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 -
In response to the Afghan national attacking National guard troops in DC Trump promised to "permanently pause" immigration from all Third world countries in a Truth Social post. That sounded too good to be true and it was.
Trump is actually pausing immigration from only 19 countries, which are Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.
Meanwhile the top sources of 3rd world immigration are Mexico, India, Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Colombia. The only place where those two lists overlap is Cuba.
I admit I'm struggling a little to understand what the actual policy change is here. Downthread @ToaKraka posted this USCIS Policy Alert. That Policy Alert points to this Presidential Proclamation as the source of the 19 countries. That Presidential Proclamation was issued all the way back in June. So the National Guard shooting was the impetus for USCIS to implement a 6-month-old Presidential Proclamation? I guess I'm also finding it a little hard to follow as, like, a matter of logic. An Afghan national who started working with the US in 2011 in Afghanistan and was brought to the United States in 2021 along with a bunch of other US-allied Afghans then was granted asylum in 2025 and shoots two national guardsmen later that same year, therefore we must restrict immigration from Burma. Huh?
More options
Context Copy link
MAGAs must make up their minds about whom they dislike first.
Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?
"Stop all non-white immigration" may resonate in some circles, but isn't representative of American or Trump voter preferences.
His actions are in reaction to unintegrated criminals, primarily from Islamist nations. Why would you expect it to affect Mexico, India or the Philippines ?
Trump's post only vaguely points to his intentions vis-a-vis legal migrants.
Lets see.
This would imply removal of benefits for all green card holders ? Visa holders don't get federal benefits anyway. Immigrants must pay into social security, pay taxes and rising visa fees. All while being ineligible for benefits. Cool. What was that about taxation without representation ?
Americans already agree that violent felons who lied on their naturalization doc should be deported. Visa & green card holders with felonies are already banned from reentry. Outside existing norms (terrorism, child predator, Nazi), it is very hard to de-naturalize an American who got their citizenship legally. Trump has limited power and courts have a ton of precedent. Doesn't help that it requires a jury to convict.
Apart from criminality, How does Trump define 'incompatible with western civilization' ? Maybe he means the Amish, the native Americans, the Mormon or the Scientologists ? Does he mean pluralist, liberal & tolerant ? Does he mean white, protestant and english speaking ? IMO, it's a whole lot of words that mean nothing. Trump 101.
Personally, I'm sick of white supremacists using motte-and-baileys to criticize immigrants.
It's revealing that Indians, Mexicans and Filipinos are the main groups they have issues with.
Indians are a model minority, speak English, from a pluralistic democracy and uniquely economically productive. Other than color and religion, they satisfy every bar for a model American.
Mexicans are devout Christians, take all the 'shit' jobs, have a fair claim to the land and work harder than any 'sanctity of work' protestant I've seen. There are valid concerns about criminals and cartel members. But, as we covered before, Americans and Trump are already aligned on their deportation. If every illegal immigrant and every Mexican criminal is deported, Mexicans will still continue immigration in large numbers through legal family based migration and birthright citizenship for children of legal workers.
Filipinos are devout Christians, pre-indoctrinated (due to American colonial occupation), peaceful and most immigrate to fill middle-of-the-pack essential jobs in healthcare, military and education.
There is no venn diagram that fits all 3 groups except - "not white". If you want fewer non-whites. Just say that.
P.S: I've heard geographic arguments claiming 'America is full' and they don't want more immigrants of any color. I am not going to address why this opinion is bad. It's a tired one.
Mexicans, Filipinos, and Vietnamese are the best major groups of immigrants. There are some black groups which number among the same. This isn't a straight race thing- south Asians rub a lot of people the wrong way. Superiority complexes, difficulty assimilating, it doesn't matter how good they are for the economy. I just dislike the median Indian immigrant for being a rude, snooty pagan with a different attitude towards the truth than better immigrant groups like Latinos or Southeast Asians, while also being less willing to assimilate. As Indian immigration becomes more visible, expect more of this.
Dominicans are darker than Indians while not bringing nearly as much personal distaste. It isn't a race thing, although it probably doesn't help that you can tell Indians very easily by looking at them. Among actual IRL Trump voters immigration from southeast Asia, other parts of the new world, etc is far more acceptable than from India. There may be demand for lower numbers overall, because widespread bilingualism is not popular, but there's no personal resistance to Mexicans.
