site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23393 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 2025

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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?

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.

In response to the Afghan national

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.

end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, These goals will be pursued with the aim of achieving a major reduction in illegal and disruptive populations - Trump

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 ?

denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization. - Trump

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.

MAGAs must make up their minds about whom they dislike first.

Something I don't think a lot Democrats or Foreigners have really grasped is that Trump and the core of the MAGA crowd are playing Teddy Roosevelt's bit about "Hyphenated Americans" absolutely straight.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.

  • Theodore Roosevelt Addressing the Knights of Columbus, October 12th, 1915

Despite being a meme @ChickenOverlord's Rawhide Kobayashi is recognizably and quintessentially "American" in a way that people like Ilhan Omar Nur, and Zohran Mamdani are not. The MAGA crowd is not failing to "make up their minds" so much as they are treating this sort of recognition is part and parcel of "Making America Great".

Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?

This doesn't feel like a good description of typical reasons:

  • Elite takeover: Sure
  • "Demographic replacement": ...by which races? I'm guessing a MAGA would feel quite differently about Japanese vs Somalian demographic replacement.
  • Unintegrated criminals: This is the most extreme example of the kind of thing conservatives are worried about. But I assume they are also worried about less egregious kinds of bad behaviour / non-assimilation (e.g. taking minimum wage jobs, nepotism, general anti-social behaviour etc)

His actions are in reaction to unintegrated criminals, primarily from Islamist nations. Why would you expect it to affect Mexico, India or the Philippines ?

But you could also view this crime through a racial lens instead of a religious one, i.e. races that have bad HBD stats (which pretty much aligns with the 3rd World) are more likely to bring problems like this

And also because he explicitly claimed he would do it in his Truth Social post: "...I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries..."

Apart from criminality, How does Trump define 'incompatible with western civilization' ? ... IMO, it's a whole lot of words that mean nothing.

Like most political things, it is kind of fuzzy ("what is a woman?", etc) - but I think everyone, including non-supporters, are roughly aware of what he is talking about (even if they don't like his definition)

As a rough definition, how about "compatible with a supermajority of Whites"?

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.

...

There is no venn diagram that fits all 3 groups except - "not white".

I mean... they don't seem to have a problem with East Asians (indeed, such a sentiment is fringe even on the Motte), who are a large and well-known class of non-White. Also you left out Blacks from your list (there was the whole "Haitian pet eating" thing)

Another very reasonable category that fits would be "low-IQ races". And I think it fits better, because of the general right-wing affinity towards East Asians.

If you want fewer non-whites. Just say that.

As I said, I think it is closer to wanting fewer people from low-IQ races. Irregardless, both of these sentiments lie far outside the Overton window.

On the Motte, people should be honest about what they want (and the commenters who feel either way have been forthright about this) - but in actual politics, the goal of speeches, rhetoric etc is to try and achieve a goal (as opposed to truth-seeking), so obviously you should not phrase your desire in terms of out-of-Overton-window ideas.

As for anti-Indian sentiment. Firstly, I'm not sure how real it is beyond just general anti-brown-people sentiment. And I don't think the more "storytelling" explanations (culture, nepotism, etc) given down-thread are particularly convincing.

I think the crux of anti-Indian sentiment is due to an especially low average IQ. Ideally, this would not matter, because appropriate filtering would account for it. But in practice lots of low-IQ people will manage to slip through the cracks somehow (fraud, a left-wing government loosens restrictions, etc), and then cause problems for the host country, because they are a (close to) unfiltered sample.

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.

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.

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 we’re 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.

The stereotypical Indian in America isn't a middleman minority - they are a H1B computer programmer.

The stereotypical Indian in the UK is doing some mid-level professional job - pharmacy, accountancy, IT etc.

No, Americans openly refer to ‘7/11 Indians’. Owning gas stations is a stronger stereotype for them than computers.

Yeah. Apu from the Simpsons was the prevailing stereotype for a generation essentially, though I guess even his visa was originally obtained for tech research of some sort if I recall correctly.

If anything the newer cohort making their money through wishy-washy Tech & Consulting roles has probably done a lot to dent the image compared to back when it was motels, convenience stores and doctors. There's a sense amongst the general public that tech employment is a gigantic rort, and a sense amongst non-Indian tech workers that Indians have essentially zero qualms in giving eachother massive assistance in finding these roles and gaming the fuck out of a system defined by nebulously clinging to a gigantic money tree more than outright 'productivity'.

