Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gus Van Horn blog

Reblogged:Trump Rage and Psychological Projection

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I refused to cast a vote for President in 2016 and am no fan of Donald Trump. That said, I don't generally give him much more thought than any other President I can remember. This apparently makes me a rare bird, if accounts of widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome -- or the infatuation with the Orange Man some acquaintances of mine seem to have -- are any indication.

Since so many of his policies involve government control of the economy, I regarded him as little better than a Democrat on that score before the election, and only the far-left lurch of that party since then has caused me to begin to consider holding my nose and casting a vote for him in 2020. I do not want to starve in the dark, and although Trump is no capitalist, his reelection may afford more time to fight for freedom than any of the likely alternatives.

Enter Heather Mac Donald, and her timely exploration of a topic that seems never to be far from the mind of the typical Trump-obsessed leftist: his alleged racism. Mac Donald makes a succinct case in the Wall Street Journal that, contrary to Respectable Blue State Opinion (aka, Almost All You Ever Hear on the News), Trump is not the one dividing the country by race. (Her points stand even allowing for him stooping to take advantage of the acrimonious climate others have created.)

Here is what she has to say after correctly naming academia as the source of so many of the more fashionable ideas on the left:

DT.jpg
Image by Gage Skidmore, via Wikipedia, license.
Ms. Warren recently provided an unwitting summary of academic identity politics. Mr. Trump's "central message" to the American people, she declared, is: "If there's anything wrong in your life, blame them -- and 'them' means people who aren't the same color as you." She has in mind a white "you," but change the race and you encapsulate the reigning assumption on college campuses -- that white people are the source of nonwhite people's problems, and any behavioral or cultural explanations for economic disparities are taboo.

The academy's reflexive labeling of nonconforming views as "hate speech" has also infiltrated popular rhetoric against Mr. Trump. The president's views on border control and national sovereignty are at odds with the apparent belief among Democratic elites that people living outside the country are entitled to enter at will and without consequences for illegal entry. To the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from "hate." Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy.
I disagree with Trump's immigration policies (among many other things), but I can see them coming from a place other than "hate." Furthermore, since I also disagree with Democrats on aspects of this issue, I do not appreciate their obvious hatred for debate, to say the least.

Mac Donald is on the money here, and it is high time that someone named the real apostles of racial identity politics -- also known in better days as racism. And it is interesting to ask whether psychological projection might at least partially account for the constant accusations that Trump is a racist.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it is ( believe) Mr Van Horn, is that the American Left has 'weaponized' the famed benevolence which Americans conduct themselves, utilizing the natural, national good will against itself, to become a duty to all. Then we O'ists know that benevolence becomes strained and eventually impossible under altruism or any form of "duty". 

"Racist, white nationalist"--are a cynical ploy by some, and a falsehood, whether applied to the large majority of Trump supporters - or for he, himself. Clearly, *anyone* who is pro-America is marvellous in Trump's vision. And I add that one doesn't have to love the man to know what he's after, or, like me, who agree that the USA has been too much counted upon by the international community and should revisit and reset its (often altruist) obligations to others.

I ask whether the USA can absorb all the people who wish to enter. No one knows how many. Don't only look south to Latin America. There are many people to your East who also want to better themselves, who despite the natural border of the Ocean would begin arriving by ship as soon as they knew that restrictions were lifted and all were invited. (I'm talking of Africa with its 1 billion). They too have the right of entry, surely? At some stage, after a few years, of course your government would have to call it quits and return to a sane immigration policy. Why leave it until then? And should we Africans not reserve our talents, minds and energy for creating better countries for ourselves?

 I always enjoy reading your blog, thanks.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And I add that one doesn't have to love the man to know what he's after

More people recognize over time that he stands for nothing. He is the paragon secondhander.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I ask whether the USA can absorb all the people who wish to enter. No one knows how many.

Why would you even ask this? What could possibly set a limit? Usually when people ask if more people can be taken in, they are referring to what welfare programs can handle. You are wondering how many people can enter in the first place, even if 100% of the people are ideal citizens.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And should we Africans not reserve our talents, minds and energy for creating better countries for ourselves?