In the UK immigrants from Christian Africa who came in via selective routes (like Kemi Badenoch) and Indians (like Rishi Sunak) are the leading candidates for model minorities. I don't know why anti-Indian racism is so much easier to run with in the US than the UK - my guesses would be some combination of religion (Christianity is a bigger part of your national identity than ours) and the first wave of Indian immigrants in the UK being people who had collaborated with the British Empire.
I suspect you having a large Pakistani population makes them look good by comparison, and weβre probably more exposed to memes from Canada. But also Americans are less used to a class hierarchy; snooty Brahmins rub average Americans much worse than they likely do Brits.
I also wonder what economic niche Indians fill in Britain- middleman minorities are virtually never popular, although Indians are far less popular than eg Koreans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Could you elaborate on how paganism shapes someone differently as compared to monotheism ?
The superiority complex is one I've only seen on the internet. I've also not seem much rudeness from Indians in the US. Maybe I don't interact with the median Indian much.
Could you give concrete examples of how Indian communities in the US fail to integrate ?
There are the standard claims of nepotism in jobs and cheating in universities. There is the is the reality of BO. These points are a little tired. I am genuinely curious if there are other examples.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They only speak English for certain definitions of "speak" and "English." That vast majority of my coworkers are based out of Mumbai, but I have several that are Indians living in southern California that have been in the US for years and their English is only marginally better than those who are still in India. Took me 4 months of listening to them talk daily to finally be able to understand them 75% of the time. Meanwhile my Russian and Belarusian coworkers still have noticeable accents but are quite easy to understand 98% of the time.
India's democracy is corrupt and full of ethnic/religious spoils, and I'm sure that America's slow but steady slide into a similar system is in no small part caused by immigration from countries like India that have ethnic spoils systems. Affirmative action in America is bad enough, but it has nothing on caste-based affirmative action in India. And don't get me started on caste-based discrimination by Indian employees in Anerican companies against other Indians. I see this pretty regularly at my work, I make a point of looking up my coworkers' last names since it's a fairly reliable indicator of caste and their treatment of and by other coworkers usually follows certain patterns based on caste.
And I don't know about other fields, but in software development Indians are not economically productive. In fact I would go so far as to say they are financial drains on most companies they work for. For every decently competent Indian dev at my company there are 30 drooling retards that make more work for the competent people. The reason companies still hire them is because demand for software development in the world is greater than the amount of competent software developers in the world are able to deliver. But with retarded project management systems like agile and scrum you can barely squeeze out a kind of functional product from incompetent devs. Combine this with the fact that most companies are awful at filtering out the competent devs from the incompetent ones and you get modern enterprise software development.
I have pretty much zero issues with Filipinos so long as they actually speak English fluently. Pinoys tend to be bros in my experience.
With Mexicans, my biggest issue is criminality, followed by dilution of my vote, and suppression of wages in third. Legal Mexicans that speak English well and integrate well with society don't bother me. Got a lovely couple (Mexican husband, white wife) across the street from me and they're fantastic neighbors.
I have a problem with Indians because I hate the content of their character. Indians that do not fit the stereotypes of their poor character are few and far between in my experience, and I work with tons of them (both ones in India and the US) every damn day.
Whiteness and race in general don't matter too much for me, except inasmuch as they are useful proxies for who is likely to be a civilization wrecker vs. a civilization destroyer. One specific example I think of often is this guy: https://imgur.com/rawhide-kobayashi-4FjiGcJ
I know it's a meme and probably not a real person, but I don't give a damn that he's Japanese, he's culturally American for all I care. I hope someone like him was actually able to move to Texas and marry a hot blonde cowgirl with big boobs and make lots of hapa babies with her on his cattle ranch. Some Filipinos and Mexicans are able to do the same kind of assimilation, very few Indians are.
EDIT: To clarify my position a bit, I am in favor of drastically reducing all immigration, even from groups that I generally like, because of my issues with vote dilution, wage suppression, housing prices, etc. But I'm especially in favor of outright ending or drastically limiting immigration from shithole countries/cultures like India.
More options
Context Copy link
Model minorities don't systematically exploit food banks or run trucks into school buses filled with hockey players or come on student visas for fake degrees while working minimum wage jobs. To be blunt: Indians may have been a model minority thirty years ago, when only the best Western-educated rich ones could make it through the filter. But not now. Gujurati and Punjabi hick shudras are just as awful as any unwesternized rural peasant can be and pretending that they're all Oxford-educated brahmins is a lie too big to swallow.
Canada's immigration policy is so insane that the India's foreign minister himself has formally warned Canada that they're granting visas to the worst of the worst.