Like maybe I oversimplify but I feel that Indians are currently getting a direct conduit to a lot of resentment shown towards the 'laptop job' classes since the average man on the street finds it hard to define what said classes do, how people are qualified for those jobs and why their own applications are rejected whilst money is rained down upon the lucky few product managers and whatnot. I'm personally fortunate enough to have FIREd as a result of a couple years in the tech mines and a lucky strike or two, but even I find it hard to ken exactly what it is that the majority of people in Facebook, Google etcetera in the year 2025 actually 'do'.

I think this is somewhat out of date. For most people nowadays, they're far more likely to associate "Indian" with Rajit from IT than Apu from the Simpsons. I also tend to associate gas stations with Sikhs specifically (I have no idea if this actually reflects the demographics or not), who I think generally have a better reputation in the US than other Indians. (My understanding is that they were disproportionately represented in earlier waves of migration and tended to be better integrated into the British imperial system, which has eased assimilation, though I might be typical-minding based on my own experiences here).

Americans also have a much higher opinion of small business owners who sleep in the back of the shop to make ends meet than professional class strivers "taking away" their children's college spots. The immigrant gas station owner defending his business with a .45 magnum is an American icon, beloved by all red-blooded patriots (see, e.g., roof Koreans). The H1B immigrant working at google, by contrast, comes across as an ungrateful interloper undercutting American wages while working for a despised megacorp.

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.

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.

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.

It's revealing that Indians, Mexicans and Filipinos are the main groups they have issues with.

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 builder 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.

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.

run trucks into school buses

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.

Wasn't this accidental ?

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.

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.

I do not care

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.

native Britons. how the hell is this my 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.

As an Chinese-Canadian, my opinion of them is very low for good reason

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.

I come to this country, founded by Anglos, and I cause no trouble.

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)

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.

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:

  1. Khalistanis are representative of Indians
  2. Ethnic Indians in Canada should keep their heads down because this nation was built by white anglos

My comment mostly addresses #2. I edited my previous comment to make the distinction between both sections clearer.

unconscionable for Americans of German extraction

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.

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.

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.

Non-video link

[Indian Foreign Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam] Jaishankar said Canada has been welcoming people from India with links to organised crime, ignoring warnings by New Delhi.

"Often, when I see for example these kinds of attacks, threats to our embassies, because they concern me very deeply and I tell the foreign minister, suppose if (they) happened to you, if it was your embassy, your diplomat, your flag, how would you react. We have to keep our position strong on this particular report which has come. I also saw it yesterday night, I was coming to Odisha in the morning, somebody may have been arrested, their police may have done some investigation," Jaishankar said at the event.

"But the fact is that a number of gangland people, a number of people with organised crime links from Punjab have been made welcome in Canada. We have been telling Canada, saying, look these are wanted criminals from India, you have given them visas. Many of them have come in false documentation and yet you allow them to live there. If you decide to import for political purposes people with very dubious, actually, very negative backgrounds, there will be issues, they have in some cases created problems in their own country as a result of their own policies. No, why would we fear? If something happens there, it is for them to worry about," he added.

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.

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.

selection effect of the most difficult and competitive visa and immigration process out of any country

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.

Indians are scammers and cheaters, and have a terrible culture

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.

Canada's indians

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.

Biden's illegal indians

There is widespread consensus that they should be deported. We aren't arguing about them.

Given that anti-Indian hate is disproportionately pointed towards the H1bs

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.

People have generally been pretty nice in real life.

This is not mutually exclusive with the same people disliking or even hating Indians.

Anti-Indian sentiment online could just be where some percentage of those people go to express their true sentiments.

Everyone hates the Indians running the gas stations and convenience stores. Of course it's an extremely hard business to be liked in, but Indians also chose to get into it.

People have generally been pretty nice in real life

I hold racist views, am against non white immigration (and even that should be of the von Braun type, not sweatshop workers), am pro remigration and would still be very nice and potentially friends with you in real life. I have many Indian friends (who are all relatively educated and wealthy, we share similar interests) while holding these views. I hold colloquially racist views but none of them are out of hatred. I think a person's race affects their compatibility with a culture (there are always exceptions, of course), and I would like to maintain western culture. Just because I don't want Indians (or whoever else) living in America doesn't mean I hate them. I don't hate bears, but I don't want them living in my house.

twitter & 4chan are the main places where I have seen outright hatred towards Indians

I think you're (understandably) misreading edge lording and racism as hatred. Best I can tell, there's not much hatred. They simply want them to go back home or realize they're a guest and behave as such (which in large numbers becomes impossible).

I had a discussion with my Indian friends that was pretty eye opening. I grew up genuinely race blind, and when we were discussing why they were pro immigration etc. (when I pointed out it was bad for most Americans except the rich), they informed me they didn't necessarily view themselves as Americans, but as Indian Americans. And I don't hate them for this. Self interest is rational and they're not violent or anything.

