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 -
It is apparently illegal for states to secure their borders, as this fall only under federal jurisdiction. From here:
It is very easy for the federal government to decide to let people illegally cross the border, since Washington DC is thousands of miles away from the Texas border. Why should Texas have to absorb all those people illegally coming into the country?
It doesn't. Many pass through Texas and many remain, but the vast majority wind up elsewhere (and many enter elsewhere, notably California).
Are there any reliable studies on this? Given the costs involved in just getting across the border my priors tell me that "the vast majority" probably don't have the resources to make it very far past the border into other areas of the country. There may be people smuggling networks in place but how many have the resources to make use of them? Coyotes aren't getting people across the border out of the goodness of their heart.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/11/us-metro-areas-unauthorized-immigrants/
The idea that Texas is stuck with all the illegal immigrants while liberal states cheer from their sheltered enclaves is a political talking point, not reality.
It's not that expensive to move around the country once you're in (especially if all you've got is the clothes on your back) and many people crossing the border in the south have friends/family elsewhere in the country who both serve as an attractor and will help them out. Moreover, people physically walking across the border is a minority of illegal immigration to the United States. A majority* are arriving legally and overstaying visas. You can fly to NYC or Chicago, get a tourist visa, and never leave.
*at least as of a couple of years; I don't have a breakdown from this year, but I have no reason to think it's radically changed in two years.
Why was providing actual data on the thing everyone else in this thread was simply assuming downvoted?
Because the data he provided is literally accurate but fails to prove the relevant point. "Many areas have illegal immigrants", even liberal ones, does not logically imply that many liberal enclaves don't. (And especially, when the liberal enclaves are rich enough that people there have choices). This entire discussion started with Martha's Vineyard, which is a liberal enclave without a high immigrant population, in an area shown by that very data as having a high immigrant population.
I'm sure that there are poor inner cities that are both liberal and have a high illegal immigrant population, and are driving much of that data, but that isn't really in dispute.
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 basically agree with this sentiment and would try and reframe the discussion in terms of luxury beliefs: namely people living thousands of miles from land borders can easily harbor fantasies about human nature while ignoring (and experiencing) few of the very real negative externalities associated uncontrolled illegal immigration. If a relatively small number of buses (or even flights) are required to make the most politically powerful parts of this country more fully aware of the kinds of the problems they are rather thoughtlessly creating for others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link