Punjab is India's drug trafficking capital and gangs. These Canadian immigrants are almost always Jatt Sikh. Gang-leaders radicalize younger unemployed men by fashioning themselves as leaders of the Khalistani movement. The gangs are funded through Canadian immigration scams, welfare scams & drug running. For the last 50 years, the movement has been based out of Canada, and Indians explicitly view it as a Canadian problem and not an Indian one. I must note, Indians Sikhs are just as sick of this group as everyone else. Canada's insistence that this group deserves to be protected because they're minorities has been a major source of tension between Canada and India. Indians and Canadian Khalistani sympathizers do not get along with each other AT ALL.
Actually, if you wanted to really demonize Indians, you should point to the people who inspired 9/11. The bombing of flight 182 and (failed bombing) of flight 301 was the largest coordinated airplane terror attack until 9/11 and till date is the largest terror attack on Canadian soil. It killed 300+ Canadians, but was buried by the Canadian govt. Sadly, it didn't become a bigger story is because most Canadians who died were of ethnically Indian, and Canadians of the time didn't quite see the death of Canadian Indians as the death of real Canadians.
Ofc, Indians hate the Khalistani movement with a passion. So if you do ever decide to start a deport all Khalistanis movement, you'll probably find most of your supporters to be other Indians.
It's like if Canada had imported all of America's skin heads, and then complained that white people commit too much crime.
Wasn't this accidental ? As tragic as it was, I don't think race has much to do with it. Your best example of Indian violence is an inexperienced Indian driver who entered legally, was sober and killed people in an unintended accident. Then it proves my point that Indians are a pretty peaceful bunch. I can't help but notice that the driver was a jatt sikh.
Who fucking cares? An entire team of hockey players are dead because a nobody who should never have been there in the first place was behind the controls of a machine he had no business using. Nobody is saying he did it on purpose, because it doesn't fucking matter what your intentions are when you lose control of something you should never have been allowed to control.
And there are dozens and dozens of other examples. There was a newlywed couple in Oregon just this week who was killed by an illegal indian with a California CDL. Oh by the way he was let in by Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas.
How many more examples would you like? Or maybe go hunting for yourself and see what you find.
More options
Context Copy link
To be blunt to the point of ungraciousness, I do not care. What I mean is that I really don't care about old world ethnic grievances coming to the new. India sending assassins through their embassies to deal with their separatists is, definitionally, not what a model minority gets up to. I don't get into knife fights with Japanese or mainland Chinese or Koreans in Canada. I come to this country, founded by Anglos, and I cause no trouble. I speak their language and respect their values.
And that is not what the Indians are doing.
When Indians show up to fight with the Pakistanis on the streets of London, one must think of the native Britons, who think to themselves: how the hell is this my problem? I am forced to have a opinion on Khalistan, on Kashmir, because loud and rude foreigners come over and make it my problem in Canada. Indians are not a model minority. I'm not demonizing them. They bring trouble to the country I was born in. As an Chinese-Canadian, my opinion of them is very low for good reason. If they want to be a model minority, they can change how they goddamn behave.
You should cuz they're yours. The Khalistani garden was planted, watered and nurtured in your nation. You made your bed, you can lie in it. You can't kick them out. It's a you problem.
Maybe the native Britons shouldn't have colonized the subcontinent ? If they'd made it their problem, they would've have known that even in India, Pahari Muslims exist as un-integrated tribes and they are very likely to ghettoize once they come here.
Leaving khalistanis & paharis aside, I am going to stick to talking about the median Indian immigrant in North America.
You're allowed to have an opinion. But if you want it to be a good opinion, by definition, it must be well informed. You can rely on anecdotes and one-offs, but when the statistics disagree with you, you better have a good justification on why it is so.
That's a interesting contrast in how Indians and Chinese integrate. Indians believe what the White Americans told them. Their global media, their immigration forms and their constitutions. They said: "Work hard and this meritocratic capitalistic paradise will reward you with wealth and a voice. The land of the free, where anyone can be American."
Indians (I'm projecting a bit) will keep their heads down until they become citizens. But after naturalization or in the 2nd generation, they start feeling the entitled to free expression. Chinese Americans in comparison continue to stay quiet, as if they're guests in their own country.
You're a citizen. You pay taxes. Your right to impose your will on the nation is no less than a 'Heritage American'. Honestly, if you don't feel entitled to shape the nation in your own image, then you haven't integrated sufficiently enough. If you feel insecure about your place in your nation's racial totem pole, then you'll always find some group to be mad about. Indians today, someone else tomorrow. I'd respect you more for saying "I don't want Indians in my Canada because it doesn't align my idea of Canada". Why cares what the anglos think ?
