Political Roundtable Part XIII

[nate33]

sfam, do you oppose ANY limits on immigration whatsoever? If you do, by what criteria?

[sfam]

As for the hoax comment on the rise of anti-semitic actions, this is pure alt-fact.

http://www.hatecrimehoaxes.com/

I love it! I can submit my own hoax! Anyone wanna help me make a new anti-semitic hoax for this site?

We can also buy the site if interested!

I'm familiar with lots of snopes style review sites. This one really doesn't pass muster. But you can check real news sources if you really care.



Both the FBI and Southern Poverty Law center agree on the increase. The fact that Trump finally was forced to address anti-semitic attacks should put this to bed.

[closg00]

As for the hoax comment on the rise of anti-semitic actions, this is pure alt-fact.

http://www.hatecrimehoaxes.com/

Anecdotal and used to diminish all of the many real incidents of racism that have exploded since Trump became President. Imagine someone creating a web site dedicated to rape hoaxes.

[sfam]

sfam, do you oppose ANY limits on immigration whatsoever? If you do, by what criteria?

Of course! We have massive limits on immigration right now. I support those assuming we can fix the process. The process is broken in all sorts of ways, but it simply is not the open sieve the right portrays it to be.

EDIT: For the past 16 years, Republicans have actively blocked both of the last two Presidents in fixing this.

[nate33]

This is interesting:

EXCLUSIVE: Obama’s Feds Tried to Hack Indiana’s Election System While Pence Was Governor
by Richard Pollack

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials tried to hack Indiana’s state electoral system with at least 14,800 “scans” or hits between Nov. 1, 2016, to Dec. 16, 2016, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned. The attacks are the second confirmed IT scanning assault by DHS officials against states that resisted then-President Barack Obama’s attempt to increase federal involvement in state and local election systems by designating them as “critical infrastructure” for national security.

Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, the incoming president of the association, told TheDCNF Tuesday that, “we know that between November 1 and December 16 we were scanned with about 14,800 scans, nearly 15,000 different times.” The state’s IT team traced the intruder to a DHS computer’s IP address. The same DHS unit attempted 10 times in 2016 to hack into the Georgia electoral system.

Federal officials are barred under DHS rules from trying to penetrate a state system without the express approval of the state. Neither Georgia nor Indiana approved the DHS scanning attempts.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/21/exclusive-obamas-feds-tried-to-hack-indianas-election-system-while-pence-was-governor/#ixzz4ZQTJPXQL

[gtn130]

As for the hoax comment on the rise of anti-semitic actions, this is pure alt-fact.

http://www.hatecrimehoaxes.com/

Nate, you've already shared that link, man, and we already argued about the site's lack of credibility.

[nate33]

As for the hoax comment on the rise of anti-semitic actions, this is pure alt-fact.

http://www.hatecrimehoaxes.com/

I love it! I can submit my own hoax! Anyone wanna help me make a new anti-semitic hoax for this site?

We can also buy the site if interested!

I'm familiar with lots of snopes style review sites. This one really doesn't pass muster.

Again with the attempt at discrediting the source.

It's not a "snopes style review site". It's an aggregator of news stories. You don't need to worry about their credibility as they are not "reporting" anything. They are linking to existing, published news stories. This is just like gtn130's criticism of me posting an InfoWars article that merely reported about a Rasmussen Poll. It's like the fact that Infowars passed through the information suddenly renders the information false.

And I'm not disputing the fact that a Jewish cemetery was vandalized. I just can't confirm that it's a "hate crime" yet, (just as the NY TImes article you cite can't confirm it either). I would prefer to wait and see if they can find the culprit, because I believe the possibility exists that it was someone from the left trying to smear the right. It may also a Muslim perpetrator as there seems to be quite a bit of animosity between some Muslims and Jews.

[nate33]

EDIT: For the past 16 years, Republicans have actively blocked both of the last two Presidents in fixing this.

Yes, because the "fix" involved amnestying 13 million illegal immigrants who would proceed to vote 80-20 in favor of Democrats and form a permanent Democrat majority.

[sfam]

http://www.hatecrimehoaxes.com/

I love it! I can submit my own hoax! Anyone wanna help me make a new anti-semitic hoax for this site?

We can also buy the site if interested!

I'm familiar with lots of snopes style review sites. This one really doesn't pass muster.

Again with the attempt at discrediting the source.

It's not a "snopes style review site". It's an aggregator of news stories. You don't need to worry about their credibility as they are not "reporting" anything. They are linking to existing, published news stories. This is just like gtn130's criticism of me posting an InfoWars article that merely reported about a Rasmussen Poll. It's like the fact that Infowars passed through the information suddenly renders the information false.

