In the end, even an understanding of basic economics is meaningless - the point is to get rid of or subjugate minority groups to that the "correct social hierarchy" can be maintained (enforced).
Separate water fountains was economically stupid, too (honestly we could probably come up with hundreds of examples of racism and sexism having a deleterious economic effect), but people did it and supported it because white supremacy was the goal, and all other goals had to be subordinated to that goal. If everyone is poorer as a result, so be it.
The thing is, if there were a blanket amnesty for undocumented people currently in the U.S., I definitely don't think a majority would remain upset about that in 5 years.
People would be very upset because a few months after the first blanket amnesty, there would be a demand for another blanket amnesty to accommodate the tens of millions who swarmed the borders knowing that they were likely to get in on the next amnesty. The politics of illegal immigration are never gonna be anything but disastrous.
There has never been such a demand a few months later, ever. You're old enough to know that. There have been many years between amnesties. But of course you would bring up something like that.
The last real bill passed by Congress was in 1986; I'm not convinced that the next Congress will pass anything at all(the margins in Congress are too slim imo); but with certainty, there is no logistical way on earth to deport the numbers that Trump is spewing
Even if the Democrats keep the Senate, Tester will likely oppose any amnesty bill and be joined by other skittish Democratic senators. Even a Dreamer bill is a likely loser, and almost a guaranteed one if the Senate keeps filibuster rules as is.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether we have a blanket amnesty or mass deportations with virtually zero immigration, because unless those are accompanied by other forms of massive government oppression, there are still going to be female, gay, and Black people on TV.
The politics of immigration are not about the border. They're not about immigration. They're about people behaving contrary to "the way things ought to be." Like all fronts in the Culture Wars, they're a scapegoat, a way to avoid saying what the Culture Warriors really care about - the reinstitution of segregation, the subordination of women, and the eradication (or at least visible erasure) of anyone LGBTQ+.
It doesn't matter what you do about immigration or the border, one way or another - the Culture Warriors want the above and will continue to fight for it.
There's a faction of the electorate for whom the politics of immigration is about white supremacy. Whether or not they're a majority or not is open for debate, but there's a considerable faction for whom the concern is the border and a recognition that the situation on our southern border in recent years has been less than optimal. Conflate the two groups at your own electoral risk.
Historically, Canada has been a major source of immigrants to the U.S., including undocumented ones. Find someone who made a major issue out of white immigrants from Canada, and you might start to have even the merest semblance of an argument that bigotry against identifiably different people, primarily expressed as white supremacy, isn't the main motive behind the irrational hatred of immigrants and immigration. Though I will say that when a bunch of immigrants who need temporary housing provided directly by the city are dumped on said city by criminal governors of other states and nothing is done about that, that does engender some local opposition.
Given that the country is 39% nonwhite, speculating that the majority of the electorate's opposition to the immigration policy status quo is fueled entirely by white supremacy is reductive to the point of cartoonishness.
It's interesting that you seem to be carving out an exception for immigration opposition not being white supremacist exclusive to your localized situation. I can assure you that New York City and other jurisdictions that had asylum-seekers bused in by Greg Abbott aren't so unique.
If you're a renter in Springfield, Ohio, and can no longer afford your apartment because of a population surge of renters, then it's just as possible to be critical of immigration policy without being a white supremacist as it is in New York City. If you were a meatpacker in Storm Lake, Iowa, whose union was busted and pay cut by 50+% as they replaced you with immigrants, then it's also just as possible to be critical of immigration policy without being a white supremacist as it in New York City.
With population dislocations escalating due to everything from climate change to vastly improved global transportation and communication, expect immigration to continue to be at or near the top of voter concerns for the foreseeable future, with a decisive majority becoming increasingly hawkish. Dismissing these concerns as fueled single-mindedly by white supremacy will be the golden ticket to the political wilderness for those who partake.
Do you know of any objections to immigration from Canada? Anyway, no, it's not strictly white-supremacist. Note the phrasing "bigotry against identifiably different people, primarily expressed as white supremacy", and I do think that's the primary reason for opposition to immigrants and immigration in New York City, too. Anyway, I should have nipped this side discussion in the bud. The reason I posted the poll results was that they are interesting and relevant to voting, and that I'd like to know more about the pollster.
