Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[_HighVoltage_]

No. You are the one that doesn't get it. I am an immigrant - it's pretty damn obvious (or at least it should be) that I'm neither xenophobic nor racist. This has nothing to do with them being immigrants and everything to do with them being illegal immigrants. Anyone wishing to come to this country should be screened. I can't fathom why it's not obvious that border security is a must.

I'll be sure to tell my Albanian, Chinese, Lebanese, Hispanic, Lithuanian, Russian, Israeli, Indian, black, Portuguese, Polish, Latvian, Mexican, Greek, Korean, Irish, Italian, Bulgarian, and Australian friends and acquaintances about that.

Ah, yes...the good old "I have black friends, I can't be racist" tactic.

You are xenophobic based on all your posts obsessing about "illegal" immigration. I thought I explained it to you before, but here it goes again. No person is "illegal." It is a status whose definition and criteria has changed over time. Your parents would have been prevented from coming here, and would have been considered "illegal" prior to 1965. And it would have had nothing to do with them working hard towards achieving a goal - the system simply did not allow the entry of Eastern European or Asian immigrants. Fast forward to the present moment, the system has currently made it impossible to immigrate here legally unless you are rich, marry someone, or have a higher degree in STEM. There is no process. Families have no other option than to come here "illegally." Then they have to hear the audacity of politicians (and yourself) who tell them to get in the back of the line and just come here legally.

You are xenophobic because you support the political logic that deems people "illegal." You post an article about four criminals, who just happen to be here illegally, to justify stricter enforcement against "illegals" and increased security at the border. You use the example of FOUR criminals to justify the logic of demonizing 11+ million people, the vast majority of whom are non-criminals, under the same label "illegal."

Sure, we have to arrest criminals. But if you target millions of people as "illegals" and justify their exclusion/deportation on the basis that .0004% also happen to be violent criminals becomes xenophobia.

You should be able to understand this as it is similar to the gun rights argument - just because one gun owner goes on a shooting spree doesn't mean you get to label all gun owners as criminals and take all of their guns away.

The legal/illegal distinction between people, contrary to what you might think, is not rational or grounded in the U.S. Constitution. It is established through centuries of immigration policies which have been seeped through with racism and xenophobia. By supporting the distinction you fall victim to the system's racist and xenophobic tendencies which now appear as norms.

 

[LeVeL]

You are not nearly mature enough to be armed. I am honestly surprised you were able to pass the CCW course.

Not even going to address this one. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about me and you apparently know nothing about CCW.

What are you laughing about? You think the Berlin wall was an easily passable border?

He might actually think that...

No, I was laughing at the current border and its "security".

No person is "illegal." It is a status whose definition and criteria has changed over time. Your parents would have been prevented from coming here, and would have been considered "illegal" prior to 1965. And it would have had nothing to do with them working hard towards achieving a goal - the system simply did not allow the entry of Eastern European or Asian immigrants.

It's not the word "illegal" that I'm "obsessing about" but rather our lack of knowledge of who is crossing the border. I've explained this a dozen times already but let's go over it again, since it's apparently complicated: I am against human trafficking, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and criminals (you know, like those Guatemalans that raped a local woman). I would think that the people screaming "omg universal background checks" when it comes to US citizens would also support the notion of figuring out who and what is going in and out of this country but apparently not. By the way, since this came up up-thread, I am not in support of rounding up and deporting all illegals. I just want a more secure border.

Fast forward to the present moment, the system has currently made it impossible to immigrate here legally unless you are rich, marry someone, or have a higher degree in STEM. There is no process. Families have no other option than to come here "illegally." Then they have to hear the audacity of politicians (and yourself) who tell them to get in the back of the line and just come here legally.

I have no problem with looking into making legal immigration easier. I've said this countless times already.

You are xenophobic because you support the political logic that deems people "illegal." You post an article about four criminals, who just happen to be here illegally, to justify stricter enforcement against "illegals" and increased security at the border. You use the example of FOUR criminals to justify the logic of demonizing 11+ million people, the vast majority of whom are non-criminals, under the same label "illegal."