(I know I'm mixing Canada and the US. I view Canada as a vassal state of America. I am sorry, I do not see Canada's culture as independent from America. So I will treat them as the same)
I'm a little confused by @crushedoranges talking about immigrants importing tedious internecine conflict or even assassins and you talking about free expression.
I mean, harping about khalistan is free expression, it's true, but it's crazy to suggest that you're not really integrated unless you're agitating against some other group from the old country, and it's especially absurd when you're talking about the second generation who often hasn't even set foot in the old country.
Integration isn't about doing what your grandparents did, except in the new country. Integration is about doing as the locals do. And it would really be unconscionable for Americans of German extraction to go on and on about Alsaceshit. Nobody wants to hear that.
It's because we're talking about different groups.
Crushed oranges insists that:
My comment mostly addresses #2. I edited my previous comment to make the distinction between both sections clearer.
There is lies our disagreement. To me, the American identity isn't ethnic. I can immigrate to Germany, and I will never be German. Once I am American, I am American. (esp those born here.)
America is a cultural identity: Pluralism, sanctity of work, free speech, can do attitude, reckless optimism, suing people, thanksgiving and christmas. That's how America markets itself. But also, that's how the American mythos is written.
Yes, an immigrant should integrate by imbibing the pre-established cultural values of America. But, the immigrant and modern Anglos should have an equal say in how the culture of America evolves going into the future.
To me, no American is more American by race and history alone. I read Crushed Oranges's comment as a implication that non-angos (them and my presumed future children) should defer to heritage white anglos on what it means to be American/Canadian. I have an issue with that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I refuse to accept responsibility for Khalistan. Khalistan happened because stupid Indian politicians commanded their army stormed their holy of holies. India has exported this problem to my country. This does not please me. Just because white people are stupid enough to let the problem does not make me any happier - or more willing to accept the blame.
If you invite a guest into your house, and they have recently come from a fight, and wish to continue it, the host can ask them to leave, and not get involved. This is common sense. No, I don't have to become a citizen of the world. No, I don't have to accept tribal fighting from Bumfuckistan or grudges from the Actual Country They're Loyal To. They can go and sing their song of letting their brother, their cousin, their uncle, their entire Bollywood backup dancer squad into other people's countries.
If they are a net benefit to the people who are here, and cause no trouble? Good. If not, kick them out! That is a good opinion, a universal opinion. I don't need statistics to back that one up. For the same reason you don't want infinity Muslims in India, I don't want infinity Indians in my country. If that is not sufficient to clear things up, others will explain in my stead.
You still owe duties to guests you invite into your house and then ask to leave but who refuse to leave, or at least you do in the UK under the Occupier's Liability Act 1984. They're not as stringent as those you owe to guests you continue to give permission but your not giving permission to be on your property doesn't give you an automatic right to treat them in whatever way you want until they leave.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Non-video link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
ahahahahahahahahaha no
Chinese are the model minority. Indians are scammers and cheaters, and have a terrible culture. They only look good in the numbers because of the selection effect of the most difficult and competitive visa and immigration process out of any country. The ones who make it are invariably highly educated, motivated, and intelligent. But even so they are still cheating it, by sending millions of fraudulent h1-b applications.
Look at Canada's indians, or look at Biden's illegal indians. They are some of the worst dregs on the planet. There's an entire thing about how the entire US trucking market has been flooded with illiterate indian illegal immigrants who were brought in by Biden.
Japanese are the model minority, because we have military bases in their homeland.
Unless you're talking about Canada. I don't know how many Japanese are living there.
More options
Context Copy link
That's not going anywhere. By Indians, I specifically mean the ones preselected to immigrate to the US. The H1b is the primary pathway for these educated, motivated, and intelligent immigrants to come to the US. Given that anti-Indian hate is disproportionately pointed towards the H1bs, I am inclined to believe that hatred towards Indians has little to do with good-behavior or excellence.
We'll be going in circles if we take this up. I disagree, and nothing I say will change your opinion. I will acknowledge that an open-door immigration policy towards an impoverished nation of 1.5 billion people is beyond stupid.
You can't point to America's hyper meritocratic immigration process and simultaneously ignore Canada's malformed pro-criminal immigration system. That being said, despite being the worst South Asians, they're are still among the more peaceful groups in Canada. Well below Canadian latinos, blacks or whites.
There is widespread consensus that they should be deported. We aren't arguing about them.
