|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 18, 2014 12:51:47 GMT -5
I tend to look for what the business wonks call "best practices," which I suspect is wonkese for "stuff that works." And also, in this case, "stuff that isn't xenophobic or nativist."
On the rhetorical side, the argumentative stance I'm wondering about is a variation on argumentum ad auctoritas, where "Johnny's mom lets him do it" is the source of authority. The contrary of this kind of argument is "Why should we follow what a bunch of foreigners do?"--something I heard a good deal of (not here) during the health-care debate.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,869
|
Post by Dub on Dec 18, 2014 13:18:50 GMT -5
Hold on just a minute there, sonny. I'm one who thinks everyone driving a motor vehicle should be allowed to apply for a driver's license. A driver's license doesn't entitle one to any benefits other than operating a motor vehicle. The reason we require the licensing of drivers isn't (wasn't) for identification, it was to show that a driver had demonstrated the necessary skills and the ability to recognize signs and signals. I don't want people driving who haven't passed the needed tests. We've had one friend killed and another horribly injured in separate collisions by illegal immigrants with no license or insurance. If these people had felt comfortable and secure in getting a license in the first place perhaps these tragedies could have been prevented.
I think it's entirely proper to treat the testing and licensing of drivers independently of their citizenship or immigration status.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Dec 18, 2014 13:34:53 GMT -5
To be clear, my question was sincere, and not an attempt to invoke the authority of other systems.
I recall about 20 years ago a friend was looking to immigrate to New Zealand. The requirements were substantial. I don't remember all the details, but it boiled down to requirements that you (a) be relatively young (over age 40? forget it) (b) have some demonstrable skill or qualifications (Doctor? Engineer? Step right in. Yard mower? Good luck.) and (c) have a certain amount of "settlement cash" on hand (a non-trivial amount of money, tens of thousands of dollars) to get yourself established.
Looking at that, it was quite apparent that the authorities in New Zealand were serious about using immigration policy as a vehicle to "raise the average" of their society. Which is to say, they were serious about looking at immigration from the perspective of what is best for New Zealand.
The US seems to have all but explicitly abandoned such thinking. Our immigration policy is driven by an abstract sense of "social justice" steeped in a heavy dose of racial guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 18, 2014 13:57:32 GMT -5
The US seems to have all but explicitly abandoned such thinking. Our immigration policy is driven by an abstract sense of "social justice" steeped in a heavy dose of racial guilt. Yah, since, oh, the late 19th century (with some way-too-late corrections of explicitly racist policies). As the mostly-WASP grandson of a turn-of-the-20th-century immigrant and husband of a naturalized citizen--and a lifetime pointy-headed liberal--I've paid some attention to US immigration policies and the varieties of nativism that have attempted to shape it. The public culture I grew up in took our (relative) open-door policy as one of the actual glories of the nation, despite the ugliness that marked much of our relationship to immigrants who varied too much from the northern-European Protestant ideal. But then, I grew up in the northeast, with the countervailing melting-pot ideal reinforced by all those WW2 movies in which Eye-talians and Micks and hunkies and jewboys all fought together and Frank Sinatra sang "The House I Live In."
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 18, 2014 14:47:41 GMT -5
To be clear, my question was sincere, and not an attempt to invoke the authority of other systems. I recall about 20 years ago a friend was looking to immigrate to New Zealand. The requirements were substantial. I don't remember all the details, but it boiled down to requirements that you (a) be relatively young (over age 40? forget it) (b) have some demonstrable skill or qualifications (Doctor? Engineer? Step right in. Yard mower? Good luck.) and (c) have a certain amount of "settlement cash" on hand (a non-trivial amount of money, tens of thousands of dollars) to get yourself established. Looking at that, it was quite apparent that the authorities in New Zealand were serious about using immigration policy as a vehicle to "raise the average" of their society. Which is to say, they were serious about looking at immigration from the perspective of what is best for New Zealand. The US seems to have all but explicitly abandoned such thinking. Our immigration policy is driven by an abstract sense of "social justice" steeped in a heavy dose of racial guilt. Yeah, but they get mollusks to come ashore and perform the menial work.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Dec 18, 2014 16:28:33 GMT -5
Jeff, it takes a whole lot of really poor people who feel they have no chance in life to create a communist revolution. The U.S. really didn't have that many seriously poor people when we looked at the problem awhile back so we have to import them. Trouble is their kids become doctors, lawyers and politicians and get rich and vote Republican so we have to import more and more of the poor to keep progressiveism going.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Dec 18, 2014 17:32:41 GMT -5