I've come to realize American really means white, european genetics, ok with christian morals etc. My "fish being informed what water is" moment was when I learned the egalitarian individualism of western society was not universal. And that type of society is incompatible with 95% of immigrants.

It's an unfortunate situation we're in and I place the blame on corrupt elites running western society.

I am inclined to believe that hatred towards Indians has little to do with good-behavior or excellence.

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.

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.

Personally, I'm sick of white supremacists using motte-and-baileys to criticize immigrants.

"That's racist" is pretty much worn out as an argument anywhere to the right of Kamala Harris.

It's revealing that Indians, Mexicans and Filipinos are the main groups they have issues with.

You forgot Jews. Perhaps because most Jews are in fact white?

Indians are a model minority, speak English, from a pluralistic democracy and uniquely economically productive.

Had much experience with the bottom half of Indian H-1Bs? I'm guessing not.

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.

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.

because most Jews are in fact white

Schrödinger'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.

"That's racist" is pretty much worn out as an argument anywhere to the right of Kamala Harris.

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.

bottom half of Indian H-1Bs

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.

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.

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.

Schrödinger's whites are the exception that proves the rule.

A different way of looking at this is that a lot of people don't want any disruptive people around that are making their lives worse, but can only positively identify those of another race as being let into the country against their wishes.

For example, around 30 minutes ago I had some person who was definitely on something harassing me as I grabbed breakfast. I do not want to deal with an addict alternating between begging me for money and telling me how she actually owns a large company anywhere near me when I'm hungover and just want to grab some food before my head explodes; however, she had a Canadian accent and was white, so for my purposes, she gets lumped into "disruptive homeless", and I quietly vote for whatever party tells me they'll lock them all up.

If she'd had an Indian accent and darker skin, it'd have been obvious she'd have been one of the 5 million or so TFW/students/whatever imported by Trudeau - so she'd have been lumped into "disruptive immigrant", and I'd quietly vote for whatever party tells me they'll kick them all out. This also applies to if the person had a German accent, or a British one, or whatever; I just don't want them harassing me in the street.

Schrödinger's whites are the exception that proves the rule.

Reminds me of the prime number joke.

A mathematician, physicist, and engineer are taking a math test. One question asks "Are all odd numbers prime?"
The mathematician thinks, "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- nope, not all odd numbers are prime."
The physicist thinks, "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 ... experimental error, 11 is prime, 13 is prime, yes, they're all prime."
The engineer thinks, "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime, ..."

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?

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.

There is no venn diagram that fits all 3 groups except - "not white". If you want fewer non-whites. Just say that.

I do, often. This is good because it advances that goal. It is bad in that it does not go far enough.

Fair enough.

MAGAs must make up their minds about whom they dislike first.

Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?

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.

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. They’re sucky, poor industrialized countries. But they’re 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.

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 ‘third world country’, 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

Yes, and the "World" system is left over from that time. As is Trump.

The third and fourth worlds moved up a slot when the "second world" disappeared.

That sounded too good to be true and it was.

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 “betrayed again” 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 it’s not good enough? Because if you have the option to help row the boat and instead get out your signs wailing “THE END IS NEAR” 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. It’s not as though Trump is refusing to push the “fix everything” button. These are extremely controversial policies that are facing concerted pushback and lawfare. Trump’s new travel ban is even trying to deny citizenship ceremonies to new immigrants who have otherwise qualified. So, what? Let’s blackpill because we want to be going 88mph and Trump has only taken us from 0 to 50?

So, what? Let’s blackpill because we want to be going 88mph and Trump has only taken us from 0 to 50?

“Den Teufel nicht an die Wand malen.” (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, Clinton and Obama were milquetoast liberal elites. Moderates through and through.

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, pushing black women around solely on the basis of their race and gender.

No he's not a moderate.

What are you talking about?

No, seriously, what number do you have in mind?

The exact number is disputed but claims go as large as 21 million. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jp4xqx2z3o I admit the numbers are disputed but note that the ever liberal BBC does not even approach asserting that 21 million is false, which it would if there was consensus that the number was wrong. I don't have a good number either because there are multiple overlapping and nonoverlapping categories, such as parole, border encounters, gotaways, asylum seekers, chnv, etc. Also if you are talking about the total scale of the migration, that would include the people who migrated towards the border but might not have made it onto us soil.

The previous largest mass migration in human history is the partition of India, and numbers also vary from 10 to 20 million. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/107278-largest-mass-migration-ever https://www.neh.gov/article/story-1947-partition-told-people-who-were-there https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/03/partition-1947-continues-haunt-india-pakistan-stanford-scholar-says

Outside of the 21M claim, I was seeing things like this House committee, claiming 8M encounters and 1.7M “gotaways.” Newsweek gives the 2023 illegal population at 14M, including any who were already present; it also cites a Cato Institute denial of the 20+M figures. And the CIS blasts Biden for somewhere between 7M and 12M.