Anti-H1b hatred is visible, true, but white, black, and Hispanic Americans of every social class tend to dislike the Indian immigrants they come in contact with due to cultural frictions- and for most of them, those Indians are not software engineers. Indian motel managers and liquor store owners and 7/11 operators are unpopular with the broader public, just like H1bs are with American tech workers. Tech workers just have very visible complaints because they're rich and highly online(and, uh, did you think they were going to welcome extra competition for jobs?).
I don't know enough to refute such a wide claim about Indians being disliked everywhere. But, it hasn't been my experience. People have generally been pretty nice in real life.
Elon's twitter & 4chan are the main places where I have seen outright hatred towards Indians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, instead they're the ones taking money from my pocket and food from my mouth, forcing me to compete on the labor market in my homeland, that my forefathers built.
They're the worst, and I want them gone the most.
That's logical. It's zero sum thinking, but it's fair.
I believe the US will fall behind unless it continues draining the brains of other countries, but that's just my opinion. It's also an opinion that justifies my presence in the US. So yeah, huge bias on my end.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In that case I think we're mostly in agreement. If you cut all the fraudulent Indian H1-B applications and/or reform it, then I'm not really against a limited number of selected Indians coming in. Or at least cutting down on them is not a priority.
Honestly the biggest problem I personally have with Indians is that they're ruining H1-B for all the other countries, such as China, Japan, Europe, Canada, etc. And MAGA understands this as well.
Now there's certainly a MAGA contingent that wants all Indians gone, but it's certainly a minority of MAGA.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"That's racist" is pretty much worn out as an argument anywhere to the right of Kamala Harris.
You forgot Jews. Perhaps because most Jews are in fact white?
Had much experience with the bottom half of Indian H-1Bs? I'm guessing not.
Are they? Because I keep seeing horror stories about some poor hardworking illegal immigrant being deported, and then it turns out they committed rape or homicide or at least a shitload of DUIs. And then there's the groypers complaining about not enough being deported and various leftists saying Trump is being hypocritical by not deporting enough farmworkers.
SchrΓΆdinger's whites are the exception that proves the rule. Concretely observing their place in the white identity would open so many cans of worms, that both sides (left and right) are happy to maintain a level of cognitive dissonance around it.
Its 2026 my dude. Those days are long gone. Left-wing hypocrisy is practically the entire reason this forum exists. It was a problem. The movement ran its course. Trump won. We are here now.
I've been a vocal supporter of H1b reform. The bottom percentile of H1bs are bad because the system is bimodal (the top tier MS pathway into big tech pathway, and then there is the diploma mill consulting pathway). The latter is pretty much labor arbitrage. Sadly, the biggest victims of H1b abuse are other Indians with strong profiles who have to leave because the lottery didn't work out. The loophole is glaring. That the loophole hasn't been closed tells me there is more to the story than simple 'Dems wants to import incompetent Indians'.
Overall, I'm with you on this one.
I believe Americans are mostly aligned on deporting the criminals. I believe they are a small enough minority that they won't increase crime rates. That trump-haters spin an open-and-shut case in order to paint MAGA as the fascists is the state of post-truth politics we live in. Disappointing, but it is what it is.
Reminds me of the prime number joke.
No, they're not the exception that prove the rule. They're the exception that blow the "rule" out of the water.
Most of the rest of the world in non-white. It's no surprise that most immigrant groups being objected to are non-white. And, in England, the same sort of people objected to Poles. Are they Schroedinger's White too?
"Whiteness" is basically irrelevant to the National Question in the UK. "I'm not racist - I don't like any foreigners" and "The wogs begin at Calais" are cliched-because-accurate descriptions of how the typical working class Reform voter thinks about it. Some people support Polish immigration because they are well-behaved and culturally Christian, some people oppose it because they are foreign.
Historically, the niggers of the UK were the Irish, not blacks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do, often. This is good because it advances that goal. It is bad in that it does not go far enough.
Fair enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just a non sequitur. We can walk and chew gum. Historically demographic replacement has been given even too much intention relative to elite takeover. Demographic replacement has already happened, not even in majority but near-totality, in elite Ivy institutions where the non-Jewish White population of the student body has been completely decimated even relative to their diminishing representation in the country. That doesn't mean we can't care about all of those things and pursue policy and advocacy to mitigate all of those at the same time.
The biggest issue with this policy is that these countries simply do not constitute the large majority of the foreign migration intake so it's symbolic, which is something. But it's not sufficient.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You will notice that the countries sending the most immigrants are not third world. Mexico, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, the Caribbean and Central America, etc are industrialized countries. Theyβre sucky, poor industrialized countries. But theyβre literally not third world the way most of Africa is.