Not if the people don't want to live there. That's why people immigrate - for some reason they don't want to live in their former country anymore. Why are you speaking as if African countries are being told to send their people away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

More people recognize over time that he stands for nothing. He is the paragon secondhander.

Why would you even ask this? What could possibly set a limit? Usually when people ask if more people can be taken in, they are referring to what welfare programs can handle. You are wondering how many people can enter in the first place, even if 100% of the people are ideal citizens.

Not if the people don't want to live there. That's why people immigrate - for some reason they don't want to live in their former country anymore. Why are you speaking as if African countries are being told to send their people away?

There is the intrinsicist myth that all immigrants should be admitted because they are all deserving of better - simply because they seek better. Forgetful of the adage that there will always be "makers, fakers and takers" in any group of humans. Does anyone stop to think that the migrants' own countries are in bad shape mainly because of the thinking and values of most of their people--not of their (elected, sometimes) autocratic leaders?

Of course - if there is a better option available, one can't blame people for preferring a civilised and rich nation, but there is a difference between acknowledging and sympathizing with other peoples' needs - and feeling duty-bound - or forced - to look after them. Why are you speaking as if this would have a minor impact, involving little sacrifice? First year, 50,000 immigrants arrive on your shores and in your ports, next, 100K, ever escalating until the boat people are too many for the temporary refugee camps they will need to be placed in. At great cost to your taxpayers, a million-plus, and increasing per annum, people will have to be cared for until they hopefully assimilate into society. And those amount to 0.1 % of Africans. You don't think that even the biggest open border proponents will begin having second thoughts when there is no end in sight? Ha! 

There is always a question to be asked of noble feelings and altruistic gestures: Why?

Next - at whose cost?

Because it makes "me" feel good? Fine, but who will prevent "me" to adopt, stand surety for and take care of one person, or a family of migrants? Except this hardly happens, even by the leftist and rich celebrities who loudly virtue-signal their altruism. Everyone 'likes' the idea of welcoming immigrants - in the abstract - but let other people/the state make the effort, pay costs and carry the consequences.

Altruism is insinuated into a society with another intrinsic myth of "equality" which Leftist-Socialists have been perpetrating, that the imbalance of wealth between individuals - and nations - was 'a given', just luck of the draw, etc. - and therefore an "imbalance" that has to rectified until desired "equality" is achieved. This naturally demands sacrifice or self-sacrifice of the 'haves'-- until comes the stage, that nearly everyone is a 'have not'. Then nobody will be able to care for anyone who needs help and is struggling to survive. A continuing mass migration from poorer to richer nations must have that equalizing effect, and the socialists will finally and permanently have won. 

I've no idea why I'm explaining equality, altruism and their necessary consequence, Socialism here. Could it be that they are not just theoretical, and I've lived in enough African countries to know that these are not just fanciful ideas (e.g. of Rand's), they turn real, with devastating effects upon people? And on the same people who originally chose their ideological route and who will need to be rescued by charitable westerners, arriving there as immigrants one day. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

There is the intrinsicist myth that all immigrants should be admitted because they are all deserving of better - simply because they seek better.

Suppose you live in Nevada and get laid off. Employment opportunities are sparse. You search for a job in California. You get hired. You rent a room and go. You need not obtain any extra permission from the government or anyone. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically deserving of anything special. It need only be that you deserve or merit moving to California because you have enacted the relevant causes of moving to California. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically a great all around person. Nor need it be that anyone has a positive obligation to support your move. You may move to California and no one ought to forcibly prevent you because you need only be regarded as having basic negative rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

More people recognize over time that he stands for nothing. He is the paragon secondhander.

 

No. I don't attempt to defend your president to have seen that - essentially - he is telling his countrymen and to other countries that Americans and America are best when they are independent - and acting in their self-interests. And he's greatly encouraging other nations, allies and enemies, to do the same, you've noticed quite a few times. He recognizes the identical problems of the USA's sacrificial role in the world. Is that so terrible? Some of us outside are pleased to see a president who unapologetically can do this. But most here are Leftists of precisely the American kind (not by coincidence) and are as hard to reason with.

