At least you let them in, we don’t because we are so nice to our immigrants and refugees
Stupid Trump
I don’t really understand xenophobia mainly because I have never had a real issue with a foreigner that I didn’t have with anyone else (being in DC there are plenty.) Of course not everyone you let in is good but u can’t stand when news networks hate on foreigners, especially refugees. In the long run they might help us out and I believe it’s morally a good thing to help them. I can see why people are xenophobes (it’s normal to be scared of things not normal to you) and that’s fine as long as they can overcome that. Some of the news networks though have ruined the image of refugees (especially in America) and that I just can’t stand, they’re not much different than us and change can be good.
This is what happens when you judge people based on factors that they have no control over instead of judging people for their own merits and pitfalls. I’m not sure I’ve said this here, but I’ve lost a lot of faith in the democratic party for its constant attempts to cater to identity politics as of recently. I suppose it’s only fair that I give the right the same stern mention. Birthplace only tells you where they’re born. The people there may attempt to conform to a degree, but that often happens when people emigrate as well. And yes, although open borders are an absolutely moronic idea, putting blatantly skewed ones without proper justification is a dick move. I’ve said it before (even if not here, then now), and I’ll say it again. You can’t judge people based on arbitrary traits. It says nothing about who they specifically are as people. I always start off treating everyone with a certain amount of respect until they give me reason to do so more or less. It sounds simple, but more people should practice what they preach.
Side note: Yeah, the media is largely broken at the moment, irrespective of what side they take. Just like the politicians they cover, they’re mostly too busy pushing a narrative to seek the truth. And until that mindset is overcome or denounced, we’ll be stuck in the same boat. Which is well up shit creek without a paddle.
I’m a foreigner in America and I have not faced any sort of abuse or racism whatsoever. Visa offices approve entry several hundred people every day in almost every country, and in my experience, the requirements are very very very lax. What is this not letting in nonsense?
Overruled, and if it is a “muslim” ban, I wouldn’t be able to get in as my country is technically muslim.
What’s wrong with having borders? They can come in legally no? Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Would Canada allow you to move in there as is with no paper work?
Nothing wrong with having a border, but building a wall is a waste of time, money and resources. Not to mention almost impossible. Most of the land near the border is privately owned, and while the Government has the ability to take those lands, it would have to repay the people the land was taken from if they want a second term. Also, its not as if the wall will work anyway.
Fine, I will let you pass on the border wall but it will be ineffective and more of a public statement than a actual effective border security system
Don’t even try on the Muslim ban. We can call it an Arab ban if you want to but it’s still a ban on a group that is a majority Muslim. Now if you want to tell me that is friendly to immigrants go write for Fox news.
The technicality you’re papering over here is the implied argument that it’s not a Muslim ban unless every country with a Muslim majority or is a declared Muslim theocratic state has immigration restrictions. But that’s not the argument required, in fact ironically it’s what makes the Trump administration’s execution even dumber: they attempted to restrict immigration exclusively from Muslim states having declared their intention to attempt a Muslim ban (their words, btw, just ask Rudy), but decided to do so completely disregarding any evidence or intelligent risk analysis.
But this is also a quibble in that you’re right, it was overturned and blocked, twice.
Btw another question I have, what’s the deal with the ISP laws?
Also I will add the reaction from deep within the Trump echo chambers was quite telling. Exactly who expected that a Trump veto was a reasonable possibility???
Personally; I like the idea of a “Muslim ban”. I do not view refugees in a good light at all. It actually really irks me that people are pulling up “human rights” laws in order to defend them; when the refugees violate those laws on a daily basis. Misogyny is enforced by law in the countries they come from. That infection must not spread.
What I don’t like is the way Big Wig is handling it. His methods are with a heavy-hand, and he’s discrediting himself by giving the other side ammunition against him. I recall seeing on the news a surgeon in New York who was on vacation visiting his family in one of the banned countries, when the ban took effect. He wasn’t allowed to return to the US, and he couldn’t help his patients because of that. I feel that person should have been allowed back into the US because he’s a Surgeon here, and I assume a US citizen as well. That’s just bad PR.
Now as for the wall… that I’m not a fan of. I don’t consider Mexicans a problem. I think they’re decent people, and they’re willing to do the jobs that we aren’t willing to do for minimum wage. Yes; there are some that end up leeching the system, but I feel that laws could be changed to reduce that issue, rather than just building a wall that will likely destroy America’s relations with Mexico and accomplish nothing else. Do not grant citizenship to children born here if their parents aren’t citizens, and reduce or abolish any aid for non-citizens, and suddenly the leech problem is solved overnight without the need for a wall, while still allowing the Mexicans who want to work, to do so.
I feel the recent attacks on our interneting privileges are just pushing for more surveillance and censorship. The whole “fake news” movement is the most blatent attempt at censorship I’ve seen since the cold war era.
I can understand your point on the refugee’s and unlike @Deskyx you can actually not flip your shit when someone disagrees with you, thank you.
As to the refugee’s, they are not all terrorists, just remember that. By letting them in we do have a risk of backlash but we also bring in new skills and knowledge. Plus, most refugees are trying to escape violence, not make it.
As for Mexicans (or any central American) I do think they should be let in for work because they help the economy and making citizenship easier for them should also be a priority. Keep the rules we have but speed up screening (I know, easier said than done.) I also agree that like many countries we should get rid of the rule that says that if you are born in the US you are a citizen and make it just bases on your parents but to make up for it, faster citizenship. That is a compromise I would be happy with.
I’m actually surprised to see this coming from you, but this is a good opportunity to discuss it. (My current time constraints prevent me from getting into the meat of it).