And I'm not disputing the fact that a Jewish cemetery was vandalized. I just can't confirm that it's a "hate crime" yet, (just as the NY TImes article you cite can't confirm it either). I would prefer to wait and see if they can find the culprit, because I believe the possibility exists that it was someone from the left trying to smear the right. It may also a Muslim perpetrator as there seems to be quite a bit of animosity between some Muslims and Jews.

Not true. Perhaps you should check the "Submit a hoax" option at the top. But when you do check those with sources, Brietbart and Creepingsharia just don't inspire confidence.

The sources SUCK HARD.

Again, if you want to find an aggregator of hate crimes, the authoritative source recognized in the human rights space is the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you want to try Federal sources, the FBI is the authoritative source. Both provide a different view from creepingsharia.wordpress.com.

Feel free to choose your news source, but don't expect others to buy your arguments based off of those sources.

[sfam]

EDIT: For the past 16 years, Republicans have actively blocked both of the last two Presidents in fixing this.

Yes, because the "fix" involved amnestying 13 million illegal immigrants who would proceed to vote 80-20 in favor of Democrats and form a permanent Democrat majority.

Right, the reasons are purely political, so we have a critical problem festering for a few decades. The whole righteous posture really starts to suffer after a while.

Bottom line, the problem still exists, even if there are negative implications for Republican vote patterns. The solution the Republicans have come upon - disenfranchise those legally eligible through 5 hour waiting lines and rediculous regulations, and hold up any immigration discussion is where we are today.

Imagine if Republicans had policies and outlooks that actually appealed to nonwhites? The problem isn't the immigrants, its the intolerance.

[nate33]

EDIT: For the past 16 years, Republicans have actively blocked both of the last two Presidents in fixing this.

Yes, because the "fix" involved amnestying 13 million illegal immigrants who would proceed to vote 80-20 in favor of Democrats and form a permanent Democrat majority.

Right, the reasons are purely political, so we have a critical problem festering for a few decades. The whole righteous posture really starts to suffer after a while.

Bottom line, the problem still exists, even if there are negative implications for Republican vote patterns. The solution the Republicans have come upon - disenfranchise those legally eligible through 5 hour waiting lines and rediculous regulations, and hold up any immigration discussion is where we are today.

Imagine if Republicans had policies and outlooks that actually appealed to nonwhites? The problem isn't the immigrants, its the intolerance.

Imagine if we addressed lawbreakers by actually following the law?

[sfam]

Yes, because the "fix" involved amnestying 13 million illegal immigrants who would proceed to vote 80-20 in favor of Democrats and form a permanent Democrat majority.

Right, the reasons are purely political, so we have a critical problem festering for a few decades. The whole righteous posture really starts to suffer after a while.

Bottom line, the problem still exists, even if there are negative implications for Republican vote patterns. The solution the Republicans have come upon - disenfranchise those legally eligible through 5 hour waiting lines and rediculous regulations, and hold up any immigration discussion is where we are today.

Imagine if Republicans had policies and outlooks that actually appealed to nonwhites? The problem isn't the immigrants, its the intolerance.

Imagine if we addressed lawbreakers by actually following the law?

If I'm going to Imagine, I have something very different in mind.

Watch on YouTube

[gtn130]

sfam, do you oppose ANY limits on immigration whatsoever? If you do, by what criteria?

I don't understand how you can think anyone is advocating for zero limits on immigration. It's not even consistent with being a 'leftist' as you like to call liberals. You can't be a socialist without having relatively strict borders.

It's like concluding liberals are in favor of a command economy because they don't readily denounce all government regulation.

Isn't Trump the one pushing a pretty radical immigration platform? Building a wall, deporting ALL illegals, the travel ban and so on. Liberals are saying 'this is too extreme' and you're saying OH OK I GUESS YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS. Come on dude

[dckingsfan]

Okay, I will take the Devil's Advocate argument on this one... even though I have argued the opposite earlier (that we need more immigration). It seems that the argument on the other side is three fold. First, we should take individuals that benefit the United States. Second, is that we should only take in as many immigrants as will not change the American culture. And lastly, all immigration should be legal. The context of the argument is based upon the 9.6 million immigrants in 1970 (4.8 percent of the population) to 38 million (12.5 percent the population) in 2008. There was a substantial lull during the recession - but the numbers a fairly great. One could easily argue that the number should be closer to 3% annually.