Reading comprehension fail yet again. Let's try this... Merriam Webster's definition of xenophobia: "fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners". Forget the fact that I am a foreigner. I harbor no fear, hatred, or dislike towards people from South and Central America. As long as they come here legally, don't bring in drugs and whatnot, and don't commit crimes, I welcome them with open arms. The people that are already here illegally should have a path towards green cards - most of them just want to work (unlike many American citizens, sadly). However, some of them (including those four dipshits) are criminals; we can deport them but right now they can come right back in... which is what two of those four did. How is this so complicated??

Sure, we have to arrest criminals. But if you target millions of people as "illegals" and justify their exclusion/deportation on the basis that .0004% also happen to be violent criminals becomes xenophobia.

I am not "targeting" every single illegal alien, nor do I support deporting every single illegal alien. Just the ones that break laws. I want a secure border so that those criminals don't come back into the US as if nothing happened.

You should be able to understand this as it is similar to the gun rights argument - just because one gun owner goes on a shooting spree doesn't mean you get to label all gun owners as criminals and take all of their guns away.

You should be able to understand the same argument actually - gun owners have to pass federal background checks in order to go to a store and buy a gun, so why are you okay with you-do-not-know-who coming into this country without any checks whatsoever?



ETA: here's another way of explaining it. Go to the 0:40 mark. Our border works the same way as the timeout stool:

 

[_HighVoltage_]

I have no problem with looking into making legal immigration easier. I've said this countless times already.

You should be able to understand the same argument actually - gun owners have to pass federal background checks in order to go to a store and buy a gun, so why are you okay with you-do-not-know-who coming into this country without any checks whatsoever?

Because the background check for gun owner has established reasonable legal criteria that you can pass. The current equivalent of the background check for "legal" immigration has set irrational criteria (as pointed out earlier based on race and worth) that a large majority of applicants can't pass.

I'm happy you agree that legal immigration should be made, let's not say easier, but reasonable to reach. The problem is that it has to be done simultaneously with your proposed call for border security.

Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Clinton all advocate securing the border first, kicking out all the illegals (why does that remind me of a particular type of cleansing) and only after that, after we solve the "problem" establish standards for legal immigration. People can't wait. Or if they can, you have to set a reasonable wait time - several months maybe, not the current informal standard of 10+ years (I don't mean automatic citizenship after just months, but access to the country and a pathway to citizenship).

Edit:

ETA: here's another way of explaining it. Go to the 0:40 mark. Our border works the same way as the timeout stool:

You have no idea how right you are. Eric just wanted to play his X-Box and the nanny is trying to punish him for it. That's how the border treats most immigrants - all they want is to play X-Box, but the nanny punishes them to do chores, just because four kids before him were assholes. Playing the X-Box is not a crime in itself. Eric doesn't understand why he is being punished for it. That is exactly how current immigration policy works.

 

[nomix]

If you did gun background checks like they do immigration today, you'd have to train a pony and wait for five years to get a gun.

 

[prizrak]

I'm happy you agree that legal immigration should be made, let's not say easier, but reasonable to reach. The problem is that it has to be done simultaneously with your proposed call for border security.

To be fair I have not seen Lev say anything about having to do one first then the other. Calling for border security is not automatically calling for mass deportations and rounding up all of the illegals as some people here seem to think.

the system has currently made it impossible to immigrate here legally unless you are rich, marry someone, or have a higher degree in STEM.

Here is a question though, why should a country (any country) take in people that are not believed to benefit said country?

 

[tigger]

Here is a question though, why should a country (any country) take in people that are not believed to benefit said country?

Whoa, there's a loaded question. Who's saying they're not any benefit?

 

[prizrak]

Whoa, there's a loaded question. Who's saying they're not any benefit?

The State Department I would think. The reason I ask the question is that HV seems to imply that all of the [currently] illegal immigrants that come in should be allowed to come in legally (well barring criminals and the like). However what I am asking is why? There has to be some possible benefits to the host country in order to accept immigrants, the aforementioned STEM people come to mind as quite obvious.

P.S. I am not making any judgements of who is and isn't beneficial but governing a country is a highly pragmatic job and decisions being made should also be made from pure pragmatism (something our country really needs more of).

 

[calvinhobbes]

There has to be some possible benefits to the host country in order to accept immigrants, the aforementioned STEM people come to mind as quite obvious.

That focus on "STEM people" is slightly irritating. What good is an MP3 player if you have no music on it, what good is a tank if you have no one working to prevent the war?

