Your "hot take" (and it really does seem to be a mostly emotional argument, Daniel) elides a few critical points. One, rational, moderate citizens don't want their fellow citizens to never consider new evidence and (god forbid!) change their minds. Hence faulting Kristof for deviating from a past stance is disingenuous at best. Two, pron…
Your "hot take" (and it really does seem to be a mostly emotional argument, Daniel) elides a few critical points. One, rational, moderate citizens don't want their fellow citizens to never consider new evidence and (god forbid!) change their minds. Hence faulting Kristof for deviating from a past stance is disingenuous at best. Two, pronouncing his arguments as "extremely" faulty is nothing short of displaying your own unmitigated certainty of your own position, and smart people know better than to believe everything they think. It's fair to point out that some of Kristof's argument is based on anecdotal evidence, but then you neglect to mention the more objective evidence that he does provide. Three, while there is nothing wrong with arguing pro-immigration based on the economics (which I think are sound arguments), you have ignored something more important: the law. There are many, many, many, many, many of us (I myself am first generation; forgive me for being anecdotal) who welcome immigrants and wish that more immigration would be allowed, while also being able to hold a more important principle in our heads at the same time: this is a nation of laws, and when you want something changed, you have to convince enough people and change the laws. Asylum is an incredibly worthy ideal that has been trashed by the rush to the border of millions from all over the world for purely economic reasons. Entering the country illegally in order to claim asylum, instead of turning yourself in to the authorities at a port of entry in order to do so, is a complete bastardization of the overwhelmed process. And that trashing of the process is enabled by people whose ideals of a borderless world conflict with the actual law of the land, and they are too lazy to work for change. It's progressive "yard sign politics" at its worst. Don't get me wrong; I love progressives, I lived and worked in San Francisco for almost 20 years, and some of my best friends are still in that bubble. What they don't realize is that the highly-principled countries that they admire the most, i.e. Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., have very tough immigration laws.
It’s always nice to have someone around with the confidence to decide which of their miserable neighbors is truly worthy of aid and comfort from (checks notes,) the richest country in history,) and which are just trying to pull a fast one to (shuffles notes again,) feed their family because home has no economy anymore.
Lou, regardless of how you feel about your neighbors and how much you actually do to help them, you don't get to decide which laws apply and which laws do not. So go ahead and impute greedy motives to me, even though I clearly stated that I'm in favor of increased legal immigration and am also a big fan of the asylum project. Listen, I don't care how my neighbors got here, I will always help them. You want to believe that everyone who disagrees with you must be greedy or racist, which is quite childish and a hallmark of progressives. If you want populist authoritarian schmucks like Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Meloni, Geert Wilders and many others to gain power, keep pretending that legal immigration doesn't matter to over half the country.
And you want to imply that anyone who questions the severity of the crisis, the nature of the response or the reasons anyone might be suspicious of various actors motives as if we are starry eyed bleeding hearts at best or comical anarchists at worst.
The current legal regime is a bipartisan mess incapable of handling the influx of migrants no matter what their reasons for coming. I think we both agree that reforming that process should be a legislative priority.
But you are fooling yourself if you think you don’t care how your neighbor got here, you’ve been clear about that. You care if they got here legally. Whether they have a case for asylum or not, whether we’ve even tried to determine that status are both irrelevant.
Trump, Orban et al have risen to power by appealing to crude nativist ideologies that demonize immigrants, racial, religious and sexual minorities and women because there are evidently enough racists and fascists out there who feel comfortable cheering them on. Also by cheating a lot then bending the law to cover their asses.
It’s legalism, abusing the law to pervert justice. And speaking of abuse I’m sure a solution to our immigration problems that involves locking people up will work great in our top notch and perfectly humane legal system.
You may think that's my implication, but in principle I actually agree with your suspicions, and with your wish that people could just "get over it" and be like you and I, welcoming any and all immigrants. But in the real world, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew Sullivan's take, that it's as if progressives saw the rise of Right and said "what's the one thing we can do to make this a complete success?" We do both agree that reforming the immigration system is a top priority. (Btw, if you'd like to hear a well-done podcast on immigration, I enjoyed a recent 3-part series on the Freakonomics Radio podcast.) I don't think the legislative process is an irredeemable mess. We almost got there a few months ago, if not for Trump and his political needs. Which begs the question, whence Trump? You think chicken ("Trump, Orban, et al"), I think egg. Just as when I lived in Italy a few years ago, and listening to my Aunt in England pre-Brexit, and growing up on the border with Mexico, and having an immediate family full of immigrants, and volunteering at agencies that assist undocumented farm workers, I've learned there are plenty of people who for reasons both valid and bigoted are against illegal immigration, especially on a massive scale. If you'd have them all be racists and fascists, then that's part of the progressive "mind"set that I'm against. People can disagree with me without being evil. As far as my personal particulars go, I'd recommend for the sake of civilized discourse that you don't presume to know more about how someone is than the person himself.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “liberals made me racist,” framing of the fascism problem. It’s “look what you made me do,” politics, it excuses reactionary bigotry as understandable if there’s a “crisis.” I’m not trying to paint everyone who disagrees with me as evil, I’m saying that focusing on the legality or illegality of someone’s entry into this country is doing the fascists job for them by signaling that it is ok to consider immigrants a threat. Because they are CRIMINALS. They BROKE THE LAW! And we can’t just LET people break the LAW!
We don’t get to choose what laws we obey, but we do have a choice in what laws we ENFORCE and how we do so, as well as the rhetoric we deploy in support of those laws.
