This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
She was tasked to solve the 2021 border problem, namely, migration originating from a few specific countries. In 2024 migration flows from those countries are way down, but migration from other countries has increased a lot. It’s basically two separate problems stapled together by the fact that both problems materialize for the US at the southern border.
It’s an awkward situation for democrats to communicate because clearly at the time she was the “border czar,” formally or not, for the 2021 border problem. The 2021 border problem that she was the czar of has largely resolved. Now she gets flak for a 2024 problem that she was never really the czar of but sounds very similar to a problem she was the czar of.
Dems can either try to communicate the above distinction in a super hostile republican information environment where it’s in the republicans interest to maximally link her to everything people dislike about the Biden administration, or they can do what they did which is to bluntly pretend she was never the border czar. I think they should have tried the former but instead they went with the latter and are caught looking very dishonest.
Edit: I’m not claiming she is the one who solved the problem (see informative posts down thread) just clarifying the problem the dems faced in communication.
I'll provide a counterargument and say that I think there is a pretty plausible angle here through which her opposition can criticise her. Note that as presented, Harris' mandate was not only to work with countries to reduce the root causes spurring migration from these countries, but also "work with those nations to ... enhance migration enforcement at their borders." Most of these migrants gaining access through the southern border are going to be coming through Mexico, and often getting in there through the Northern Triangle. So yes, many migrants coming through the southern border do not directly originate from the countries she was tasked with, but they are gaining access through these countries, and that is a border failure that falls within her stated ambit.
This isn’t necessarily an airtight, uncontestable argument to prove that Harris was in dereliction of her duty, but to defuse it Harris would have to actually tackle these claims in full rather than trying to shirk responsibility for her role in stemming migration and arguing endlessly over the semantics of "border czar". The latter comes off as weaselly and dishonest, because that’s exactly what it is.
More options
Context Copy link
I understand this but I'm not letting the Dems off the hook. The reason it is awkward to communicate is because it is has been the Dem position that 'harsh' and punitive border policies are bad and the way to fix the immigration crisis is to fix the 'root causes' of the migration. So according to the Dem's own position back in 2021, 'fixing the border' 'addressing root causes' 'border czar', and 'addressing push factors from key Latin American countries' are all the same thing. Since they believed that the key to fixing the border crisis was to fix the push factors -- "To address the situation at the southern border, we have to address the root causes of migration. " -- not beefing up punitive enforcement along the actual border -- so in fact Kamala was in charge of fixing the border crisis. Only now are they trying to back away from this messaging when it turns out that 'addressing root causes' didn't actually fix anything and the old messaging is now inconvenient for them.
More options
Context Copy link
I'll just note that some of the bigger primary drivers for change in the Northern Triangle sending countries were largely driven by factors beyond Harris's influence, and even against Administration preferences.
One of the big ones, for example, has been the decrease from El Salvador... which almost certainly was caused by President Bukele's draconian tough-on-crime policies which broke the back of the local criminal gangs that increased instability-driven migration. However, this crack down came againt the objection of, not with the support from, the US State Department. Regional efforts of emulate such tough-on-crime issues and restore local perceptions of security are more often opposed rather than supported by the US. (This is because these legal authorities come at the cost of due process rights and have potential for authoritarian abuse- a concern I'd want to emphasize is valid, but also not one shared by much of the local population.)
Another is the implications of the rise of Darien Gap migration. Not only did this change the proportion of non-Northern Triangle migration sources of a whole (increasing absolute numbers of migrants, reducing relative numbers), but it provided local countries a means to pressure the US to gain migration concessions in exchange for access / cooperation, which is to say by offering more opportunities for legal northern triangle migration (reducing absolute numbers of illegal migrants by transitioning them to the legal migrant category). This does come with some genuine benefits that shouldn't be discounted- a greater willingness of the northern triangle countries to take back migrants kicked out for criminal reasons, cooperation if someone of actual concern is recognized- but it's also a bit of a categorical shell game on how to count numbers.
There have also been two non-Northern Triangle factors in particular that have grown in relevance of the last year for increasing the non-Northern Triangle numbers. Again, the US really hasn't had much influence here.
One of these is the role of Nicaragua. Not only is Nicaragua not in the northern triangle by definition (it's considered part of the southern triangle), but over the last years it has deliberately facilitated migration trough it, such as with direct charter flights which- if you're willing to pay- you can fly directly to Nicaragua and then as long as you're gone within the time limit, they don't care if you go north (wink wink). This is similar to migration-practices Belarus did during the 2021 migration crisis on the Polish border, as way both to make money and pressure a neighbor who you have more confrontational relations with.
But more important is the role of social media in making it ever-better known that migration to the US is possible, and the bottom-up facilitation networks of de jure legalization making it safer and better known (and thus better able to support larger volumes). There was an excellent NYT story- a Ticket to Disney World iirc- late last year on how this process works, and suffice to say American 'don't come here' stories pale in comparison to social media channels dedicated to the 'how to' combined with local authorities who can make more money facilitating migration through than by paying to stop an unstoppable flow.
To reinforce your point, apparently over 10% of Cuba has crossed the border into America in the last couple of years. At those sorts of numbers, virtually every Cuban is going to have a family member who they can call to tell them exactly what the process was like.
I wonder what the effects of this must be on Cuban society. This is a major depopulation event for them now, and you would expect it to be mostly younger working-age people leaving.
It's very amusing in some respects how strategic rivals in geopolitics have come to view population movement. Back in the Cold War, control of the population was an ideological imperative, and Soviet-block governments often took great difficulty to prevent free movement of populations out of or even within the country. Now, some of those successor states- or in the case of Cuba and Nicaragua, the same elites, deliberately expel population for domestic security measures, and with a level of 'if the westerners don't like it, it must be bad for them and good for me.' Which is just such a paradigm shift in the last half century or so.
And it's not without its consequences either. As more and more of the latin american populations go abroad and especially to the US, various forms of US influence increase, as the US diaspora becomes significant financial and even political influence vector. The current President of Ecuador, Daniel Noboa, is an US citizen (dual US and Ecuadorian, born in Miami but raised in Ecuador), which is wild not only for the fact that a Yankee capitalist was elected president of an Andean Ridge country where Chavismo was part of the leftest wave earlier in the century, but also in terms of population.
Because of how much migration has occurred from various sending countries, small countries in particular can have, well, surprisingly high ratios of their nominal census population present in the US. For example, there are an estimate .95 million of so Ecuadorian diaspora in the US out of a census population of 18 million, which is to say over 5%. There are something like 100,000 Guyanese who have arrived in the US/naturalized, when Guayana is a country of only about 800,000, or nearly 12%. The Cuban diaspora is nearly 2.7 million, to a Cuban island population of about 11.2 million, which is approaching 25% of the islanders.
Well, not quite- many of these population figures include naturalized US citizens, and they don't factor in the diasporas in other countries (far more Venezuelans stay in South American than come to the US, for example)- but it's hard to emphasize just how weird this is in a historical context, especially in a region historically sensitive to external influences. A historical justification for intervention and even annexation during the age of colonialism has long been having the presence of associated communities on the other side of the border, be it ethnic enclaves or cultural kin or even just linguistic relatives, and how this creates a basis of intervention. It's not even just an archaic practice- see the Russian justifications in Ukraine, or PRC claims on ethnic community grounds, or various brushfire wars in Africa, or the Armenia/Azerjiban ethnic enclaves, or the Arab-Israeli conflict over palestinians. Demographic ties matter, and matter a lot.
And if the American government wanted to, it has access to a whole host of justifications along similar lines.
Not that it will- not anytime in the near-term future at least- but in other times and other places, other empires would use having control of 5-10% of the population of country as grounds to control the remainder.
Yeah, the numbers are similar for Dominicans, which is the group I'm most personally familiar with. 2.5 million in the US, 11 million in the home country. Many of my Dominican relatives move back and forth between the two countries and hold dual citizenship. Most of their biggest national heroes play baseball for American teams.