I’m also surprised the BBC didn’t go all “no evidence.” Still, I see a general consensus against Miller’s numbers.

I could see the partition of India being bigger, but the estimates definitely have quite an overlap. Maybe I should say that the Biden border crisis is "arguably" the largest migration in human history.

I’ll admit that I took the 18M estimate for partition as gospel, and didn’t realize there were lower ones.

Biden numbers are still crazy, either way.

What you say is true of whoever was running the Biden administration, certainly.

Call it cucked, but I would rather live in a civilized country that’s a little more hostile to me than another third world shithole. Not that we’ll have the choice, and not that I’d gladly take President Groyper, but I could make my peace with a President Carlson.

Better to be a second-class citizen of a first world country than a first-class citizen of a third world country.

Historically, anxious over-extension (ex: last 100 years of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Versailles treaty) often backfires.

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.

It’s not as though Trump is refusing to push the “fix everything” button.

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 “fix everything” button Trump is refusing to push? One requires Congress, which makes it extremely unlikely. The other is just some idea. I admit I don’t 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 they’ve betrayed us all or are lazy or don’t know how to govern?

I get it, I want more too, but this is watching the President accelerate in real time and complaining he hasn’t reached top speed, while every faction not aligned with Trump is trying to slam on the breaks.

Has Trump even asked congress to strip Article III courts of jurisdiction over immigration claims from noncitizens?

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 Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to exception and regulation by congress. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction can’t 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.

Meanwhile the top sources of 3rd world immigration are Mexico, India, Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Colombia.

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 "shithole countries".

Iran is controlled by an implacable enemy regime and has millions of fanatical Muslims amongst its population.

That’s more than enough justification to cut them off. Vetting these people isn’t worth the headache.

Why are Americans supposed to be obligated to import people that aren’t wanted here at all?

I’m 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 don’t have to justify who they want here or don’t 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, it’s 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.

That's because immigrating from there to America is sufficiently hard and selective, so it gets the industrious educated types - the milling-around enthusiast migrants end up in Europe instead.

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.

“The Perfect is the Enemy of The Good” continues to be evergreen, one of the greatest aphorisms ever penned.

“Always Chimp / Trust the Plan.” 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 “just doing things” I’m happy, but not content. An important distinction.

Constructive criticism - that's a lot of cliches and Yarvinisms per line, wow.

Maybe it’s a testament to how influential he is but I only see one.

I’m curious, how many do you see?

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?

No alleged legality issues like with the infamous Muslim Ban?

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.

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.

If so, why not pause all sources?

Because the donor class do not, and have never wanted this

Is that not what his voters want?

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.

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?

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 doesn’t listen to his voters? That’s pretty patently false

This is just an argument for never voting,

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 unique in that 1) he literally cannot

Trump is not our first lame-duck president. Lame duck presidents do care about winning midterms and mandates and successors.

his brand is about aggressively not giving a fuck (about you)

Trump’s brand includes “They’re after you I’m just in the way” and “Kamala is for they/them I’m for 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

This is ridiculous, come on. If Trump didn’t 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 wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

No it's not. Most politicians do want to win again,Trump is unique in that 1) he literally cannot

There is nothing unique about a term-limited president.

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

Turkmenistan

What did they do? You can go decades without hearing about Turkmenistan or the men from there.

I mean, Turkmenistan is the most oppressive country in the region(and it borders Iran and Afghanistan, in an area where democracy is unheard of). It has a history of dictators doing absurd personality cult things like forced karaoke and… everything about the Ruhnama. It’s probably on a preexisting ‘yeah, these guys are baddies if we ever decide to give a shit about them’ list.

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.

Link (cited in note 2 here)

According to the [Fiscal Year 2023] Overstay Report, Turkmenistan had a B-1 [business]/B-2 [tourist] visa overstay rate of 15.35 percent and an F [student], M [vocational], and J [exchange visitor] visa overstay rate of 21.74 percent.

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:

Source countriesVisasAbsoluteRelative to expected exits for
this source–visa combination (%)
VWP (Visa Waiver Program)B-1, B-299,0000.62
Non-VWP, non-CA/MXB-1, B-2310,0003.2
Non-CA/MXF, M, J49,0003.7
CA, MXB-1, B-2, F, M, J79,0000.73
AllB-1, B-2, F, M, J570,0001.5
TurkmenistanB-1, B-214215
TurkmenistanF, M, J4522
TurkmenistanB-1, B-2, F, M, J18717

187 overstays, truly America has been saved.

Link missing from ¶ 2

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats