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 -
I don't think there's any good evidence at all about amnesty incentivizing illegal immigration. Every compromise comprehensive immigration bill that has ever come close to passing (and several have come very close) has been torpedoed by exactly this attitude that is, frankly, massively counterproductive. Not to the point where I'd be quite ready to accuse the GOP of deliberately extending the issue in order to profit from it electorally, but certainly close to it! For example, the Gang of Eight bill was almost a marvelous compromise that left most people happy: more border money, an expanded work verification system, a system for temporary agricultural workers, all of which can help prevent further illegal immigration, and a path to citizenship for some people who have been law-abiding (aside from the obvious) and been here a long time (because let's face it -- someone who's been in the country for 15 years actually does, in effect, live here and it's socially, morally, and even economically disruptive to kick them out). And we'd allow the regular immigration system to work better. Because it's not just pure economics, there's a lot of family/social/network effects going on with immigrants, and also a more expansive legal system serves as a relief valve of sorts (why risk all your chance at future, perfectly legal immigration if you wait and maybe get a fair shake, and cross illegally and be forever barred? That's also an incentive).
In other words, an actual and effective solution is probably close to your own, just with a few steps reordered. While politically and optically the ball is in the Democrats' court due to the recent numbers, the actual ball is in stubborn right-wing attitudes like yours that are just cutting off the nose to spite the face. I emphasize recent because if we zoom back out a little bit, what really matters isn't so much the specific in and outflows -- as you yourself point out, those don't always paint the full story. I probably should have led with this chart, but take a look anyways at overall estimates of illegal immigrants, because that's what we're really trying to talk about, right? Optimizing for light. The last two decades have seen very large numbers of these immigrants. But superimpose if you will in your head the growth of the overall population since 1990 (~250 to 330 million per census) too. And look closely, because the patterns don't hew very closely to political rhetoric. In other words, the problem is roughly stable (still a problem, but stable!) because in the last 15 years all we've done is yo-yo between about 10 and 12 million illegal immigrants.
There is though. The last time this "amnesty but tougher rules" compromise was tried it backfired spectacularly. The rules weren't enforced and the illegal population exploded as demonstrated by your chart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
There is no way that Reagan would have signed that if he could have seen what had happened. The next amnesty will have the same result. Amnesty is a textbook moral hazard.
I'm not even anti-immigration. I just think that the current system is indefensible. Why should our immigrants be composed of whoever decides to break the rules and come into the country? And calling my attitude "right wing" is what people are talking about when they say that the left is sprinting away from the center at warp speed.
It looks like they only granted like 60,000 people amnesty in the next three years. That's hardly even a blip and not enough to actually change the behavior of potential immigrants. It's primarily driven by economic forces. And if you look further down on the same wikipedia page, there are sources that bear it out. Note that especially in the 90s, immigration to California, New York, Florida, and Texas alone comprised over half of the influx, and many, many other states received large amounts of immigrants despite overall hostility or lack of public/social service support. In other words, economics and network effects seem to consistently trump any other effects, most certainly including most legal repercussions.
I also dislike the current system and think it's possible our views don't diverge all that much. But I still strongly believe that opposition to amnesty is a millstone in practical terms and I think opposing amnesty is the real moral hazard. Assimilation in America is actually crazy fast, and we have to acknowledge that a big chunk of the illegal immigrant population are functionally Americans, even if they legally are not. Far from all! But there are enough cases of kids who were brought to the country when they were under 10 and now don't even speak Spanish and barely differ from other Americans culturally that sending them and their families back wholesale feels exceptionally gross.
I should add that at some point we need to take some personal and collective responsibility for letting it get to this point. IMO, a lot of people and politicians turned a blind eye because the immediate economic effects were positive, and we also took practically zero strides toward reforming the legal system to the point where the illegal system was bound to become the new normal -- kind of Prohibition style.
That statistic can't be right can it? If you are proposing that we amnesty the 60,000 most deserving candidates, I have no problem with it. As far as I know, one one has proposed this.
I also think it's likely that our desired goals don't diverge that much, but that you have a much greater trust in politicians and the system than I do.
Yes, don't trust Wikipedia summaries. From the source:
Good catch, I've been bamboozled!
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