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 -
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