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.
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.
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/
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.
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