Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
paxamericana

The Great Immigration Debate

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, paxrom said:

 I believe in equal opportunity not legislative equality or statistical equality or any entitlement mentality. Especially when it comes to immigration, illegal immigration is unfair to those who are willing to put up with the time, effort and large amount of money to go through our long vetting process. Immigration is not a right, it is a privilege and opportunity the host nation has graciously offer. How that host nation decides who gets in is up to the policy maker. But immigrants are in no position to "demand" anything. 

For the love of Vishnu could you not reply with an essay. Please just keep it concise and to the point, I don't see the need for long convoluted examples. No offense, just really difficult to read an essay on my mobile device while praising our dear leader Trump

"Equal Opportunity" is questionable because those who already HAVE  'opportunity' tend to believe this is true by default of others because it is true of them without careful thought. The 'dumb blonde' stereotype held relatively true when this was the dominant stereotype of beauty by the majority precisely because of the following reality: that those who can always get what they want for wanting it, lack the need to 'think' why they don't get it when they do. That is, you don't respect difficulty about things you default to get without having to try. This is logical but points to the fact that your belief about 'opportunity' may be more about your present LACK of difficulty of having opportunity presented before you. Thus could you possibly be misinterpreting THAT others actually have this because you were personally 'spoiled' of having the free option by your own experience alone? ("spoiled" is used neutral by me here, not as an insult.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2018 at 2:03 AM, paxrom said:

 I believe in equal opportunity not legislative equality or statistical equality or any entitlement mentality. Especially when it comes to immigration...

Equal opportunity will always be a myth in the face of in-camera lobbying of politicians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Equal opportunity will always be a myth in the face of in-camera lobbying of politicians.  

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. I think they are getting confused and conflating one with the other. We all have equal opportunity, but the outcomes are always different. And that is what people are complaining about. Because people who work hard get the benefits. But if the citizens of the USA really do not have equal opportunity , then how does one expect to extend that to immigrants, legal and illegal?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. I think they are getting confused and conflating one with the other. We all have equal opportunity, but the outcomes are always different. And that is what people are complaining about. Because people who work hard get the benefits. But if the citizens of the USA really do not have equal opportunity , then how does one expect to extend that to immigrants, legal and illegal?

 

Well, I guess I was thinking about how unequal opportunity can be when considering the 1%'s ability to influence the government. Conservatives like to conflate/confuse and ingratiate themselves with the 1% and I honestly think their confusion is deliberate. It's a little suspicious that these lickspittles also like to conflate/confuse ingratiate themselves with Joe-Lunchpail when getting all pissy and noisy about equality on the ground. Their betters have never had a more useful pack of idiots.   

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simplification: Equal Opportunity means one APPEARS to have options; Equal Outcome is the PROOF of those options being there for having them. 

I may 'freely' be able to SEE an expensive luxurious car on the lot of a car dealership. But the irrational optimist treats the seeing as PROOF those 'options' as validly accessible because they both had the prior lack of it, saw that option, and then were able to PROVE they could obtain it for themselves. It's a retrospective inversion of cause and effect they think is rational:

IF A, then B.

B.

Therefore A.

[error: affirming the consequent (outcome) doesn't assure the antecedent (option prior to potential outcome)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Simplification: Equal Opportunity means one APPEARS to have options; Equal Outcome is the PROOF of those options being there for having them. 

I may 'freely' be able to SEE an expensive luxurious car on the lot of a car dealership. But the irrational optimist treats the seeing as PROOF those 'options' as validly accessible because they both had the prior lack of it, saw that option, and then were able to PROVE they could obtain it for themselves. It's a retrospective inversion of cause and effect they think is rational:

IF A, then B.

B.

Therefore A.

[error: affirming the consequent (outcome) doesn't assure the antecedent (option prior to potential outcome)]

NOPE wrong analogy again. Seeing and purchasing power is two separate thing. Opportunity means your ability to get a good education if you have the merit, which last I check universities have been pretty good about even offering full ride scholarships to the financially less fortunate but have the required credential. Opportunity does not guarantee that you will make 2 million dollars after 4 years of college in history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, paxrom said:

NOPE wrong analogy again. Seeing and purchasing power is two separate thing. Opportunity means your ability to get a good education if you have the merit, which last I check universities have been pretty good about even offering full ride scholarships to the financially less fortunate but have the required credential. Opportunity does not guarantee that you will make 2 million dollars after 4 years of college in history. 

Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well. This does not occur when some are born without the fortune of inheritance in some form. This delusion is only a con made to falsely enhance a dream in others so THAT the 'opportunists' have the extra 'opportunity' to exploit those BELIEVING in the dream. You count on others being deluded in order to profit from them the most. If you think this is just evolutionary, you are correct but then have to accept those 'liberals' who should equally use such 'opportunity' to exploit the power of the numbers to overthrown you. THIS very rationale is why the left are exploiting the same power politics that was the norm of the right for generations. If you feign stupidity, they can do so too given its apparent success rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well. This does not occur when some are born without the fortune of inheritance in some form. This delusion is only a con made to falsely enhance a dream in others so THAT the 'opportunists' have the extra 'opportunity' to exploit those BELIEVING in the dream. You count on others being deluded in order to profit from them the most. If you think this is just evolutionary, you are correct but then have to accept those 'liberals' who should equally use such 'opportunity' to exploit the power of the numbers to overthrown you. THIS very rationale is why the left are exploiting the same power politics that was the norm of the right for generations. If you feign stupidity, they can do so too given its apparent success rate. 

Why do you think we have to all start on an even playing field? That's exactly the entitlement mentality that is destroying the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paxrom said:

Why do you think we have to all start on an even playing field? That's exactly the entitlement mentality that is destroying the country. 

The "entitlement" is among those who think they deserve advantages provided not because they worked for it, but only because they were born within the dominant class.  It isn't those who are one-down because they happened to have been born poor, or Black or with drug addicted parents, or with physical or mental challenges.  Or even those born in war-ravaged places.

I am also part of the dominant class, and I am grateful every day that my accident of birth put me in position to succeed with relatively little effort.  I am ok if other people, lacking my unearned advantages, get a little extra helping hand so they also can succeed with a little effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well. This does not occur when some are born without the fortune of inheritance in some form. This delusion is only a con made to falsely enhance a dream in others so THAT the 'opportunists' have the extra 'opportunity' to exploit those BELIEVING in the dream. You count on others being deluded in order to profit from them the most. If you think this is just evolutionary, you are correct but then have to accept those 'liberals' who should equally use such 'opportunity' to exploit the power of the numbers to overthrown you. THIS very rationale is why the left are exploiting the same power politics that was the norm of the right for generations. If you feign stupidity, they can do so too given its apparent success rate. 

This is simply not true. It is only likely that those born into advantage will sustain that advantage, but it is not guaranteed, just as it is not guaranteed that those born into disadvantageous circumstances can't succeed. It is only more likely they won't. At the end of the day, intelligence, hard work and merit can compensate for disadvantage just as sloth, stupidity and hubris can undermine those who are born into advantage.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dialamah said:

The "entitlement" is among those who think they deserve advantages provided not because they worked for it, but only because they were born within the dominant class.  It isn't those who are one-down because they happened to have been born poor, or Black or with drug addicted parents, or with physical or mental challenges.  Or even those born in war-ravaged places.

 

People in the "dominant class" don't get to define that being "Black" means being one-down.   That is part of the problem.   Go meet some poor "White" people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

People in the "dominant class" don't get to define that being "Black" means being one-down.   That is part of the problem.   Go meet some poor "White" people.

where's taxme....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 6/28/2018 at 11:19 AM, paxrom said:

As you are all aware immigration is currently a hot subject and can be considered political poison for those in office.

This issue stems back many generations since immigrants first settled here from Europe and every where else since. 

Each wave of immigrants left a distinct mark on American society and way of life. Some for better some for worse, but mostly better. 

By in large, immigrants are just seeking a better opportunity, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The American dream. This has been true for every wave of immigrants coming here. Unless of course you're a slave.

I would like to hear what are your thoughts on immigration, specifically, who, how and where.

 

 

 

Quote

Immigration is a much more complex issue than the millions of protesters realize. No country that is even moderately succesful is going to open up their borders to unlimited immigration. This is for many reasons:

1) To limit criminal elements from getting in. If there is an arrest warrant out for a person in their country, we do not want them to simply be able to slip over the border.
2) To control the number of immigrants. Each country has a plan on how quickly they want to grow, and setting the target at 1% per year can still allow a decent amount of immigrants and refugees into the country, without overwhelming our infrastructure. 
3) To protect our security benefits. If we are to extend pensions, health care, education that we have all paid into for years, many countries would simply dump their poor and ill on our doorstep for us to look after. This will erode our pensions and health care significantly for everyone in the country. 

So, the idea of restricting illegal immigration makes sense. It allows us to find the right balance of skilled migrants, refugees, and family. Without restricting illegal immigration, it either means that we take random immigrants that have not been vetted instead of people who have gone through the legal process properly. Or it means that we blow through our targets. 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 4:11 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

People in the "dominant class" don't get to define that being "Black" means being one-down.   That is part of the problem.   Go meet some poor "White" people.