Hold on just a minute there, sonny. I'm one who thinks everyone driving a motor vehicle should be allowed to apply for a driver's license. A driver's license doesn't entitle one to any benefits other than operating a motor vehicle. The reason we require the licensing of drivers isn't (wasn't) for identification, it was to show that a driver had demonstrated the necessary skills and the ability to recognize signs and signals. I don't want people driving who haven't passed the needed tests. We've had one friend killed and another horribly injured in separate collisions by illegal immigrants with no license or insurance. If these people had felt comfortable and secure in getting a license in the first place perhaps these tragedies could have been prevented. I think it's entirely proper to treat the testing and licensing of drivers independently of their citizenship or immigration status. That was my initial thought too. That and insurance. I'd like to see everyone behind the wheel with some competence, some idea of the rules of the road, and some insurance for the times when the first two aren't good enough. Instead we get none of the three because illegals are forced to hide from authorities. This thread is interesting in that everybody, including me, has such predictable opinions. We all want fairness. To liberals that means egalitarian treatment. To conservatives that means preventing cheating the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 17:42:11 GMT -5
Good to see you Jim. Hope all is well chez Fay.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,869
|
Post by Dub on Dec 18, 2014 18:04:25 GMT -5
Jeff, it takes a whole lot of really poor people who feel they have no chance in life to create a communist revolution. The U.S. really didn't have that many seriously poor people when we looked at the problem awhile back so we have to import them. Trouble is their kids become doctors, lawyers and politicians and get rich and vote Republican so we have to import more and more of the poor to keep progressiveism going. Heh. I love that. The funny thing here is that the people who are worst off in the U.S. either don't vote or vote for people who are least likely to come to their aid. These people are often dismissed as stupid but I've never thought that was the case. They are, in part, trusting and they also seem anxious to be viewed as reasonable and loyal not realizing that one can admit and discuss our nations shortcomings without having animosity towards our country. Most people want what they see as fair even if that fairness puts them at a personal disadvantage. There will be no "people's revolution" here. If the U.S. government is ever overthrown it will be a coup d'état, not a revolution and it will have the backing of our oligarchs.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 18, 2014 18:14:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 18, 2014 18:28:14 GMT -5
This thread is interesting in that everybody, including me, has such predictable opinions. We all want fairness. To liberals that means egalitarian treatment. To conservatives that means preventing cheating the system. I'm just answering/discussing this last paragraph. I think that is interesting also. I want fairness and to me that's government treating everybody the same. If some woman wants to be a combat Marine and can pass the test, she should be in. If you break the law and get caught you pay the penalty. If you sneak into the country you should be deported if you are from Mexico or the UK. No government form should have a place for sex or race or age. I looked up egalitarian just to be sure I was on the right page. Got this: of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Which I kind of think is what I said. But I don't think it's how some kinds of liberals read it. And I don't think that you can draw lines at liberal/conservative in today's political culture. The DC conservatives have been at war with the Tea Party conservatives (and there seems to be two general groups of them). And just lately the DC liberals have the attacks by the (Tea Party liberals - I don't think the media has coined a name for them) Kind of old guard vs the climbers. Personally I don't think the new bunch will be any better than the old bunch but even given that I'd go for a new bunch.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 18, 2014 18:32:25 GMT -5
Just an anecdotal data point or two about class identity and party affiliation: My father's small-town blue-collar clan would be seen as yellow-dog Democrats if they hadn't been New Yorkers; my mother's paternal grandfather was an upstate-Republican bagman (and his son couldn't bring himself to vote for Truman even though he admired him); my immigrant wife's blue-collar refugee parents always always always supported the GOP because FDR gave their homeland to Russia. And just to keep things stirred up, my paternal granny (daughter of a bricklayer, married to a mill-hand) was a Democrat, a member of Eastern Star, and aspired to the DAR. (Turned out it was Grandpa's side of the family with the verifiable Revolutionary War connecton, much to Grandma's chagrin.) My father was a blue-collar Democrat, a member of the VFW and the Knights of Columbus, and supported the Vietnam war, even though he detested Nixon. Nor was he the only blue-collar Democrat who felt that way in that period. (Dad eventually changed his mind about Vietnam, but not about Nixon.)