The noise he makes and his brash outbursts might incline you to think he is a second-hander, but no. He has an objective to accomplish. And as staunchly as his ferocious opposition allows him, is sticking to that. But he is damned if he does, damned when he doesn't. Making oneself highly unpopular for trying to follow through one's convictions and commitments, is the opposite of second-handedness. But that's politics, not very nice, but he can't survive by hiding his light under a bushel, even less when most of the media is blatantly on a mission to take him down, and never has a good word to report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Suppose you live in Nevada and get laid off. Employment opportunities are sparse. You search for a job in California. You get hired. You rent a room and go. You need not obtain any extra permission from the government or anyone. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically deserving of anything special. It need only be that you deserve or merit moving to California because you have enacted the relevant causes of moving to California. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically a great all around person. Nor need it be that anyone has a positive obligation to support your move. You may move to California and no one ought to forcibly prevent you because you need only be regarded as having basic negative rights.

Nice. And I think of the individual also. A few I know there and particularly some close friends who emigrated to the US, were put through official hoops for some years first, had to learn new careers here, and then had to themselves find guarantees of employment and never once entertained the idea that they would need to be looked after, or (intrinsically) deserved to be. They are of course doing well today (in California). The freedom of movement within a nation that you indicated, is an objective good and positive right. To sustain that freedom, necessitates a nation having boundaries; objective borders which are respected by outside freedom-seekers. One applies for entry much as one applies for a job. And yes, one does not need be "intrinsically a great all around person", and is not the business of immigration officials to discover (beyond the obvious checks). But the value one shows by the act of making that application and waiting, rather than feeling entitled to entrance, or entering illegally, then to fall back on social welfare - is all the difference.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

There is the intrinsicist myth that all immigrants should be admitted because they are all deserving of better - simply because they seek better.

Please read more carefully. I wasn't even engaging in the part of the argument about who should be let in. I said assuming that they would be ideal citizens, why would there be a limit of how many people could be let in? That is, why should there be a quota? You were asking about the capacity for newcomers, not asking which immigrants should be let in.

If you meant the economic impact in relation to welfare programs or what the government provides to refugees, that's fair. The problem is your wording doesn't convey that very well. That's not a question of how many additional people a country can take on, it's a question of how resources can be distributed given how the country operates already with refugees. You were also talking about immigrants in general, not refugees specifically.

Maybe you didn't realize it, but immigrants in the US don't get anything additional by virtue of being from a poor country. Refugees get something by virtue of being from a war-torn country. It sounds like you've conflated immigrants and refugees.
 

EDIT: I agree though that what Trump says about immigration doesn't have to be racism. I think it shows he is ignorant about immigration, or knows how to play up fears in others, but I don't think race has to do with his views. I'm claiming his statements come from a place of second handedness (because of the political advantage he pulls from them) rather than hate.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that no one assumes I think immigrants-bad. Immigration is a "good", that's without doubt, for immigrants, mostly, and for the host nation. But this concerns a false dichotomy, and is not an open and shut case, which should (at least) not be superficially considered and judged by thinkers. Between the poles of all-inclusivism and all-exclusivism, I am suggesting what only seems a compromise, that migrants/economic migrants/refugees should be considered and treated within practical limits, as individuals, case by case, rather than free admission through "open borders" to great numbers. That needn't and shouldn't be a slow, bureaucratic process (like my friends experienced relocating to the USA), because in this dispensation immigration officials will not be running more than the simplest background checks. Importantly, not trying to socially-engineer who gets in, not presciently looking for the 'perfect' new citizens who could 'offer' some 'service' to the country.

Basically, I think it is the sovereignty of a nation which protects the sovereign individual and his freedom. So access by an immigrant who is drawn to the nation for exactly this image of freedom, who knows there is value in it, that "it is better" even not entirely consciously, must realize that it requires ~some~ effort and patience on his part, and ~some~ official review on the part of the nation he aspires to. He more clearly than most should recognize that the non-freedom he has left behind is not what he ever wants here in this place. And opening borders indiscriminately could, in time, defeat his goals.

One cannot, without mystical insight, sort out the decent person who wishes to succeed by his efforts from the criminal predators, or those who intend to depend on the state, but slowing down wide-open admission of these great numbers will naturally tend to reduce the latter categories, I think. Apart from criminality, an ingress of such numbers could probably cause social friction, like it or not. But the cure for social tensions, such as collectivist/tribal prejudice, is not 'forced kindness' which believers in emotional-primacy seem to believe.

