Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

13031333536

Posts

  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    rndmhero wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    Ronya, I know it's your thing to tirelessly correct people who know nothing about the subject they're passionate about (who've been recognized as such in other threads), but do you think you can continue to do it in a thread that has 40+ pages of wwhharrblegarble? And maybe, if it's not too much to ask, continue debunking spurious claims while correctly calling individuals out on blatant racism?

    TIA!
    TIA?

    Are we at the stage in the thread when someone's girlfriend runs in here to slap fight on his behalf?

    And on a second read through I noticed you played the race card. Nice. But I'm afraid you have your premises backwards, which if memory serves me, is just part of you doing what you do so well!

    Hopefully you'll get in your long winded post that sounds like it was typed by a smug neckbeard before I have to tag out with detharin. That's always a highlight.

    Seriously? Do you have some sort of disability that prevents making counterarguments, thereby forcing you to rely on endless ad hominems that don't make any sense?

    On the bolded: Oh my god, you're the premises checked guy! It all makes sense!

    Are you really trying to criticize someone for writing posts that are too thought out?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »

    Er, this implies that there is some sort of sense to white supremacy. White supremacists don't want a brown underclass or their own slaves (anymore); they don't want to see brown people, period - they want them all gone in pursuit of their magical fantasy where nobody has to work hard to perfect civilization because civilization is an inherent quality of European blood. :?

    Well that does rather expose the problem of calling my a white supremacist when I really cannot accurately tell you what a white supremacist would want. Not with standing the whole my position almost directly favors the Black, Asian, and legal Hispanic minorities. Either way it is easier to call someone a racist than create an argument.

    Now had he called me a Nationalist and starting spouting off how I do not care for the welfare of people in other countries when compared to my own I would have agreed with him.

    That is neither here nor there, the truth is that right now the most likely solutions to illegal immigration are small state initiatives like Arizona, that due to the bad economy will see a surge as the people negatively effected by illegal immigration (or who think they are) clamor for the local representatives and demand something be done. The federal government lacks the will, and fears disenfranchising a portion of its voter base.

    As has been previously established illegal immigration does negatively effect a portion of the American people. Moreover another portion do not directly see the benefits they receive from it, and only see the problems. Which leads to the people hurt, and the people who think they are hurt demanding something be done of their elected representatives. Representatives who are local enough that if they refuse to do something will face a stiffer challenge next election cycle. Which is why Arizona is likely to bet he model for how states handle things going forth.

    Well, look, the thing is, I actually am a visible minority and the child of legal immigrants and I'm puzzled as to the white-knighting going on here, because I have yet to see data that backs up yours, and legionofone's assertions. Believe it or not, I have no set opinion on illegal immigration because I don't feel I know enough about it, except that as a visible minority and as a citizen by way of Amendment 14, I worry about these kinds of laws affect me and people like me by association, because it's very easy to say "as long as you're obeying the law you're okay" but also very easy to think that all "those people" look alike. I may not be Mexican, but I know enough and have enough as family members to worry about them.

    Nevermind that it would be better if the African-American community needs rather to work on not having an unskilled labor force rather than those outside the community fretting about how adversely that unskilled labor force will be affected by people more willing to work than them, and not that my opinion or experience as a black American counts for anything because, I'm told, I got mine.

    So here's where I have yet to form an opinion on the immigration situation, there is one side asserting all sorts of illegal immigration doom and gloom, and yet when I look for links or anyone asks, all I see is a wall of insults posted in return, and another side saying that things are not as bad as that, with, uh, links and citations.

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »

    Er, this implies that there is some sort of sense to white supremacy. White supremacists don't want a brown underclass or their own slaves (anymore); they don't want to see brown people, period - they want them all gone in pursuit of their magical fantasy where nobody has to work hard to perfect civilization because civilization is an inherent quality of European blood. :?

    Well that does rather expose the problem of calling my a white supremacist when I really cannot accurately tell you what a white supremacist would want. Not with standing the whole my position almost directly favors the Black, Asian, and legal Hispanic minorities. Either way it is easier to call someone a racist than create an argument.

    Now had he called me a Nationalist and starting spouting off how I do not care for the welfare of people in other countries when compared to my own I would have agreed with him.

