or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 27

post #391 of 8748
well if there were they would definetly have the funds to go through the tunnels. But chances are , if they even exist, they are arriving via airplane using saudi passports
post #392 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

As I recall, half of illegal immigrants entered legally on various visa types and then simply never went back. That's how most of the (numerous) Asian illegal immigrants get over here.

The wall is just a lazy symbolic "solution" to the immigration problem, with an additional helping of not-so-subtle appeal to voters who just don't like brown people (like many of Trump's supporters). It's not going to fix the problem, it's expensive, and it's a distraction from doing anything substantial to actually address the much more complex solution that would actually be necessary.

Perhaps, but the people who oppose the wall aren't for implementing any of those complex solutions either, especially on the left. A wall isn't going to solve the problem entirely but it's certainly part of the solution. I think there are more choices than either supporting the current immigration rate (both legal and illegal) or hating all brown people.
post #393 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Perhaps, but the people who oppose the wall aren't for implementing any of those complex solutions either, especially on the left. A wall isn't going to solve the problem entirely but it's certainly part of the solution. I think there are more choices than either supporting the current immigration rate (both legal and illegal) or hating all brown people.


This is modern America. Don't bring such nuance into the debate.

According to enlightened and tolerant progressives, I am evil incarnate because I want immigration laws enforced.

Popcorn is hate speech is happy is evil is cardboard is lemon pie is racism is fluffy pillows is granule is jump.

The words just kinda sit there.



Now let's build my wall.

peepwall[1].gifpeepwall[1].gifpeepwall[1].gifpeepwall[1].gifpeepwall[1].gif
post #394 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Perhaps, but the people who oppose the wall aren't for implementing any of those complex solutions either, especially on the left. A wall isn't going to solve the problem entirely but it's certainly part of the solution. I think there are more choices than either supporting the current immigration rate (both legal and illegal) or hating all brown people.

I didn't mean to imply those were the only motivations possible.

It is however an unfortunate truth that many people who are vehemently anti-immigration are racist, especially those who fixate on Hispanics. The wall concept is especially effective at drumming up support from those types without saying anything explicitly racist.

I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion that a wall is part of the immigration solution, especially considering the cost. We already have a pretty substantial barrier, and there are many other ways to enter the country which are currently almost unchecked. Plus all the other routes we leave off the table that could reduce the drive to immigrate illegally in the first place (guest worker programs, actual rigorous checks on citizenship for employment, etc).
post #395 of 8748
Is there any way to say you don't think the country would be better off with more Hispanics in it without being called a racist?
post #396 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Is there any way to say you don't think the country would be better off with more Hispanics in it without being called a racist?

If it's some kind of blanket statement about "Hispanics," then it's seemingly an intrinsically racist argument. How would it not be?

Any argument about particular categories of immigrants that doesn't hinge completely on racial identity probably isn't racist. Skill, wealth, language ability, education, whatever.
post #397 of 8748
For starters, as the census bureau and the DOJ remind us frequently, "Hispanic" is not a race. By equating it with mestizo you're basically taking it for a particular category of immigrants, which you seem to think would be okay. So why can't others do the same?
post #398 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I didn't mean to imply those were the only motivations possible.

It is however an unfortunate truth that many people who are vehemently anti-immigration are racist, especially those who fixate on Hispanics. The wall concept is especially effective at drumming up support from those types without saying anything explicitly racist.

I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion that a wall is part of the immigration solution, especially considering the cost. We already have a pretty substantial barrier, and there are many other ways to enter the country which are currently almost unchecked. Plus all the other routes we leave off the table that could reduce the drive to immigrate illegally in the first place (guest worker programs, actual rigorous checks on citizenship for employment, etc).

