On what grounds do we justly restrict people from entering out country? Well, we don't want criminals, weapons, drugs, or infectious diseases coming in, so we should screen those out. If we are refusing to let people into our country because we don't want too many s****s, n*****s, and k***s in America, those are bad reasons. You'd think that would be obvious, but one of the main advisors on immigration in the last administration was an out and out white nationalism. See here.
Between the obvious good reasons, and obvious bad reasons, what reasons are valid?
41 comments:
Stephen Miller is Jewish.
So he's probably not to concerned about one of those groups. Times change. In the old days, the predecessors of the white nationalists didn't want any of those damned Papists from coming to America, from s-hole countries like Ireland, Italy, or Poland.
Yeah, these days when everyone we disagree with is a Nazi we end up with some interesting conclusions. Jewish Nazis.
How long has the SPLC been racist?
SPLC has arguments that Miller is a white nationalist. Even if they are racist in some significant sense (and I disagree with some of what they do), that does not invalidate their arguments here. If Miller has good arguments for restricting immigration as tightly as he tried to during the Trump years, then the fact that he might also in some sense be a racist, once again, does not invalidate his argument.
I'm a stickler for avoiding the ad hominem fallacy.
I'm a stickler for avoiding the ad hominem fallacy.
Doesn't look like it to me:
You'd think that would be obvious, but one of the main advisors on immigration in the last administration was an out and out white nationalism. See here.
That is not ad hominem. That is pointing out that some people, and some people who have a great deal of influence, accept white nationalist arguments for restricting immigration. I think those reasons are racist, so I am trying to sort through the restrictionist arguments to see which ones are morally acceptable and which are not.
Now, I might ask this. If someone offers and argument for restrictionism, and I can show that that argument entails white nationalism, would that not be a reason for rejecting that argument.
that does not invalidate their arguments here.
Right. Their argument is that Miller is a racist. So if the subject is "who is a racist?" then it's pretty much settled wrt the SPLC since they admitted it themselves. Don't think Miller admitted as much.
Let's see.
White nationalists are bad and shouldn't be listened to.
Steven Miller is a white nationalist.
Steven Miller is bad and shouldn't be listened to.
That looks like an argument to the man to me.
Now if one is interested in evaluating arguments rather than 'the man', then one should present those arguments and leave 'the man' out of it.
bmiller,
Now if one is interested in evaluating arguments rather than 'the man', then one should present those arguments and leave 'the man' out of it.
On the other hand, it's nearly impossible to explain behavior without referring to person behaving.
Hey Limited Perspective.
You tell me. Is this a discussion of the pros and cons of immigration arguments? Or if someone is a bad person or not?
Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to conflate the 2 subjects. Do you?
bmiller,
You tell me. Is this a discussion of the pros and cons of immigration arguments? Or if someone is a bad person or not?
Near as I can tell, it's a post about whether Miller had good reasons or not for his actions, so I'd say both.
Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to conflate the 2 subjects. Do you?
It's not reasonable to respond to a list actions by claiming the lister shares the same fault, but here we are.
Given your first comment was about Miller's identity, this comment thread has never been about the arguments.
Here is what, to my mind, a white nationalist immigration policy looks like.
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/white-nationalism-as-immigration-policy/
So bmiller, I am going to ask some pointed questions. Are you OK with saying that we should encourage immigration from Norway, but prevent it if it comes from Haiti, Central America, or Africa, because those countries are "shithole" countries. Is that OK, or not?
Is it OK to refer to Mexican immigrants, as a group, as rapists?
Is it OK to refer to Middle Eastern immigrants as terrorists?
Is it OK to refer to immigrants as animals? Invaders? Threats to women? To compare them to vermin seeking to pour into and infest our country?
Is it OK to make it as difficult as possible for people seeking asylum from violence in their home country to find refuge here? Asylum seekers try to come here LEGALLY, as some people keep forgetting.
Was the Chinese Exclusion Act a good idea?
Victor,
I won't go point by point because my answers are generally the same. And that answer is that it almost always wrong to generalize about any group of people. So it's wrong to say that all people of a group are rapists, terrorists, animals etc. Furthermore I don't remember anyone making those types of generalizations.
Immigration laws of most countries restrict who can come in and who can become citizens for a variety of reasons. For instance here are the requirements for German naturalization:
You must have lived in Germany on a residence permit for at least eight years, or
You must have lived in Germany on a residence permit for seven years and attended an integration course (this becomes six years in special integration circumstances)
You must prove German language proficiency of at least B1.
You must be financially able to support yourself and your family without any help from the state.
You must be a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record.
You must pass a citizenship test.