    That is neither here nor there, the truth is that right now the most likely solutions to illegal immigration are small state initiatives like Arizona, that due to the bad economy will see a surge as the people negatively effected by illegal immigration (or who think they are) clamor for the local representatives and demand something be done. The federal government lacks the will, and fears disenfranchising a portion of its voter base.

    As has been previously established illegal immigration does negatively effect a portion of the American people. Moreover another portion do not directly see the benefits they receive from it, and only see the problems. Which leads to the people hurt, and the people who think they are hurt demanding something be done of their elected representatives. Representatives who are local enough that if they refuse to do something will face a stiffer challenge next election cycle. Which is why Arizona is likely to bet he model for how states handle things going forth.

    Well, look, the thing is, I actually am a visible minority and the child of legal immigrants and I'm puzzled as to the white-knighting going on here, because I have yet to see data that backs up yours, and legionofone's assertions. Believe it or not, I have no set opinion on illegal immigration because I don't feel I know enough about it, except that as a visible minority and as a citizen by way of Amendment 14, I worry about these kinds of laws affect me and people like me by association, because it's very easy to say "as long as you're obeying the law you're okay" but also very easy to think that all "those people" look alike. I may not be Mexican, but I know enough and have enough as family members to worry about them.

    Nevermind that it would be better if the African-American community needs rather to work on not having an unskilled labor force rather than those outside the community fretting about how adversely that unskilled labor force will be affected by people more willing to work than them, and not that my opinion or experience as a black American counts for anything because, I'm told, I got mine.

    So here's where I have yet to form an opinion on the immigration situation, there is one side asserting all sorts of illegal immigration doom and gloom, and yet when I look for links or anyone asks, all I see is a wall of insults posted in return, and another side saying that things are not as bad as that, with, uh, links and citations.

    The bolded is actually pretty strange by normal standards, as it's almost impossible to publish a paper showing nothing.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    This is not a hypothetical example I am using. People who used to make good money in construction, now cannot find work or work that only pays minimum wage where previously they would make much more than that. Why? Because a surplus of unskilled labor moved in, drove competition way up, which drove prices way down. Simple economics.

    Oh, and that whole "construction market collapsing along with the real estate bubble" thing, but never mind that.

    That surplus of unskilled labor is not driving anybody out of work other than other unskilled labor. If unskilled labor and skilled labor were fungible, then you wouldn't have needed to wait for illegal immigrants to come in before hiring cheaper workers.

    "Cheaper", by the way, really has a lot less to do with wages than wage and hour laws. It's much cheaper to have a labor force that won't complain to OSHA, won't demand overtime if you work them twelve hours a day, and won't run to a lawyer if your foreman decides to rape one of the prettier ones.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    That surplus of unskilled labor is not driving anybody out of work other than other unskilled labor. If unskilled labor and skilled labor were fungible, then you wouldn't have needed to wait for illegal immigrants to come in before hiring cheaper workers.

    "Cheaper", by the way, really has a lot less to do with wages than wage and hour laws. It's much cheaper to have a labor force that won't complain to OSHA, won't demand overtime if you work them twelve hours a day, and won't run to a lawyer if your foreman decides to rape one of the prettier ones.

    Correct and correct. BTW a percentage of the American workforce qualifies as Unskilled labor considering at least 15% of the population lacks a high school degree. When their unskilled labor is competing with unskilled labor that wont complain to OSHA, wont demand overtime pay, and won't run to a lawyer, then really they are not so much in competition as being replaced by.

    What we have is an highly exploitable unskilled labor pool, and a generally exploitable unskilled labor pool. Both in direct competition. Obviously any industry that can get away with using the former, or still save money even after paying fees for being caught is going to utilize the former.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    That surplus of unskilled labor is not driving anybody out of work other than other unskilled labor. If unskilled labor and skilled labor were fungible, then you wouldn't have needed to wait for illegal immigrants to come in before hiring cheaper workers.

    "Cheaper", by the way, really has a lot less to do with wages than wage and hour laws. It's much cheaper to have a labor force that won't complain to OSHA, won't demand overtime if you work them twelve hours a day, and won't run to a lawyer if your foreman decides to rape one of the prettier ones.

    Correct and correct. BTW a percentage of the American workforce qualifies as Unskilled labor considering at least 15% of the population lacks a high school degree. When their unskilled labor is competing with unskilled labor that wont complain to OSHA, wont demand overtime pay, and won't run to a lawyer, then really they are not so much in competition as being replaced by.

