Skibboleth
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
5mo ago
I'm aware of such policies, but as far as I know the number of people turned away or expelled on such grounds was fairly negligible relative to the overall scale of immigration (tens of thousands over decades versus tens of millions of arrivals). To make an analogy to a hypothetical modern US policy, if the US today said something to the effect of "anyone can obtain legal residence if they aren't a known criminal, mentally ill, or physically incapacitated", I wouldn't have a problem calling that "open borders" even if there are technically some minimal qualifications.
Also of relevance is that these policies weren't universal, and if NY or Boston weren't taking, you'd simply see people going to Baltimore (and indeed a lot of people did).
Skibboleth
5mo ago
That's happening. The idea that immigrants are benefits sponges who refuse to learn English or get a job is a nativist shibboleth, not a description of reality. Hispanics have higher LFPR than the general population, have a similar likelihood of serving in the military to NH Whites, very high intermarriage rates, etc...
Skibboleth
5mo ago
It literally was. The US had functionally open borders until the late 19th century, when it was decided that vagrants were fine as long as they weren't Chinese.
When those non-citizens were allowed to vote, they were essentially the same ethnically and culturally as the existing population
"These German and Irish papists can never be truly American"
Skibboleth
5mo ago
In case the allusion to Dutch fifth columnists didn't make it clear: I am mocking appeals to tradition, which are typically appeal to cherrypicked history at best and are often wholly imaginary.
OP has posed a fairly ridiculous standard for who ought to qualify for American citizenship which has literally never applied and which, if applied, would disqualify the man he is approvingly quoting. The US has had unambiguous birthright citizenship for the majority of its existence (and a somewhat more patchwork de facto arrangement before that), as well as open borders or a functional equivalent. I somehow doubt that OP wants that aspect of late 18th/early 19th century policy back.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
I mean, yes, obviously. He's not so subtly hinting at ethnic cleansing before Carlson hits the brakes and changes the subject.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
An enticing thesis in other contexts, but not here, as they are clearly speaking in reference to people who have American citizenship who feel they didn't deserve it and given the broader context of their conversation.
as in this week in DC and already elsewhere, voting
Also part of the ancient traditions of America
Skibboleth
5mo ago
Americans are the descendants of the 13 colonies.
Hilariously, this standard would exclude Mr. Prince himself (descendant of Dutch immigrants).
Skibboleth
5mo ago
the left has devalued American citizenship
What does that even mean (aside from the obvious white supremacist angle)? Citizenship is not a scarce resource.
I mean a Venezuelan gang member who's here illegally is every bit as American as you, who was born in Western Michigan, so yes, I'm quite aware of that.
What does this mean?
Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, all of that must go.
Opposing birthright citizenship is contrary to the ancient traditions of our people and thus unAmerican. But then, Erik Prince is a Dutch fifth columnist and not to be trusted.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
NYT exit polls indicate the opposite. Also, a 2022 House Exit Poll for another example of the GOP winning high earners.
I'm far too lazy to run around aggregating a bunch of exit polls, but it doesn't really matter that much because whatever the exact tilt they're all pointing the same way. Namely, that the spread on voting by income level may be electorally significant (not hard when margins are so low), but it is not demographically substantial (i.e. if you were to get a random sample of any of the strata, roughly half would be voting for each major party). Thus, my initial point remains the same:
either major party trying to position themselves as the party of the poor/working class is typical American posturing where everyone wants to be rich but no one wants to be Rich.
Saying one party is the party of the working class because slightly more than half of voters go for the other party while slightly less than half go for the same seems like it's drawing too strong a conclusion from too little evidence. Whichever poll you reference, characterizing the conflict as one of pure class comes across as slightly farcial. It is, however, consistent with my theory that the liberal-conservative conflict is sectoral (in particular, merchants and gentry versus professionals) and normative.
less charitably: the "realignment" is conservative wishcasting that more reflects how suburban conservatives would like to see themselves. It's part of the broader populist-conservative 'just a little guy' routine where Trumpists pretend that they have no power or influence. Admitting that they're actually well-off and influential would puncture the fantasy that they're rebels against the empire instead of engaged in a peer conflict.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
I don't disagree - as I said in another subthread, the anti-housing consensus is bipartisan. Rationale is sometimes different (although sometimes that just a gloss on the same underlying motivations). At least in California, voting for the GOP isn't going to indicate a significantly different housing policy and the CA GOP has the usual array of conservative beliefs that make it a less than credible option for defection.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
Until said reversal actually manifests, calling its absence an artifact seems premature. Predicting the Democrats are going to become the party of rich white people is one thing (which I still find doubtful, but nevertheless). Saying the Democrats are already the party of old rich white people is factually inaccurate when the GOP has a distinct advantage with high income voters (approx. 10 points), white voters (approx. 10-15 points), and older voters (approx. 5 points, higher when talking about really old voters).
Amongst the posh, Democrats are so utterly dominant its comical.
This seems to hinge on gerrymandering 'elite' (and related terms) in ways that include a lot of middle income people from major cities while excluding high income people from the suburbs and major cities (and fits into a broader pattern of conservatives denying their own political power). The regional gentry that dominate the Republican Party don't like to think of themselves as 'elite', even though they often make more money (in many cases, significantly more money) than the urban professional class that mirrors them in the Democratic Party.