What's interesting to me is that the same behavior can be found on both sides of the aisle. I know there are other reasons that Sanders is doing well, but Sanders is also anti-immigration and foreign trade. The damn foreigners are taking our jobs by trade and guest worker programs. While the style is vastly different, at 20,000 feet, his views are very close to Trump's.
post #399 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

What's interesting to me is that the same behavior can be found on both sides of the aisle. I know there are other reasons that Sanders is doing well, but Sanders is also anti-immigration and foreign trade. The damn foreigners are taking our jobs by trade and guest worker programs. While the style is vastly different, at 20,000 feet, his views are very close to Trump's.
I haven't really paid much attention to Sanders positions, but he's got that populist protectionism vibe going on. Doesn't seem like Sanders has the ethnically informed loathing baked into his views though. I'm sure plenty of his blue collar supporters are plenty racist and/or xenophobic.

I don't see any problem with limited or controlled immigration, seems like it's a necessary part of any mature nation's immigration policy. We're not the frontier anymore, we have social policies that cost money, and I don't think it's axiomatic that unlimited immigration has economic benefits. Certainly has to be part of the conversation, and how to do it smartly. "Build a big wall" probably isn't that course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

For starters, as the census bureau and the DOJ remind us frequently, "Hispanic" is not a race. By equating it with mestizo you're basically taking it for a particular category of immigrants, which you seem to think would be okay. So why can't others do the same?

I'm really not all that interested in some pedantic jaunt into the linguistics here. Plenty of people are prejudiced against brown people from all the countries south of the US because of their ethnicity, and that prejudice influences the immigration policies they want to see implemented. Call that what you want, the language doesn't change the realities of it.
post #400 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


It is however an unfortunate truth that many people who are vehemently anti-immigration are racist, especially those who fixate on Hispanics.

I don't disagree with that, but what we're dealing with is a perfect analogy to the voter ID debate.

Person A): wants to decrease black voter turnout

Person B): thinks having an ID to vote makes sense


The left would draw no distinction between these two groups. Since the group of people who don't have IDs is predominately black, it's automatically racist to support voter ID laws, regardless of why you support them. The same can be said about immigration. Person A doesn't like brown people, Person B thinks the quality of immigrants we are receiving is a net negative to the country based on culture, crime rates and government dependency. It doesn't matter if mass immigration is good or bad for the country, simply because the majority of people coming across the southern border are brown, it must be racist if you don't support it.

There's no way to have a discussion with a person who thinks like this, and that person is quickly becoming an entire political party.
post #401 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

It doesn't matter if mass immigration is good or bad for the country, simply because the majority of people coming across the southern border are brown, it must be racist if you don't support it.
Individual policies shouldn't be discounted simply because some of their supporters are also racists, no. There's obviously a discussion to be had about immigration and it shouldn't be shut down "because racism."

This discussion started in terms of the political appeal of discussing the wall. Part of the whole appeal of pushing the wall as a political topic is to bring out the support of the xenophobes and racists. Doubtlessly there are plenty of benign and rational supporters of the wall as well, but there's no reason to ignore the rest of the picture.

Quote:
There's no way to have a discussion with a person who thinks like this, and that person is quickly becoming an entire political party.

There's plenty of middle ground between ignoring racism and racists and using it as a cudgel to cut off all debate.

As brokencycle mentioned, Sanders is pulling out plenty of anti-immigrant rhetoric. He's just not loading it with the dog whistles that the racists are looking for (to my knowledge, anyway), so he's attracting different supporters.
post #402 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I don't disagree with that, but what we're dealing with is a perfect analogy to the voter ID debate.

Person A): wants to decrease black voter turnout

Person B): thinks having an ID to vote makes sense


The left would draw no distinction between these two groups. Since the group of people who don't have IDs is predominately black, it's automatically racist to support voter ID laws, regardless of why you support them.

Also: that example you gave is going to end up being a Supreme Court case in the near future, after the recent Texas voting law decision. The standing precedent was that effect was all that mattered, not intent. If a law had racially disproportionate effects, it was struck down regardless of whether that was the intent or not. Basically prioritized getting blacks to vote over whatever other reason the law had been implemented. That interpretation may not stand anymore. Going to be interesting to see how that pans out.
post #403 of 8748
So is the term "anchor baby" offensive? confused.gif
post #404 of 8748
I am not one to be pc but the term anchor baby is much like going after a members family here. Honestly why should the baby be attacked What did it ever do?
post #405 of 8748
Is it an attack or a description of function?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field