    What we have is an highly exploitable unskilled labor pool, and a generally exploitable unskilled labor pool. Both in direct competition. Obviously any industry that can get away with using the former, or still save money even after paying fees for being caught is going to utilize the former.

    So, wouldn't the answer then be to go after the businesses?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    So here's where I have yet to form an opinion on the immigration situation, there is one side asserting all sorts of illegal immigration doom and gloom, and yet when I look for links or anyone asks, all I see is a wall of insults posted in return, and another side saying that things are not as bad as that, with, uh, links and citations.

    Between this thread, and many others numerous citations have been offered to the negative effects of illegal immigration. The long and short of it boils down to unskilled labor and anyone without a high school degree suffer the most. From there anyone without a Bachelors degree has suffered a decrease in wages due to the downward pressure applied from them.

    No one is really contesting this, and Loren as already admitted that American unskilled labor suffer due illegal immigration.

    What we are quibbling over is whether the effects on the middle, and upper classes warrant continuing to deal with the problems we face due to lax illegal immigration law. Some argue that the consequences are "Not that bad" and in fact they may very well not be depending on what you do, where you live, and your socioeconomic status. For the people actively dealing with the problems higher prices of fruit seem a small price to pay.

    Of course we also have the concern trolls (Life in Mexico sucks we should all have hearts and not mind the problems they bring) or the race baiters (You hate illegal immigrants your a racist!) The signal to noise ratio does tend to get rather high.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    So, wouldn't the answer then be to go after the businesses?

    Yes, it would in fact the Legal Arizona Workers Act was passed with that every intention, so far it has seen little enforcement, and is awaiting review by the Supreme Court.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Of course we also have the concern trolls (Life in Mexico sucks we should all have hearts and not mind the problems they bring) or the race baiters (You hate illegal immigrants your a racist!) The signal to noise ratio does tend to get rather high.

    Noting that there's a moral and global development angle to immigration reform is not "concern trolling".

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Between this thread, and many others numerous citations have been offered to the negative effects of illegal immigration. The long and short of it boils down to unskilled labor and anyone without a high school degree suffer the most. From there anyone without a Bachelors degree has suffered a decrease in wages due to the downward pressure applied from them.

    Yes, I assume this is what is meant with the claims that illegal immigration hurts African Americans most. I will freely admit to being skeptical about anyone who claims to hold immigration restrictions views in support of the African American community because most often those in favor of immigration restrictions, wall-building, etc. are also not in favor of other policies and programs that help African Americans and other disadvantaged minorities in the US, like wel/workfare, affirmative action, subsidized daycare, more funding for public schools, etc. etc. It seems to me this is the only political area in which such folks make vociferous claims to "not being racist" while not backing it up in any other way. All I'm saying is, the company you keep is not well-behaved.
    What we are quibbling over is whether the effects on the middle, and upper classes warrant continuing to deal with the problems we face due to lax illegal immigration law. Some argue that the consequences are "Not that bad" and in fact they may very well not be depending on what you do, where you live, and your socioeconomic status. For the people actively dealing with the problems higher prices of fruit seem a small price to pay.

    What I've also read in the thread is that second and third-generations of these immigrants are upwardly mobile, and therefore they won't be a "drain" on society forever, and will rather enrich and contribute to the betterment of our culture in short order - like other poor immigrant groups of the past. This may be contributing to peoples' willingness to take what they perceive as a small hit today for the benefits of tomorrow. Meanwhile, improving the conditions in which people enter the country today will at the very least make the subhuman conditions in which they currently work less of a problem, so they can get to the business of birthing those second and third generation Americans.
    Of course we also have the concern trolls (Life in Mexico sucks we should all have hearts and not mind the problems they bring) or the race baiters (You hate illegal immigrants your a racist!) The signal to noise ratio does tend to get rather high.

    I have been reading this thread from the beginning, and I have not seen these accusations that are constantly being referred to, though I realize you feel you are just paraphrasing. You went to great trouble to show that you are not a white supremacist, but I did not see a corresponding accusation of this (although "show your papers" is kind of funny, I'd put it into more of a Godwin category). Many people who are for the kinds of policies you propose here do tend to be racist - are you really challenging this? It may muddy the discourse in that you have to defend against accusations of racism, but given the subject matter and political background I don't see why anyone would be upset at this. It kind of goes with the territory. Try jettisoning the racists in your party and maybe this won't happen?