I haven't directly posed the question, but I suspect most Dominicans would eagerly welcome annexation by the US. There's a ready made example of what a situation like that would look like in practice over in Puerto Rico, and Dominicans are extremely cynical about their own governance and institutions. The US dollar is seen as much more solid and reliable than their own peso, US politics is seen as much less corrupt, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know the demographic breakdown, but many coming to New England are in their 50s.
More options
Context Copy link
Cuba has had below replacement fertility for a while now, right? Like there's not just endless amounts of young Cubans, so it's actually even worse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I concede all of this and I appreciate the interesting specifics. I don’t think US policy has much of an effect on border crossings except very broadly that when the US is doing well and when other countries are doing poorly, more people want to cross. I don’t think Harris or Trump or anybody should get much hate or praise on this issue.
Not intended as anything for you to concede to! Just an addition of tangential context.
(Warning- more opinion / tangential context to follow)
In so much that anyone should get hate or praise on the issue, Biden's immigration signaling during the 2020 election, and execution thereafter, can be credited for signalling to migrants a more receptive regulatory environment due to the signaled and executed reversals of Trump's established migration arrangements (which specifically relied on Mexico, which Biden dropped and then couldn't re-enforce).
Biden's party-line position on in 2020 on various procedural items, from 'we will accept your asylum claim as legitimate unless/until we find otherwise' (rather than requiring evidence/determination in advance), followed by the known weakness of post-initial release enforcement, and public rhetorical shifts (such as avoiding the term illegal immigration whenever possible in favor of euphisms such as 'undocumented' or 'irregular') very much contributed to a (justified) perception that mass illegal migration was viable. Part of the social media how-to networks referenced before include things like coaching applicants on what to say on first encounter to appeal to the migration policy directives that Biden signalled and executed. In much the same way Trump began his foreign policy term in 2016 with an 'Anything but Obama' difference-for-difference's-sake, Biden approached migration policy with a 'anything but Trump' mantra, which was a theme leading up to 2020 and was publicly carried out.
While some of these policies were later reversed to various degrees- and there was even an especially a notable (if temporary) disruption in 2023 that roughly corresponded to the administration publicly signaling new application rules for a system that introduced a new way to remotely apply for asylum from abroad, and can be used as evidence against asylum claims if someone doesn't utilize it before showing up at the US- there was a significant perception shift in Biden versus Trump immigration enforcement intentions, and not for the stricter.
More options
Context Copy link
Ok...
Which is it? It seems like you're being rather partisan...
I don’t think it has much of an affect. I’m not giving her credit for it, just saying she was czar of a problem that’s gotten a lot better.
I think you mean "effect".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On one hand, this is fair. On the other hand, it feels like the way someone who has only spent their life in a bureaucracy would frame the problem. You were given specific criteria, and you satisfactorily met those criteria instead of solving an underlying problem that's creating the specific problem you were tasked with.
However, if the voters see the underlying problem is that there's migration instead of migration from specific countries, the ultimate result is that the problem hasn't been fixed.
I agree that it’s kind of a bureaucratic argument but what’s being debated in this particular argument is what she was in fact in charge of. It seems like a separate argument to say like oh Harris should’ve carved out a bigger role for herself inside the administration on this issue beyond what Biden tasked her with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is completely fair. But then my takeaway is that more attention and effort should have been paid to the border itself and its enforcement. I get the image of the admin plugging their fingers in the holes of a dam while it collapses on the sides, and whatever good work she performed is undecut by a strategic failure to keep an eye on the ball - or to even ackowledge the ball at all.
More options
Context Copy link
Was her authority over the border removed after she solved the original problem, or is it still constrained to those few specific countries, and the current problem is someone else's job? If not, how does that make her look any better?
'czar' is not a real title and confers no special powers. It is, basically, an albatross, for the reasons we see here.
More options
Context Copy link
As I understand it she didn’t have authority over the border, she had essentially a diplomatic mission to those countries that in 2021 were contributing to the border crisis. I don’t know what the internal dynamics were around what her specific remit was and why it didn’t become broader over time (my guess is she didn’t want to do that job because it’s terrible and thankless).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link