Apart from that, there's no way of telling what kind of benefit someone will bring to any society. Firstly, people don't even agree on the basic tenets of society, so they can certainly not agree on what does or does not provide a benefit. Secondly, people don't bring just their formal education and hard skills, but also their lifetimes' worth of soft skills, personal experiences, knowledge, connections and so on. Thinking of human beings in terms of human resources is no better than thinking of them as cannon fodder. You can do so, but then you're wilfully ignoring almost everything that makes them human.

And unless you're so wilfully ignorant, you're not going to enjoy telling people they can't migrate - which is what people have always done; sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

[argatoga]

Values are important when it comes to mass migration. Bringing in hundreds of thousands who think Sharia law is a good thing is not healthy for a liberal democracy. It took hundreds of years for Western societies to get rid of the idea that homosexuality is evil, now you may have a significant population that thinks in the old anachronistic way.

I'm not sure of the thinking of most of the migrants and refugees. So how real of a concern this is I'm not sure, but it is a thought to keep in mind when admitting so many people from a religiously conservative region.

 

[prizrak]

That focus on "STEM people" is slightly irritating. What good is an MP3 player if you have no music on it, what good is a tank if you have no one working to prevent the war?

Apart from that, there's no way of telling what kind of benefit someone will bring to any society. Firstly, people don't even agree on the basic tenets of society, so they can certainly not agree on what does or does not provide a benefit. Secondly, people don't bring just their formal education and hard skills, but also their lifetimes' worth of soft skills, personal experiences, knowledge, connections and so on. Thinking of human beings in terms of human resources is no better than thinking of them as cannon fodder. You can do so, but then you're wilfully ignoring almost everything that makes them human.

And unless you're so wilfully ignorant, you're not going to enjoy telling people they can't migrate - which is what people have always done; sometimes more, sometimes less.

Two things:
1) You are making an assumption that somehow talent (on any level) can only come from without, which is of course not true
2) That humans matter as being when talking on a scale of society (here defined as a country). You are only as good as what you contribute, this is why there is such a focus on STEM and other hard skills. It shows exactly what you can contribute and therefore why you should be allowed into a, presumably, better country.

Like I said running a country (or a company for that matter) is a pragmatic business, personal values don't enter into it.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Like I said running a country (or a company for that matter) is a pragmatic business, personal values don't enter into it.

To answer your previous question, even though I think calvinhobbes covered it pretty well, and add to this one.

The idea that running a country is a pragmatic business, and that you have to contribute is actually fairly new (Hi, JFK...). And before LeVeL comes barging in with the either/or logics, I am not talking about allowing freeloaders. In part because I believe it is an irrational fear brought on by some bad apples, and by the state logics of neoliberalism (you are only welcome as long as WE find you useful for a particular period of time).

As calvinhobbes already mentioned - the focus on STEM is so damn limiting and it's only a matter of time before we have too many scientist and we realize we need other occupations too (hello, Bracero program and the recent calls for guest-worker programs). My problem is with the normative definition and criteria of "contributing."

For example, a 40-year-old man from Mexico may not have a STEM degree, but who knows - maybe he opens up his own small business, say a taco shop (I apologize for the cultural stereotype), that turns out to be the best in a neighborhood, so he soon opens a 2nd and a 3rd, etc...and so he would now be considered a successful and contributing immigrants and member of society.

But based on the current tunnel-vision criteria of the state, that man is not allowed here.

If we get a little misty-eyed for a second - wasn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity? Then why does the state get to limit the scope of what counts as opportunity?

 

[awdrifter]

He could come here through legal immigration in that case. If he's a good entrepreneur, he would have money to do an investment visa. Open a taco restaurant in the US and get a green card though that. But if he came here illegally, then he probably won't be opening a taco restaurant because that would require legal documentation. I'm not saying we should deport all the illegal immigrants in the US now or build a wall. But we should at least look into feasible ways of strengthening border security. If we reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, the problem will solve itself after a generation or two.

 

[SirEdward]

He could come here through legal immigration in that case. If he's a good entrepreneur, he would have money to do an investment visa.

This is impossible. If he had money to start with, he probably wouldn't be trying to enter the US. Then, how much money? I don't think I could have myself an investor VISA, and I'm far from the idea of trying ot enter the US illegally...

