1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
obiternihili
mitigatedchaos

Also, regarding the phrase “undocumented immigrants,”

Since the deliberate implication is that there is no issue, these people are merely missing some paperwork, like an accident where an ID was not delivered through the mail,

This is very much a “nations are only lines on a map” style of thinking.

So let’s give a “nations are only lines on a map” style of answer.

If national citizenship is so meaningless that not having it is merely equivalent to not having a few papers, that it’s irrelevant what historical experience one has, or education, or national loyalty, because nations are social constructs and don’t really exist, right?

Then one agrees that the “United States of America” cannot hold any moral liability, on account of being a few lines on a map, or a few pieces of paper.

So every war, every coup, every conquest, every civil rights violation, and so on, the “United States of America” is not responsible for and owes, in itself, absolutely nothing.

If you do think the United States of America as a geopolitical entity is more than just a few lines on a map or a few pieces of paper, then the term you can use if you feel “illegal immigrant” is too dehumanizing, because “no person is illegal” (even though by that same logic there can be no such word as “trespasser”),

is “unauthorized migrants”.

Apparently that’s the “in” neutral word now.

I find it remarkable just how quickly the Democratic Party re-learned that a distinction exists when Trump got into motion.

obiternihili

> because nations are social constructs and don’t really exist, right?

Wrong. Social constructs exist. Genders exist, the patriarchy exists, capitalism exists, nations exist. It’s just that, with social constructs whatever they are, you can’t use them in naturalistic arguments when the argument itself isn’t subject to dismissal by the naturalistic fallacy.

It’s not that nations don’t exist, it’s that they shouldn’t exist in the way they do in this world, and that international solidarity should trump nationalistic allegiances. Borders tear us apart, it’s not that we aren’t torn apart.

Maybe the best dialectical reality towards reconciling nationalism and internationalism currently in the world is the EU, whereby in many ways the differences between a Frenchman and a German really is a bunch of paperwork. Of course with that there’s a rise in a appropriated European nationalism following the migrant crisis, so obviously from a leftist standpoint it’s not ideal.

But you’ve misunderstood the core argument and because of that the foundations of your arguments are gone from under you.

mitigatedchaos

It’s still binding even if the argument is “nations shouldn’t exist”.

And by the way?  World government is what shouldn’t exist.  Nations are the real alternative to that, and it takes more than being a difference in paperwork to fuel it enough for that.  Things like communes aren’t a real alternative.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics
mitigatedchaos
washingtonpost.com

Foreign-born recruits, promised citizenship by the Pentagon, flee the country to avoid deportation

The Pentagon has helped naturalized more than 10,000 foreign-born recruits since 2009. Now the agency might kill the program.
collapsedsquid

What kind of place is this when service doesn’t even guarantee citizenship anymore?

mitigatedchaos

I don’t approve cutting or cancelling this program. “Willing to fight, potentially to the death, to defend the national interest” is one of the exact sorts of immigrants you should want. I’m disappointed by this development, thought they realized this.

mitigatedchaos

Reblog since apparently tonight is Immigration Discourse Night.

Source: collapsedsquid
slartibartfastibast
mitigatedchaos

Also, not doing global warming is probably a great way to avoid mass migration.

Too bad too many of the right-wingers have hyped themselves, not into thinking that we just don’t need to do anything about it, but into believing that it doesn’t exist.

Because I could use “but this will cause mass migration” on them as leverage to cut CO2 emissions.  Or “but China will engage in geoengineering,” or “but this will fuck up your hunting and fishing,” possibly even.  The original conservationism was apparently supported by hunters, seeing as one needs animals in order to have animals to hunt.

slartibartfastibast

Yep. It’s a pickle.

mitigatedchaos

They think it’s a left-wing plot to scare people into going along with a global system of governance, restrict access to resources as a form of rationing, and satisfy lefties’ desires to be self-righteous blah blah etc.

In other words, a lot of their hesitation is one meta-level up.

…and I’m not really sure how to address it.  I can’t convince them that the leftists and progressives don’t really want Social Democracy because, uh, they kinda do want Social Democracy.  And I can’t convince them that they wouldn’t be hype for a global carbon emissions trading regime and attempt to weaponize it because, well, lots of them would be hype for it and political operatives would intend to weaponize it.  Political operatives do that.

We’re lucky solar is improving at the rate that it is, and also that fission power still exists.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics
its-okae-carly-rae
mitigatedchaos

@theunitofcaring:  it does not have anything to do with ‘nations don’t real’ and is mostly used by people who think that they are (and that immigration restrictions are good, just shouldn’t apply to sympathetic people who’ve lived here for twenty years without trouble working hard)

It’s a tough question, because I don’t want to let the Democrats subvert the immigration system, and through it, democracy and de facto ownership of the state/country.

And I don’t think immigration is the solution to global poverty.

So if it were up to me, I’d probably pick some combination of all four of the alternative policies WRT to immigration at the bottom of this ask, simultaneously.

its-okae-carly-rae

Is your objection to migration as part of a solution to global poverty because you think it wouldn’t actually have positive economic effects or because you think the social costs are too high?

mitigatedchaos

More the latter, but I’m going to be honest with you, I’m very suspicious of the former.

There are a variety of policies and tradeoffs that could convince me to support higher immigration, but most progressive liberals - or at least the ones in power - won’t like any of them, or else the policies just won’t get enough overall political backing.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics

Also, not doing global warming is probably a great way to avoid mass migration.

Too bad too many of the right-wingers have hyped themselves, not into thinking that we just don’t need to do anything about it, but into believing that it doesn’t exist.