In this thread we’ve previously mentioned criticisms of certain societies and international communities which this comment essentially reflects, however the response is, dare I say, a bit myopic. On the flip side it’s difficult to think otherwise when the problem seems larger than can be quickly and easily comprehended let alone contained, and I think that’s what fuels this sentiment. To phrase it in another way, it’s echoing the basic thrust of what Trump campaigned on: we’re incapable of dealing with our own problems already, if we add to them they’ll make us worse as opposed to us being able to make them better.
It’s also this sentiment that drives people to believe that people immigrate to places like the US to spread their misogynistic (in this case) ideology. But I would have thought it more accurate to say reason to emigrate would be to escape such circumstances, and the perceived failure of this would be a reflection not of the success of ‘foreign cultures’ as it is a reflection of prevalent gender politics as a whole.
EDIT: Just read @Sillyducky’s comment and in principle what I’ve said also covers the fear of terrorism. Simply put when you accept another group into the population, you inherit their liabilities too, regardless of magnitude. It’s a matter of whether the liabilities they possess line up with those you’re willing to tolerate within your incumbent group, and otherwise aim to modulate. The bigger argument has been for some time now whether this entire premise has been to the detriment of everybody (Or everybody who matters, more realistically and bluntly).
I see your point about adding to our own problems. You’re right there. I see the human race as being knee-deep in shit as is… and you can’t save everyone.
While the thought did cross my mind that some people want to get away from that life; I tend to be of a more pessimistic mind-set. It is re-enforced by the amount of women I see… or rather see only an eye-slit of.
Time to be offensive; military slang calls them BMOs. (Black Moving Objects).
Yes, you do have a point about gender politics stopping progress… but that also brings me to my point of not allowing a greater concentration of people with misogynistic views to thrive in this country. They will further hinder progress.
I guess the big question is will they? Or do we try to keep them isolated? The bigger principle at stake is whether you believe in your moral code and duty to it to the extent that you would espouse it to be accessible to all peoples. The reason I phrase it like this is because history demonstrates time and time again that isolationism and protectionism doesn’t foster strength. It’s a consignment to irrelevance.
EDIT: I should add that I’m skeptical that the importation of misogynistic attitudes would do anything to add to the already incumbent distribution of misogyny when the broader dynamic places these groups, ironically, on opposite sides of the fence
We seem to be at this big juncture. People who realise this (or not, your call) feel the need to reiterate the basic party line of extending rights to all because now is the most important time to do so.
Sadly there’s too little “decent life” and too many people for it to go around. Unfortunately someone(s) always gets the short-end of the stick.
Japan had a good run of isolationism and protectionism. It did foster strength for a while… until the internal wars started. That’s the problem with us humans; even when there are no outsiders to fight, we’ll find some sort of difference within ourselves and fight over that. Hell, doesn’t even have to be a difference… just the lust for power is enough.
I understand the skepticism when there’s so much misogyny everywhere as is… but there’s a difference between slut-shaming a girl who dresses well, and stoning in public for exposing her wrist. Not that the former is acceptable by any means either though.
While certainly a noble and genuinely good concept… I really don’t see us (as the human race) ever getting to the point of extending rights to all, because people’s value systems are… well… different. There will never be peace because of that. There will be never-ending conflicts because of our differing value systems. The abortion debate is a prime example of that. One side doesn’t care about a woman’s suffering because they think the embryo is a human life, and the other side doesn’t care about a potential life because a real-life woman is suffering. It boils down to either not caring about a woman or not caring about an embryo / fetus. We will never hear the end of that argument.
The only way we will ever be at peace is when we are all one and the same, in body and mind. Now the only way I can imagine for that to happen is… a real-life Noah’s ark and a lot of incest. Is that worth it though… that’s the big debate. Sure, billions will die… but at least the future generation might be happy. Most people don’t think that way though… Hitler is fairly unpopular after all.
In the end, I think we all know that nothing in the world will ever change in relation to the way people hate each other… so the best we can do is “keep those bastards out” for as long as we can.
To summarise, my concern with your outlook is that it’s defeatist, I.E offers zero in the way of productivity while projecting the inevitable decline and end of humanity. Putting it another way, you might as well be indistinguishable from those who voted for Trump.
Well, some of them. The ones who voted for him because they felt no other hope. Then there were those who voted for him because they’re part of the swamp.
Suffice to say there are still those who not only believe in hope but will work to foster it despite the largeness of the challenges we see. By now people will have broadly guessed that I’m one of them. Reasons as to why I may discuss later if the conversation goes that way.
Edit: browsing on phone makes in depth discussions hard as I can’t see most of a larger list at any given time. I’ll focus on something specific:
I beg to differ.
Perhaps you feel that there’s a difference in the particulars. That violence against women manifests differently between the two cultures. You’ll find the world makes much more sense when you discover the first principle that ties the two together: men dictating the value of a woman based on their particular characteristics. In particular you’ll discover that the only real difference in the practice of violence against women is how overt the cultures are when they go about it, and just where in our code of conduct they’re enshrined.
I think people will tolerate each other if we set the idea of tolerate in our children. Example, for a long time blacks were treated terribly in the US until tolerate for them was made normal. Are they still at a disadvantage? Yes. Is it a lot less than it used to be?? Certainly, but it does show that when people are raised to tolerate racial and gender barriers can be broken simply because they are not introduced. Using this I believe we may be honestly come close to world peace. The problem is people different from you are a perfect scapegoat (for example: Muslims and Trump.) This is almost impossible to break but with A LOT of effort and maybe a few hundred years I think we could do it.
Another thing that would probably unite humans is sentient extraterrestrial life good or bad. If we have someone else as a scapegoat then we can easily unite.