Then again, if the investor had enough money, but was in favour of peculiar ideas, like Shari'a law, you would let that person in because of the money? Because that's probably what's happening with countless people very rich in petrol who also want to invest in the US. Where has the -ideas defense- thing gone?

This selfish cinicism is dangerous for the US, and is narrow-sighted because it doesn't take all factors into consideration. Calvinhobbes explained this well.

But if he came here illegally, then he probably won't be opening a taco restaurant because that would require legal documentation.

Exactly! You might refuse a perfectly good and working immigrant who only wants to integrate in the US, while accepting the money of other people who just want to make more money for themselves, regardless of the values. How do you avoid this?

I'm not saying we should deport all the illegal immigrants in the US now or build a wall. But we should at least look into feasible ways of strengthening border security. If we reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, the problem will solve itself after a generation or two.

HighVoltage was right, I think, a few posts ago, in saying that more controls must be done together with a more feasible path to enter legally. And the focus should be on how much people are willing to integrate into the value system and culture of the accepting country.

By the way, most of this immigration problem is the same faced by Europe. Only with different player, and different numbers.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Bringing in hundreds of thousands who think Sharia law

So how do you know that the hundreds of thousands of refugees who recently came to Western Europe believe in Sharia law? Did you conduct a study? If your argument is "Well, they're from Muslim countries", it's nonsense.

1) You are making an assumption that somehow talent (on any level) can only come from without, which is of course not true

Nope. I'm not making that assumption.

You are only as good as what you contribute

Did you think that one through? A: Once again, there's not even anything approaching agreement on what constitutes a contribution. B: Human rights are not conditional. The attitude you're displaying does explain, though, where Sarah Palin got the idea of "death panels".

this is why there is such a focus on STEM and other hard skills.

Those guys can do just as much damage as they've done good. Thomas Midgley, Jr. is one example.

Like I said running a country (or a company for that matter) is a pragmatic business, personal values don't enter into it.

That is wrong on so many levels I can't even choose where to start.

- - - Updated - - -

For example, a six-year-old boy from the Soviet Union may not have any degrees, but who knows - maybe he develops an interest in computer science, starts working with a friend, on a search engine perhaps, that turns out to be the best in the world, so he finds himself at the helm of one of the largest corporations in the world after years and years of hard word... and so he would now be considered a role model and an idol, as well as a successful and contributing immigrant and member of society.

But based on the current tunnel-vision criteria of the state, that boy should never have been allowed in.

I thought you might appreciate someone's true story.

If we get a little misty-eyed for a second - wasn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity?

Yes, but try explaining to someone with a barely concealed inferiority complex that someone else's opportunities don't necessarily detract from their own.

 

[LeVeL]

[massivelysarcastictrollpost]

Values are important when it comes to mass migration.

Culturally insensitive and discriminatory!

Bringing in hundreds of thousands who think Sharia law is a good thing is not healthy for a liberal democracy.

Islamaphobe!

It took hundreds of years for Western societies to get rid of the idea that homosexuality is evil, now you may have a significant population that thinks in the old anachronistic way.

Respect another culture's values!

And before LeVeL comes barging in with the either/or logics, I am not talking about allowing freeloaders.

Why don't you want to help those that need it the most?

For example, a 40-year-old man from Mexico may not have a STEM degree, but who knows - maybe he opens up his own small business, say a taco shop (I apologize for the cultural stereotype), that turns out to be the best in a neighborhood, so he soon opens a 2nd and a 3rd, etc...and so he would now be considered a successful and contributing immigrants and member of society.

I'm slightly taken aback by this microaggression. Why can't it be a Mexican woman or transgender? Why can't a Mexican open a sushi restaurant? Why does it have to be a 40-year-old and not a teenager or elderly person?



[/massivelysarcastictrollpost]

 

[calvinhobbes]

John Oliver explains the Trump Wall:

key points:

The first thing a 30 ft wall will do is create a market for 31 ft ladders (and ropes :lol.
It would cost a lot more than claimed, cause lots of damage and distress and infringe on the rights of people along the border.
Many (about half, IIRC) of the people who are in the US illegally entered legally and simply overstayed their visas.
The wall won't be a deterrent to smugglers because those already have tunnels, makeshift cannons, catapults or just really strong arms and good aim. Or submarines.