Tens of millions in a few months? Nothing has ever even approached that in our history. Best figures I can find says that there are ~47m people in the US that were born elsewhere. More than half of them are citizens. You're claiming that the number of non-citizens that would cross the border in just a handful of months would eclipse the number that have come here over the course of generations. It's absurd. It's not even logistically possible.
Using conservative hyperbole is wholly inappropriate. Especially with the use of the word "swarmed" in said hyperbole.
If the hypothetical "blanket amnesty" was enacted as discussed upthread, then no, I don't think a ten-figure influx of migrants anticipating the next amnesty is out of the question for the ensuing six months.
Well you're right that it's not based in reality. It's based on a hypothetical. Read upthread for the appropriate context. Nonetheless, the bottom line: Just as signaling relaxed border policy during the 2020 campaign and in 2021 executive orders led to an unprecedented boom in border crossings, amnesty for those already here illegally would signal pending amnesty for those yet to come. And you know, it's not my place to tell you if that's the right public policy or not. But I can say with greater confidence that it's not the right policy for those who want to win elections.
The last amnesty was accompanied by much tougher conditions for new undocumented arrivals. Any new one would quite obviously be, too. But the boogeyman is gonna get us...
Hypotheticals still exist under an understanding of reality. I am fully aware of the context of the discussion and it was with that understanding that I stated that your view on this is absurd. Your take is delusional.
If we want to talk about the electoral impact of policies we need to actually have a grounded understanding of reality to make that assessment. It is easy to flippantly toss out absurd numbers to support whatever policy positions align with our worldview, but that doesn't make it a view based in reality. Being negative is not synonymous with being realistic, even if outcomes for us on the left can often be disappointing.
If splitting hairs about the numbers I floated as a hypothetical helps you believe you're on the right side of public opinion, then by all means, die on that hill.
Don't straw man. I never stated an opinion on the electoral repercussions of an amnesty law. I stated an opinion that your numbers were delusional and that they were inappropriate because they and your language to communicate said numbers were all but lifted from conservative talking points.
I think Republicans have planted their flag in the immigration/migrants are to blame for all that is wrong in the world mountain for at least the rest of the decade.
In the end, even an understanding of basic economics is meaningless - the point is to get rid of or subjugate minority groups to that the "correct social hierarchy" can be maintained (enforced).
Separate water fountains was economically stupid, too (honestly we could probably come up with hundreds of examples of racism and sexism having a deleterious economic effect), but people did it and supported it because white supremacy was the goal, and all other goals had to be subordinated to that goal. If everyone is poorer as a result, so be it.
The thing is, if there were a blanket amnesty for undocumented people currently in the U.S., I definitely don't think a majority would remain upset about that in 5 years.
People would be very upset because a few months after the first blanket amnesty, there would be a demand for another blanket amnesty to accommodate the tens of millions who swarmed the borders knowing that they were likely to get in on the next amnesty. The politics of illegal immigration are never gonna be anything but disastrous.
There has never been such a demand a few months later, ever. You're old enough to know that. There have been many years between amnesties. But of course you would bring up something like that.
The last real bill passed by Congress was in 1986; I'm not convinced that the next Congress will pass anything at all(the margins in Congress are too slim imo); but with certainty, there is no logistical way on earth to deport the numbers that Trump is spewing
Even if the Democrats keep the Senate, Tester will likely oppose any amnesty bill and be joined by other skittish Democratic senators. Even a Dreamer bill is a likely loser, and almost a guaranteed one if the Senate keeps filibuster rules as is.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether we have a blanket amnesty or mass deportations with virtually zero immigration, because unless those are accompanied by other forms of massive government oppression, there are still going to be female, gay, and Black people on TV.
The politics of immigration are not about the border. They're not about immigration. They're about people behaving contrary to "the way things ought to be." Like all fronts in the Culture Wars, they're a scapegoat, a way to avoid saying what the Culture Warriors really care about - the reinstitution of segregation, the subordination of women, and the eradication (or at least visible erasure) of anyone LGBTQ+.
It doesn't matter what you do about immigration or the border, one way or another - the Culture Warriors want the above and will continue to fight for it.
There's a faction of the electorate for whom the politics of immigration is about white supremacy. Whether or not they're a majority or not is open for debate, but there's a considerable faction for whom the concern is the border and a recognition that the situation on our southern border in recent years has been less than optimal. Conflate the two groups at your own electoral risk.
