A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I was comparing Mitt and Paris in the following way: both grew up so privileged it evidently made it impossible for them to understand people outside their circumstances. Paris is obvious -- life is one long party. Mitt is less obvious but way worse -- wealth is theological election; those with wealth are by definition fit to rule; the habits and mores of the wealthy are both signs and means of superiority. He channels the 19th century robber baron pseudo-philosophy of William Graham Sumner's "What the Social Classes Owe Each Other" (spoiler: the answer is "nothing") and basks in von Misean bromides of laissez-faire utopia. He, and his peers, are completely untouched by the actual suffering caused by their philosophies because they are completely committed to abstractions that have been rebutted in practice for hundreds of years. Like Bolsheviks, the ideal is all -- the path to paradise may be strewn with corpses but everyone is better off in the long run. Their insouciance is unshakable, and many look up to them, mistaking as sanguine what is merely idle detachment.

There is a special circle of hell reserved for the rich man who calls the poor man greedy. Even if he does it just to brace himself against his conscience and shut out the cries of suffering around him, because he's too lazy and too self-absorbed to do anything about it, it is still one of the last mortal sins.

You put people in boxes way too easily. And of course it's always the rich Republican who is decried, not the rich liberal or Hollywood celebrity who suffers every bit as much from what you describe. Your comments would hold a lot more water if they dropped the partisan sheen.

 

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Mitt is less obvious but way worse -- wealth is theological election

thank you sir, for the well-expressed opinion. Do you see religion, or Mormonism particularly, playing a part in this attitude as the "theological election" would suggest?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

You put people in boxes way too easily. And of course it's always the rich Republican who is decried, not the rich liberal or Hollywood celebrity who suffers every bit as much from what you describe. Your comments would hold a lot more water if they dropped the partisan sheen.

Oh, really?

Which Hollywood Hippy type is calling poor people greedy? Not anyone I can think of. Mitt did it every day of his campaign. Mitch and Boner do it every day on Capitol Hill.

 

[geezer]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Oh, really?

Which Hollywood Hippy type is calling poor people greedy? Not anyone I can think of. Mitt did it every day of his campaign. Mitch and Boner do it every day on Capitol Hill.

well, it's also true... they're just not as greedy as the rich people.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Your comments would hold a lot more water if they dropped the partisan sheen.

When the policies of the two parties diverge so dramatically concerning opportunity and equality, that partisanship is unavoidable. But it isn't causal, it's driven from objectively considering the practical effects of the parties' stances. The GOP has done everything it could for 30 years to drive up wealth inequality. Maybe a handful of them, in the beginning, actually thought this would raise all boats, but that's been revealed as fiction for a least half that time.

From comments you've made in the past I know you identify lack of opportunity as a critical problem. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't see -- clearly -- that on this issue you are backing the wrong horse. Even taking all the other stuff, the conservative social values, the fear of government, all that, as read, at the end of the day the Dems are the party that gives more people a shot at the American dream. I'm not saying your other allegiances might not outweigh that consideration, but the parties and their philosophies are intertwined with considerations of improving the material conditions of the least among us.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Oh, really?

Which Hollywood Hippy type is calling poor people greedy? Not anyone I can think of. Mitt did it every day of his campaign. Mitch and Boner do it every day on Capitol Hill.

All people are "greedy." It's just that, most of the time, we use a far less pejorative word to describe the same fundamental human impulse.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

thank you sir, for the well-expressed opinion. Do you see religion, or Mormonism particularly, playing a part in this attitude as the "theological election" would suggest?

It might factor in (Weber thought so) but I tend to think the arrows run the other way: everybody always creates a narrative where they, purely by accident you understand, just happen to be morally superior. Wealthy people have been historically excellent at convincing themselves that wealth comes to them as a sign of divine approval, but wide receivers think it's true when they score, too.

Wealth isn't anything special as far as producing stupider, nastier humans -- those are distributed evenly throughout the population. Wealth does have the disadvantage of feeding our natural tendencies to justify our privileges as earned rather than accidental, and wealth also comes with an enormous arsenal of self-justifying fictions (there are dozens of "Think Tanks" that do nothing but churn them out around the clock). And because people tend to associate with people like themselves, wealthy people (like anybody else) suffer from epistemic closure where the opinions and approval that circulate around them reinforce those tendencies.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

When the policies of the two parties diverge so dramatically concerning opportunity and equality, that partisanship is unavoidable. But it isn't causal, it's driven from objectively considering the practical effects of the parties' stances. The GOP has done everything it could for 30 years to drive up wealth inequality. Maybe a handful of them, in the beginning, actually thought this would raise all boats, but that's been revealed as fiction for a least half that time.

From comments you've made in the past I know you identify lack of opportunity as a critical problem. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't see -- clearly -- that on this issue you are backing the wrong horse. Even taking all the other stuff, the conservative social values, the fear of government, all that, as read, at the end of the day the Dems are the party that gives more people a shot at the American dream. I'm not saying your other allegiances might not outweigh that consideration, but the parties and their philosophies are intertwined with considerations of improving the material conditions of the least among us.

My point is that the ills of greed and lack of caring for your fellow man know no partisan boundaries. Does George Soros or all the super rich liberal folks do anything more for their fellow man than rich conservatives? I doubt it. Actually, from what I've read about Romney, he does a good bit of charity work and such, but that stuff (shockingly) never got meda play during the campaign.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

My point is that the ills of greed and lack of caring for your fellow man know no partisan boundaries. Does George Soros or all the super rich liberal folks do anything more for their fellow man than rich conservatives? I doubt it. Actually, from what I've read about Romney, he does a good bit of charity work and such, but that stuff (shockingly) never got meda play during the campaign.

