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 -
The OP said:
My point is that a person who becomes an illegal immigrant by overstaying his tourist visa is also jobless when he becomes an illegal immigrant. He also is effectively homeless, in the same sense that an illegal entrant is. eg: From the perspective of the job market, or whether they are parasites on the welfare state, it does not matter whether an illegal immigrant entered illegally or overstayed a tourist visa. The distinction is not nearly as stark as the OP assumes.
The difference is that visa overstayers generally do not start out destitute and homeless. They arrive on airplanes with papers in hand, and they either have finances arranged such that they can live here in reasonable comfort without a job, or they choose to overstay once they have procured a job. They are apples and oranges to migrants who cross the border on foot and then claim asylum.
And many, if not most, border crossers have relatives and friends in the US and can also live in reasonable comfort. It is not as if visa overstayers are particularly well off; if they were, they would not be seeking to illegally immigrate.
I don't know what you mean by "papers in hand"; the only "papers" they have are tourist or similar visas, and some don't even have that
The only job they could have procured is an illegal job. Had they procured a legal job, they would have applied for a work visa and hence would not be staying illegally.
Just to clarify, these are not people who are overstaying their tourist visas because they want a chance to see the Grand Canyon. These are illegal immigrants, just like border crossers, who plan to stay permanently and simply used a different means of entering the country.
Anyhow, as I said, the point is not that the groups are absolutely identical, but rather, as I said, the OP is greatly overstating the difference between them.
The whole point is that, while they are both illegal immigrants, visa overstayers are not just like border crossers.
One group arrives on airplanes with passports and legal entry visas. The other undertakes a dangerous journey on foot or smuggled in a truck. It doesn't take a brain the size of a galaxy to recognize that there are going to be enormous socioeconomic differences between these two groups. OP didn't "overstate" anything, you're just splitting hairs to try to dismiss a fact that is inconvenient for your worldview (i.e. a deep blue sanctuary state like New York freaking out over the grim reality of what it means for thousands of the second type of illegal immigrant to arrive on one's doorstep).
No one is "splitting hairs." I simply pointed out an inaccuracy in OP's statement, who claimed that the overstayers have jobs. They don't. If anyone who is dismissing facts because they are inconsistent with their worldview it is you, because you keep claiming that places like NY are "freaking out" because illegal immigrants are arriving despite the obvious fact that NYC is full of illegal immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere, who are working as food delivery riders (on bikes, nor cars), dishwashers, etc.
And that is what I said: that the two groups are in the same place vis-a-vis the labor market. And if you did a little more reading,you would know that plenty of people in far-off lands borrow huge (to them) sums of money to fly here with the intent to illegally immigrate. So, although there are certainly some socioeconomic difference between the overstay rates, you are seem to be overstating them.
And here is the most important thing: Your comment is the very first time anyone mentioned socioeconomic status. OP only mentioned current job status. Yet you claim I ignored something that hasn't even been discussed.
Nor, by the way, do you say what relevance the difference in socioeconomic status has to the specific issue we are discussing, which is the NYC response to the bussing of the migrants in question.
Then, back to my original question: how do you imagine they survive if they don't have jobs? Do you imagine they are all wealthy retirees, that they are economic parasites on the welfare state, or does the legal category not reflect the underlying reality?
Well, before I answer, tell me: Are you actually interested in having a substantive discussion? Because when I argued that the OP had overstated the differences between the two groups, not a particularly inflammatory claim, you could have responded something like, "Perhaps, but the differences are nevertheless highly significant, for the following reasons ..." But, instead, you chose to engage in an ad hominem response. So, I suspect that you are less interested in discussing the issues than you are in engaging in the culture war, which I find tremendously uninteresting.
As for you original question, I already answered it. Just like people who cross the border, once they are here illegally they end up taking menial jobs under the table, and just like people who cross the border, they initially rely on family and friends who are already in the US. They probably play almost identical roles in the economy, and in society -- their kids go to public schools, they consume similar amounts of free health care, etc. Sometimes, they fly planes into buildings. So, as far as their effect on local society, taxpayers, etc, they are probably very similar. Now, perhaps they are actually different in important ways, but it is incumbent upon those who claim that to explain why they think so.
This is absurd, because as I've already said, and which I don't think you're even able to bring yourself to precisely deny, they are of vastly different socioeconomic backgrounds.
What's your theory for why a Democratic mayor of a single-party Democrat-run city is squealing in panic from a few busloads of illegal border-crossers if they're basically the same stock as the illegal visa-overstayers of which, as you claim, the city already has millions?
I love this stunt by Texas and Florida governors. It puts the lie to your obfuscations by challenging actual blue city governments with actual electoral consequences at stake to either live up to their virtue signals or to renounce them, and here we have Mayor Adams effectively renouncing them.
Dude, I explicitly addressed that one comment ago: " So, although there are certainly some socioeconomic difference between the overstay rates {I meant groups], you are seem to be overstating them." The fact is, you have no idea how big the difference is. Moreover, you have not said why that even matters.
My theory is that you don't understand what is going on. First, here is what he has actually said
Not exactly anti-illegal immigrant sentiment. And, frankly, if you knew anything, you would know it would be political suicide for the mayor of NYC to even hint that he does not want illegal immigrants. Moreover, it is not a "few buses"; from the same article: "One out of five beds in New York City's homeless shelter system is now occupied by a migrant, and the sudden influx has swelled its population to record levels. The city has opened 42 new, temporary shelters, mostly in hotels, but Adams said more would need to be done." And of course there is the previously mentioned $1 billiion cost. As I noted, that is hardly insurmountable, But it comes at a time when the post-COVID economic recovery in NYC is lagging that of the rest of the country, probably because tourism is still down., and so the goyt faces a potential $10 billion deficit. And, of course, Adams's approval rating is low. He certainly does not want to have to push for higher taxes. So, you know, you might want to consider that the statements of Adams, a politician, is less evidence of the silly idea that "liberals are the real racists" and more evidence that he is acting in his self-interest.
Finally, as I mentioned before, if you think that there are not large numbers of NYC residents who entered the US illegally, you really don't know enough to comment. Perhaps you need to visit and look around.
BTW, the city estimated that, in 2017, median annual income for all illegal immigrants was $25,300. So either there is little difference between border crossers and overstayers, or border crossers make up a good half or more of NYC illegal immigrants. Both cannot be true if the median income is that low.
And, I did not say that the city has millions of illegal immigrants; the population of NYC is only a bit under 8.5 million, after all. Show me where I said that. I didn't.
I'm not sure why you think it is ok to repeatedly lie about what others say or do not say.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link