The only thing it would do is give clueless Latinophobes a nice, warm feeling.

 

[SirEdward]

Like I said running a country (or a company for that matter) is a pragmatic business, personal values don't enter into it.

That is wrong on so many levels I can't even choose where to start.

I'll try it:

1) From a business-like perspective

Priz, if what you say is true: if running a country is a pragmatic business, then I ask you: pragmatic in which time-scale? 1 year? 5 years? 10? Indefinite? What happens -after- your programmed time-scale has elapsed? Is it right to burn the country's future to improve the country's present?

The answer is no. Never. The whole debt crisis we are living comes exactly from this. Living for a time over one's own possibilities means having to pay after that.

Then, if your time-scale is indefinte, how can you make -pragmatic- decisions based on data you only partially know, or just don't know? You have no pragamatic means of making decisions for an indefinitely long period based only on factual data. You're just too lacking. That is why standard businesses usually set a 5-10-20 years time-scale for decision-making.

And yet, with businesses, you can. With countries, you can't. They're just too different. Your only choice is to stick to values. You choose the values, you spread them, you make them live, and you base your decisions upon them. They won't work all the time, but they give consistency and they are a better long-term choice than policies of stacked, possibly-conflicting 1 year objectives.

2) From a human-like perspective

That is way easier. If you have to be pragmatic, what are you going to do with people deemed improductive, and how do you determine their level of productivity, particularly in the future? Be pragmatic enough, and you'll build up some sort of extermination project for "unproductive" people who are hindering the rightful development and wealth-growth of the country. And if that sounds similar to what has happened multiple times during history, that's because it is.

When you are only pragmatic, eventually you get to a point where you are so pragmatic that you dehumanize other people, and you end up with geoncides, mass-murderings, extermination programs; for races you don't like, for religions you don't like, for cultures you don't like, for mental of physical conditions you don't like.

The very pragmatic native american massacres, to open up land and safe pastures for economical development. The extremely pragmatic US citizens with japanese ancestry internment camps in the US during WWII.

Who decides what is "pragmatic"? And what if the pragmatic ideas are not that pragmatic? And what if -you- are amongst the people who are pragmatically to be got rid of?

 

[prizrak]

To answer your previous question, even though I think calvinhobbes covered it pretty well, and add to this one.

I don't think he did, other than a vague appeal to "humanity"

As calvinhobbes already mentioned - the focus on STEM is so damn limiting and it's only a matter of time before we have too many scientist and we realize we need other occupations too (hello, Bracero program and the recent calls for guest-worker programs). My problem is with the normative definition and criteria of "contributing."

STEM was your specific example, also correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you here on H1-B and are not STEM? However current focus on STEM is due to the fact that our technocratic civilization needs to keep creating better technology to survive, unless we want to go back to hunting and gathering we have to keep coming up with better ways to use our resources and that's where STEM comes from. Additionally if we have enough scientists then we can simply change requirements for the visa it's not exactly written in stone.

For example, a 40-year-old man from Mexico may not have a STEM degree, but who knows - maybe he opens up his own small business, say a taco shop (I apologize for the cultural stereotype), that turns out to be the best in a neighborhood, so he soon opens a 2nd and a 3rd, etc...and so he would now be considered a successful and contributing immigrants and member of society.

Or he doesn't and ends up on welfare for the rest of his life, or worse a criminal because that's the only way for him to survive. Or his taco shop is so successful that he ends up putting all other taco shops out of business. All of these outcomes are equally possible, at least with someone who is specifically invited into the country because of their skills you can be reasonably sure that they will end up contributing.

If we get a little misty-eyed for a second - wasn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity? Then why does the state get to limit the scope of what counts as opportunity?

That's fine from a humanitarian stand point and I have no problem with that particular view either.

Human rights are not conditional.

I don't see how one fits with the other, being deported (or barred ) from a country that one entered illegally is not a human rights violation.

The attitude you're displaying does explain, though, where Sarah Palin got the idea of "death panels".

You seem to be inventing a heck of a lot of my "attitude" and mentioning Sarah Palin in relation to me is an insult.

Those guys can do just as much damage as they've done good. Thomas Midgley, Jr. is one example.

So can a truck driver, what's your point? Again, the part you are missing is that STEM (and other workers with useful skills) are not just invited to come into the country, they are invited to specific positions, they don't maybe contribute in some way later in life they come in and start right away.