A reminder that benevolence and kindness have no relation to altruism. Concerned sympathy - by an individual - as in my country and many other much more liberal Western countries, represent, to many I hear from, a moral duty - for all, collectively - to give/share with all i.e. the masses of unknown people. The advocacy that those who "have more" should reduce their circumstances to those who have less, is the surefire path to entitled demands, envy, guilt, and eventual resentment: the loss of benevolence. When expanded to public policy, we get socialism. What is inimical to simple, individual, human kindness for others, is the entrenched moral duty by all, to all 'others', and being of a rawer state, I think it is more palpable around me here than to my American cousins.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 12:25 AM, Eiuol said:

Please read more carefully. I wasn't even engaging in the part of the argument about who should be let in. I said assuming that they would be ideal citizens, why would there be a limit of how many people could be let in? That is, why should there be a quota? You were asking about the capacity for newcomers, not asking which immigrants should be let in.

 

One cannot assume "ideal" immigrants, no more than assuming everyone presently is an "ideal" citizen. With liberty, everyone is free to be less than ideal, "free to fail" so to speak. Just as for any proposed Utopian ideal, I am also against a quota system (in all areas). If you considered my not improbable future of a limitlessly increasing influx of migrants, as people from the many poorer countries move into wealthier ones without access control, there would have to initially exist a government program to house, feed, clothe, etc. - often to educate them in the main languages - before they could be integrated into wider society. That public service and those public institutions must surely become overwhelmed and underfunded. Or do you suggest letting them move freely as soon as they disembark? But beginning now, with a minimal process of individual evaluation, all potential immigrants would know in advance they can't merely arrive and be automatically and immediately made at home.

Staying behind to help free their own countries, might occur to most.  For war-refugees, as separate from "economic" migrants I'd think that an international, humanitarian effort, aimed at re-building their homeland should be the prime concern for free nations. Next in line, there'd be some accommodation of refugees. The fall-out from wars on civilians is terrible, but not quite the same, they are emergencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One cannot assume "ideal" immigrants, no more than assuming everyone presently is an "ideal" citizen.

But if it were the case, or even simply someone who meets all your standards of immigration, you shouldn't be concerned if the country could take on more people or not. 


(I already bracketed off the discussion about government programs in the modern-day political reality. You know as well as I do there don't have to be government programs. Besides, immigrants from poor countries do just fine without help.)
 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

all potential immigrants would know in advance they can't merely arrive and be automatically and immediately made at home.

The vast majority already understand this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 10:05 PM, Eiuol said:

But if it were the case, or even simply someone who meets all your standards of immigration, you shouldn't be concerned if the country could take on more people or not. 


(I already bracketed off the discussion about government programs in the modern-day political reality. You know as well as I do there don't have to be government programs. Besides, immigrants from poor countries do just fine without help.)
 

The vast majority already understand this. 

 

I know, again this is not a direct reply to your post. Since what is worth looking to find is a general ~principle~ on immigration (and is not easy). Many aspects and contexts need to be balanced and examined. To be clear, my world-wide locations of intimate interest and concern have been not only the USA, but also the UK, Israel and here, the RSA. I've tried to follow roughly all their specific and sometimes identical problems, and think they have pressing worries with borders and immigration and demographics and ideologies in common, in varying degrees and periods. Nationhood features in this, as you must have noticed. "Demographics", are pronounced, too. Xenophobia features as well. Consideration should perhaps go to present citizens, too. One angle is when a country is vulnerable to change from 'without', large numbers who in aggregate would be inimical to its nature and perhaps, existence, and if it has not a very large population, it has to be careful about immigrants.

That of course relates mainly to Israel, which would be committing existential suicide if it allowed open borders and removed its border fences, walls, check-points, etc.. (It does also, most don't know,  attract many applicants from West Bank Palestinians wanting to become Israeli, and do, but who first have to be individually checked).