I have known and/or met black people who are well-educated, have good jobs and benefited in many ways from society's advantages who believe they are victimized. I have never understood this except in the context of what's often called 'received' as opposed to experienced truth. Many ethno-racial groups have suffered some degree of stereotyping and discrimination and even within the majority population there is class discrimination against some of the less fortunate as well as against the disabled and intellectually challenged. For a lot of people, life is not always a bowl of cherries.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 12:21 PM, turningrite said:

This is simply not true. It is only likely that those born into advantage will sustain that advantage, but it is not guaranteed, just as it is not guaranteed that those born into disadvantageous circumstances can't succeed. It is only more likely they won't. At the end of the day, intelligence, hard work and merit can compensate for disadvantage just as sloth, stupidity and hubris can undermine those who are born into advantage.

What you say follows from my own take. What particularly is 'not true'?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

What you say follows from my own take. What particularly is 'not true'?

 

What is not true is your stated premise that "Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well." Many people overcome the conditions of their upbringing and/or socio-economic class to become successful. It is the essence of what's called social mobility. Studies have demonstrated that social mobility is greater in some countries than in others but that doesn't negate the general principle that equality of opportunity is not contingent on equality of condition. It's easier for the privileged to get and stay ahead, but it's not impossible for the less privileged to do so. Equality of opportunity, particularly in education, is a precondition for social mobility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 10:02 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well. This does not occur when some are born without the fortune of inheritance in some form. 

You're ignoring the most unequal starting point. And that's not what money you are born into, but what body. If you're born into a beautiful, healthy body with a high IQ, and are raised with a strong sense of responsibility, education and work ethic, you are going to be far, far ahead of someone born into a weak, ugly body with a low IQ not raised to care about personal responsibility or education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 9:20 AM, paxrom said:

Why do you think we have to all start on an even playing field? That's exactly the entitlement mentality that is destroying the country. 

What an odd thing to say. IF you accept we don't require playing on an even playing field, then you have to accept we have no need to be anything more than the animals we are. No amount or rationalizing matters if you take this stance but then complain about other's right to both disagree AND rebel against those trying defaulting to better off conditions. That's my point about the condition of accepting evolution in social contexts, such as lawmaking in governments. 

Who is the 'entitled' here? The small number of wealthier 'owners' of this world or the vast majority. We are all 'greedy' but if the numbers of poor should shut up and eat their shit, as you are implying, then don't complain if they do ANY rebellion. Rebellion is as much evolutionary and natural. BUT we only concern ourselves with what we all share with regards to a management system we call government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

What is not true is your stated premise that "Realistic "Opportunity" for all requires everyone have the same initial conditions as well." Many people overcome the conditions of their upbringing and/or socio-economic class to become successful. It is the essence of what's called social mobility. Studies have demonstrated that social mobility is greater in some countries than in others but that doesn't negate the general principle that equality of opportunity is not contingent on equality of condition. It's easier for the privileged to get and stay ahead, but it's not impossible for the less privileged to do so. Equality of opportunity, particularly in education, is a precondition for social mobility. 

It was in context to the guy I was directly speaking to as a 'conservative' who interprets "opportunity" as a reality provided to all. It is not realistic to presume all, nor even most, people have this equality just because we can SEE others with them. That's like a winner of a large lottery at incredible odds saying that it is ridiculous that everyone cannot win: "look at me, I'm proof that anyone can succeed."

I have a contention with your use of "many" without qualification. It is irrelevant considering a population of 6 Billion people may have 60 Million of them succeed (1%). <--- that number represents is 'many' but only adds force to mean that most do not succeed.

I'm lost on some of your wording about "social mobility" (versus "economic mobility". 'social' mobility is something one might do when they move up the social ladder in any  context, like highschool kids might do to become more popular.)

"Education" is a sticky word too that I'm troubled by. You can be 'educated' if you how to tie knots. Quality education is NOT sufficient to get your foot in the door from the  bottom even if it is relevant education. And knowledge without the experience via those 'opportunities' are what limits most on the bottom to get fair entry.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Argus said:

You're ignoring the most unequal starting point. And that's not what money you are born into, but what body. If you're born into a beautiful, healthy body with a high IQ, and are raised with a strong sense of responsibility, education and work ethic, you are going to be far, far ahead of someone born into a weak, ugly body with a low IQ not raised to care about personal responsibility or education.