You must renounce any previous citizenships.
So being able to support yourself and not be a drain on the society you want to become part of is a normal expectation. Also training in integration (assimilation) is a normal expectation. I assume these restrictions are in place in order that German society can maintatin it's national identity as a whole rather than being transformed into some other sort of society.
Do you consider these restrictions racist?
Well. Afghanistan?
Democratic administration. Blame Trump.
Nothing to discuss.
The silent hypocrisy is deafening.
Didn't Biden accept responsibility for it being a mess? So, what more do you expect?
Hey Miller,
I don't believe we can have a discussion about immigration to the United States as long as one side has an arsenal of pejoratives (racism, bigoty, hemophobia, islamophobia) while the other side is trying to ask what is the NUMBER of immigrants citizens should decide is best for their country.
When they give a number and make a case of it, I will take them serious. When it's Nazi all the way down, the discussion is not worth your time.
Sorry, forgot the most active pejorative, "white supremist" and sorry misspelling homophobia which is different than the fear of blood. B.Miller, does your side have a good long list of pejoratives that you can call Victor and the crazy Star guy?
Right. You must be a bad guy because you're asking the wrong questions.
You can't expect a productive discussion but you can point out bad argumentation to bystanders.
Miller,
Looks like you don't have any terms like "xenophobia" or "white supremist" to brand your opponents with. Your side really needs to come up with some words that will destroy your opponents once you brand them. If you want to prevail with your ideas on immigration, you need something like "white supremist" to accuse people you disagree with. Of course, you also need a mob of crazies to punish the people you brand.
Yeah. I'm not so good at that.
Good time to quote George Bernard Shaw:
“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Miller, until your side comes up with a term like "white supremist" (Nazi, Hitler, holocaust) to brand your opponent with, you don't stand a chance.
I've checked in with Victor's blog long enough to understand the tactic. Victor called in to question the 2016 election believing the election was illegitimate due to Russian influence. Fast forward four years and anyone who questions the voting rule changes because of Covid is part of "The Big Lie." Citizens should be skeptical and ask questions. We are supposed to be free Americans. I'm fine with both questions. But, as you stated, your questions are not allowed by the dishonest.
By the way, "The Big Lie" is also a Nazi reference. Your side tries to live as citizens in the United States together. They think citizens who think different are Nazis.
Actually I think most Americans are pretty fair-minded. If they were exposed to all points of views on a regular basis they would have a better ability to exercise their critical thinking skills.
It's apparent that a number of the commenters here beyond parody but that doesn't mean other readers shouldn't weigh in to give honest expression. Like you.
"My side" is looking for Truth.
Stop seeking truth and start calling them names.
Haha! A man of action indeed!
Let me help you Miller because I have some sympathies for your side. Write something like this:
"Look you malevolent SS-stormtrooping child molesters, we are going to send an armada of cruise ships to Eastern Europe, load them with people who want to be Americans and land them in major Democratic Party held cities. We will demand their right to vote for the Republic Party that helped them get here. If you bottom-of-the-barrel gutter scum don’t like it and would rather not have Russian election-hacking citizens in your city, well that proves you are an evil dog-faced pony soldiering human sacrificing devil."
Then you valiantly let people know you stood up to the child molesting community.
I’m not sure a malevolent SS-stormtrooping child molesting gutter scum devil is worse than a white nationalist, but it was the best I could come up with without using profanity.
How about Satanic Cannibal Pedophile ?
Not bad Miller. Not quite as succinct and historical as white nationalist. Keep trying, you will figure out a way to brand some of your fellow Americans as evil.
Look to Biden's long record of verbal absurdities to stick it to your opponents. For now, cannibal has a flavor filled ring to it.
We have a recall in California for our current governor. If the recall is successful, the leading candidate in the polls is black. The largest newspaper in California, the Los Angeles Times, published an editorial calling the first potential black governor of California their favorite pejorative, "Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned." You can look it up. Oppression with race is poison.
Yep. When black folks are white supremicists then up is down and black is white (heh).
Here's a thought about what went wrong. "Thinking equality is the only virtue"
Blacks are white supremacists, Jews are white nationalist, and don't get me started on all the absurd irrational phobias they claim a large number of their fellow Americans are inflicted with. As I said Miller, don't argue, call them names. Name calling is the language they understand.
Won't that hurt their feelings?
You need to take one for your team and go full dog-faced pony soldier on them. As the mob used to say (deliberate misquote), "you have beat people up before you can have your omelet."
Haha!
I'm glad your side gets a sense of humor and satire. Not what I would expect from someone on the side of an evil white nationalist.
Post a Comment