I thought you might appreciate someone's true story.

His father was a mathematician and entered the country legally.

That is wrong on so many levels I can't even choose where to start.

No you want it to be wrong, doesn't mean it is.

Yes, but try explaining to someone with a barely concealed inferiority complex that someone else's opportunities don't necessarily detract from their own.

You charge by the hour Dr. Freud? Funnily enough allowing STEM people into the country would have a far greater potential to detract from my opportunity than it would letting a bunch of random people with almost no education. You really do need to stop inventing things in your head.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll try it:

1) From a business-like perspective

Priz, if what you say is true: if running a country is a pragmatic business, then I ask you: pragmatic in which time-scale? 1 year? 5 years? 10? Indefinite? What happens -after- your programmed time-scale has elapsed? Is it right to burn the country's future to improve the country's present?

The answer is no. Never. The whole debt crisis we are living comes exactly from this. Living for a time over one's own possibilities means having to pay after that.

Then, if your time-scale is indefinte, how can you make -pragmatic- decisions based on data you only partially know, or just don't know? You have no pragamatic means of making decisions for an indefinitely long period based only on factual data. You're just too lacking. That is why standard businesses usually set a 5-10-20 years time-scale for decision-making.

And yet, with businesses, you can. With countries, you can't. They're just too different. Your only choice is to stick to values. You choose the values, you spread them, you make them live, and you base your decisions upon them. They won't work all the time, but they give consistency and they are a better long-term choice than policies of stacked, possibly-conflicting 1 year objectives.

Not quite, every country tries to be competetive in the global market place and makes decisions as to what would help them, that is what mainly drives immigration policy.

2) From a human-like perspective

That is way easier. If you have to be pragmatic, what are you going to do with people deemed improductive, and how do you determine their level of productivity, particularly in the future? Be pragmatic enough, and you'll build up some sort of extermination project for "unproductive" people who are hindering the rightful development and wealth-growth of the country. And if that sounds similar to what has happened multiple times during history, that's because it is.

When you are only pragmatic, eventually you get to a point where you are so pragmatic that you dehumanize other people, and you end up with geoncides, mass-murderings, extermination programs; for races you don't like, for religions you don't like, for cultures you don't like, for mental of physical conditions you don't like.

The very pragmatic native american massacres, to open up land and safe pastures for economical development. The extremely pragmatic US citizens with japanese ancestry internment camps in the US during WWII.

Who decides what is "pragmatic"? And what if the pragmatic ideas are not that pragmatic? And what if -you- are amongst the people who are pragmatically to be got rid of?

You are making quite a bit of a leap here IMO. There is a big difference between saying "if we are going to allow immigrants into our country they should be useful to society in some way" and "if you are not working you go into the gas wagen"* Last I checked US still allows refugees to come in, they just have to go through a specific process.

*Actually a more pragmatic solution would be worker camps but we digress.

Skip to around 4:40 for the relevant part.

 

[SirEdward]

Not quite, every country tries to be competitive in the global market place and makes decisions as to what would help them, that is what mainly drives immigration policy.

Not quite. Going heavy on debt in the last decades was neither pointed towards competitiveness nor far-sighted. it was a short-sighted way to keep consensus. And yet it was chosen as a strategy.

And the main point still remains: at which time scale are you thinking the future? If you stick to 1 year periods, you'll probably going down on a 20 years one. If you go for a 20 years period, you may be losing on a 30 years period, or just in the very short one.

Immigration policies are usually driven by the same forces which drive the other political choices. Short-term consensus. The more populistic the politician proposing them is, the more short-sighted and consensus-seeking they will be.

You are making quite a bit of a leap here IMO. There is a big difference between saying "if we are going to allow immigrants into our country they should be useful to society in some way" and "if you are not working you go into the gas wagen"*

I was addressing the use of "pragmatic" and "business-like". By turning people into "resources", you are dehumanizing them. This happens to everyone, everywhere. This is why you shouldn't consider them simple "resources".

If you take "pragmatic" to the letter, there is actually no limit to what you will do to them. The limit is only built through personal values. You maybe won't send people to the gas chambers if you'd start considering them human beings again at some point, but otherwise, you would. And if personal values don't count, there is no limit.