Like, I'm not really sure what you mean by posh here, since that's a British term without clear American analogy (maybe some New England Old Money, but they're frankly not very relevant). I'm guessing you mean affluent metropolitan professionals, but that's just a guess. Or maybe Ivy League students, but then you're not really comparing SES, you're comparing children to parents.
I can't find it on Google (because of course I can't) but someone looked at political donations from every large employer.
Assuming this is true (and I will grant that it is facially plausible), it is evidence for the merchant/gentry class vs professional class divide. It's not evidence for Republicans being poorer or more working class.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
it's why the Democratic party is now the party of the old, upper middle class whites.
That seems doubtful. Trump won the >$100k/yr vote in 2020* and his electoral coalition was significantly whiter and older than Biden's.
*not by a huge margin, admittedly, but the divides aren't huge in any income group; either major party trying to position themselves as the party of the poor/working class is typical American posturing where everyone wants to be rich but no one wants to be Rich.
Skibboleth
5mo ago
How could you see this and not be reactionary?
Everyone wants in on the housing ponzi scheme we've spent the last half century propping up. The tides have only started shifting very recently as younger people start to cotton on that they're going to be left holding the bag if nothing changes.
Beyond that, Americans are rich enough to mostly vote on values and the bipartisan consensus is anti-housing anyway, so there's little reason to go right in California unless you're also anti-immigrant.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
Because I don't really see "not talk about the ruling class" as an acceptable answer to that question
You could just be specific. I'm not suggesting you need a comprehensive list of every single person involved, but you should be able to provide some key identifiable institutions or people. It is extremely relevant who they are because you cannot possibly draw useful conclusions about them otherwise. A nebulous "they" has no interests.
These demands for specificity displace the object level debate into another debate about the true nature of the ruling class, in which dissidents usually disagree with each other, and thus serves the interests of the ruling class by keeping opponents divided. Since that rhetoric serves an interest, I find it suspect.
All rhetoric serves an interest. Vagueness makes it impossible to interrogate claims or simply obfuscate their absurdity. The motives of the "powers that be" to assassinate Trump are not something anyone can examine because there is no clear reference.
Of course, the real answer to all this is that the "ruling class" is a fiction - the people and organizations that wield power are fragmented and frequently at odds.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
the powers-that-be
There should be a requirement that if you're going to use vague and allusive terms that you define those terms so people can know who you're talking about. Don't just say 'elites' or 'the powers-that-be'. What specific people/organizations/institutions do you mean?
Skibboleth
6mo ago
Why not say that instead of using a needlessly vague and conspiratorial sounding term?
I mean, it is clearly is appropriate for many as well, but off the top of my head Booth, McKinley's assassin, the Puerto Ricans, and that one Georgian dude who threw a grenade at Dubya had fairly clear ideological motives. It may not necessarily have involved a good plan, but it wasn't like the ghost of Elvis told them to do it.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
The Powers-That-Be
Can you be more specific?
I'm beginning to suspect that Powers That Be may not Be all they're cracked up to be. Current track record on presidential assassinations is leaning really heavily in favor of deranged highly motivated individuals and against the Illuminati.
edit: deranged is not really an appropriate descriptor for many presidential assassins, but even the ones with clear political motives were acting alone or in a small group, not as agents of a significant institution.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
I mean for the politicians to only see a percentage on each line item.
This mostly seems like a way to waste staffer time preparing reports which convert percentages in actual relevant cost information. You can't actually make the legislature decide budget priorities in purely percentage terms and then decide how much revenue to raise. Whatever the nominal procedural requirements, it's going to be negotiated holistically.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
I'm being a little glib. As a pejorative it's tended to have pro-free market connotations, though when right-wingers adopt the term they tend to emphasize the globalist aspect of that rather than the anti-regulation/anti-public sector implication of left-wing usage. In either case, it tends to suffer from lumping together a wide range of people who may not be part of the same political coalition as each other or hold the views imputed to them.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
Catch-all pejorative for political opponents is actually the standard usage.
Skibboleth
6mo ago
Free Market Conservatism strikes again. This is primarily about protecting the economic interests of agrarian elites, secondarily about visceral disgust, and little bit about aesthetic anti-environmentalism. Other reasons offered are not necessarily insincere, but they are... noncentral? Which is to say, having them conclusively disproven wouldn't change many minds.
“Although the FDA has said that this type of product is safe, that doesn’t mean it’s healthy,” Black said. “In Florida, we don’t want our citizens used as guinea pigs.”
Far be it from Florida to allow its citizens to pursue unhealthy habits.
Justin Tupper, president of the United States Cattlemen’s Association, called the bill a “win” for similar reasons. Although he said he doesn’t fear competition, he is concerned about chemicals in the new product.
-
But Rossmeissl and Shapiro said there’s little merit to health concerns, because cultivated meat has near identical nutritional value to real meat. Furthermore, conventional meat often has fecal and intestinal pathogens, and antibiotic residues, that need to be cooked out for safe consumption, Shapiro said.
Jeffrey Sachs is an economist. Why should I regard his opinion on international relations or diplomacy? He doesn't even make much of an argument; he just sort of assumes, as many people do, that the US has the ability to dictate terms to people.
I can't help but feel like Russia might have had something to do with it.
More options
Context Copy link