I suspect that mapping the demographics of party politics requires quite a bit of squinting in order to neaten up all those fuzzy boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 18, 2014 18:42:29 GMT -5
My opinions on this aren't entirely predictable. I think immigration law should be aggressively enforced. I've supported some of the more significant anti-illegal laws here. That said, mass deportations aren't going to happen. What I mainly want to see is aggressive enforcement so we don't wind up in this box again. As for the drivers' license thing, that was petty and mean and having it overturned didn't bother me.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 18, 2014 18:42:36 GMT -5
I know what conservatives want. They want a border that is enforced by law. They want immigrants to enter this country through the legal processes and channels that have been established. They want people that enter the country illegally to be deported.
I don't know what liberals want. People that enter the country are not to be deported? Are they are to be given drivers' licenses, food aid, medical care, education, and workplace protection, social security, voting rights? Are those who are currently in the country illegally to be given amnesty? Are those who enter illegally in the future also to be given amnesty. There is to be a border but it is not to be controlled or enforced?
I know what Doug wants and would do. I have no idea what Russell wants or would do (only that he appears to call those who would try enforce national borders and current immigration laws nativist and xenophobes, at least he is calling someone nativist and xenophobe, and it appears to be in relation to having and enforcing a border between us and Mexico).
I can understand why Arizona has lost patience with a dithering Federal government and is attempting to act on its own to stem an influx of Mexicans and Central Americans that is overloading its ability to function and provide stability and services to its citizens. I do not understand why folks that are far removed from Arizona and are completely isolated from and indifferent to its issues and difficulties are so critical of whatever weak attempts it makes to try implement some semblance of law and legal entry.
What matter is Arizona's border to a Norwegian? Arizona shouldn't even have a border. Why shouldn't Arizona and Mexico be one, share and share alike? The world shouldn't have borders. Only Norway should have borders.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Dec 18, 2014 18:49:25 GMT -5
I must agree that Norway should have serious borders but that's to keep the friggin' Vikings in Norway and out of Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Dec 18, 2014 18:59:03 GMT -5
My county is quite poor, 85 percent white and votes about 70-30 for Republicans. Same with the neighboring counties and pretty much every rural poor county. Virginia has if I remember correctly 9 Republican congressmen and 2 Democrats despite electing both dem senators, a dem governor and twice going for Obama. So poor folks don't vote Republican?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 18, 2014 19:04:19 GMT -5
heh. Take it up with Krugman, The Atlantic, and Columbia University.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 18, 2014 19:07:03 GMT -5
I agree with Don that the Az "no license" deal was probably done out of anger and spite over Obama's immigration "policy". I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, but I don't begrudge Arizona its anger. The Fed doesn't seem to care how many Mexicans pour into Arizona, nor does it offer any help in paying for the social and educational services Arizona is required by the Feds to supply to these "new immigrants".
How would you feel if your kid's school was impacted by a 30% jump in "minority" enrollment, an enrollment that brings no money, just cost and disruption and fights. Forget about the AP classes and drama and arts, the too little money is being sucked up by ESL classes, remedial Ed classes, remedial remedial Ed classes, and HIspanic culture classes. And every kid of means and ambition is bailing out of the public school system as fast as they can leaving the growing mess behind. And those who can't get out and away? They are so screwed.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Dec 18, 2014 19:15:47 GMT -5
I would have thought it was self-evident that one of the core functions of any government is to manage the nation's borders in an orderly way. It puzzles me that such a notion is not only not generally shared by all, but treated as "aggressive" or "hostile" (or "xenophobic" or even "racist") by some.
Paul mentioned that he doesn't know what liberals want regarding this topic, and I agree. But it does seem to me that operationally, they propose an immigration system radically unlike any found anywhere in the world.
I asked before but no one specifically answered: Is there another country in the world where one can enter without proper authority and get then later on get a driver's license?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,869
|
Post by Dub on Dec 18, 2014 19:18:27 GMT -5
I'm reminded of a sketch from the '60s review “Beyond The Fringe.” A bunch of Brits are trying to define America. One says “well they've got that statue… the Statue of Liberty. It's a fine statue. A wonderful statue. But someone put a sign on it saying ‘Give me your poor, your huddled masses…’ and naturally everyone did.”
I don't see a problem setting standards for immigration. I can't become a Canadian because I'm over 53. As someone pointed out, most nations have restrictions. Do you remember a book called Megatrends from 1982? One of Naisbitt's major trends was what he called the Latinization of America. He told us then that even if we lined our southern border with troops we would be unable to shoot people fast enough to prevent this. At least that's something like I remember him saying.
I'm also under the impression that a great many illegals are here because agribusiness and other businesses want and depend on them. They are mostly employed and pay taxes even if they use false IDs and can never benefit from those taxes. At least that's what I've read.
|
|