It's criminal the way we treat immigrants. It's also harmful to us. The reason many jobs are unfilled and service is so bad in some sectors is that we won't let people come here to work.
It would be great to reframe the question as simply how to manage the wholly human and laudable desire to make a living that has always attracted people across the border to the South.
If we did that, we'd be discussing ways to direct the traffic, the kind of ID that would be needed, access to government services, how to connect migrants with work other than a free-for-all that leads to exploitation, and how to classify employment in jobs that would likely fall outside of US norms. Even gainfully-employed US citizens make an impact on the infrastructure wherever they live, and are still subject to US regulation. We'd need a way to square this with local governments.
But I don't hear much of that. We make like the only alternative to the Great Wall approach is a maximalist de facto permanent citizenship -- not just retroactively for people who came here under the many decades of winking and turning a blind eye, but largely for anyone else who shows up and asks from now on.
Receiving the dispossessed of the world -- and it's not too long until hundreds of millions from the Sahel would show up -- would be a major project that calls for the total commitment, not just the sympathy, of the US population. Existing US society, everything from land use patterns to the way we run schools and ERs, would have to change a lot to make this possible at a time when we're still trying to adapt to the changes of the 1980s.
"Other people might rely on their political affiliations when they think about abolishing ICE. The abolitionist call may seem more appealing to Democrats when Republicans are in power. They assume that a Democratic President, such as Joe Biden, will be better on the issue."
This is not the only human rights issue that those on the left only care about when the other team has the ball. The eight year lunch break the antiwar movement took during the Obama administration is another glaring example.
The piece mentions that. "This wouldn’t be the first time that party loyalties shape reform movements. Social scientists, myself included, have documented how the anti-Iraq War movement deescalated once George W. Bush left office and Barack Obama assumed the presidency. "
It does mention that, but I thought the point could stand to be reiterated, especially when Obama was correctly derided as "deporter-in-chief" during his time in office, and set up the kids-in-cages infrastructure on which for the Trump administration to then expand.
Steve, you have a good point. Many people as in the USA are still not aware of that Obama's administration in certain areas was quite horrible regarding immigration
It's hard to avoid because it's heavily incentivised in a first-past-the-post, 2 party system. Criticizing the party that is somewhat closer to your preferred position necessarily helps the party that is farther from your position.
Additionally, when your preferred party is governing, it's harder to ignore that your preferences, even if obviously correct on the merits, are not super popular.
Whatever the abstract philosophical merits of immigration restriction – and your arguments about it here are really not remotely serious since on the positive side you simply handwave and on the critical side you confine yourself to addressing solely the worst arguments against your position – the functional effect of delusional rants about it like this is just to distract, delay, and sabotage the actual hard political work necessary to make changes in the world. Hang your head and be silent you ivory-tower intellectual fool.
It's criminal the way we treat immigrants. It's also harmful to us. The reason many jobs are unfilled and service is so bad in some sectors is that we won't let people come here to work.
Also, abolish the tough/strong border paradox
It would be great to reframe the question as simply how to manage the wholly human and laudable desire to make a living that has always attracted people across the border to the South.
If we did that, we'd be discussing ways to direct the traffic, the kind of ID that would be needed, access to government services, how to connect migrants with work other than a free-for-all that leads to exploitation, and how to classify employment in jobs that would likely fall outside of US norms. Even gainfully-employed US citizens make an impact on the infrastructure wherever they live, and are still subject to US regulation. We'd need a way to square this with local governments.
But I don't hear much of that. We make like the only alternative to the Great Wall approach is a maximalist de facto permanent citizenship -- not just retroactively for people who came here under the many decades of winking and turning a blind eye, but largely for anyone else who shows up and asks from now on.
Receiving the dispossessed of the world -- and it's not too long until hundreds of millions from the Sahel would show up -- would be a major project that calls for the total commitment, not just the sympathy, of the US population. Existing US society, everything from land use patterns to the way we run schools and ERs, would have to change a lot to make this possible at a time when we're still trying to adapt to the changes of the 1980s.
"Other people might rely on their political affiliations when they think about abolishing ICE. The abolitionist call may seem more appealing to Democrats when Republicans are in power. They assume that a Democratic President, such as Joe Biden, will be better on the issue."
This is not the only human rights issue that those on the left only care about when the other team has the ball. The eight year lunch break the antiwar movement took during the Obama administration is another glaring example.
The piece mentions that. "This wouldn’t be the first time that party loyalties shape reform movements. Social scientists, myself included, have documented how the anti-Iraq War movement deescalated once George W. Bush left office and Barack Obama assumed the presidency. "
It does mention that, but I thought the point could stand to be reiterated, especially when Obama was correctly derided as "deporter-in-chief" during his time in office, and set up the kids-in-cages infrastructure on which for the Trump administration to then expand.
Steve, you have a good point. Many people as in the USA are still not aware of that Obama's administration in certain areas was quite horrible regarding immigration
And the Right only pretends to care about wasteful spending when Left is in power. Next.
Yes, that is also true and also worth pointing out, although I don't think that whataboutism is the most useful response to justifiable criticism.
Your comment was whataboutism
How so?
It's hard to avoid because it's heavily incentivised in a first-past-the-post, 2 party system. Criticizing the party that is somewhat closer to your preferred position necessarily helps the party that is farther from your position.
Additionally, when your preferred party is governing, it's harder to ignore that your preferences, even if obviously correct on the merits, are not super popular.
Whatever the abstract philosophical merits of immigration restriction – and your arguments about it here are really not remotely serious since on the positive side you simply handwave and on the critical side you confine yourself to addressing solely the worst arguments against your position – the functional effect of delusional rants about it like this is just to distract, delay, and sabotage the actual hard political work necessary to make changes in the world. Hang your head and be silent you ivory-tower intellectual fool.
You don't even know who wrote it. You didn't read it obviously.
You mad?