Historically, Canada has been a major source of immigrants to the U.S., including undocumented ones. Find someone who made a major issue out of white immigrants from Canada, and you might start to have even the merest semblance of an argument that bigotry against identifiably different people, primarily expressed as white supremacy, isn't the main motive behind the irrational hatred of immigrants and immigration. Though I will say that when a bunch of immigrants who need temporary housing provided directly by the city are dumped on said city by criminal governors of other states and nothing is done about that, that does engender some local opposition.
Given that the country is 39% nonwhite, speculating that the majority of the electorate's opposition to the immigration policy status quo is fueled entirely by white supremacy is reductive to the point of cartoonishness.
It's interesting that you seem to be carving out an exception for immigration opposition not being white supremacist exclusive to your localized situation. I can assure you that New York City and other jurisdictions that had asylum-seekers bused in by Greg Abbott aren't so unique.
If you're a renter in Springfield, Ohio, and can no longer afford your apartment because of a population surge of renters, then it's just as possible to be critical of immigration policy without being a white supremacist as it is in New York City. If you were a meatpacker in Storm Lake, Iowa, whose union was busted and pay cut by 50+% as they replaced you with immigrants, then it's also just as possible to be critical of immigration policy without being a white supremacist as it in New York City.
With population dislocations escalating due to everything from climate change to vastly improved global transportation and communication, expect immigration to continue to be at or near the top of voter concerns for the foreseeable future, with a decisive majority becoming increasingly hawkish. Dismissing these concerns as fueled single-mindedly by white supremacy will be the golden ticket to the political wilderness for those who partake.
Do you know of any objections to immigration from Canada? Anyway, no, it's not strictly white-supremacist. Note the phrasing "bigotry against identifiably different people, primarily expressed as white supremacy", and I do think that's the primary reason for opposition to immigrants and immigration in New York City, too. Anyway, I should have nipped this side discussion in the bud. The reason I posted the poll results was that they are interesting and relevant to voting, and that I'd like to know more about the pollster.
Tens of millions in a few months? Nothing has ever even approached that in our history. Best figures I can find says that there are ~47m people in the US that were born elsewhere. More than half of them are citizens. You're claiming that the number of non-citizens that would cross the border in just a handful of months would eclipse the number that have come here over the course of generations. It's absurd. It's not even logistically possible.
Using conservative hyperbole is wholly inappropriate. Especially with the use of the word "swarmed" in said hyperbole.
If the hypothetical "blanket amnesty" was enacted as discussed upthread, then no, I don't think a ten-figure influx of migrants anticipating the next amnesty is out of the question for the ensuing six months.
That's simply not based in reality and frankly is delusional.
Well you're right that it's not based in reality. It's based on a hypothetical. Read upthread for the appropriate context. Nonetheless, the bottom line: Just as signaling relaxed border policy during the 2020 campaign and in 2021 executive orders led to an unprecedented boom in border crossings, amnesty for those already here illegally would signal pending amnesty for those yet to come. And you know, it's not my place to tell you if that's the right public policy or not. But I can say with greater confidence that it's not the right policy for those who want to win elections.
The last amnesty was accompanied by much tougher conditions for new undocumented arrivals. Any new one would quite obviously be, too. But the boogeyman is gonna get us...
Hypotheticals still exist under an understanding of reality. I am fully aware of the context of the discussion and it was with that understanding that I stated that your view on this is absurd. Your take is delusional.
If we want to talk about the electoral impact of policies we need to actually have a grounded understanding of reality to make that assessment. It is easy to flippantly toss out absurd numbers to support whatever policy positions align with our worldview, but that doesn't make it a view based in reality. Being negative is not synonymous with being realistic, even if outcomes for us on the left can often be disappointing.
If splitting hairs about the numbers I floated as a hypothetical helps you believe you're on the right side of public opinion, then by all means, die on that hill.
Don't straw man. I never stated an opinion on the electoral repercussions of an amnesty law. I stated an opinion that your numbers were delusional and that they were inappropriate because they and your language to communicate said numbers were all but lifted from conservative talking points.
My mother waited and got her visa and came here legally.
From where, how long was the wait, and what was the basis for the visa?
I think Republicans have planted their flag in the immigration/migrants are to blame for all that is wrong in the world mountain for at least the rest of the decade.
And probably more. They have wedded themselves to reactionary white supremacy and Christian bigotry.