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 -
tl;dr: FYI, Trump has evolved from the 2016 guy who said the Nazis at Charlottesville should be "condemned totally." He's now personally in favor of mass state killings if they're the most expedient way to do ethnic cleansing.
EDIT: Now that I can see the net karma on the "I hope you're right" comment, I've reconsidered whether winning this argument would be in my interests. I'm invoking Godwin's Law on myself to declare that I've lost and the thread is over. Nobody is, shall be, or ever has been, a Nazi.
There’s a Holocaust happening in China today. The Uyghurs, an ethnic group that includes, or included, 11 million people in China, are being rounded up arbitrarily and sent to “re-education camps,” where they are often killed or forcibly sterilized. More than a million, we think, are in camps now.
I used to believe that if anything on the scale of the Nazi Holocaust were to start up today, the rest of the world would rapidly respond and put an end to it. As a kid, I imagined enlisting. But China is too strong. Our leaders get away with not responding, because China simply denies everything. Sometimes with only the thinnest veneer of plausibility, like when they claimed to end the involuntary harvesting of prisoners’ organs, but the number of organ transplants kept rising steadily.
Joe Biden is not responding appropriately to this atrocity out of pragmatism, cowardice, or weakness. Maybe Kamala Harris will be different; we can at least hope.
But this started in 2017. Donald Trump did not respond appropriately either, because he approves of China’s actions.
Here’s Trump’s National Security Advisor at the time:
His administration felt differently, but there wasn’t much they could do. Mike Pompeo officially condemned the Uyghur genocide on his last day as Secretary of State, now that Trump couldn’t fire him. They also got him to sign a bill (co-sponsored by Harris) that sanctioned some Chinese officials for the ongoing atrocity.
Since then, people working for Trump have continued to condemn the genocide, and made pledges in his name to end it if he’s elected. But Trump himself has, as far as I can find, still declined to. In 2022, interviewers asked him whether he agreed with his staff, and he responded “I’d rather not say at the moment.” During his 2024 campaign, he’s said that Xi would be his first call as President, but he would not include human rights in his agenda for the call—in fact, one of his demands would be for them to increase the number of state executions for nonviolent offenses.
This is a consistent principle of his. Here’s President Trump excusing the massacres of Kurds on the Turkish border:
He’s going to try to do the same thing here in America.
Ever since being voted out of office, Trump’s language about immigration has shifted more and more towards the language of ethnic cleansing. He regularly tells crowds that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” There are about 15 or 16 million people here who shouldn’t be, he says, so “we got a lot of work to do.” More recently, he’s made it explicit that when he says “blood,” he means “genes.” It’s not a dog whistle, it’s not a gaffe, it’s not a malicious misreading of his ramblings.
This is identical to Nazi rhetoric. This is as harsh as Hitler was ever willing to be in his campaign speeches. He didn’t say he was going to round up the people poisoning his country’s blood and kill them. He said that he was going to deport them. Even once in power, when his government shifted policy toward extermination, they never admitted it.
A second Trump presidency will detain people suspected of being illegal immigrants, including those retroactively made “illegal,” and won’t be transparent about what happens next. How many of them survive detention will depend on logistics, on whether his new staff quietly rebels, and on how earnestly Trump tries to ensure that his preferred way of dealing with detainees is actually implemented. There are lots of ways this could end up not being a mass state murder. But “Trump disapproves of mass state murders” isn’t one of them.
(He wants pogroms, too. Just put people in charge who will look the other way, he says, and the problem will be solved immediately.)
I don’t think Trump started his political career as a Nazi. In 2017, he famously tried to have it both ways, saying of a rally led by white supremacists and containing avowed Nazis that it included some “very fine people,” but that the Nazis of course should be “condemned totally.” I think he just didn’t care one way or the other, and so was calibrating his remarks so that anyone could persuade themselves he agreed with them. Doing the politician thing, except most politicians don’t do that when it’s Nazis.
But in office, Trump got to know, and came to respect, Xi, and Erdogan, and Putin. His own attempts at mass deportation and building a wall were largely ineffective. But those guys. They knew how to get things done.
And now, after four years out of office, he’s rhetorically committed to the idea that there are millions of people here who shouldn’t be, because of their evil natures and evil genes. Now, all he’s willing to say against Nazis is that he’s never read Mein Kampf.
His Republican Party is, I believe and hope, not a Nazi party. As an institution, it’s not what the Nazi party was in the 1930s, just badly off-kilter. But Trump himself is a Nazi now. He doesn’t call himself that. But then, the Nazis didn’t use that word for themselves either.
For most of the past four years, I’ve tuned him out. I thought I knew everything I needed to know about him. Maybe you have too. But we were wrong—something has changed. People have been crying wolf for so long about Republicans being Nazis that now we just tune it out. Newspapers scared of looking like tabloids resort to headlines about “a fascination with genes and bloodlines.” So I missed it, and most people are still missing it.
Sources https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ChinaTribunal_JUDGMENT_1stMarch_2020.pdf https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-refused-to-say-whether-china-was-abusing-uyghurs-2022-4 https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/elections-2024-trump-xi-us-presidential-call-09232024232901.html https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1184897777941307392 (video) https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-bad-genes-immigrants-hugh-hewitt-rcna174456 https://archive.is/nwOXF
Are you saying that nobody can ever again organise large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants because Hitler once used it as an excuse 80 years ago? Or that they can only do it if their arguments are purely economic and make it clear at all times that they love and approve of immigrants & hate Nazis and Xi?
(And of course everyone will take these professions at face value and not at all accuse him/her of being a secret Nazi trying to sound harmless.)
Other than mass amnesty, what is your proposed policy?
Criminalize hiring illegal immigrants.
I'm pro-immigration (especially if it's illegal, since that means we don't need to pay for their welfare.) But that's legitimately the policy I would propose if somehow I was in charge and republicans offered to completely capitulate on climate change if I found a way to put illegal immigration near-zero.
You wouldn't even need to spend government funds to enforce it. Just copy that abortion bounty law-- let people sue anyone they point to that can't prove they only hired people with work authorization.
Without the "pull" factor of jobs, economic migrants just wouldn't come here.
You'd have to criminalize renting to illegals, both residential and commercial. And selling property to them too. Setting up a business entity/LLC. They can and do just set up entire mini economies in some areas of cities. You'd have to criminalize so many different things to make moving here unappealing. And I'm sure even then there'd be a way for them to enjoy their lives here more than in whatever country they came from.
And? If murder and theft are bad, then it's completely sensible to criminalize assisting people to murder and thieve. If illegal immigration is bad...
Though regardless, it wouldn't even be necessary. If nobody was willing to hire illegal immigrants, they wouldn't have any money to pay rent, or buy property. If they make a shell and hire themselves... boom, illegal, you get to sue them directly and also deport them. (And also you get to sue anyone who hires such a shell company without doing their due diligence.)
And if someone really wants to come here to spend their own money, not take any local jobs, and not be eligible for welfare... Congratulations! You have a tourist industry.
They'll still take local housing and compete with local businesses. My point is only stopping employers from hiring them isn't enough.
I don't see why competition with local business is is bad, though admittedly I am a capitalist. That being said, my proposal still makes that effectively impossible. If they're offering services directly, they're employees, and you can sue anyone who hires them. If they're offering services through a company, then they're employees of that company, and you can sue the company. Maybe you're thinking of some loophole that lets companies break hiring laws without any individual in particular being liable, in which case I'd also support closing that on its own merits-- if a company refuses to abide by the civil rights act, somebody should be liable. I suppose illegal immigrants could technically sell items at a markdown vs. local shops... but that basically just covers dropshipping and the sort of handicrafts one person could make without employees. The former immigrants can also do from their home country, and the latter, well, I seriously doubt handicrafts are any major fraction of your local economy. Some people would still hire immigrants anyways, and they wouldn't all move out instantly. I guess they would be taking up local housing in the interim, until their money ran out. But I guarantee my proposal would solve 90%, probably even 99%, of the "problem."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A very good first start, and something we already do in the UK as far as I know. But what happens when they refuse to go? Most of these people don't come from nice countries, it's why they destroy their papers when they arrive. When they start organising unofficial employment and shadow economies, or become criminals? Are we allowed to deport them then?
And to move on to the more contentious area of legal immigration, if a leader like Boris Johnson or Angela Merkel has a rush of blood to the head and imports millions of people over the protests of the native population, it doesn't seem right that we're just stuck with them forever. You can tinker with citizenship requirements but you end up with the same problem once all those visas expire: what do you do when you have millions of people in your country who have no right to be there and refuse to leave?
(The fact that mass migration allows governments to inflict permanent demographic and cultural changes that can only be reversed by applying force on a vast scale is why I think that "the government will neither permit, nor facilitate, large-scale migration" must be an absolute principle of any functioning democracy, on a level with or higher than free speech and habeas corpus.)
(And yes, I am willing to concede huge capulations on climate change in exchange for making immigration near-zero. Climate policy can be reversed decades or centuries later, immigration can't.)
You create duty to self deport by a certain date. Punishment for failure is life in prison or death.
You came into UK and destroyed your passport - your problem, you have embassy. Get away - it's not our problem how. Then we will punish you until you comply.
The problem with migration is one of will, not means.