    People tend to hate seeing other folks suffer; it's why war is not popular on TV when you can actually make out faces and body parts, and why we dehumanize our opponents before we go blow them up in scores. Similarly, people don't like to think that human beings are literally killing themselves to come across our borders, and when you say things like you hope more of them will die so that they stop trying, it sounds callous and shocks people. Surely you can see that? Even if the bulk of your intent is not for them to die, but simply to stop trying, the way you phrase it is pretty horrifying.

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    The problem remains however that the people most effected, some 15-20% of the population depending on source, are the our lowest educated and often minority population.
    Just want to point out again that most of the above are Mexican immigrants themselves who were once illegal but don't fall into that category anymore.

    When anti-immigration pundits want to tout the effects of immigration on low-skill labor, they end up talking about the effects on a largely immigrant population of uneducated minorities who used to be illegal themselves, counting them as "the population." But when they want to tout the effect of immigration on the economy, they suddenly want to count any and all impoverished illegal immigrants as well as their legal resident/citizen spouses, cousins, children, and grandchildren. There is a distinct lack of parallel.

    For the most part, this discussion goes around in a circle indefinitely. The anti-immigrant will talk about the economy, until that is clearly proven false, then they'll focus on low-skill workers, until that is proven false, then they'll bring up crime, until that is proven false, and by then enough pages have gone by that someone can get away with bringing up the economy again. If it hasn't been long enough for that to work yet, then instead the crime argument will segue into the "the law is the law, being an illegal immigrant is a crime" fallacy trap for a few pages until it's safe to bring up the economy again. This discussion has gone in that same circle through about 6 threads and many months recently.

    Of course we also have the concern trolls (Life in Mexico sucks we should all have hearts and not mind the problems they bring) or the race baiters (You hate illegal immigrants your a racist!) The signal to noise ratio does tend to get rather high.
    These are rather purposeful and dismissive misinterpretations of what most people are actually saying when they make those arguments. Plain fact is that there is a distinct lack of rationale for humanitarian functions of government if they are portioned out strictly by birthright, and there is also a distinct tendency of many to desire an easy target to point a finger at for their problems, especially if that target is easily recognizable by general traits of skin color and language.
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    What I've also read in the thread is that second and third-generations of these immigrants are upwardly mobile, and therefore they won't be a "drain" on society forever, and will rather enrich and contribute to the betterment of our culture in short order - like other poor immigrant groups of the past. This may be contributing to peoples' willingness to take what they perceive as a small hit today for the benefits of tomorrow.
    And many find this effect to be a major contributor to the historical long-term success of the U.S. economy.

    Yar on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    For the most part, this discussion goes around in a circle indefinitely. The anti-immigrant will talk about the economy, until that is clearly proven false, then they'll focus on low-skill workers, until that is proven false, then they'll bring up crime, until that is proven false, and by then enough pages have gone by that someone can get away with bringing up the economy again. If it hasn't been long enough for that to work yet, then instead the crime argument will segue into the "the law is the law, being an illegal immigrant is a crime" fallacy trap for a few pages until it's safe to bring up the economy again. This discussion has gone in that same circle through about 6 threads and many months recently.

    Hah. We should compile a FAQ.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Don't forget the blatant racism and pearl-clutching, those are pretty big parts of the cycle too.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    "pearl-clutching"?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Just want to point out again that most of the above are Mexican immigrants themselves who were once illegal but don't fall into that category anymore.

    Well since we are using a high school diploma as the cut off point what do the facts say? From wikipedia referencing a 2003 study from the US Census Bureau
    The same racial differences decrease significantly at the high school level with 89.4% of non-Hispanic whites, 87.6% of Asian Americans, 80.0% of African Americans, and only 57% of Hispanics or Latinos having graduated from high school.[

    They make mention that the low percentage of Hispanics is likely due to the illegal immigrant population. However that still leaves us a rather large part of the population directly competing with them.
    When anti-immigration pundits want to tout the effects of immigration on low-skill labor, they end up talking about the effects on a largely immigrant population of uneducated minorities who used to be illegal themselves, counting them as "the population." But when they want to tout the effect of immigration on the economy, they suddenly want to count any and all impoverished illegal immigrants as well as their legal resident/citizen spouses, cousins, children, and grandchildren. There is a distinct lack of parallel.
    I was not aware that 20% of the black community used to be illegal. I guess it all really depends on how far back you want to go.
    For the most part, this discussion goes around in a circle indefinitely. The anti-immigrant will talk about the economy, until that is clearly proven false, then they'll focus on low-skill workers, until that is proven false, then they'll bring up crime, until that is proven false, and by then enough pages have gone by that someone can get away with bringing up the economy again. If it hasn't been long enough for that to work yet, then instead the crime argument will segue into the "the law is the law, being an illegal immigrant is a crime" fallacy trap for a few pages until it's safe to bring up the economy again. This discussion has gone in that same circle through about 6 threads and many months recently.

    Except Illegal Immigration has a very real effect on the economy. No one one either side has disagreed with this. What we disagree on is largely how big of an effect it is, whether it is a net gain or loss (studies show it to be statistically to close to call), and whether the problems/costs of illegal immigration are worth the gain.

    Plain fact is that there is a distinct lack of rationale for humanitarian functions of government if they are portioned out strictly by birthright,

    The function of the United States government is to take care of its citizens. This is its primary goal. We elect representatives to enact laws and policies that benefit us individually, and our country. I wish anyone seeking election good luck if they came out as wanting to "fix" Mexico, as that would involve an invasion. Moreover the political will of the American populous is that Mexico is not out problem. Mexican citizens are not our problem. Currently, for a variety of reasons the will of the American public is that something be d one to curb illegal immigration. This is a duty of the federal government, and the federal government should never be in the business of protecting non citizens over the welfare of citizens. If it were it would need to be replaced. The voters want action taken against illegal immigration, either our representatives will act, or be replaced by someone who will.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    so when you say "blatant racism and pearl-clutching", you're saying "blatant racism and fake outrage at being called racist"?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Yall on
  • Options
    ShushnikShushnik regular
    edited August 2010
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Comeon, didn't you get the memo? All anti-immigration arguments are racist. It's how they dismiss the opposition without consideration to their viewpoint. Durr.

    Shushnik on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    so when you say "blatant racism and pearl-clutching", you're saying "blatant racism and fake outrage at being called racist"?

    More or less.

    "All dem mexicans committing crimes!" is racist. "How dare you accuse me or racism!?!?" is pearl clutching. I believe the thread has both. Its an amazing cycle.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Shushnik wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Comeon, didn't you get the memo? All anti-immigration arguments are racist. It's how they dismiss the opposition without consideration to their viewpoint. Durr.

    This might be filed under "phony outrage."

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Bolded for a question: If someone is acting in a way that you would qualify as "blatantly racist" but does not believe the action is racist, how do you qualify it?

    Not a trick question, actually curious. Is racism entirely defined by intent and, if so, how do you actually identify it?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    ShushnikShushnik regular
    edited August 2010
    Shushnik wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Comeon, didn't you get the memo? All anti-immigration arguments are racist. It's how they dismiss the opposition without consideration to their viewpoint. Durr.

    This might be filed under "phony outrage."

    Maybe, phony outrage for the purpose of humor. I'm just yanking your chain. :D

    Shushnik on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    so when you say "blatant racism and pearl-clutching", you're saying "blatant racism and fake outrage at being called racist"?

    More or less.

    "All dem mexicans committing crimes!" is racist. "How dare you accuse me or racism!?!?" is pearl clutching. I believe the thread has both. Its an amazing cycle.

    I guess so. Nationalism is the highest form of ethnocentrism. I don't think accusations of racism help the discussion any though, and I wish you wouldn't make those kinds of waves. Actual racism and simple reactionary nativism are very difficult to tell from one another, and assertions of racism, particularly in this kind of environment, involve assumptions about peoples' motives that don't serve to improve the quality of discourse.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Shushnik wrote: »
    Shushnik wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Comeon, didn't you get the memo? All anti-immigration arguments are racist. It's how they dismiss the opposition without consideration to their viewpoint. Durr.

    This might be filed under "phony outrage."