I agree. But that is whey I use the word, "Inheritance", with its subtypes: "genetic" or "environmental". You'd have to read my other material to know I noticed this factor. We are forced to the potential of bad genetics but the intellectual society we form CAN and DOES help change this in many ways. But it counts on collectivist efforts for all people, not a system that should be set up to minimally attend the the wealthier concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian-American David Frum articulates the anti illegal immigration position very well in this Atlantic piece, countered with a liberal view:

 

Quote

Conor Friedersdorf: David, your piece on immigration policy is an intriguing contribution to debate on the subject. Typically, folks marshal moral or economic arguments for more or less immigration.

Your insight is that the optimal number of immigrants cannot be divorced from public opinion. You observed that, prior to the political rise of Donald Trump, political elites in the U.S. and Europe favored higher levels immigration than the citizenries they represented. And you attributed the rise of illiberal populists in multiple countries partly to the liberal failure to more closely restrict immigration. I want to quote your words, because you put the argument powerfully:

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/debating-immigration-policy-at-a-populist-moment/518916/

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do."

 

I think this quote is particularly apt. Public opinion/support is crucial to maintaining the legitimacy of any important public policy, immigration included. I'm not sure why self-styled "progressives" (or liberals, as they're often described in the U.S., where the term often has a different connotation than here in Canada) believe that immigration should be treated any differently. I suspect many of these people simply don't understand history, including the struggles of ordinary people to put in place and maintain public social security programs, like pensions and health care, to enhance and sustain their own stability. Most people are generally willing to pay relatively high taxes to support this system provided they have some assurance it will benefit them when they need it to. It's the foundation of the modern "social contract" that emerged in one form or another in all Western countries in the 20th century.

Over the past few decades the social security systems in many Western countries have been diminished and many feel public resources have been redirected to serve other purposes, including the maintenance of permanent subsidy classes. Prominent economists, including Sir Paul Collier and the late Milton Friedman, among others, have noted that open or large-scale immigration undermines social solidarity and erodes the viability of welfare or social security policies. Maintaining strong borders is crucial to sustaining both wages and social supports. Friedman preferred open borders and was willing to sacrifice the welfare system. But, as he noted, a dual policy of open borders and maintaining strong social supports is irrational and unsustainable. Our political and economic elites scoff at these concerns because they're not greatly impacted by them. But ordinary voters aren't as cavalier. And they have a right to their say as long as our countries continue to function as democracies. Contrary to the prevailing liberal/progressive view, for most voters this is not about racism. It's about maintaining the decent working conditions and social safety nets many have worked long and hard to sustain. Voters will support politicians who reflect and/or share their concerns. It's common sense.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 1:57 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Illegals depress American labour wages.   Capitulating to 12 million illegals with a "path to citizenship" or legal residency undermines legal immigration and those who followed the rules.   Illegals put more burden on social programs and education costs.   

Detain and deport all illegals...no exceptions.     And yes, that includes the 100,000+ Canadian illegal overstays who won't go home !

(Canada is going to start recording all departures from its borders...sharing data with the USA.)

Will Canada soon be keeping records on how many times a day people will be allowed to flush their toilets for the environment's sake. I can see it now. All Canadians will only be allowed three #1's and one #2 every day. Hey, don't laugh, it could just happen one day. You know how politicians like to control people. Just saying. 

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, marcus said:

I thought I'd pass this video of Joe Rogan, sharing his thoughts on the latest immigration topic:

 

The problem is that all this nonsense about these illegals having their children taken away from them deserved it. They broke the law so why should anyone feel sorry for them. They SHOULD have not entered America illegally. When an American parent/s are convicted of a crime their children are taken away from them. So, what is the difference? Anyway, that policy of separating children from parents has ended thanks to Trump and not Obama.  

But with this liberal mouth piece he wants to pretend that this has only started under Trump's presidency of separating children from parents. It was the rule of the day to do so. Obama during his reign of terror had children locked up in dog cages while their parents were locked up in a jail somewhere. It was shown on TV and on the internet. These pretend loving and caring liberals would be the last ones to take any of those children into their homes. Liberals are all for allowing every criminal illegal to stay in America and open the border gates for all to enter willy-nilly just like this silly ass liberal prime mistake of ours is allowing to happen in Canada today. 

Even this dumb blond Latino communist that was just voted into office in New York state as Governor wants to abolish ICE, abolish prisons, and open the borders to whomever wants to come to America. This is liberalism and communism at work and talking here. These people have no loyalty to their country. Their loyalty lies with illegals and criminals. They truly do want to destroy America and turn it into a third world cesspool. Thanks to Obama America was well on it's way to becoming  a third world cesspool. Trump is trying to stop that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...