3rd world doesn't mean preindustrial. Whole Indian subcontinent should quarantined off if you ask me.
More options
Context Copy link
That's just disputing the definition of "third world". IMO, lumping into the "third world" category every country that is not classified as an "advanced/developed market" by the IMF is far from totally unreasonable, though people may complain about the inclusion of Poland and Hungary in such a category. Another definition might be "every country that is not classified by the World Bank as a 'high-income country'", which excludes Poland and Hungary but also Panama and Guyana.
It seems like the best definition of βthird world countryβ, what people actually mean, is places where a sufficiently large percentage of the population lives at the subsistence line for deaths from want(lack of food, shelter, etc) to be the biggest societal concern. Places like South Sudan, Tajikistan, Haiti, etc.
When the First/Second/Third world system was non-vestigal, places like that often got split off into a "fourth world".
That was over 30 years ago now
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
Within the realm of the possible this is one of the most dramatic federal turnarounds in generations.
Ten years ago presumed Republican frontrunner Jeb Bush called illegal immigration an act of love. Now the president is openly talking about remigration. Come on, if you think this is a good thing, this βbetrayed againβ eeyore attitude is just a bad model of politics. Trump is mainstreaming mass deportations. Not a single other American politician comes anywhere close. Do you really want to complain that itβs not good enough? Because if you have the option to help row the boat and instead get out your signs wailing βTHE END IS NEARβ that says more about you than Trump.
Trump is using BBB to amass the largest deportation force in American history. Net migration is down. H1B restrictions. Benefits shut down. Remittances taxed. Itβs not as though Trump is refusing to push the βfix everythingβ button. These are extremely controversial policies that are facing concerted pushback and lawfare. Trumpβs new travel ban is even trying to deny citizenship ceremonies to new immigrants who have otherwise qualified. So, what? Letβs blackpill because we want to be going 88mph and Trump has only taken us from 0 to 50?
βDen Teufel nicht an die Wand malen.β (Don't paint the devil on the wall) - German saying
MAGA's demand for 88mph makes sense in context of their fears. But, by acting in response to those fears, they may in turn be making them real.
Internet MAGA supporters are terrified that a future Democratic govt will level the MAGA project and these 4 years are their last gasp hurrah. They believe they must move the goalposts far enough to the right, that Democrats will be caught up in reversing the damage. Ideally, public opinions will be sufficiently altered that Democrats can't change the new normal at all. To them, the only way to avoid the pendulum from swinging the other way is to break it altogether. Historically, anxious over-extension (ex: last 100 years of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Versailles treaty) often backfires. MAGA demands for 88mph may indeed end up radicalizing enough democrats that the utter demolition of the MAGA movement becomes a reality.
Broadly, the Democrats are a party of educated moderates with a fringe that tags along. The moderates keep the fringe happy and away from power. On the other hand, MAGA is a party of fringe populists with moderates who tag along. Here, the moderates are kept out of power. This causes meaningful differences in how either side operates. Yes, MAGA eventually settles on moderate policies because 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. But, their public rhetoric remains extreme, and as a result, causes faster radicalization of the opposition. This is in contrast to Democrats who take a 'boiling the frog' approach to rhetoric.
For a party that's controlled every elite institution this millennium, the Democrats have been judicious in exploiting this advantage. Some may say they were recklessly passive. Maybe they drank too much of the 'demographics is destiny' and 'reality has a left wing bias' kool-aid. I sense things are changing now. As MAGA proudly exhibits its malicious compliance and loophole finding capabilities, Democrats are taking notes. I won't pretend that MAGA are the only ones to escalate. Yes, Dems have gotten away with violating 14th amendment rules, leaving the border open and letting woke-scolds infiltrate non-partisan institutions. But that was an excruciatingly slow process. Now, they're swinging for the fences. For example: California's about-turn on gerrymandering, NYC voting in Zohran, urban reaction to ICE.
IMO, MAGA's belief in 'pushing the pendulum so far that it breaks' is suicidally risky. Biden, Clinton and Obama were milquetoast liberal elites. Moderates through and through. Yes, if the pendulum breaks, MAGA wins. But if it doesn't, it may create the populist energy for a proper left wing populist President. I don't think anyone in this country is ready for that. Remember, Bernie got pretty far in 2016 & 2020 and Trump seemed far-fetched in 2015.