    Maybe, phony outrage for the purpose of humor. I'm just yanking your chain. :D

    Chain yanked, well played.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    so when you say "blatant racism and pearl-clutching", you're saying "blatant racism and fake outrage at being called racist"?

    More or less.

    "All dem mexicans committing crimes!" is racist. "How dare you accuse me or racism!?!?" is pearl clutching. I believe the thread has both. Its an amazing cycle.

    I guess so. Nationalism is the highest form of ethnocentrism. I don't think accusations of racism help the discussion any though, and I wish you wouldn't make those kinds of waves. Actual racism and simple reactionary nativism are very difficult to tell from one another, and assertions of racism, particularly in this kind of environment, involve assumptions about peoples' motives that don't serve to improve the quality of discourse.

    This thread could turn into the "civility" thread if we're not careful! To not go into too much detail, I sympathize with the concern that "accusations of racism [don't] help the discussion," but I'm of the mind that letting generally horrible and racist statements slide doesn't help the discussion either.

    Different approaches I guess.

    But the bolded is something worth discussing: how much leeway do we give someone, particularly in regards to racism, based on "motivations?" What can you say, what opinions can you hold, what arguments can you make, while still falling back on "but my motivations are pure!" as a defense? At what point don't motivations matter?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    ShushnikShushnik regular
    edited August 2010
    so when you say "blatant racism and pearl-clutching", you're saying "blatant racism and fake outrage at being called racist"?

    More or less.

    "All dem mexicans committing crimes!" is racist. "How dare you accuse me or racism!?!?" is pearl clutching. I believe the thread has both. Its an amazing cycle.

    I guess so. Nationalism is the highest form of ethnocentrism. I don't think accusations of racism help the discussion any though, and I wish you wouldn't make those kinds of waves. Actual racism and simple reactionary nativism are very difficult to tell from one another, and assertions of racism, particularly in this kind of environment, involve assumptions about peoples' motives that don't serve to improve the quality of discourse.

    Wouldn't the highest form of ethnocentrism be vegetarianism? I mean, how pro-mammal do you have to be? Snooty vegetable murderers.

    Shushnik on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Carrot juice is delicious, and I'm totally fine with carrots being processed for our consumption. I don't see how that makes me a carrotist though.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Bolded for a question: If someone is acting in a way that you would qualify as "blatantly racist" but does not believe the action is racist, how do you qualify it?

    Not a trick question, actually curious. Is racism entirely defined by intent and, if so, how do you actually identify it?

    If you throw out the"blatant" qualifier it certainly can become a gray area.

    I'm sure there are colloquialisms in every day language that maybe aren't obviously racist, but are rooted in racism. Using them could imply that the speaker is racist, or it could simply mean they are ignorant of the true meaning of what they are saying.

    Maybe not a great example, but as with anything it isn't always black and white. Terrible unintentional pun.

    Yall on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    so when you say "blatant racism and pearl-clutching", you're saying "blatant racism and fake outrage at being called racist"?

    More or less.

    "All dem mexicans committing crimes!" is racist. "How dare you accuse me or racism!?!?" is pearl clutching. I believe the thread has both. Its an amazing cycle.

    I guess so. Nationalism is the highest form of ethnocentrism. I don't think accusations of racism help the discussion any though, and I wish you wouldn't make those kinds of waves. Actual racism and simple reactionary nativism are very difficult to tell from one another, and assertions of racism, particularly in this kind of environment, involve assumptions about peoples' motives that don't serve to improve the quality of discourse.

    This thread could turn into the "civility" thread if we're not careful! To not go into too much detail, I sympathize with the concern that "accusations of racism [don't] help the discussion," but I'm of the mind that letting generally horrible and racist statements slide doesn't help the discussion either.

    Different approaches I guess.

    But the bolded is something worth discussing: how much leeway do we give someone, particularly in regards to racism, based on "motivations?" What can you say, what opinions can you hold, what arguments can you make, while still falling back on "but my motivations are pure!" as a defense? At what point don't motivations matter?

    I would say that without some description and verification, it's not good to just call "racism" on someone. It suddenly makes the conversation about why someone is or is not racist, rather than whether their position is sound or not.

    You don't have to let horribly racist statements slide, but there are better ways of dealing with them that don't involve distracting from the subject, and I would say these involve getting people to clarify their meaning, and the extent of what they are talking about. I'd prefer to keep a conversation going, and not have it stopped in a flurry of accusations about how horrible people are.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    So, cries of racism aside...

