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 "fake it 'til you make it" is a very good basis for a legal system. Continuously breaking the law for years is worse than breaking it for days, all else being equal.
Yeah I just don’t think these petty deportations are good politics though. There are 10+M immigrants under Biden, and we are selectively going to deport the criminals (good) or the well known ones in their community? Doesn’t seem wise.
Next Dem president likely to let 20M in next round, at this rate…
What constitutes "Good Politics" is indeed the core of the disagreement here. You and others arguing for accepting the illegals appear to believe that Reds should accept large-scale, chronic violation of the law as a fiat accompli, because what can we do about it, after all?
One thing we could do about it would be to, as Blues have a long history of doing, simply stop pretending that laws mean anything when they contradict what we perceive to be desirable or necessary outcomes. And then you and others who make arguments similar to the above can offer your "sure what they did was grossly illegal, but it's done and it'd be far too much effort to fix" arguments to the Blues instead, and see how receptive they are.
I understand that you might not think this sounds like a good idea. What I'm curious about is why specifically it would not be a good idea.
It’s not a good idea because some industries like Ag are completely dependent on this “illegal” labor. If you could snap your fingers tomorrow and instantly deport them all, you’re going to have food shortages and food rotting on the vine in California.
Trust me, I’d rather have a few more Mexican neighbors than have food shortages!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe they think this is a battered wife approach to politics and are just tired of it.
I’m sure this tit-for-tat escalation will be our new reality
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Highly-publicized deportations seem like meat for the base, and also serve as a chilling effect for illegal immigrants. It's also a wedge issue where the Right gets to paint the Left as opposing the Rule of Law.
I don't see any reason to deport immigrants who applied and were accepted. At worst, the government could stop approving new applications and let any existing temporary ones expire without renewal.
Immigrants who commit normal crimes (like murder) or break immigration law should be deported and/or punished in other ways. Just like anyone else.
That sounds like a call to deport 20M extra so that the immigrant numbers are at the right level at the end of their term. (jk?)
There were over 10M illegal immigrants under Biden, so that would need ~4k daily deportations for the entire presidency to undo. Seems unlikely/impossible to happen.
Unfortunately it’s a lot easier to let people in than kick them out.
I believe a statement like this would technically be illegal in large parts of the world as it would effectively constitute holocaust denial. You probably don't want to go on the record as stating that it is "impossible" for governments to remove millions of people in a few years.
Yeah true we should just round up every brown person in sight. Easily doable, you got me here!
More options
Context Copy link
What a weird statement to make. Obviously, US deportation logistics are limited by certain legal and ethical boundaries that did not constrain the Nazis at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? When it comes to the capacity of modern states for mass deportations, I like to point to the example of the post-War "flight and expulsion" of Germans:
So it looks to me that the real question is one of will.
More options
Context Copy link
The thing is you don't even need to directly deport most of them. Like people said upthread, this is very unphotogenic and faces contest opposition on multiple levels. What you need to do is make them virtually unhireable.
A Haitian you hired caused a vehicular manslaughter ? Great, the trucking company CEO gets tried for something like felony murder, and the company pays a fine high enough that they'll be in the red for the next quarter. A bunch of Mexicans built a house which doesn't have a single right angle? Great, we'll make it so it makes fines for every code violation raise exponentially. You knowingly helped people cross the border illegally so that you'll hire them? Great, your company gets dissolved and auctioned off.
Within weeks, 75-90% would deport themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, shucks. Guess it's best to just give up completely, then. /s
If it's hard, then that just means it takes more work. Might as well get started now.
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