Cards on the table, I like the elite liberals, but Trump 2 (and Israel vs Palestine) has triggered a clear change in energy among my peers. The Obama-lite messaging of Ezra Klein and Pete Buttigieg has stopped being effective. In comparison, the class resentment oriented populist rhetoric of Zohran and AOC is hyper ascendant. I left the 3rd world to be in civilized country. Sadly, looks like America is rapidly devolving into 3rd world politics. What to do ?
Biden was the most insane and deranged liberal president in all US history. He literally singlehandedly executed the largest migration in human history from the worst shitholes in the world directly to the US.
He's also is an extremist on dei issues, bushing black women around solely on the basis of their race and gender.
No he's not a moderate.
More options
Context Copy link
Call it cucked, but I would rather live in a civilized country thatβs a little more hostile to me than another third world shithole. Not that weβll have the choice, and not that Iβd gladly take President Groyper, but I could make my peace with a President Carlson.
More options
Context Copy link
Your examples aren't wrong, but I think the right here is more likely looking at the New Deal or Great Society. Despite decades of hand wringing from (parts of) the right, Social Security isn't going anywhere. Neither is the Civil Rights Act or Titles IX: they are, if anything being leveraged by the current administration in their (claimed) efforts towards egalitarian outcomes.
I do worry about your last point, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes he is. Has Trump even asked congress to strip Article III courts of jurisdiction over immigration claims from noncitizens? Has he even threatened to withdraw from UN refugee treaties?
How is either of those a βfix everythingβ button Trump is refusing to push? One requires Congress, which makes it extremely unlikely. The other is just some idea. I admit I donβt even know much about it. Can Trump withdraw unilaterally? Would this erode his political capital? Does it actually do anything? How much time does it take to draft up the provisions to withdraw? How high should this be on the Presidents agenda relative to the ten thousand other policy items competing for his attention? Are there better uses of his time? How well-understood and well-known is this policy fix?
Or is withdrawing from a UN migration treaty really just the one idea that fixes everything with no cost and zero downside that Trump and his team know all about but are refusing to do because theyβve betrayed us all or are lazy or donβt know how to govern?
I get it, I want more too, but this is watching the President accelerate in real time and complaining he hasnβt reached top speed, while every faction not aligned with Trump is trying to slam on the breaks.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would he need to? Immigration claims are already handled in Article I administrative "courts".
Well gee, I sure do see a lot of immigration cases in Article III courts.
My sense, without having comprehensive encyclopedic knowledge of the legal process, is that decisions of the Article I administrative courts are reviewable (with certain limited exceptions) by Article III courts.
I think that's a case of constitutional law and not statute; there has to be some method of Article III review, but it can be absurdly deferential to the Article I court and can come only after all administrative remedies are exhausted.
Reread Article III and Article I Section 8. The jurisdiction of inferior courts comes from congress, and the Supreme Courtβs appellate jurisdiction is subject to exception and regulation by congress. The Supreme Courtβs original jurisdiction canβt be stripped by congress, but it is irrelevant here.
I'm aware of that interpretation, but as far as I know, it does not hold; complete jurisdiction-stripping isn't allowed. Congress could create a special Article III court for these cases whose decision was final, but could not take the case out of the judicial branch entirely.
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
Third world is a loaded term after the end of the cold war, but these countries are a far cry from the absolute shithole failed states in thr first list. I would call them developing countries and not shitholes.
Anyways I would rather take 10 million vietnamese immigrants than a single somalian or haitian. Of course having none is better but there's a huge difference. Have you ever heard of a viet doing the shit that somalians do?
In that case Iran and Turkmenistan aren't shitholes either.
Meanwhile India is covered in garbage and is top biggest source of scam phone calls, it's like the quintessential low trust society.
The list is mostly shitholes, with a few adversary states thrown in just for fun. And Turkmenistan because one of Trump's aides doesn't know geography.
They didn't even ban all of the "shitholes".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Iran is controlled by an implacable enemy regime and has millions of fanatical Muslims amongst its population.
Thatβs more than enough justification to cut them off. Vetting these people isnβt worth the headache.
Why are Americans supposed to be obligated to import people that arenβt wanted here at all?
Iβm quite certain if you asked your average American if they wanted a family from Iran to move next door to them the vast majority would say no.
The American people, the voting public, own America and donβt have to justify who they want here or donβt want here to anyone except to other Americans.
I will be forever grateful for the Trump administration and the dissident right for moving the Overton window on this, itβs absolutely absurd.
Would they prefer Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or folks from most of Africa not listed in the ban to move next door to Iranians moving in? My point in OP was that Trump is underdelivering on what he said he will do.