Contradictorily, I don't think a larger nation has the right to monitor the 'usefulness' - and ideology - of its immigrants. First come, first served, seems a good policy for larger countries. Except then, when tens of thousands are regularly entering through non borders without being interviewed and vetted, thereby encouraging more to arrive, you can gradually get a shift in demographics which advantages a specific political ideology and radically change the nation's identity. As best i can conclude, this means the numbers *have* to be moderated over a reasonable time frame, like a sort of "checks and balance". Especially there in America, you must admit that a large influx of new Hispanic citizens (and possibly, voting illegals) who will traditionally vote Left, is what some of the Democrats are cynically chasing after - and considering how finely balanced is your bi-partisan electorate - this slight edge *could* shift the country to Socialism. It's not as though similarly large numbers of (likely/potential) Conservatives were also looking to immigrate in the US, is it? Or, into an average European country, it is not as if there were as many Christians arriving as were Muslims. 

The name of the game today is that ugly, "demographics". Others' collectivism, en masse, is a threat. A nation and people has to be supremely confident of its principles, rights, laws and policies to not be prone to that.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One angle is when a country is vulnerable to change from 'without', large numbers who in aggregate would be inimical to its nature and perhaps, existence, and if it has not a very large population, it has to be careful about immigrants

I don't think there is evidence that immigrants change the political terrain much. For the most part, they leave the old country because America is far superior. They choose to immigrate because of what is already here. If an immigrant-turned-citizen votes, they vote in the same manner as anyone else in the country. They don't import political beliefs, they don't even need to if they wanted to. It is silly to think that they pose any extra ideological threat than any random voting block in the US. It's the people who are already citizens that change the political terrain.

It's strange to me that you put in no effort to talk about anything positive about immigration. You make it sound like the ideal amount of immigration is 0 (or as little as possible). That's a similar reason why Trump comes across as racist to some people. You can talk about general concerns of how a country changes, while also talking about the positive value of immigration and how it should be encouraged. If you leave out anything positive, the whole thing sounds negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think there is evidence that immigrants change the political terrain much. For the most part, they leave the old country because America is far superior. They choose to immigrate because of what is already here. If an immigrant-turned-citizen votes, they vote in the same manner as anyone else in the country. They don't import political beliefs, they don't even need to if they wanted to. It is silly to think that they pose any extra ideological threat than any random voting block in the US. It's the people who are already citizens that change the political terrain.

It's strange to me that you put in no effort to talk about anything positive about immigration. You make it sound like the ideal amount of immigration is 0 (or as little as possible). That's a similar reason why Trump comes across as racist to some people. You can talk about general concerns of how a country changes, while also talking about the positive value of immigration and how it should be encouraged. If you leave out anything positive, the whole thing sounds negative.

Immigration per se, isn't the point. I hardly need to keep repeating the refrain "immigration good". I said as much and take it as self-evident.

Is "open" immigration an objective "good"? Here's the question I address. 

Insofar as an immigrant perceives his self-interest and pursuit of happiness in a much free-er country, his is a good decision and he is a value for the country.  

Put it this way, when an individual crosses "a line" from one country into another he is, at least, implicitly conscious of the great difference between what he can gain on the other side and what he's leaving behind. He ~should~ be aware that the other side represents liberties, rights and laws which are what made the country a good, wealthy and free one. Unlike where he came from. This conscious person would be the last to want to recreate here the conditions he escaped. 

But old habits die hard, for many. If they came from say a socialist or shariah-law country, many, not all, will and observably, do, lean towards supporting similar ideologies in a new place, out of custom, bonding together with others of their same origins, perhaps . That's a visible fact of life. An example is England. Regions of Paris and France. 

Is that "Racist" to point out? why? Particularly since anyone of any race can be members of those or any groups. As I said, it is ~others'~ collectivism/tribalism which poses an illiberal danger to the individualism and freedom one upholds. For some people, esp. the left, to finger one's concern for that anti-individualism on one's own 'racism', seems to me disingenuous. (i.e. "Racialism": looking for racist motives in all affairs).

And to repeat, it is not govt. business to be sniffing out, and notably regulating an immigrant's random ideology;  but preserving the borders provides some check on a mass entry of all people.

Then illegal migration. If his first act is to break the laws, by bypassing any immigration process, I'd think this person to be less likely to observe the laws and rights of citizens, in future. Multiply him by tens of thousands, all who perceive the benefits of a rich nation - but are not prepared to 'stand in line', not to exchange a small value for a far greater one, and some who perhaps demand they are 'owed' by intrinsic right the benefits on the other side - and the gradual knock-on effects on the society will be great.

Like the Trader principle, it is a minor output of value: the effort and time to apply to immigrate officially, deriving a large gain, not a sacrifice. If many are not prepared to make such payment, some could have something to hide (like a criminal record) but for all, by being illegals before they start their sojourn in a country it doesn't bode well for their future actions. 

Unintended, certainly, and by no means fool-proof, but every nation's immigration process represents at least some test of character and value.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But old habits die hard, for many. If they came from say a socialist or shariah-law country, many, not all, will and observably, do, lean towards supporting similar ideologies in a new place, out of custom, bonding together with others of their same origins, perhaps . That's a visible fact of life. An example is England. Regions of Paris and France. 

Not really. If you actually look at the data, immigrants have lower voter turnout than natives. And they don't support ideologies and parties widely different from natives. 

There's a difference between looking at the scientific literature on the subject and looking at YouTube videos of a bunch of people walking around with funny clothes and speaking a weird language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But old habits die hard, for many. If they came from say a socialist or shariah-law country, many, not all, will and observably, do, lean towards supporting similar ideologies in a new place, out of custom, bonding together with others of their same origins, perhaps .

Not really, why do you think they leave the home country in the first place? Because there is something about the home country that they don't want to be around. People prefer the new political opportunity that they don't have in their home country. In other words, moving is the change of habit, so it's not that they support a similar ideology to the old country (as if there is only one political ideology in any given country, as if the people who choose to leave somehow enjoyed the political system, as if people who leave the country prefer not to adapt). So yeah, this isn't just what people should do, it's what most people do as far as I've ever seen and ever had the evidence for. At least in the US.

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Is that "Racist" to point out? why? Particularly since anyone of any race can be members of those or any groups.

Kind of, kind of not. Saying things that are ignorant doesn't make anyone look good, and racism can't necessarily be ruled out as a cause of that ignorance (usually there isn't enough evidence).

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Then illegal migration. If his first act is to break the laws, by bypassing any immigration process, I'd think this person to be less likely to observe the laws and rights of citizens, in future.

Should we be suspicious of people who held gold when it was illegal?

Long ago I smoked a marijuana cigarette to see what all the fuss was about.  Does this make me likely to violate rights?

The reason we have so many people entering the country illegally is that we have arbitrary, unjust laws limiting how many people can enter from what country.  Racism played a role in motivating such laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

why do you think they leave the home country in the first place?

The stats indicate that most leave to join family members. No doubt the motivations are complicated. But we should factor in the fact that a large percentage are primarily driven by romantic and familial attachments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Not really, why do you think they leave the home country in the first place? Because there is something about the home country that they don't want to be around. People prefer the new.. .

 

What I went into also. I believe that most Hispanics have voted Democrat. Do I have that wrong? If so, what does this indicate about their ideologies and aspirations? Have they truly left it all behind?

The successful "melting pot" of the world, the USA, and you bring up "racism" there?! 

Race consideration is not rational for Objectivists, and , when everyone there is long accustomed to the many races co-existing amicably (in the main) a non-concern for the great majority of Americans. That's even despite the efforts of the Left to stir up racial division.

NO, what should be a rational concern is the influx of a 100,000 - and growing, yearly - number of unknown, unrecorded, undocumented, anonymous people, which would doubtless follow the policy decision to leave open the borders. 

Do Americans have any obligation to those who cannot be bothered to officially apply for residency ? Do they have inherent rights of admission - or mere "claims"? 

When does it stop? One doesn't need to be omniscient to predict that after a while, at *some* stage, all Americans will come to realise the failure of this grand experiment and that controlled borders will need to be re-implemented. After Central and South Americans, we have plenty more here who'd jump at the chance to walk in. 

One cannot/should not expect the complicity of many existing Americans who'd be most affected: they who would fear a (very likely) increase in crime and experience loss of income to lower-waged, informal workers. Etc.etc. This causes social -not racial - tensions. Whether one considers their fears groundless, or they themselves of little importance and who need "to just put up with it", no one can expect a forced self-sacrifice of present civilians - in favour of large numbers of undocumented migrants. 

Rand advised to ask of self-sacrifice, "why"? 

I haven't heard a persuasive explanation for open borders from O'ist intellectuals. None have touched upon altruism, as best I can see - but of racism and collectivism, plenty. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 7:35 PM, 2046 said:

Not really. If you actually look at the data, immigrants have lower voter turnout than natives. And they don't support ideologies and parties widely different from natives. 

There's a difference between looking at the scientific literature on the subject and looking at YouTube videos of a bunch of people walking around with funny clothes and speaking a weird language.

Ha. You'll have to credit me with a little more research and a lot more personal experience than that. If this is about England and the EU, I've gained a pretty good idea of trends there, and what part is played by Muslims (sometimes in cahoots with Socialists chasing power). As usual, it is not quite as terrible as some alarmists make out, but still sobering for the future. I'll add that I know and have known many Muslims, who are often fine people, individually. However, the religion itself is problematic. There's little doubt that half - to most, Muslims fervently believe that Sharia will be good - for all of us. WE only need to wake up. And they have the "demographics", great "numbers", again - on their side. And as far as they're concerned, the outcome is inevitable. They are mostly, but for the radicals, extremely patient. After all, it's 'fated' that everywhere will be Islamic one day, even the distant future - time too is on their side.

The degree of "submission" required of each Muslim is beyond most westerners' experience of religions. Some are trying to reform it, especially courageous Muslim women. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The successful "melting pot" of the world, the USA, and you bring up "racism" there?! 

Don't know what you're trying to say. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Have they truly left it all behind?

Yes, Americans are the ones persuading them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Don't know what you're trying to say. 

Yes, Americans are the ones persuading them. 

I am saying you don't have a race problem, you have a migrant problem.

So those people who arrived looking primarily for individual freedoms (not to mention, capitalism) unknown in their fairly/very socialist countries - have so easily been persuaded otherwise by other Americans? Nobody surely is such a big pushover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

unknown in their fairly/very socialist countries

What? Do you think they're that stupid? Did you know most South American and Latin American countries aren't socialist? You know that there are far more Americans who are left-leaning than any immigrants? Basically, the idea they are voting for what they are "used to" is stupid, because they literally left what they are used to, and are in a very new political environment. If Hispanic immigrants vote Democrat more often, it's for the same kind of reason as any person who votes Democrat. I don't need to use any additional reason to explain why they vote Democrat more often as a demographic. You insist that the reason is because the new country is more like their home country is based on absolutely nothing (you haven't even pointed to any socialist countries!) The bigger problem is that these "socialist countries" don't exist.

Not to mention a whole lot of Hispanic Americans aren't even immigrants, so analyzing that demographic doesn't have much to do with the original country of their parents or grandparents.

7 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

that most leave to join family members

Those stats say nothing about the reasons people immigrate. It explains how they got into the country. Of course, there are people who move because of their personal connections - but probably because they agree that America is a better place. Either way, it still boils down to preferring something about the new country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Either way, it still boils down to preferring something about the new country.

Sure, but that doesn't help your position that they prefer our political system. They prefer being with their family. And I'm sure a lot of them prefer our superior welfare system, just like many non-immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not my position. It's that they don't want to be in the home country anymore. They aren't trying to make the new country like the old country. People even prefer the new political opportunity (if politics is a thing they care about at all - and if they don't even care a little bit they wouldn't be voting anyway). The stupid thing about "old habits die hard" is that it wasn't in reference to any socialist countries, doesn't acknowledge that the people who immigrate are already a minority so they don't have a vested interest in maintaining socialism if that is the case, and seems to imagine that they bring in political ideology just as they bring in different foods. 

If someone immigrates, either the common political values of that old country aren't their views, or they don't care about politics. It would be like saying the average person from China or Vietnam who immigrates to the US is going to have a habit to look for things leaning towards communism. WhyNot seems to imagine the US as a homogenous political culture such that socialism and any vaguely left-leaning policy is mainly driven by immigrants from foreign countries. Believe it or not, political changes in the are driven by citizens, not immigrants.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...