Your "hot take" (and it really does seem to be a mostly emotional argument, Daniel) elides a few critical points. One, rational, moderate citizens don't want their fellow citizens to never consider new evidence and (god forbid!) change their minds. Hence faulting Kristof for deviating from a past stance is disingenuous at best. Two, pronouncing his arguments as "extremely" faulty is nothing short of displaying your own unmitigated certainty of your own position, and smart people know better than to believe everything they think. It's fair to point out that some of Kristof's argument is based on anecdotal evidence, but then you neglect to mention the more objective evidence that he does provide. Three, while there is nothing wrong with arguing pro-immigration based on the economics (which I think are sound arguments), you have ignored something more important: the law. There are many, many, many, many, many of us (I myself am first generation; forgive me for being anecdotal) who welcome immigrants and wish that more immigration would be allowed, while also being able to hold a more important principle in our heads at the same time: this is a nation of laws, and when you want something changed, you have to convince enough people and change the laws. Asylum is an incredibly worthy ideal that has been trashed by the rush to the border of millions from all over the world for purely economic reasons. Entering the country illegally in order to claim asylum, instead of turning yourself in to the authorities at a port of entry in order to do so, is a complete bastardization of the overwhelmed process. And that trashing of the process is enabled by people whose ideals of a borderless world conflict with the actual law of the land, and they are too lazy to work for change. It's progressive "yard sign politics" at its worst. Don't get me wrong; I love progressives, I lived and worked in San Francisco for almost 20 years, and some of my best friends are still in that bubble. What they don't realize is that the highly-principled countries that they admire the most, i.e. Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., have very tough immigration laws.
It’s always nice to have someone around with the confidence to decide which of their miserable neighbors is truly worthy of aid and comfort from (checks notes,) the richest country in history,) and which are just trying to pull a fast one to (shuffles notes again,) feed their family because home has no economy anymore.
It's not even being worthy of aid, it's being worthy of aiding themselves by engaging in voluntary transactions.
They are burning trillions of $ on a bonfire of bigotry, and then acting all smarmy if somebody notices.
Lou, regardless of how you feel about your neighbors and how much you actually do to help them, you don't get to decide which laws apply and which laws do not. So go ahead and impute greedy motives to me, even though I clearly stated that I'm in favor of increased legal immigration and am also a big fan of the asylum project. Listen, I don't care how my neighbors got here, I will always help them. You want to believe that everyone who disagrees with you must be greedy or racist, which is quite childish and a hallmark of progressives. If you want populist authoritarian schmucks like Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Meloni, Geert Wilders and many others to gain power, keep pretending that legal immigration doesn't matter to over half the country.
And you want to imply that anyone who questions the severity of the crisis, the nature of the response or the reasons anyone might be suspicious of various actors motives as if we are starry eyed bleeding hearts at best or comical anarchists at worst.
The current legal regime is a bipartisan mess incapable of handling the influx of migrants no matter what their reasons for coming. I think we both agree that reforming that process should be a legislative priority.
But you are fooling yourself if you think you don’t care how your neighbor got here, you’ve been clear about that. You care if they got here legally. Whether they have a case for asylum or not, whether we’ve even tried to determine that status are both irrelevant.
Trump, Orban et al have risen to power by appealing to crude nativist ideologies that demonize immigrants, racial, religious and sexual minorities and women because there are evidently enough racists and fascists out there who feel comfortable cheering them on. Also by cheating a lot then bending the law to cover their asses.
It’s legalism, abusing the law to pervert justice. And speaking of abuse I’m sure a solution to our immigration problems that involves locking people up will work great in our top notch and perfectly humane legal system.
You may think that's my implication, but in principle I actually agree with your suspicions, and with your wish that people could just "get over it" and be like you and I, welcoming any and all immigrants. But in the real world, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew Sullivan's take, that it's as if progressives saw the rise of Right and said "what's the one thing we can do to make this a complete success?" We do both agree that reforming the immigration system is a top priority. (Btw, if you'd like to hear a well-done podcast on immigration, I enjoyed a recent 3-part series on the Freakonomics Radio podcast.) I don't think the legislative process is an irredeemable mess. We almost got there a few months ago, if not for Trump and his political needs. Which begs the question, whence Trump? You think chicken ("Trump, Orban, et al"), I think egg. Just as when I lived in Italy a few years ago, and listening to my Aunt in England pre-Brexit, and growing up on the border with Mexico, and having an immediate family full of immigrants, and volunteering at agencies that assist undocumented farm workers, I've learned there are plenty of people who for reasons both valid and bigoted are against illegal immigration, especially on a massive scale. If you'd have them all be racists and fascists, then that's part of the progressive "mind"set that I'm against. People can disagree with me without being evil. As far as my personal particulars go, I'd recommend for the sake of civilized discourse that you don't presume to know more about how someone is than the person himself.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “liberals made me racist,” framing of the fascism problem. It’s “look what you made me do,” politics, it excuses reactionary bigotry as understandable if there’s a “crisis.” I’m not trying to paint everyone who disagrees with me as evil, I’m saying that focusing on the legality or illegality of someone’s entry into this country is doing the fascists job for them by signaling that it is ok to consider immigrants a threat. Because they are CRIMINALS. They BROKE THE LAW! And we can’t just LET people break the LAW!
We don’t get to choose what laws we obey, but we do have a choice in what laws we ENFORCE and how we do so, as well as the rhetoric we deploy in support of those laws.
That's okay, I had no expectation of convincing you of anything. You're not buying it has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong.