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 -
(I'm obviously speaking from an European perspective. American perspective may have differences)
There are no "open borders for military-aged third-world men", and apart from some groups of committed anarchists and other subject-oriented activists, it's not a real thing that is advocated. There are refugee and asylum programs, sure and these enjoy support from the Left, but these are not "open borders", any more than, say, any nightclub that lets in some people but also applies selectiveness as to who it lets in and for how long has "open doors". It should be noted that by far the largest and the most popular entry of refugees to Europe in recent years has not been military-aged third-world men - it has been Ukrainian women, of all ages, and children. Insofar as I've observed, the same peolple advocating for refugee/asylum policies have advocated for that entry just as eagerly.
Furthermore, in my experience, for an average left-winger (again, in Europe), this is really not a major issue. Right-wingers get far more fervent than immigration and borders than left-wingers at any time, and also seem to assume that the opposite side must by its nature share that same fervor, expect in opposite direction. This has frequently caused some consternation and bafflement amongst the left, especially when right-wingers bring the immigration issue to random other topics and then accuse the left of wishing to dodge the issue when the left wants to continue discussing the topic itself, not the immigration sidetrack.
What's the reason for supporting refugee and asylum programs? Again, in my experience, it's a belief that they're an essential part of the framework of human rights treaties that underpins democracy and the entire international system and would cause considerable danger of backsliding on these fronts if it comes down. The concept of "human rights" is etched in the minds of the modern Left very firmly indeed, and once something's written in a treaty, well, it's a part of the system now and must be defended among the other parts. However, as said, in this view it's just one issue among many others, not (generally) the central part of this worldview.
What do you call policies that:
-let them in (let the human smuggler boats land),
-let them move around (do not take them into detention until their claim asylum is processed), and once that fails
-do not enforce evictions ? There's 700k people in France with a 'please leave France' order. No doubt a similar number in Germany, too.
These are open-border policies, de facto.
More options
Context Copy link
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
So if you illegally cross the border, there is a 90% chance that you get to stay. Even if you are removed, nothing stops you just... trying again. What can that possibly be but de facto open borders?
If the UK were to implement an official policy of open borders (i.e. no legal restraints on the freedom of non-citizens to live and work within the borders of the UK), do you think the immigration would rise, fall, or remain the same compared to the current "de facto open borders"?
It would assumedly rise, as some number of people will be law-abiding even when it's widely known that breaking said law is never punished (and in fact rewarded with 4-star hotel stays at the taxpayer's expense.) In the same way that smoking weed is, in many ways, de facto legal, in that the police don't generally bother to arrest people for possession of it. But still a lot of people won't partake just because of the fact that it's illegal.
But the fact remains that there is no serious effort made to remove illegals from our borders. If you can come here illegally and most likely never be removed, what else can I possibly call it?
Salutary neglect? The outcome of the tension between competing priorities? The point remains that calling the status quo 'open borders' is Frankfurtian bullshit, a rhetorical flourish meant to provoke an emotional response, not an accurate description.
I find this analogy apposite, in that formal legalization of marijuana has led to a dramatic uptick in usage. It wasn't just that people were deterred by the illegality (though that was certainly a part of it); marijuana became significantly more accessible. Similarly, an actual open borders policy would lead to far more immigration than what you see under a regime of half-assed immigration enforcement. Being an illegal immigrant puts you in a precarious position - not only are you effectively barred from all but the lowest rungs of the employment ladder, you are perpetually concerned with the threat of deportation. It's not particularly likely, but it is non-trivial (again, the marijuana analogy is somewhat apt). Legal immigration is a lot more secure and appealing. Making access to that status unqualified would draw far more people.
How many NGOs operating boats from Africa have been shut down, leaders arrested, assets seized?
The Greeks have arrested a few people but I'm not sure how that turned out. Don't think any other countries have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure how you guys do your statistics, but it seems to me that "the number of people who enter the UK illegally" is not necessarily the same as "the number of people who are detained for entering the UK illegally." Presumably some number are not detected.
Also true, but I can only use the numbers we have. You don't know what you don't know, after all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seems to me that the powers that be and their supporters (news, NGOs, etc) are pursuing a policy of "as many immigrants as possible". When do they ever work to decrease numbers coming in?
This type of immigration has never happened in human history absent conquest or slavery, so it's weird that it's now essential. However, I would like to bring this to your attention. It's kept from the public as well as possible, but immigrants are a huge drain on Euro countries. Politicians know this. Why do they keep adding more?
Again, context being Europe... constantly? Continuously? In a great variety of ways? At the very least since 2015, the constant trend in European (at least continental) migration policy has been how to prevent the events of 2014-2015 happening again in the same way, and thus we got the 2016 EU-Turkey deal, 2020 Greek border crisis solved by EU-supported border closure and 2021 Lithuania/Poland border crisis solved the same way. If the powers that be were pursuing a policy of "as many immigrants as possible", they obviously wouldn't have done that.
United States has certainly taken in a lot of people fleeing religious or national oppression, even if it hasn't happened under formal refugee/asylum status, no?
It's not being kept from the public very well, I'm pretty sure anyone who has spent even a bit of time on immigration issues (which admittedly isn't even everyone politically oriented - as I said, not everyone simply considers immigration that big an issue) is aware of the costs of immigration, a drum the European nationalist parties keep banging on constantly. However, if your point for the maintenance of refugee/asylum system is the one I mentioned, ie the maintenance of the international human rights treaty framework, it follows that the costs alone are generally not a sufficient reason to stop doing so.
That's not true. They'd do it if they had no other choice, and had to wait for a better opportunity.
What they want to do is clear from messaging sent to the public, which is still: immigration good, and skepticism of it is racist.
So how is this supposed to be falsifiable then?
Literally the messaging sent to the public by EU is this:
Migration is context, you have to balance a bunch of stuff, the top message is that immigration must be managed - which by necessity means that the borders won't be open, which was the question being discussed.
Like I said, public messaging. What you quoted actually goes some way towards it, but what's missing for me is public awareness.
I'd say the top message is what actually reaches the public. I don't think, it's more than single-digits of voters who know the refugee crisis ended because they're paying Turkey to enforce their borders, or that there is a border wall in Poland and Lithuania. Then you also have the NGOs (which were specifically mentioned in this conversation), and last I heard from them about that, was that Polish border wall is racist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, now you’re just throwing shit at the wall. “Seems to me”? Give some actual numbers.
Tell me, in which years did the US send the most migrants back?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link