The 1930-40ies german project to get rid of mental illness by killing people and saving the resources used to feed them was coldly, surgically pragmatic. Human beings were the materials of a cold evolutionary mechanism. The stronger should survive, and he weaker is just there wasting food that could have been used to make the stronger even stronger. A "pragmatic" waste. So, a pragmatic solution to a pragmatic problem.

No personal values, just cold pragmaticism.

But the US weren't that much different, in a sense. They really did put US citizens with japanese ancestors into internment camps. Because it would have been -easier- e.g. less costly, to control them there. The prisoners were not US citizens anymore, they were not humans anymore. They were just japanese, they were minions of the evil power.

Who- decides what happens to whom? And on which basis, on simple pragmaticism, there is only the short-term benefit rule. Is it really the only thing to consider? And if you should say yes, to which time scale?

Last I checked US still allows refugees to come in, they just have to go through a specific process.

Of course. The US will not let in people who helped saving the lives of american soldiers... I bet the refugees they take in are just the smallest number not to be reprimended by the UN or by other countries...

*Actually a more pragmatic solution would be worker camps but we digress.

digression for digression, that means turning them to slaves. Which I agree is more pragmatic, but is equally inhumane. Pragmaticism alone dehumanizes people.

but... I want to point out that in just a digression, you've turned yourself into a slavist without even knowing it, by just being "pragmatic". Think what might happen if you'd be "pragmatic" on a larger scale.

Skip to around 2:50

Content not allowed in my country... sorry.

 

[prizrak]

Not quite. Going heavy on debt in the last decades was neither pointed towards competitiveness nor far-sighted. it was a short-sighted way to keep consensus. And yet it was chosen as a strategy.

And the main point still remains: at which time scale are you thinking the future? If you stick to 1 year periods, you'll probably going down on a 20 years one. If you go for a 20 years period, you may be losing on a 30 years period, or just in the very short one.

Immigration policies are usually driven by the same forces which drive the other political choices. Short-term consensus. The more populistic the politician proposing them is, the more short-sighted and consensus-seeking they will be.

That's just bad policy making in general, sadly a case in all countries.

I was addressing the use of "pragmatic" and "business-like". By turning people into "resources", you are dehumanizing them. This happens to everyone, everywhere. This is why you shouldn't consider them simple "resources".

If you take "pragmatic" to the letter, there is actually no limit to what you will do to them. The limit is only built through personal values. You maybe won't send people to the gas chambers if you'd start considering them human beings again at some point, but otherwise, you would. And if personal values don't count, there is no limit.

The 1930-40ies german project to get rid of mental illness by killing people and saving the resources used to feed them was coldly, surgically pragmatic. Human beings were the materials of a cold evolutionary mechanism. The stronger should survive, and he weaker is just there wasting food that could have been used to make the stronger even stronger. A "pragmatic" waste. So, a pragmatic solution to a pragmatic problem.

No personal values, just cold pragmaticism.

But the US weren't that much different, in a sense. They really did put US citizens with japanese ancestors into internment camps. Because it would have been -easier- e.g. less costly, to control them there. The prisoners were not US citizens anymore, they were not humans anymore. They were just japanese, they were minions of the evil power.

Who- decides what happens to whom? And on which basis, on simple pragmaticism, there is only the short-term benefit rule. Is it really the only thing to consider? And if you should say yes, to which time scale?

You are 100% correct, however we both know not everything has to be black and white.

Of course. The US will not let in people who helped saving the lives of american soldiers...

And that's shitty but sadly this country doesn't treat it's soldiers a whole lot better either.

I bet the refugees they take in are just the smallest number not to be reprimended by the UN or by other countries...

Actually no we increased our intake http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ares-with-other-countries-taking-in-refugees/
Relevant portion:

This week, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. would resettle 85,000 global refugees in the coming fiscal year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017, marking a significant ? though far from historic ? increase in taking in the world?s most desperate.

digression for digression, that means turning them to slaves. Which I agree is more pragmatic, but is equally inhumane. Pragmaticism alone dehumanizes people.

but... I want to point out that in just a digression, you've turned yourself into a slavist without even knowing it, by just being "pragmatic". Think what might happen if you'd be "pragmatic" on a larger scale.

Anything taken too far is a problem.

Content not allowed in my country... sorry.

That sux