igrate too many to integrate. These people have children and those children usually vote for more socialism, and if we look at the economic freedom index and cross reference standard of living, we can see that socialism leads to a lower quality of life for people.
If we have a bunch of people from 3rd world countries destroyed by leftism, for some odd reason they don't make the connection and they raise their children to vote for policies that will ultimately match the policies that destroyed the countries they came from. If you just have an open border policy like you advocate for, America will look like Venezuela in just one generation.
-->
@Wylted
Pie's parents are immigrants and he has Trump as his profile picture. My father is an immigrant and I was a hardcore libertarian for more than a decade. Anecdotes aside, it's untrue that immigrants come and vote for socialism. The ones that do vote (most don't) often vote conservative. In fact that was a huge talking point of the Right after the election: the Cuban immigrants in Florida and other Hispanics voting for Trump. They tend to reject socialism specifically because they had to escape it. They also tend to be more culturally conservative (religious) than Americans.
I do not support open borders, just expedited immigration. You shouldn't have to wait 20 years or more to immigrate legally. One could make the argument that libertarians must support open borders for consistency, but that's debatable and I'm not a libertarian anymore (though I do value individual rights and property rights).
-->
@Danielle
I don't know anyone against legal immigration.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes they believe immigrants should just have to wait decades to immigrate legally. I get it. Good one. Very clever.
I've also made clear that with easier paths to citizenship I support harsher penalties for illegal immigration.
I'm willing to bet you do know some people who oppose legal immigration though. Some are on this site. For instance nothing thett said suggested he was open to more immigration. He might be open to some refugees (unsure), but he's made pretty clear over the years that he values stability and homogeneity. Wylted has also expressed a preference of "helping people improve their own countries" rather than welcome them here.
-->
@Danielle
I'm willing to bet you do know some people who oppose legal immigration though.
I'll take that bet.
-->
@Danielle
Pie's parents are immigrants and he has Trump as his profile picture. My father is an immigrant and I was a hardcore libertarian for more than a decade. Anecdotes aside, it's untrue that immigrants come and vote for socialism
Obviously not at a 100% rate, and I know pie's parents immigrated legally.
You shouldn't have to wait 20 years or more to immigrate legally.
I agree. I see so many immigrants that actually have something of value to offer America being subject to that sort of fight, while illegal aliens have no problems. Most immigrants I know who did so legally, frown upon illegal immigration.
-->
@Wylted
Obviously not at a 100% rate, and I know pie's parents immigrated legally.
The vast majority of immigrants assimilate and 99% of their kids do. But again if immigration is fine so long as it's legal, then just legalize all immigration for everyone that passes a security and disease check as fast as we can process it. Problem solved.
Most immigrants I know who did so legally, frown upon illegal immigration.
Of course. Because some of them had to wait a LONG ASS TIME. It's like the people who pay off all their student loans being presented with a policy to forgive all student loans. Someone's resentment or jealousy doesn't determine the morality or utility of a policy though.
-->
@Danielle
just legalize all immigration for everyone that passes a security and disease check as fast as we can process it. Problem solved
Why? There are 8 billion people on the planet. How wouldnit benefit the United States to make us look like a 3rd world country by allowing everyone who wants to come in, come in.
The vast majority of immigrants assimilate and 99% of their kids do.
I live in Florida, you can't fool me with this bullshit. We have entire cities where English speakers are not welcome. In my city, there is a large portion also who do not speak English, they do no business with Americans, other than when I patronize their places because I love Spanish women and food.
-->
@Danielle
I'm disappointed that you didn't expand on how those who "hate people like you have been openly enthusiastic about using immigration as a bludgeon against you for your entire life." Understanding the visceral pushback would help to elucidate your values.
I deliberately avoided it because it goes into some personal hang ups that I've pretty much discarded by now, and which I don't think are that relevant. But basically I simply cannot stand by the anti-white/culture war stuff. When elite progressives giddily talk about making white people into a minority or how much they hate "White men" I dislike it, but what makes me hate it is that I know who they're talking about. They aren't talking about themselves or other white people who live in big cities and go to Sunday brunch or whatever, they're talking about how much they hate a different group: middle American whites, particularly in the South and particularly ones that come from the working class and hold conservative values. Well, this is the group I am a part of, through no fault of my own. The people I love are a part of this group...And when I see immigrants or second generations who parrot these narratives (because assimilation) I see people deputized in a culture war against people like me.
I think a part of it is that despite loving to argue online I guess in person I come off as super agreeable (I used to think I came off as super liberal because libs would always open up to me but recently random conspira-boomers at the airport have been approaching me to talk about JFK and 9/11 lol.) So people have always been way too open and honest with me, and have said some truly vile things about poor whites, or people in places like Alabama, or conservatives. And against other groups. There is just so much hatred, and it really scared me. It still does. And it does make me question how wise diversity in a society is. There are also some personal experiences I've had that I don't really want to go into. Is that a mature reason to take a policy position, no. And I do think I've totally discarded those, and shouldn't have even mentioned it in my post. But since you ask, that's what was driving the intensity of my opposition to immigration during Trump's first run