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 -
Again, the process to actually obtain votes is
apply to be made legal (X million)
be made legal (1986: 90% accepted)
apply for and be given citizenship (1986 cohort: about a third by 15 years, up to half over lifetime, probably much less immediately)
register to vote
actually vote (I think I misplaced this in my original, oops, this is combined with 4; overall turnout for eligible adults is 66% but some sources say naturalized citizens might vote more, others claim less. Might have to dig up where I got that original source.)
have more of the new voters vote D than R (if so, how much?) (OP laid out how many, but last major election it was +33% D)
was the net gain, if present, larger than the margin of victory?
You only actually get an effect when you reach the last step. You're acting like you can just skip from 1 to 7 and poof, permanent Democratic hegemony! Some of those steps take years, and many math-wise aren't nearly as strong as you might imply. Going backwards, to assemble, say, 20,000 votes, enough to swing a very close swing state, you'd need (20,000) / (33% current Hispanic net +D margin) / (66% of citizens who vote) / (33% who became an actual citizen) / (90% who applied for legal status) = about 310,000 applicants needed. Of course IRL this would lag as the naturalization process usually takes a bit.
So sure, overall plausible in a swing state. Georgia apparently has about 340,000 per that source, so right there on the line, though 2020 was a real squeaker and not that common. Most swing states don't have millions of immigrants, either, and there are plenty of non-swing states too to talk about. That's important when talking about Senate control -- remember, a permanent Democratic electoral stranglehold like Elon posted about would require at least a 2/3rds margin in the Senate, in all practical likelihood. And again, you need the Senate in the first place to even pass legislation giving this pathway to citizenship.
Even in the unlikely event that Democrats took control of the Senate (quite unlikely this cycle, Montana is toast) and House and Presidency and actually pass a bill to do a change like this...
Senate appointments rotate on a staggered basis only a third at a time rotating two years apart, so at least one cycle if not many more would take place before these new voters even showed up! Boy were the Founders smart. That's long enough for public opinion, if merited, to swing against Democrats for making an allegedly naked partisan power grab, more than offsetting any gained votes, it seems to me in that scenario. And even if you pass all those gauntlets, I'd pose the final question: didn't the process work anyways? As a country we're allowed to set our laws including citizenship, though of course the history of what that means and naturalization in general is actually a matter of some great debate, I will grant you.
More options
Context Copy link