More options
Context Copy link
You're looking at this in completely the wrong way. Immigrants aren't "refusing to go." they're "deciding to stay." Illegal immigrants (unlike refugees) are ineligible for welfare and therefore pulled only by the prospect of relatively well-paying jobs at their destinations. Without those jobs, they don't have a reason to stick around. Yes, there would still be some need for traditional border security work: spot removals of immigrants that turn to crime would still be necessary. But mass deportation would require a draconian expansion of government power to work while at the same time just not being necessary. The vast majority of illegal immigrants would just leave if job opportunities dried up.
You're fixated on deportation as a solution, but deportation is build-the-wall style performative nonsense. It's like trying to catch-and-release house mice. All the incentives remain the same. As long as your trash is open and there's food on your floors, the mice come back. Republican political leaders don't support deportation because they think it'll work, they support it because they know it won't. People angry about immigration vote for them-- and the rich people that own the factories, meat packing plants, industrial farms, and hotels illegal immigrants work in vote for them too.
And besides-- you've heard about the difference between positive and negative rights, no? Turning "freedom from immigration" into a positive right requires government enforcement... and government enforcement requires sufficient political consensus that your enforcement apparatus can't be subverted by money-grubbing contractors or suborned by the opposition (i.e, me). That's why the only effective solution is the bounty system-- turning it into a negative right that citizens can largely enforce themselves by pointing out immigration-friendly businesses that "harmed" them.
Also, before you say something about how I like immigration and therefore am incentivized to propose a bullshit plan that wouldn't actually work, I'd like to point out that I'd take effectively the same approach to fighting climate change, and am in favor of the existing abortion bounty law and also in favor of the SEC whistleblower reward process that works similarly.. Getting citizens to inform on each other works. Imagine if your neighbors could sue you for getting your recycling wrong. You'd be a LOT more invested in separating the glass, paper, and aluminum, right? I'm pro-illegal-immigration, but this is genuinely how I'd try to stop it.
I think your ideas are sensible. I’m entirely happy to try what you suggest, and I expect it to have some effect.
The prior that I have and you don’t, is that being a beggar or a criminal in a rich country is as good or better for many people than their original situations. Realistically, it is hard to demand that every service require citizens ID. If we only implement your proposed scheme, it seems to me that the jobless illegals will go to soup kitchens, or run drugs and then spend their money legally in supermarkets. Hospitals will continue to take them if they break their leg, and every instance where someone is denied help for not having an ID will generate huge negative press.
Reducing ‘pull’ factors has to be part of the solution. Incentives matter. And indeed we already had that: the ‘hostile environment’ was British policy for a decade. But I think that it won’t work completely and the ones who remain anyway will be the most violent or desperate of the bunch. So I would be happy to implement your solution in conjunction with more active removals.
I am also dubious about relying on clever-clever legal schemes that work through unmeasurable incentives. They can be watered down in a hundred different ways by a hostile legal establishment and subject to perpetual warfare from international bodies. They can also be gimped from the start by the same government that lied to me about reducing immigration for 15 years. Whereas somebody is either deported or not, and it’s visible for all to see.
Are you european? Our priors might differ due to differences in american vs european immigration patterns. I can't speake for housed but homeless people (e.g., the kind of people I see in shelters) because I don't see them. But all the unhoused people I see seem to be natives, and all the illegal immigrants I've met have been hardworking and gainfully employed.
Also, from my experience being in latin america-- while the quality of social services is lower, I would FAR prefer to be unhoused there than here (assuming my support system has already abandoned me, anyways.) The climate is better, there's much less enforcement against shantytowns, and the police don't hassle you for laying out a blanket and selling random trash on the street. Plus, everything is cheaper so what little money you make goes further.
And in any case, your average unhoused person is constantly breaking low-level laws. There's not much appetite for police enforcement because they won't pay fines and it costs money to keep them in jail, but illegal homeless people could just be deported.
British. The government estimates that each (legal) migrant is a net loss of 150,000 GBP between arriving at 25 years old and reaching the pension age of 60. If they survive to 80, the bill becomes 500,000 pounds: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/12/low-skilled-migrants-cost-taxpayers-150000-each/. The largest cited reason for recent immigration is to join their family in the UK (i.e. not working).
There is also the issue of, frankly, racial politics. There isn't reliable data for the last few years, apparently, but English migration is primarily Polish, Indians, and Pakistanis (and I believe that the proportion of Eastern Europeans is dropping off now that Poland is becoming more prosperous). The Indians and the Pakistanis are extremely clannish, and many hate us for historical reasons. Then they have children who get the full woke treatment at school (often surrounded only by members of their own race). BurdensomeCount's "we will colonise you like you colonised us" is a sentiment I've heard several times now, and not as trolling.* There are maybe 55 million white English, our birth rates are terrible, and we import 0.7 million every year now. The future for us in a multiracial county looks like the future of Christians in the middle east.
Right. I'm happy to do the other stuff you suggest, as long as this doesn't have to be given up.
*Obligatory reminder that while the British colonised India, they were not settler colonists in any meaningful sense.
EDIT: I’m sorry, this doesn’t really answer your point. I think you are right about the different patterns of immigration causing different priors. I think due to a combination of poverty and political problems at home, many people are very reluctant to return.
It looks like we've converged on the question of, "what would actually, practically stop migration." To restate-- criminalize hiring illegal immigrants, and deport any immigrant (legal or illegal) that commits crime a deportable crime*. (E). So if you'll permit me to, I'll address the the larger discussion ("Under what conditions is immigration good? Do we presently exist in those conditions?")
First, I do want to point out that the topline figure you posted (150,000 GBP) applies only to "low-wage" migrants.The article you linked is under a paywall so I can't argue specifics, but I'd wager there's some debate to be had over
All that being said, I will admit that I'm largely ignorant of British immigration issues. I'm provisionally willing to take your word for its dangers. Instead of trying to convince you that your system is good, I'll try to convince you that the american system is better.
When I said, "immigration is good, as long as it's illegal," I wasn't joking. America's high rates of illegal immigration are an actual strength. Basically all of our legal immigrants are rich enough that we don't have to pay for their welfare, and then illegal immigrants work cheaply, contribute to our economy, don't drain the government purse, and stay terrified of committing crimes and getting deported. Sure, they also have anchor babies, which as you've pointed out would be/are threats to the cultural stability of european nations. But luckily america is blessed with an especially vigorous culture that's only gotten better at assimilating immigrants over time. The fact that the entire midwest is already populated by completely acculturated germans wasn't even our final form! Immigrants become culturally american extremely rapidly.
I understand why low-skill workers and people concerned with the maintenance of specifically white and/or protestant power don't want immigration, even despite the fact that culturally it's a nonissue and economically it's a benefit. And I wouldn't expect the arguments above to sway any of those people. (I have other arguments I could deploy, but they're admittedly much less convincing than the economic-cultural arguments.) But-- correct me if I'm wrong-- I suspect none of those things describe you.
* I'm being intentionally tautological here because it's a bit fiddly defining exactly what "deportable" means. Some crimes are major enough that we want the criminal kept around and punished. Some crimes should sensibly result in the deportation of any criminal that commits them, legal and illegal. Some crimes should be treated differentially-- legal immigrants get punished in-country, illegal immigrants get deported. And the smallest crimes (think, jaywalking) should mostly just result in fines for even illegal immigrants. I'm not a legal theorist so I wouldn't know whether to draw the lines, and thinking about how this could "really" be done probably makes you wary of too-lenient progressives ruining things. But I'd posit that that's more a crime-and-justice issue than an immigration issue... Barring weird edge cases like the nordics, you'll have a hard time finding people who want the justice system to be more lenient specifically against illegal immigrants rather than in general. So this fight boils down to the usual order vs. justice debate rather than any qualms you hold specifically about illegal immigrants.
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
Ideally, fix the economic problems that incentivize shadow economies and/or crime, but sure, I think mass deportations approved by a majority and compliant with the constitution are almost always a bad idea but I might be wrong and it should be considered ethically permissible...as long as your government can credibly promise to do it humanely. There's no way a 25% chance of death camps for millions of people is worth it for the net benefits to the remainder.
I don’t think that ‘the remainder’ is the right way to think about it. By that logic, if two people break into my house (where I live alone), then I should be removed by the police for the net benefit of the remainder.
(Or I should let them squat permanently on the basis that the trigger-happy police are unacceptably likely to harm them. )
You could of course say that this is the position of the Māoris/Aborigines/Native Americans etc. and you’d be right. This is why I’m fixated on getting immigrants out of the country while they’re still new arrivals and 15% of the country and not the established multi-generational 40% they are swiftly becoming given observable birth rate disparities.
Are we talking deontology here now because I think there are a few deontological arguments against death camps.
We're saying that my house is my house is my house, no matter how many other people come in. There is no remainder whose wellbeing has to be balanced. It's role ethics, if you like.
If someone is in somebody else's house, and that person doesn't want them there, there is an escalating series of possibilities, ordered by decreasing preference.
Again, 1 is clearly preferable to 7. But you seem to be arguing that at some level on that list, the owner has a moral requirement to allow the intruder to stay on the basis that the benefit to him of the intruder leaving is not comparable to the damage the intruder incurs.
This just doesn't work as a way to run a society. It gives power to the most bloody-minded people at the expense of the kind and the reasonable, and makes a mockery of ownership and citizenship. It's how you get the bike theft meme. I once saw a drunk man with no ticket hold up a bus for an hour by standing in the doorway, because he knew it was legally dangerous to physically remove him.
I would think very badly of somebody who starts at 7 but if the intruder refuses to leave then the owner cannot be blamed for escalating. The possibility of escalation is what allows most conflicts to end at 1 or 2.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link