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 have mixed feelings. I want a border that is fully hardened against incursions and to turn away every single person with a bogus asylum claim from south of the border, which in my view is every single person with an asylum claim from south of the border. Nonetheless, framing it as being about the spread of Covid has always seemed like a dirty trick, a way to get around the preference for open borders that many in the bureaucracy seem to hold. On one hand, this trick is fine because it's in response to the trick of using "asylum" to create de facto open borders, on the other hand, I just don't like lying.
What makes all asylum claims originating south of the border bogus? I'd have thought at least Venezuelans would get some benefit of the doubt.
Passing through multiple countries that are safe on the way up. Going to the United States isn't about finding refuge, it's a preference to make it to the United States specifically.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm a Canadian, and I think that all asylum claims originating south of our border are bogus. Once you've escaped whichever hellhole you're running from...you've escaped it. It's done. The refugee system is meant to handle emergencies, and "being processed as a refugee in a safe country" is not an emergency that justifies asylum.
Well, yes. But Canada's southern border is with the US, so the argument that it is a safe country is pretty solid.
While Mexico could be argued to be the same the case is weaker and Mexico alone probably has a lot of potentially-legitimate asylum seekers.
And Texas(probably) wouldn’t be pepperballing migrants at the border if they were from Mexico. They’re from a lot further afield. If you’re coming from Venezuela, you’re passing through Colombia, Panama, and Costa Rica on the way up, all of which are safe countries that don’t happen to be as rich or developed as the US.
Don't forget Nicaragua. Their homicide rate is now down to 7.9/100k: still worse than Texas as a whole, but not as bad as Dallas or Houston in particular, and not even half as bad as such infamous US hellholes as "Philadelphia" or "Columbus".
Nicaragua will never be recognized as a safe country for political reasons(it being a communist dictatorship and all).
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
I personally know people who had acute medical emergencies in Mexico and were explicitly told by doctors there that they had to get back to the states ASAP if they had any realistic hope of surviving due to unavailability of high-level medical care there. And sometimes people have medical emergencies while en route. The point is that we're not going to tell someone in dire need of a doctor that they have to start hoofing it to the nearest Mexican hospital; we're going to put them on an ambulance.
I don't know that it's any less cruel than turning them away. In any event, I don't think that these new regulations are really going to change much. All the consternation about Biden's border crisis happened during a time when normal asylum rules were suspended due to COVID. The surge they expected hasn't seemed to come yet, which makes me think that the actual rules in place aren't going to change much at best, and at worst are going to encourage illegal crossings. The only real solution seems to be to make it easier for law-abiding foreigners to get work visas and give them official status as economic migrants. Second on the list would be encouraging economic development in Mexico, a growing prospect considering that COVID exposed the logistical problems with relying on China, and the political front isn't going to get any better. Even the Chinese are starting to outsource a lot of their manufacturing there because they see the writing on the wall.
More options
Context Copy link
Sane rule would require coercion being part of the deal - otherwise anybody traveling with a guide can be qualified as being "trafficked". Of course, sanity long ceased to be a consideration in immigration law anyway.
Would that rule require people to seek asylum in Mexico itself or Mexico is considered a war zone by default now?
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps because it took effect only 2 days ago.
Or perhaps because the Trump policy was barred because "It is effectively a categorical ban on migrants who use a method of entry explicitly authorized by Congress in section 1158(a)", East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F. 3d 1242, 1272 (9th Cir 2020), whereas the Biden policy, according to your quote, is not a categorical ban, but rather merely creates a rebuttable presumption?
Not everything is a conspiracy against your team.
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC most of the people currently migrating to the border had previously settled in one of the nicer parts of Latin America and are now trying to illegally cross the border because they heard facebook rumors that claiming asylum would get you permission to live in the USA.
I mean, the US seems like a nicer country to live in than Chile, but "having to live in Chile" is not a crisis and shouldn't be considered a basis for asylum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link