Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-30-2007, 12:37 AM
revots33 revots33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,509
Default The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

Can someone explain to me why the Republicans seem to be so rabid about the immigration issue? It seems to be the #1 issue on republican voters' list (even above Iraq, terrorism, the economy). So much so, that the crowd was booing a national hero (McCain, one of the few who actually tried to attack the problem with something other than rhetoric), because he suggested that deporting every illegal immigrant might not be a workable solution.

What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?

The part from the debate that bugs me most is when the candidates try to use the phony argument that there are a bunch of "legal" immigrants lined up at the border, who can't get in because all the "illegals" sneaked in and "took their spots". As if the USA has some sort of Fire Dept. max occupancy sign on the wall. The USA can still let in all the legal immigrants it chooses to. So this idea that they really just want to deport the illegals so they can let all those poor legal immigrants in, is the worst kind of pandering political BS IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-30-2007, 12:49 AM
Money2Burn Money2Burn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Florida, imo
Posts: 943
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

I think a lot of it is fear. It seems like every other story on Fox news is a story about some crime or another that was commited by an illegal immigrant. Racism/ignorance is probably a decent part as well as fear of terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:16 AM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

There are 3 issues that will decide the general election. Iraq, taxes and immigration, everything else is just noise.

There are no major differences between the major candidates, and little in their historical records to differentiate them on Iraq and taxes. They have all been all over the place on immigration, however, and they need to solidify their message before the general.

The reasons it is a major issue should be obvious. It is a combination of national security, economics and rule of law. Are their racists? Sure, on both sides of the issue. Cries of racism are mostly dodges for those who don't want to or can't carry a discussion of the real issues.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:21 AM
ConstantineX ConstantineX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Like PETA, ride for my animals
Posts: 658
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:24 AM
JackWhite JackWhite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,554
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:31 AM
Scary_Tiger Scary_Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,590
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

Candidate Ratings (http://www.betterimmigration.com)

A Tom Tancredo
A- Duncan Hunter
A- Al Gore
B+ Ron Paul
C Fred Thompson
D John Edwards
D John McCain
D- Hillary Clinton
D- Dennis Kucinich
D- Barack Obama
F- Bill Richardson

The grades are based on their voting records, so only those who have served in the House or Senate are graded. I was shocked to see Al Gore up there too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:38 AM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt watch the debate, so I don't know what issues were addressed (other than the embarassing RG/MR exchange at the beginning.

Of course a border fence isnt a "logical response to the economic incentives", it isnt a response to that at all. Its border control, plain and simple. You will never eliminate the economic incentives as long as South American governments destroy their economies and attempt to export their poverty to the US to avoid revolution and maintain power. That isnt going to change in our lifetimes, but border security is a necessary beginning to keep the economic erosion from worsening.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:40 AM
ConstantineX ConstantineX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Like PETA, ride for my animals
Posts: 658
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:44 AM
ConstantineX ConstantineX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Like PETA, ride for my animals
Posts: 658
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt watch the debate, so I don't know what issues were addressed (other than the embarassing RG/MR exchange at the beginning.

Of course a border fence isnt a "logical response to the economic incentives", it isnt a response to that at all. Its border control, plain and simple. You will never eliminate the economic incentives as long as South American governments destroy their economies and attempt to export their poverty to the US to avoid revolution and maintain power. That isnt going to change in our lifetimes, but border security is a necessary beginning to keep the economic erosion from worsening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't Dubai have a functioning guest-worker system of sorts? And what exactly do you mean by "border control"? Like what's the motivation behind it. I find the Tancredo suggestion that we do a better job of locating terrorists with better border control pretty much laughable.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:52 AM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: The immigration issue (YouTube Republican debate)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.