I bet as private individuals it's a wash -- there's no reason to believe conservatism or liberalism drive private charity. But policy is where the real progress (or lack of it) is made, and on that conservatives are at best taking a holiday from responsibility.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

All people are "greedy." It's just that, most of the time, we use a far less pejorative word to describe the same fundamental human impulse.

Yeah, there's so little difference between the 2nd billion and having enough to eat and being able to see a doctor.

My bad.

 

[Rover]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

That's funny cause I knew exactly who he was and what my opinion of him was when he said that Corporations are people.

His 47% comment, showing utter disdain for the working poor in this country, as well as wanting to keep troops in Iraq are all part of his persona. As well as 5T in tax cuts for the rich. Again, Romney may be a nice guy to those who know him and good for him, but his policies were right out of 1982 and don't work for most people.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I bet as private individuals it's a wash -- there's no reason to believe conservatism or liberalism drive private charity. But policy is where the real progress (or lack of it) is made, and on that conservatives are at best taking a holiday from responsibility.

I doubt if someone is greedy in their personal life that they somehow are generous in how policy is made, although when making policy your not spending your own money, so it's probably easier to do than to be generous with one's own resources. Of course that's part of a much wider discussion of what is good and generous policy. Of course studies show that rich people give a lesser percentage of their wealth to charity than poor people do, even thuogh rich people can give a higher percentage much more easily than poor people do.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

I doubt if someone is greedy in their personal life that they somehow are generous in how policy is made

Nobody think they're being greedy. Paul Ryan has probably convinced himself he's a great humanitarian. The insidiousness of ideology is it can make a good person who personally helps a hundred people at the soup kitchen go home and then impersonally hurt a million more people through bad policy.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Nobody think they're being greedy. Paul Ryan has probably convinced himself he's a great humanitarian. The insidiousness of ideology is it can make a good person who personally helps a hundred people at the soup kitchen go home and then impersonally hurt a million more people through bad policy.

Which is quite murky, as helping or hurting people with good policy is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm guessing you and I would agree at times that a policy helps or hurts, but other times we'd have quite different perspectives on when a policy helps or hurts.

 

[Rover]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Is The Impotent Boner the worst Speaker in history or what? I don't know why he doesn't just retire. Its like that saying "I feel like I'm standing in a graveyard. All these people are below me but nobody's listening".

House Won’t Vote on Border Supplemental Today

By Steven Dennis and Emma DumainPosted at 1:38 p.m. July 31

0
Tweet



Updated 1:55 p.m. | House GOP leaders have ditched their plans to vote on a border supplemental today after failing to secure the votes to pass it.

“We don’t think we have the votes,” said Kay Granger, R-Texas, one of the architects of the bill. She said the whip count was “very close” with about 214 supporters, including Democrats.


“There are people who just don’t want to do anything,” she said. “They don’t want to spend the money.”

The $659 million bill intended to deal with the crisis of child migrants coming across the border would have been followed by a vote on separate legislation prohibiting President Barack Obama from granting deportation relief and work permits to any more illegal immigrants.

The House’s final vote series today will be on the transportation patch, according to the Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s office. It appears Congress will head off to recess without taking action on immigration.

Some conservatives however weren’t happy with the supplemental language itself, while others wanted a prohibition on deportation relief to be attached to the supplemental so that it couldn’t just be discarded by the Senate. And still others didn’t want to spend money.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Which is quite murky, as helping or hurting people with good policy is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm guessing you and I would agree at times that a policy helps or hurts, but other times we'd have quite different perspectives on when a policy helps or hurts.

it also is related to the time frame. is it helpful to give a hungry person food with no expectation of anything in return? in the short run, probably yes. Indefinitely? not so clear-cut. Eventually (absent unusual conditions) you'd hope that most people grow up to be interdependent. to consign a person to a permanent state of dependency doesn't seem to be very respectful of that person's humanity, does it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Which is quite murky, as helping or hurting people with good policy is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm guessing you and I would agree at times that a policy helps or hurts, but other times we'd have quite different perspectives on when a policy helps or hurts.

I agree with this when we are talking about the abstract aim of a policy. But take, for example, the states that deliberately turn down the medicare expansion. The long-term abstract benefit to the country we can and probably would disagree about. But the short-term, immediate impact is just a matter of data. Voting for the people who are doing that is hurting people -- way more people than even Mother Theresa can personally help.

It's especially galling because there is a way to both help the people short-term and voice the opinion that there must be a better long-term solution. Take the money, cover the people, and bring forward a real plan that accomplishes the same goals but eliminates whatever the abstract objection is. But instead, these governors are either cynically pumping their re-election numbers or sincerely but blindly adhering to ideology in the face of real pain.

 

[Kepler]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Is The Impotent Boner the worst Speaker in history or what?

Though not an expert in House history, I would be willing to bet he's not even in the bottom ten. Congress from around 1850-1920 was a cross between a crime syndicate and an Upper Class Twit of the Year contest. There are likely Speakers from that period who raped 10-year old pages by the score in the cloakroom while occasionally stopping to pass a law mandating amputating factory worker's hands if they sneezed on the job.

 

[Carter]

Re: A Discussion of US Immigration Policy

Voting for the people who are doing that is hurting people -- way more people than even Mother Theresa can personally help.

No offense, but isn't she dead?

 

[Priceless]

The $659 million bill intended to deal with the crisis of child migrants coming across the border would have been followed by a vote on separate legislation prohibiting President Barack Obama from granting deportation relief and work permits to any more illegal immigrants.

And yet Boner has said Obama has to act on his own on the issue...