The first one is obvious in its context (and the true reason that German's are upset), the costs associated with unskilled immigration and the suppression of wage gains for the unskilled labor already in the US. There have been lots of studies on this subject. When you bring in unskilled labor, it is the second generation (or third) that makes the immigration worthwhile. Given that we are running a fairly substantial deficit and the biggest driver is entitlements, it seems prudent to reduce the unskilled labor immigration pool.

The real enemy of the unskilled laborer, be they illegal or home bread white protestant, looks like this:



Building a wall doesn't solve this issue. Perhaps eliminating foreign engineers for those unfilled jobs you mention slows it down somewhat in that it will take longer for the machines to be built, but not really.

The world is rapidly changing. Automation coupled with nanotechnology are going to change things dramatically, at the same time we have real-time data analysis with machine learning, cloud based processing and all the rest. Illegal immigration is like the proverbial bee sting compared to a landslide. It would be great if policy were being developed for this problem too.

The other issue, removing orange pickers in Florida doesn't help the guy in Nebraska that lost his manufacturing job. There is no correlation between the two.

I very much agree with your point on automation. But your argument really just reinforces the point doesn't it. Don't bring in unskilled labor. This is where not having a meaningful, well thought out immigration policy falls flat on its face.

[payitforward]

It was a riot...what does any of it have to do with terrorism? I thought we were afraid of immigrants because they were secretly members of ISIS? Or is it that immigrants are just generally violent people?

You are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is not the reason that I oppose mass Muslim immigration (for Europe or here). The reason to oppose it is the culture clash. When you bring huge a population of people with a radically different cultural system, these types of riots and conflict are inevitable.

A prerequisite of democracy is that most of the people already have very similar values, goals, and a vision for society. You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state. If you don't have this condition, then you will inevitably have conflict once the minority groups grows sufficiently in size to have an expectation of enforcing their own cultural norms rather than the norms of the majority culture.

Take the issue of arranged marriage with child brides. To certain Islamic cultures, this is reasonable. Who are we to tell them that it's wrong to have a grown man marry a 12 year old girl? What would we do as a society when Dearborn, Michigan decides to enact a law permitting girls to marry adult men at age 12? Do we stop them? If so, would they be justified in rioting in protest?

What if an Islamic enclave in America insists that their women must wear hijabs and they wish to pass a law to do so? Do we stop them? If not, do we insist that non-Muslim women who may be passing through the region wear a hijab or be subjected to local punishment (which could conceivably be quite severe)?

These significant cultural clashes exist in other areas too. Consider the numerous reports of rapes and sexual assault in Europe basically under the pretense that the women "asked for it" by showing too much skin. This is clearly a problem that does not seem to be resolving itself. Will it get worse in the future? Is it right to subject women to this?

I'm not trying to troll anyone. These are honest questions that I don't think we have thought through. Certainly Sweden and Belgium haven't thought them through and now there is an increasing level of conflict. I don't wish to see that conflict here. Many of you consider yourself to be nicer and more tolerant than I by being more open-minded than I am to Muslim immigration. But I submit to you that your open minded tolerance now will lead to more conflict and violence in the future.

There's quite a wide range of concepts in these paragraphs, many premises (whether right or wrong) & conclusions (ditto) that it will be a somewhat complex to discuss. But, I do want to, & in some detail, because I accept, very happily, nate's statement that these are some of his "honest questions," not an attempt to "troll anyone." & I have no difficulty agreeing with him that they should be "thought through."

I'm especially happy that nate has given us something to discuss -- as opposed to ugly imagery and/or sensationalist claims (either pro or anti DT) which lead rather to reactions than reasoned assessments. Thank you.

But I can't possibly engage with the whole of this post in one response. Hence, I'd like to start with the first 2 paragraphs which raise the problem of "culture clash" & make a claim about what is required by way of cultural continuity to support a functional democracy. I'll go on to the other paragraphs, at what rate I can't say right now, but they are equally worth engaging.

To discuss these ideas, I'll need to ask nate a few questions about what he means in the first para. These are exclusively to arrive at clarity; they're not challenges. Any kind of dispute is the utter opposite of what I'm looking for here. I'm hoping you'll respond, nate.

Here is the first two para, in which I've done a little eliding w/, I trust, no harm to the intended meaning

"...Terrorism is not the reason that I oppose mass Muslim immigration (for Europe or here). The reason to oppose it is the culture clash. When you bring huge a population of people with a radically different cultural system, these types of riots and conflict are inevitable."

When you talk about "mass... immigration," what kind of numbers are you thinking of? I.e. what do you have in mind in the phrase a "huge population", nate?

Am I correct that you see this concern as applying not only to Muslim immigration but to immigration by any "population of people with a radically different cultural system," & that, leaving aside economic objections to (or desires for) some kinds of immigration, this is pretty much the most important concern in assessing an immigration issue of this kind?

Finally, "these types of riots and conflict" -- the context was the picture from Sweden. Is this what you mean? You also go on, in paragraphs I'll get to later, to present some other scenarios of cultural conflict. I guess my main question about this has 2 parts: does "conflict" always/often/usually have to lead to "riots?" & must all "riots" (using the term broadly here to mean non-civil confrontation of groups) be unresolvable -- i.e. be end states?

Ok, those are my questions. Preliminarily, I'd say that "culture clash" is, as nate says, likely to be a part of what happens when very different cultures engage deeply with one another. The more deeply they engage, the deeper the clash. We see this in lots of contexts less demanding than those of immigration, & we've seen it repeatedly in times of immigration. Or just when very different cultures cohabit an area w/o immigration being required. It's undeniable.

But, I feel comfortable in saying that overall the contacts & even conflicts of very different cultures, even by way of immigration, have been extremely productive in history. I'd be happy to produce any number of examples, but I bet most people here can come up w/ lots of them on their own. It is a certain fact that there would be no United States without them.

An obvious case is the mass immigration of the Irish. The view that there's was a radically different culture was considered an absolute fact (I'd say that at the time Protestants saw Catholicism as further from their own religion than Christians today see Islam as being). The view that they were a violent culture ditto. & there were riots galore -- with lots of violence, murder, etc.

I doubt you think the Irish shouldn't have been allowed in, nate. Especially since it would be easy to document much the same kind of stuff as other waves of ethnic immigration followed. Which brings me to the 2d of your paragraphs I want to address today:

A prerequisite of democracy is that most of the people already have very similar values, goals, and a vision for society. You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state. If you don't have this condition, then you will inevitably have conflict once the minority groups grows sufficiently in size to have an expectation of enforcing their own cultural norms rather than the norms of the majority culture."

1. I think the first sentence is plainly incorrect. Most people who've thought/written about politics, from Aristotle forward, conclude that the reason we have any government is because individuals' "values, goals and... vision(s)" are in conflict by nature -- that w/o government they lead to "the war of all against all" (as Hobbes puts it). And that people not only don't share a "vision for society", but that don't have any such vision! Above all, this POV is at the foundation of conservatism as we understand it. You find it in Burke -- hell you find it everywhere in conservative literature.

2. The 2d sentence - "You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state" - is either anodyne (agree there's a God in heaven? It looks like rain tomorrow?) or utterly Utopian ('the property line is right there.' 'No, it's back there -- get the hell off my property!' 'Oh yeah?' 'Yeah.' -- next comes the noise of guns). Again, far from a prerequisite of democracy (of any government) agreement is the reason we have government (& the rule of law, & the power to enforce laws). It's the opposite of a prerequisite! The advantage of democracy is that there's some ability to constrain those with the most power (wealth, land, liegemen, money, etc.) from dictating the terms of those "agreements."

3. Your 3d sentence ("minority groups... enforcing their own cultural norms rather than those of the majority culture") is what I'd call a picture in your mind. Historically, wouldn't you say we've had more problems from majority groups enforcing their preferences on minorities than the opposite? That's a rhetorical question, nate. The answer is yes. As well, I'd say we more often see minority cultures shedding their cultural differences over a few generations than growing more strident in enforcing them. Often, the cultural markers are reduced to symbolic stuff maintained with much less meaning than it had in the past.

Respectfully, nate, these first two paragraphs seem distinctly in *conflict* with the truth. Not *riot*ously so, but *inevitably* so all the same.

I can't continue now with the rest. But I will. I'm pretty sure that what we'll find is a particular problem w/ what you imagine Muslim culture to be & to mean -- what you imagine inaccurately & based on (I speculate) little or no contact with Muslims -- rather than anything that flows from the 2 paragraphs I've just looked at, in which you meant to (but failed to) create a rational foundation for that problem.

I'll conclude with something personal: I just spent more than an hour on the above. Time I really didn't have for it (got a lot of projects!). I did it, because it matters to me what & how you think about these things. In fact, I'd say that's why I overreacted last week, because after 5 years on this Board what you & others here think about things has come to matter to me. You are "real", IOW. In a way Donald Trump isn't.

In fact, f*ck Donald Trump. Oh hell, f*k the Democrats too. In short, I'm not trying to change your mind, nate. I'm trying to reach your mind. Feel free to offer any reasoned response to what I've written above. I don't mind being wrong; the only way you learn is by being wrong. Lucky me I've been around so long & wrong so many times that I've learned a lot (above all I've learned & keep learning how easy it is to be wrong!).

When I turn to your next paragraphs, I'll talk about my exposure to Islamic culture, arranged marriage, etc. Like I say, man, for better or worse I've been around!

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

The second goes to nate's point - what is the tipping point where US culture is impacted. Certainly when you get large numbers you affect culture. BTW, this is the real reason for Brexit, communities were watching the culture of their towns change before their eyes. I think this is something that previous administrations just chose to ignore - bad policy often has unintended consequences.

This too isn't in isolation. Hispanics in small towns are noticed lots more as the towns are largely hollowed out. More immigration often benefits urban and suburban life, where the populations are more heterogeneous. In more homogenous places in the US, like the middle breadbasket for instance, there is clearly a need to actively work on connecting these communities. This is rarely done.

Also, the US is not living in isolation. Culture is changing whether or not we invite immigrants to our communities. The days of an isolated community and life, where one can rely on the same job and lifestyle for the majority of their lives have long since past. No matter How great Trump actually makes America, he's simply not able to return that lifestyle, which if you ask me, is what he's been selling.

Bottom line, our immigration is a trickle compared to Europe. This is a real question for countries across Europe to deal with. We aren't anywhere close. Far more concerning is the tensions and polarization across society. To imagine that the immigrants are the cause is missing a lot.

Two things on that - the first is that one could argue that Europe's model is exactly what we don't want (in terms of destabilization mentioned above. Hence again the argument would be to limit immigration to a percentage of our current population. Again, we don't address the issue, so it bites us in the @ss.

[sfam]

I very much agree with your point on automation. But your argument really just reinforces the point doesn't it. Don't bring in unskilled labor. This is where not having a meaningful, well thought out immigration policy falls flat on its face.

Not all unskilled labor is equal. Agricultural workers it he clearest example of this. And worse, most illegal immigration is from people overstaying their tourist visas, not from border crossing.

Immigration as a whole is complicated. Both democrats and republicans largely believe that those coming for STEM degrees should be given a green card upon graduation, for instance.

This gets into our education system. High school and college as the choices no longer work. There has to be a renaissance in trade schools to fill those high-end manufacturing jobs. And like the STEM degree issue, most everyone is on the same page here. Unfortunately politics stop us from addressing even the easiest parts of this where there is widespread agreement.

[gtn130]

:-?

Read on Twitter

Trump really does a great job of overshadowing how vile neocons are. I've yet to hear a single valid reason to repeal Obamacare, and yet it's the Republicans' signature issue.

Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan et al - those dudes are simply not working for the interests of their constituents. It's the party of tax cuts for corporations and wealthy donors. Everything else - the appeal to socially conservative morality is complete and utter ****. All of it went out the window when they got in bed with Trump (and milo!).

[dckingsfan]

The last point that you make inherently is that we are a country of laws. And those laws should trump our feelings. This is the issue with the dreamers. They were illegal but we are arguing that we ignore the laws for so long it should be okay.

If you grow up in the US, you are enculturated as an American, regardless what your passport says. To deport the dreamers, who have known no other home is to deport people who are Americans in every way but their paper. The culture problem Nate talks of is nonexistent in this case.

We are a country of laws, and we are a practical people. We are also a nation of immigrants.Even Saint Reagan realized this in dealing with the immigration issue. He handled this balance well in committing the Republican syn of Amnesty.

By keeping millions in an illegal state, who are just now all at new risk of being deported, you've literally removed their legal reasons for acting within the law. All they have now are moral reasons for following our laws. If they do get a minor infraction, they are more likely now to engage in violence to stop from being caught. Literally, the deportation approach will lead to more criminal behavior. It would be far better to find legal means of addressing this, including work visas and all the rest.

Most of the folks working here to send remittances back home to El Salvador, Guatemala and elsewhere have no real interest in living permanently here in the US. Their status prevents free travel, so they stay, work around the clock, and just send money. Changing their status benefits everyone.

This is a very solid counter argument. And one that the adherents of the rule of law have struggled with.

But you are taking the emotional side vs. the rule of law side. And the problem with Reagan's amnesty is that we still allowed more illegal immigrants - which then requires another amnesty. (BTW, Reagan was very much influenced by farmers in CA).

Interesting enough, since illegal immigrants are actually a net negative financially and you endorse the remittances - wouldn't it be less expensive to just give the money to those that don't come? You can see the rabbit hole of that argument.