This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I disagree.
If all Trump wanted to do was enforce immigration nationwide, having hundreds of small operations in the interior that were not announced ahead of time would be a better way to do it. Surely, the element of surprise is important, and is not something you obtain by making a big announcement that you're about to send 2000 guys into a city. That, to me, seems like a way to guarantee two results: 1) some illegal immigrants are going to flee to other places and lie low while the enforcement is in place, and 2) locals are going to try and find and confront ICE agents.
Maybe Trump just is so much of a showman that he can't help but step on his own feet when it comes to immigration enforcement, but I find it more plausible that the current outcome was expected and part of the point.
I'm not asking for anything. I basically agree with the idea that Trump ran on immigration and so should have some latitude to enforce the laws, regardless of how much of an immigration hawk I am. I am saying that a Trump that wanted to actually enforce immigration laws would not be doing what he is doing now.
And how, exactly, do small operations "in the interior" do anything about illegal aliens in sanctuary cities? Again, your suggestion still boils down to enforcing the law only on Red Tribe.
More options
Context Copy link
This shouldn't even be up for debate. If they wanted to stop immigration they'd go after American employers who pay the illegal immigrants American money to work for them, in America. The immigrants don't come here for the weather, they come here to get paid USD.
Trump literally, with his own mouth, said they wouldn't be going after agriculture or hotels(?!) which are known industries that employe massive amounts of illegals.
Yes, I'm sorry to say this is exactly right. The fact that the Trump admin has decided to pursue the illegal immigration problem by staging Brownshirt-style street battles between ICE and radicalized Democrats is just black-pilling. If I was a Soros master-of-the-universe type, and I was intent on preserving widespread illegal immigration, and I found myself in the impossibly fortunate position of being able to mind control Trump, I think I'd basically have him continue down the path he's already elected to follow—what he is doing right now is working splendidly.
Immigration enforcement was always going to be an extremely charged and divisive undertaking. There is a sizable minority of the population that is fanatically opposed, a plurality moderate population that is fairly agnostic, and then a final MAGA faction that is all-in. The key to winning has always been disempowering the fanatics while not alienating the moderates. The employment focused approach is perfect for this: enforcement is directed against rich white people the fanatics probably don't even like; each rich white person employer probably employees a number of illegal immigrants, so you get way more bang for your buck per enforcement action; the rich white employers, unlike illegal immigrants, have a lot to lose, so they are likely to cooperate with your enforcement, or better yet, simply stop their illegal behavior once faced with a credible threat of punishment; and finally, once deprived of financial incentive for being in the country, the illegal immigrants deport at their own expense, without recourse to the legal system, and without generating any of the fraught issues that arise through forced deportation, like minor children being separated from parents, or citizen minor children being detained.
If you insist on supplementing this approach, removing dangerous criminal aliens with ICE could be justified, but the Trump strategy has still been far from optimal. Again, the priority is to disempower the fanatics while not alienating the moderates. You don't accomplish any of this by taking the fanatics and making them into martyrs: that just alienates moderates and fuels fanaticisim. You accomplish it by demoralizing the fanatics, and by making the fanatics look like fanatics to the moderates. If a fanatic is interfering with your operations, sure, try to arrest them. But if that fails, what is wrong with letting them go and then nabbing them the next day at work once things have cooled down? Then you can pile on the charges: resisting arrest, fleeing an officer, assaulting an officer, etc. This avoids making martyrs, and definitely demoralizes—there is a certain glamor to slugging it out with the cops, but not so much to being arrested at work and then subjected to cavity searches in a federal detention center for the next three years.
I can imagine some ICE higher-up saying, "you say that, but we can't let protestors dictate the tempo of our enforcement and removal operations. It would be giving in to the worst kind of heckler's veto." To which I say, why not? Why not let the fanatics win? If you are careful in selecting your targets, letting them win these standoffs has mostly upside. Let's say that ICE had turned back after Renee Good had blocked their operation and refused to come into custody, and then did a press conference on the dangerous child molester they were planning to arrest but couldn't because Good and co had interfered. This serves the second part of our strategy perfectly: make the fanatics look like fanatics to the moderates. It turns an operational loss into a strategic victory. The ICE higher-up: "But what if that child molester goes and molests a child because we didn't deport them?" Yes, what if? To be honest, it is very unlikely, and it would be tragic, but cynically speaking, it would probably go a long way to ensuring that you never have this problem again, right? What better serves the interests of children, turning Renee Good into martyr and your whole operation into a circus, or executing the occasional strategic retreat in order to win the war?
There is a Chinese meme where Trump is called "Trump the Nation-Builder" because his geopolitical blundering so often seems to serve the interests of the PRC. In the future, will mestizo peasants be praying to Trump in thanks for his efforts to delegitimize immigration enforcement? Will they light little candles with Trump's face on them and place them on their ofrendas to honor him as the patron saint of illegals? Looking at situation as it presently stands, it wouldn't shock me.
Amazing comment
This is hilarious
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, this is a made-up misdirection from the left.
Employers are not the villain here - employers are legally required to accept any "reasonably genuine" documents that appear to relate to the employee, even if they are not ultimately confirmed by e-verify. Employers cannot terminate an employee simply because they believe they are an illegal immigrant. Doing so may result in anti-discrimination lawsuits against the employer, which are far riskier and carry heavier penalties than hiring illegals.
If an employer reports a worker to ICE as potentially illegal, the employer may get into trouble with anti-retaliation law. Additionally, claiming the employer is retaliating against you can be a pathway to getting 6 more years in the US - i.e. the illegal alien is financially motivated by the government to cause further trouble for the employer.
https://legalaidatwork.org/factsheet/deferred-action-for-noncitizen-undocumented-workers-in-labor-disputes/
> name is "yestrusocialist"
> "Employers are not the villain here"
Snark aside, I'm not super interested in assigning blame here. Although I imagine many (especially farmers and hotel owners) employers do know they're hiring illegals, I imagine they try to.
My logic rests upon the core facts:
I don't know the exact policy/regulation structure that both stops employers from hiring illegal immigrants while maintaining worker dignity and privacy, but I'm very confident there's a way to accomplish this. Also, the current status quo of ICE is 1) of middling effectiveness relative to the stated goals of the admin and 2) a shitshow that is very obviously not doing good at "dignity" or "privacy" so the bar is pretty low here
I also imagine (and in a couple of cases know with certainty) that employers know they are hiring illegals. But at $10k/violation for hiring illegals and $50k-$300k for discrimination for failing to accept "reasonably genuine" documents, I don't blame them for it.
I blame the legal structure they operate under and the politicians who created it. Capitalists will be Capitalists. It's on government to align the incentives with desired actions.
I agree this can be done, but it will be slow and will not get rid of illegals in the short run.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, and why don't we have mandatory e-verify despite a Republican Congress and white house?
All of the obstacles you mention could easily be cleared with legislation.
I agree that it would be great to dismantle antidiscrimination law. It is not true that this could be "easily cleared with legislation" - among other things one would also need to eliminate leftist judges and other instruments of left wing anti democratic power.
Mandatory e-verify has nothing to do with discrimination. By definition, if you e-verify everyone, you aren't discriminating.
If you want to reduce the penalties for discrimination and commensurate increase the penalties for hiring illegals, to the point where employers happily risk discriminating in order to avoid hiring illegals, I support this.
Employment verification is not discrimination. Have you seriously never gone through I-9 verification to work?
Every employed illegal also went through it. I'm all in favor of mandatory e-verify plus giving employers broad leeway to reject any vaguely suspicious documents (even if "reasonably genuine") and re-e-verify any employee anytime for any reason.
I'd also favor inverting the cost of penalties - $50-300k for hiring illegals, only $10k for discrimination. (Today it's the reverse.)
But this is a major change in the law with exactly zero D support + very little establishment republican support.
Its nonsense to pretend that this new regime is anything like existing law, however.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're assuming court's follow actual logic. If "we apply this to everyone, so it can't be discrimination" the concept of "disparate impact" would not exist.
To be absolutely clear on this point - your position is that we don't have mandatory e-verify because Congress and the president know that the courts would make it de facto illegal to hire a person without work authorization? Do I understand you correctly?
My argument is that your previous argument is wrong, I made no statements about why no one tried passing mandatory e-verify. Where did you even get the idea?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link