This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Personally I always thought Texas and other border states were just playing national politics with the border crisis. Creating a crisis as an issue to run for re-election on.
https://www.axios.com/2022/10/07/new-york-adams-emergency-migrant-buses
NYC has received 17k migrants since April. That seems tiny compared to what Texas has dealt with.
Adams said the city is receiving on average 5-6 buses a day. I will assume 40 people per bus or about 240 a day. That’s about 75k a year and he says it will cost the city a billion a year.
Now 75k a year of migrants is probably NYC fair share of migrants for how many are coming. NYC population around 9 million or 1/35 of the US.
He says it’s not an issue they asked for, but they did declare themselves a sanctuary city.
Maybe Adams is actually a Republican. Because his complaining is exactly what Republicans would want from busing them for political reasons. Conversely maybe Texas GOP complaining about migrants was not just politics but a real issue they were having trouble dealing with. I assumed it was politics.
I think this also shows some weaknesses with the blue city state capacity. The basic agreement before was we have some globally competitive people we can tax a lot to fund our local poor plus civil servants. Blue cities aren’t that good at building more housing and infrastructure anymore. It’s about $20k a year for them per migrant. Texas and the south can just give them a mortgage for $20k to buy a used a trailer and use their land which can house multiple people though jobs might be a problem theirs only so many meat processing plant and ranch hands you need.
Honestly NYC should just ship them to Chicago and write a $20k a head check. There’s plenty of abandoned property on the southside that needs people (though has violence issues but better than where they came from).
If Adams was going to be a good Democrat he should just pay the tab and tell Abbot he will take his proportional share.’
Texas is 100% playing politics with the border. Well, maybe 90%; we've got to leave some room for Florida, which is apparently so overwhelmed that they have to use Texan migrants for their publicity stunts.
First, what's the cost of living in rural Texas or California? How about NYC? We already have a method for evaluating how much someone is willing to live in a particular location. It's curious that Republican lawmakers have chosen this particular cause to intervene in the market. There is a symmetrical argument for job markets; the demand for cheap agricultural labor in NYC does not compare to that in a commensurate area of west Texas or SoCal. Martha's Vineyard was a particularly extreme case--dumping migrants somewhere with no jobs and a high opportunity cost suggests that efficiency is a low priority indeed.
Second,
How many illegal migrants do you think we get in a year? Because that rate suggests 75K * 35 = 2.6M/yr. Actually, I'm seeing a NYC population more like 1/39th of the US, which would suggest a total intake of 2.9M/yr. Given that the total illegal population has been stable or declining since 2007, at something like 10-12M, I find this rather unlikely. Source 1, source 2.
I don't have estimates for how many illegal immigrants are already in NYC, but Table 3 from source 2 estimates 520-630K in New York state. the city has 8.38M of the state's 19.5M people. Using the low end, since cost of living and agricultural labor likely pull migrants away from NYC, a rough estimate suggests 220K illegal immigrants already in NYC. That's somewhere between 1/44 and 1/36 of the total illegal population.
If the total illegal population is mostly stable, and NYC already has, to a first approximation, its "fair share" of that population...what's the justification for shipping them more migrants?
I'd argue that the fair share is zero, because the population shouldn't exist, because it's illegal. Those constituencies undermining the rule of law in a way that increases the population should shoulder 100% of the burden, because they are responsible for all of it. I'd say that states and cities that declare themselves sanctuary locations should receive all of the illegal immigrant population.
More options
Context Copy link
They aren't being "shipped." They're not auto parts.
More options
Context Copy link
Why wouldn't being a sanctuary city increase what counts as their fair share? If they have policies intended to be more friendly to illegal immigrants than average, shouldn't they also have to take more illegal immigrants than average?
More options
Context Copy link
The justification is that they support the migrants and the people shipping them away don't. There's no problem with that arrangement; if you are pro-migrant, congratulations, you should welcome the chance to live up to your principles and help the unfortunate.
More options
Context Copy link
Rubbing their noses in NIMBY hypocrisy is quite sufficient.
Imagine an alternate world where Democrats found some clever way to publish the names of the daughters of rich politicians who had abortions. Imagine the Republicans freaking out and sputtering bullshit protests when they are obviously just upset that their constituents are finding out how many of their mistresses are getting abortions. Do you think you would be sympathetic to their plight? Can you muster up a comparable defense of Hershel Walker's abortion scandal?
Uh, yeah, I'd actually be upset about that doxxing.
That's not a very good comparison, though. The original argument was that sanctuary cities didn't have their "fair share" of illegal migrants. It'd be like Democrats finding newly pregnant Republicans, counseling them to get abortions, bussing them to abortion clinics, and then crowing about how high the Republican abortion rate is. I think you'd call that political theater and feel a sense of distaste.
Was it? I think the argument I've heard is more "You want them? You take them." And they clearly treat getting relatively small numbers as a catastrophe that they have little capacity to handle, so I find the "already getting their 'fair share'" stats to be deeply suspicious.
I was referring to slider's
If they're already doing that, his argument gets a lot weaker.
Now, I agree that it's not a knock-down defense. It's still possible that NYC is shirking, that voters would demand a border wall if they weren't insulated from the immigrants. But it's not obvious. There are 5-600K illegal immigrants in New York state--4-6% of the illegal population. The state has about 6% of the total US population. As others pointed out, their laws are illegal-friendly, the enforcement is limited, NYC is a "sanctuary." It's not like residents are actually pushing illegals out. I'd assume that market forces and climate should make NYC less appealing than rural Texas and California, and yet it's picked up quite a few anyway.
So New York probably isn't far off from its proportional share, it's not being obviously exclusive, and it clearly has handled previous migrants well enough that residents aren't upset. Republicans want to claim that NYC is being hypocritical for complaining about a stress that only appeared once Abbott got involved.
But that's the point. Why is it a stress? Your whole argument hinges on NY being able to easily absorb the amounts they're receiving. If that's not the case (and it clearly isn't), then there's something different about the cohort of folks illegally crossing the southern border and making an asylum claim compared to the general block of people who are not legal residents of the US.
Put it this way: Is NY getting an amount of the people who crossed last month that is proportional to how much they represent support of the border crisis / open border situation? That 4-6% of the population might be a serious under-proportion if NY Senators and Congresscritters represent 15-20% of the defacto national support for the present shitshow. Similarly, if NY illegal immigrants are mostly people who overstayed visas, or long-time illegal residents who have been in the US for 10 years and have significantly acclimated, that might be trivially easier to deal with than a comparable number of Venezuelan refugees who just finished a 4,000 mile death trek.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Shrug. I don't think it's any worse a parallel than trying to deflect to someone's abortion scandal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
These methodology behind these numbers is bad and a better methodology based on inflows, outflows, and demographic data suggests the illegal population is twice as large.
We have more direct data on new arrivals anyway. Ignoring people who aren't caught, border patrol has stopped about 1.8M illegal entrants this year so far. It seems Biden is now expelling about 40%. 1.8M*0.4/35 = 20.5K annual flow, not too far off.
22M? Big if true. Would that apply to the CBP estimates of NYC's current population, too?
I don't think your math checks out on the annual flow, though. It would be 1.8M * (1-0.4), assuming that everyone not in that 40% is just released into the country, and I'd divide by 39 instead of 35. Where'd you get the 40% number? Closest I could find was ~1M of the 2.2M encounters getting expelled under Title 42, but some of the remainder is also detained or turned back at the border. And of course neither number counts those who dodge the CBP entirely.
Yeah it should have been 60% and I forgot to include the source for the encounter and release numbers.:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The report in source 2 of gp actually addresses this...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To make it clear for them that you don't want to deal with shit policies they're supporting ?
More options
Context Copy link
Most illegal immigrants already live in a couple of metro areas, generally in blue states or blue cities in red states. The issue is not really about the distribution of the notional burden of illegal immigration; it is a fundamental dispute whether or not illegal immigration/asylum seeking is even a big deal.
So why are they complaining about receiving a few tens of thousands more?
More options
Context Copy link
Then perhaps proponents should be honest about it rather than using a pretense of correcting unfairness.
It's okay for Republicans to say "we don't want these immigrants, so we are making them your problem." Democrats are entitled to object to this (manufactured) burden. If that's the case, Republicans shouldn't get to act as if their maneuver highlights hypocrisy.
Manufactured by?
Why not?
I think I made it pretty clear, above, that New York isn't obviously shirking. If they're already supporting their "fair share," then objecting to additional busses is not hypocritical.
You're welcome to disagree. Please try to make an actual argument instead, though.
The responsibility they're shirking is law and order. The people through their elected representatives choose to not address border security. Their fair share of the problem should be proportional to their lack of of cooperation on stemming the invasion.
More options
Context Copy link
If I have a roommate and I bring a new dog in despite my dog-hater roommate’s protests, then complain about how my roommate has been starting to shaft dog food costs on me, is that hypocrisy or not? Would my roommate getting me to walk the dog more than 50% of the time be a manufactured burden?
What exactly is a fair share of responsibility on something between two parties when one party clearly didn’t want that something and had that something imposed on them?
I don’t even have a dog (ha ha) in this fight, I live in another country and don’t really have strong opinions on immigration one way or the other, and immigration where I live generally seems to be positive.
But it doesn’t seem like the problem is either manufactured, or that it doesn’t highlight some sort of hypocrisy.Let me rephrase: It doesn't seem like the problem is entirely artificial and Republicans just decided to fuck with New York just to dunk on them, and it isn’t obvious that there isn’t some sort of hypocrisy in asking for other states to process massive amounts of prospective immigrants on short notice (as “illegals” and asylum seekers do) while when the same thing happens in their own borders they shit themselves, irrespective of whether they are taking in a “fair share” of immigrants.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Blue cities in red states are still a problem for the red states. Herding them into these locations is a step in the right direction, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
First I’m picking up elsewhere that the illegals in NYC are largely people who did not leave when their visa expired. So people who had jobs and functional lives. I don’t know enough to verify the truth of this. But therefore a different type of illegal than the completely homeless no job type showing up in Texas.
This article gives some numbers. 2 million illegal encounters so far at southern border this year. No clue how many are getting in but at that rate then 75k would be fair (though to date NYC only gotten 14k….75k was just my estimated run rate off Adams saying 4-6 buses a day)
https://news.yahoo.com/number-illegal-migrants-entered-us-155908676.html
I agree Florida doesn’t have the same issue. More similar to NYC that the illegals are a few by boat from Cuba, Visa expired illegals, or those with enough funds family to come to Florida.
I don’t know the true number of refugees but I’m fairly certain there are not 2 million agricultural jobs available in Texas. And NYC has a lot of restaurants in need of labor etc.
This is worth consideration, and if you want to calculate a fair share based on visa-expiration vs. border-hoppers, I'd be interested in reading it.
It is also possible that this year real is bucking the trend, and I am wrong to generalize from the last 15 years of stable population. If there are 2 million more illegal immigrants in the US next year, then shipping 51K to NYC would be proportional.
But we have been told about border crises year after year. Caravans, surges, whatever. And yet the population has been stable. Those 2M encounters are before any decisions--the article says 920K were already deported under Title 42. This chart suggests that >1M have been expelled, and that the remaining group includes detainees and deportations, too. It's not clear how many of those are released into the US until a hearing, or how many migrants are dodging the CBP entirely.
I don't think that it's obvious NYC is shirking its fair share, so I find it pretty defensible for them to complain.
More options
Context Copy link
Overstays are definitely the largest group of illegal immigrants in the US, but the vast majority are tourists and business visitors, not workers (it is very difficult for an unskilled person to get a work visa). So, not people with jobs. See overstay reports here
Re the 2 million encounters, the vast majority were immediately expelled or detained. It looks like 25-30 pct have been released.
But... how do you imagine they survive if they don't have jobs? Do you imagine they are all wealthy retirees, that they are economic parasites on the welfare state, or does the legal category not reflect the underlying reality?
The OP said:
My point is that a person who becomes an illegal immigrant by overstaying his tourist visa is also jobless when he becomes an illegal immigrant. He also is effectively homeless, in the same sense that an illegal entrant is. eg: From the perspective of the job market, or whether they are parasites on the welfare state, it does not matter whether an illegal immigrant entered illegally or overstayed a tourist visa. The distinction is not nearly as stark as the OP assumes.
The difference is that visa overstayers generally do not start out destitute and homeless. They arrive on airplanes with papers in hand, and they either have finances arranged such that they can live here in reasonable comfort without a job, or they choose to overstay once they have procured a job. They are apples and oranges to migrants who cross the border on foot and then claim asylum.
And many, if not most, border crossers have relatives and friends in the US and can also live in reasonable comfort. It is not as if visa overstayers are particularly well off; if they were, they would not be seeking to illegally immigrate.
I don't know what you mean by "papers in hand"; the only "papers" they have are tourist or similar visas, and some don't even have that
The only job they could have procured is an illegal job. Had they procured a legal job, they would have applied for a work visa and hence would not be staying illegally.
Just to clarify, these are not people who are overstaying their tourist visas because they want a chance to see the Grand Canyon. These are illegal immigrants, just like border crossers, who plan to stay permanently and simply used a different means of entering the country.
Anyhow, as I said, the point is not that the groups are absolutely identical, but rather, as I said, the OP is greatly overstating the difference between them.
The whole point is that, while they are both illegal immigrants, visa overstayers are not just like border crossers.
One group arrives on airplanes with passports and legal entry visas. The other undertakes a dangerous journey on foot or smuggled in a truck. It doesn't take a brain the size of a galaxy to recognize that there are going to be enormous socioeconomic differences between these two groups. OP didn't "overstate" anything, you're just splitting hairs to try to dismiss a fact that is inconvenient for your worldview (i.e. a deep blue sanctuary state like New York freaking out over the grim reality of what it means for thousands of the second type of illegal immigrant to arrive on one's doorstep).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you help me understand how you arrived at the conclusion that visa overstays are the largest group of illegal immigrants in the US? I looked at the overstay reports and I see a somewhat consistent estimate of about 700k per year. 25% of 2M is 500k, but it only represents actual encounters, so I'd expect this number to be the sum of the encounters released and the non-encounters. If even 10% more illegal immigrants are crossing without an encounter, it seems to me that the rate of growth of non-visa overstay illegal immigrants is larger, especially as of the last few years. Is the argument that the total visa overstay population is still larger than the total illegal southern border crossing population? I didn't see estimates for either of those numbers in the overstay reports.
I did not mean to imply that the link was the source of that statement, and because I was agreeing with the post's statement in that regard, I did not look for a citation. But see here
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It helps. But dishwasher, cook, etc you don’t need English. I’ve eaten in restaurants in America where the waitress could only speak Spanish. I point at menu, she brings foods, I pay bill.
Even less of an issue at a McDonald’s self check out. They only need to learn how to say order numbers in English.
I'm starting to wonder if this wasn't the reason fast food places didn't shift to meals/combos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But most restaurant workers are not waiters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link