Because I could use “but this will cause mass migration” on them as leverage to cut CO2 emissions.  Or “but China will engage in geoengineering,” or “but this will fuck up your hunting and fishing,” possibly even.  The original conservationism was apparently supported by hunters, seeing as one needs animals in order to have animals to hunt.

politics

@theunitofcaring:  it does not have anything to do with ‘nations don’t real’ and is mostly used by people who think that they are (and that immigration restrictions are good, just shouldn’t apply to sympathetic people who’ve lived here for twenty years without trouble working hard)

It’s a tough question, because I don’t want to let the Democrats subvert the immigration system, and through it, democracy and de facto ownership of the state/country.

And I don’t think immigration is the solution to global poverty.

So if it were up to me, I’d probably pick some combination of all four of the alternative policies WRT to immigration at the bottom of this ask, simultaneously.

politics

n.n.: For practical purposes I agree, except ~institutions~

In my opinion, nations are something like waves - an emergent phenomenon that exists on a substrate of people, institutions, culture, land, physical infrastructure, and so on.

And as such, while it’s difficult to determine what, exactly, the moral liability or capability of “the United States of America” is, or that of any particular American within the system or as a share of the USA’s burdens, it’s a real entity or thing that exists and has causal power.

If we define nations out of existence, to some degree, I think we also risk defining people out of existence.

nationalism

Also, regarding the phrase “undocumented immigrants,”

Since the deliberate implication is that there is no issue, these people are merely missing some paperwork, like an accident where an ID was not delivered through the mail,

This is very much a “nations are only lines on a map” style of thinking.

So let’s give a “nations are only lines on a map” style of answer.

If national citizenship is so meaningless that not having it is merely equivalent to not having a few papers, that it’s irrelevant what historical experience one has, or education, or national loyalty, because nations are social constructs and don’t really exist, right?

Then one agrees that the “United States of America” cannot hold any moral liability, on account of being a few lines on a map, or a few pieces of paper.

So every war, every coup, every conquest, every civil rights violation, and so on, the “United States of America” is not responsible for and owes, in itself, absolutely nothing.

If you do think the United States of America as a geopolitical entity is more than just a few lines on a map or a few pieces of paper, then the term you can use if you feel “illegal immigrant” is too dehumanizing, because “no person is illegal” (even though by that same logic there can be no such word as “trespasser”),

is “unauthorized migrants”.

Apparently that’s the “in” neutral word now.

I find it remarkable just how quickly the Democratic Party re-learned that a distinction exists when Trump got into motion.

politics uncharitable

Anonymous asked:

What would be the impacts of a path to permanent residency (rather than citizenship) for undocumented immigrants?

I’m really tired right now, and should probably let this ask sit, but if I do the knowledge of it just resting there in my askbox, waiting, will nag me.

There are a few big implications.

  1. It prevents, limits, or slows attempting to subvert democracy by sabotaging (or ““sabotaging,”” depending on your morality) the immigration mechanism.  “Just bring in millions of people who will vote for my party” is a potentially exploitable flaw in conventional democracy which could, potentially, result in an unstoppable feedback cycle.
    1. In this vein, it dis-incentivizes political parties from deliberately bringing in “undocumented” immigrants because they have far less to gain from it.
    2. It also disincentivizes the immigrants themselves from coming somewhat relative to a pathway citizenship, although I suspect most are chasing money rather than political voice.
  2. It risks creating a long-term, permanently-disenfranchised underclass who cannot vote in their own interests.  This depends significantly on the implementation.
  3. Relative to current policy, it accomplishes some of the same goals as a pathway to citizenship, but changes the voting demographics more slowly (one generation vs more-or-less immediately).  So if you were hoping to reduce criminal activity and exploitation through naturalization, you could do most of that with permanent residency.

Of course, a major part of why there is illegal immigration into the country is because you can exploit them in ways that you can’t exploit the natives - not just because the natives can vote, but because people who violated immigration law have to stay under the radar to avoid potential deportation/etc, and so will have to be much more desperate before turning to law enforcement.

The businesses supporting this out of a desire for cheap and exploitable labor do not actually want these people properly naturalized, because then they’d have to pay them more, so they’d tend to just import more unauthorized labor.

It’s important to remember that a pathway to citizenship does nothing to stem the flow that caused this in the first place, and is thus not a real solution.  

Immigration cannot solve global poverty while the rate of new people created each year massively exceeds the capacity of developed nations to take them in.

Only developing the countries of origin economically, such that they are wealthy enough that people mostly don’t want to leave, can truly solve global poverty.

There are also other policy alternatives.

  • Issuing a large number of long-term work permits (8-20 years) based on the number of unauthorized migrants currently in the country.  This would allow some of the same effects of bringing people up to the surface, but without the same commitment as permanent residency or citizenship.  However, it is sorta kicking the can down the road.
  • Allow the individual states to issue a number of permanent residency permits proportional to their population, at their discretion.  I have joked about this, but it’s actually an option worthy of consideration.
  • Implement hourly wage-subsidies for low-wage American workers, but only for citizens.  While this is useful for the poor, and may significantly increase their negotiating leverage, it may even have some business backers.  Driving down the de facto wages for all non-citizens, who are not eligible for the subsidy, makes coming and staying far less profitable (and thus desirable) for unskilled labor.
  • Allow more immigration above current regular levels, but all of these additional immigrants must be sponsored and insured by specific American citizens/charitable organizations, including any education they may require to meet basic levels.  (aka “if you want this so badly, you pay for it”)
anons asks politics policy
Top Photos