My line exactly.
Alright, I’m just going to broadly state my problem with the other side’s thinking…
The main problem I have with the anti-immigration position…
And yes, the broad position I’m addressing is anti-immigration. I go in person to conservative conventions (namely WCS and Colorado Christian University round table events) , I see people wantonly listing policy against legal as well as illegal immigrant in the same breath. People list them together more often than not.
Is that you either don’t understand, or take responsibility for, where your own thinking leads.
I have a good suspicion for where it leads, because I see those like CIS, wantonly climb into bed with the anti-humanists, the Club of Rome types. CIS echoes the latter’s arguments for the purpose of attacking immigrants, thinking anything that boosts their own argument, is good.
The problem with adopting anti-humanist arguments though, is that it reduces flesh and blood human beings to the level of inputs and outputs. Simplistic empirical measurements, that don’t even ask for economic or social effects, only the fiscal and pseudo-environmental. As if to conclude how people effect the Government’s well being, and that of biologist models for scrutinizing animal populations, is the ultimate measure of a person’s value.
And what’s more, once you let anti-humanist thinking in the door, it doesn’t stop with the immigrants. It comes for the poor, it comes for the feeble, it comes for the old.
It indeed culminates in coming after whole parts of the human race, if it thinks we’re “overpopulated”, and advocates foolish things like returning America to a population of 200 million. Which you can’t do without dramatic controls enforced upon the population.
I don’t want eugenics, I don’t want social engineering, I don’t want population control by any other name. There’s a very real danger of that thinking reemerging, thanks to technology coming about to gene edit & track human beings. I want that thinking, anything that dehumanizes other humans to the level of inputs and outputs, corralled and locked off before that technology gets here, so that we understand what the limits are.
Government is not more important than Emergent human activity. Even if its own activity wasn’t already killing it, I would still say this.
“Emergent” includes the economy, the culture, the civil society; anything made up by human action.
I do not, nor will I ever, abide politics as an excuse to interfere with what human beings voluntarily use their liberty or property to do, if you cannot show that what they do will or has trespass other individuals.
Politics is theater, it simplifies our human society to caricatures, it hardly ever thinks of things beyond 2 or 4 year election cycles. I’am not chasing after it as the main point of importance. Each election succeeds in getting me to care only less and less about it.
Just to say, if you call a business hiring a foreigner greed, I’d call empowering the law to prevent it envy, and the latter to me is a far greater wrong. Both of these positions are simplifications, but if you’re going to go there, I don’t see how a Lockean perspective on human rights is going to put the former on top.
Further, when I disagree with you that letting in more immigrants somehow “ruins society”, it’s not because I’m a “leftist”, it’s because I scrutinize the issue in terms of decades, not election cycles, and broadly understand where things are heading. Because my understanding is that we’ve been here before.
Welfare arguments come across to me as disingenuous when someone also then tries to invoke assimilation or security or labor concerns in the same breath. If it’s about the welfare, then stick to welfare. If it’s about the other things, then I’ll expect you to explain how this didn’t apply to past immigration waves, when everything was worse. Disease was worse, control was worse, violence was worse, people living in conclaves was worse.
No one whose read history on past immigration waves, can say it wasn’t worse. My preference for immigration, doesn’t prevent me from seeing that immigration in every era was a heartbreaking and dirty process. People who don’t romanticize the past, know how to put the current era into perspective with it.
And just as with everything, I don’t seek utopia, I seek human freedom as the working solution to societal problems as they arise. This doesn’t create perfect societies; merely the best ones we’ve observed.
Given close sociological study of Russia and Japan, places with higher domestic labor protection and low immigration, the idea of “cultural purity” is something I put no stock in. Nothing in human experience indicates to me that this idea works, it just shifts the problems and those creating them.
If you ignore all of the nonsensical BS, fake statistics and moronic assumptions and replace them with “I want a permanent super majority of Democrats in every political institution in the United States”; then the desire for open borders makes perfect sense.
All the rest is designed to obscure and divert attention away from the true motive, it is supposed to inspire objection so the discussion never arrives at the true motive.
Study California, if the other 49 States knew the details of how this scheme was implemented here they would see right through all the lies and misdirections that the Left is now trying to sell to the whole Nation.
We were the test case, we proved it will eradicate all influence from every Ideology except the extreme left; the whole nation is next in the cross hairs.
When Immigrants of a certain race vote over 60%, they vote Conservative.
Both the Vietnamese, and the Cubans show this.
Latinos, especially poor ones, vote the least of any race, less than 40% in most cases.
Voting behavior is based on temperament, and all races have people of temperaments that find their home with conservatives. With Latinos, they just don’t vote right now.
The problem for your viewpoint RET, is that you bought into the culture-centric rat race. You bought into the Progressives way of viewing things.
There’s more to people than culture.
Which became leftist because of Universities.
New York is in the same bag, for the same reason, with a far smaller Hispanic base.
Texas and Arizona have immigration rates which are just as high as california; it didn’t turn them into leftist havens. Arizona became borderline as its own University system grew.
Hispanics vote 75 to 25 for the Left, in California the State cannot ask for proof of citizenship at the time of registration or at the polls.
Illegal immigration has converted California into the largest Welfare State in the US and secured a permanent super majority for the Extreme Left.
The “colleges and universities” are just as corrupt as they have always been here and in every other State; these institutions create morons but illegal immigrants create super majorities for Communist politicians.
But what percentage of them vote?
Poor Hispanic people, are the least likely voters in the country.
The Democrats know this, which is why they’re frustrated they can’t get greater turnouts, and are for mandating voting.
The problem for them is, this would backfire. If you got more of the disinterested Hispanics to vote, more would show their distrust & impatience with the system Democrats are trying to expand. Which is why they don’t vote voluntarily in the first place.
If forced to choose, more would go with the option where they’re left the hell alone as much as possible. Ergo, more voting for 3rd parties, or us, not more for them.
Again, our experience through the States shows something else.
We see Leftist supermajorites, in States with the largest number of universities/university enrollment per capita, not the ones with the largest immigrant populations.
Massachusetts was also apart of this Super majority leftist trend, yet it has scant numbers of Hispanic immigrants compared to any of the border states.
It just doesn’t match RET.