Immigration from Africa is almost completely uncontroversial in America. Most people would think a nice Nigerian family moving in next door to be quite alright with them.
Somalia is (east) African? If people are finally learning to distinguish African regions better in America, fair enough. Just would be nice were it in better circumstances.
Most Americans probably think of it as middle eastern.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
βThe Perfect is the Enemy of The Goodβ continues to be evergreen, one of the greatest aphorisms ever penned.
βAlways Chimp / Trust the Plan.β Is probably top ten political memes of the year for a similar reason; small victories make larger victories easier. Yet the large victories are essential to preserve the American nation. Nothing wins like winning, when I see the Trump administration βjust doing thingsβ Iβm happy, but not content. An important distinction.
Constructive criticism - that's a lot of cliches and Yarvinisms per line, wow.
Maybe itβs a testament to how influential he is but I only see one.
Iβm curious, how many do you see?
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
So... He can just do that? No alleged legality issues like with the infamous Muslim Ban?
If so, why not pause all sources? Is that not what his voters want?
This basically is the renewed Muslim ban, with a few additional countries thrown in to keep the Supreme Court off his back. Which is how he ended up doing it the last time too, after a few tries.
More options
Context Copy link
No. While the trump base is rapidly souring on immigration from India, most normie republicans think there are many legal immigrants from places like Mexico, Nigeria, and the Philippines who are a great addition to the country.
More options
Context Copy link
Because the donor class do not, and have never wanted this
It's charming, funny, and slightly sad you think this is a consideration. He's on his last term in office, and you already voted for him. He does not care what you think, it is too late, you have 0 leverage over him.
This is the equivalent of a girl going "but I let Chad McPlayer fuck me on the first date! Why isn't he texting me anymore???" Girl... You gave it up for free, you have no power here.
By that same argument, he doesn't need campaign money ever again.
In the real world, Donald Trump does have an inner life, and also midterms to worry about.
He should be worried given how bad his approval rating is. Below both Biden and Trump1.
Yeah, it's pretty comparable to where he was a year before winning the White House, the House, the Senate and the popular vote.
Just a quick calibration question, but you did peg Ann Selzer as being full of shit, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just an argument for never voting, and being cynical and dejected, and feeling smug about it because you can always be right. Trump doesnβt listen to his voters? Thatβs pretty patently false
No it's not. Most politicians do want to win again,Trump is unique in that 1) he literally cannot and 2) his brand is about aggressively not giving a fuck (about you)
Thinking that Trump cares what (you) think is absolute tomfoolery and if anyone wants to attempt to defend that point I'd love to see them try
Trump is not our first lame-duck president. Lame duck presidents do care about winning midterms and mandates and successors.
Trumpβs brand includes βTheyβre after you Iβm just in the wayβ and βKamala is for they/them Iβm for youβ.
This is ridiculous, come on. If Trump didnβt care about any of this he would have stayed in his Tower circa 2015 or he could have run on some sort of Conservacon platform.
You wrote this as if in an attitude of just-telling-the-truth as though everyone has to give it to you. But this is a basic failure to have a theory of mine for Trump, or of American politics over the last ten years at all. Is Trump faking it every time he calls a grieving widow? When he gets up on stage and channels the crowd? When he says controversial things to defend his base that no single other politician was willing to represent?
Trump obviously trivially cares or we wouldnβt be having this discussion at all.
More options
Context Copy link
There is nothing unique about a term-limited president.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure that his voters don't really care about whiteys coming in from Europe or some other developed country. I'm sure his voters want India banned but they don't want everywhere
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What did they do? You can go decades without hearing about Turkmenistan or the men from there.
So, you've seen Borat, right? Turkmenistan is what Borat tells you Kazakhstan is. They're kind of maybe slowly liberalizing from their previous North Korea status - the first Dear Leader has a gigantic golden statue that rotates to face the sun, the second Dear Leader only built a modest, 20-meter-tall golden statue of himself on horseback atop a marble cliff, and his son hasn't even built a golden statue yet. I don't know what exactly makes the US establishment have beef with Turkmenistan, but I do know they are very tight with Russia/Iran and haven't exactly made themselves look good to the State Department in other respects.
More options
Context Copy link
Link (cited in note 2 here)
Ok, is that a big problem? Without knowing how many came or what the base rate or what they're doing in US it doesn't mean much.
Overstays according to the aforementioned report:
this sourceβvisa combination (%)
187 overstays, truly America has been saved.
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
Link missing from ΒΆ 2
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link