    How are people supposed to feel when an ethic group moves in, doesn't speak the language, transforms an area that used to be safe into a ghetto, trashes it, drives away most people who used to live there, and generally makes a nuisance and a problem.

    I see things like "Well, economically speaking, they are good" and "In three generations they will be just as normalized as most americans" and "The same thing happened to <insert ethnic group here> and look how they turned out?"

    But what about now? What about the people who were born here, who are suffering because of it now? Is it wrong of them to want something done? Is it wrong of them to get resentful or territorial? They have to cope with this alien presense drastically fucking their quality of life. People who by all measures are not supposed to be here.

    Namrok on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010

    How are people supposed to feel when an ethic group moves in, doesn't speak the language, transforms an area that used to be safe into a ghetto, trashes it, drives away most people who used to live there, and generally makes a nuisance and a problem.
    Except for the language barrier, how is that different from black people moving into the area?
    But what about now? What about the people who were born here, who are suffering because of it now? Is it wrong of them to want something done? Is it wrong of them to get resentful or territorial? They have to cope with this alien presense drastically fucking their quality of life. People who by all measures are not supposed to be here.
    I expect them not to be retarded and act like they can make the problem go away with idiotic immigration policies that don't actually solve the problem.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    How are people supposed to feel when an ethic group moves in, doesn't speak the language, transforms an area that used to be safe into a ghetto, trashes it, drives away most people who used to live there, and generally makes a nuisance and a problem.
    Except for the language barrier, how is that different from black people moving into the area?

    *forehead slap*

    I'm going to run with the assumption that you didn't quite mean what that sounded like, and rephrase the issue to something more like, this sounds like a problem more related along class lines and less along ethnicity, unless the opposition is to different ethnic groups moving into an area full stop, whereas a bunch of white people moving into an area and trashing it would be totally okay.

    I mean, many of the stereotypes levied against illegal immigrants here are identical to the ones I've heard in midwestern Canada directed towards First Nations peoples, so it isn't merely "Mexican (or black) culture" or whatever that's the problem. It's lack of education and income, mostly. So, what do you do? Work to improve the income and education of those people?
    But what about now? What about the people who were born here, who are suffering because of it now? Is it wrong of them to want something done? Is it wrong of them to get resentful or territorial? They have to cope with this alien presense drastically fucking their quality of life. People who by all measures are not supposed to be here.
    I expect them not to be retarded and act like they can make the problem go away with idiotic immigration policies that don't actually solve the problem.

    You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I generally hope that people will be more forward thinking in general. What would the country be like if we'd stuck with "no dogs or Chinese?"

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    How are people supposed to feel when an ethic group moves in, doesn't speak the language, transforms an area that used to be safe into a ghetto, trashes it, drives away most people who used to live there, and generally makes a nuisance and a problem.
    Except for the language barrier, how is that different from black people moving into the area

    That is misleading at best. The scale of immigration we are seeing in up there with refugees. Which given the conditions in Mexico, they might as well be. But that being the case, there should be some organized effort do deal with it, and not have them stealing social security numbers, hiding 20 or 30 to a house and trashing everything around them.

    I mean, lets run with your black example. Lets presume that everyone from the projects decided they wanted to move into your neighborhood. Now obviously they can't afford it. So they begin stealing social security numbers to secure loans. They also start living 20 or 30 to a house to pay the mortgage. And their style of living is to just move from house to house trashing it as they get evicted.

    For starters, stealing social security numbers is illegal on the face of it, and shacking up that much in a single home is also against the law. Nobody would be pissed off if their neighborhood was suddenly populated with black people who could afford their mortgages, took care of their property, and didn't leave 10 beat up cars on their lawn/driveway/road in front of their house completely blocking all traffic.

    The problems we are seeing have NOTHING to do with the color of the skin, but are a blatant consequence of the laws that are being broken.

    Namrok on
  • Options
    ShushnikShushnik regular
    edited August 2010
    There always have been and always will be resistance to immigrating cultures. Most of your issues are exibited by poor people, native or immigrating. You can call them "immigration" issues and assume they would go away if you stopped immigration, but I don't think you would be correct. I think the problem would just continue with the local poor people.

    So, assuming I'm correct, what is to be done? Can you mitigate the poorness of the poor? I don't really see how, but if you have an answer I'd love to hear it.

    Shushnik on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yall wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    "How dare you accuse me of (nonsense)!" Basically phony outrage.

    If someone genuinely isn't being racist though (or at least believes they aren't) then I wouldn't consider the outrage all that phony.

    Bolded for a question: If someone is acting in a way that you would qualify as "blatantly racist" but does not believe the action is racist, how do you qualify it?

    Not a trick question, actually curious. Is racism entirely defined by intent and, if so, how do you actually identify it?

    If you throw out the"blatant" qualifier it certainly can become a gray area.

    I'm sure there are colloquialisms in every day language that maybe aren't obviously racist, but are rooted in racism. Using them could imply that the speaker is racist, or it could simply mean they are ignorant of the true meaning of what they are saying.

    Maybe not a great example, but as with anything it isn't always black and white. Terrible unintentional pun.

    No, I'm certain there is a gray area. There has to be, its a difficult subject to pin down.

    However, in every race discussion (and race thread) I've seen, the "not motivated by racism!" defense always comes up. Mark Williams wasn't actually racist. Dr. David McKalip wasn't actually racist. "Macaca" isn't racist. "Birtherism" isn't racist. Blackface isn't racist. Slavery wasn't racist. etc. etc.

    Obviously there are very real scenarios where someone does something or says something that can be construed as racist, but they don't have any malicious or racist intent. There are also obviously scenarios where a speaker or writer is clearly racist but will use the "secret motivation" defense to pretend otherwise.

    I don't deny that racist can be defined by motivations, but I am curious as to how one can have a functional discussion about race and racism when "I'm not racist!" is an unassailable position.
    Namrok wrote:
    That is misleading at best. The scale of immigration we are seeing in up there with refugees. Which given the conditions in Mexico, they might as well be. But that being the case, there should be some organized effort do deal with it, and not have them stealing social security numbers, hiding 20 or 30 to a house and trashing everything around them.

    Hasn't this thread produced about a zillion studies showing no correlation between illegal immigration and other crimes? Is there any evidence that illegal immigrants "hide 20 or 30 to a house and trash everything around them" or is that just something we're supposed to accept at face value?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    For the most part, this discussion goes around in a circle indefinitely. The anti-immigrant will talk about the economy, until that is clearly proven false, then they'll focus on low-skill workers, until that is proven false, then they'll bring up crime, until that is proven false, and by then enough pages have gone by that someone can get away with bringing up the economy again. If it hasn't been long enough for that to work yet, then instead the crime argument will segue into the "the law is the law, being an illegal immigrant is a crime" fallacy trap for a few pages until it's safe to bring up the economy again. This discussion has gone in that same circle through about 6 threads and many months recently.

    Awesome.

    Julius on
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Shushnik wrote: »
    There always have been and always will be resistance to immigrating cultures. Most of your issues are exibited by poor people, native or immigrating. You can call them "immigration" issues and assume they would go away if you stopped immigration, but I don't think you would be correct. I think the problem would just continue with the local poor people.

    So, assuming I'm correct, what is to be done? Can you mitigate the poorness of the poor? I don't really see how, but if you have an answer I'd love to hear it.

    Communism.:winky:

    Julius on
  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Hasn't this thread produced about a zillion studies showing no correlation between illegal immigration and other crimes? Is there any evidence that illegal immigrants "hide 20 or 30 to a house and trash everything around them" or is that just something we're supposed to accept at face value?

    It's called a Sunday drive through a Manassas, VA suburb. It came up a few pages ago. I see it every time I drive through there with my own two eyes.

    I can't blame you for not believing me, I'm just some dude on the internet (and I'm shocked I haven't been called racist yet), but yeah.

    It happens.

    Maybe not everywhere, I donno. I only know what I see.

    Namrok on
  • Options
    BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Can't we just get a system setup so people can come here legally? Why is this so hard? Why are people who support "legal" immigration being lumped with people who are "anti-immigration"?

    I'm almost certain that most people who support locking down the boarder and having a way to document immigrants are all in favor for "legal immigration". No one is talking about shutting the boarders down for good, no one is talking about sending people home simply based off of their skin color, it just comes down to "are you legal or not". Why is this so complicated?

    BakerIsBored on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.