The American Politics thread

[harsh.ag]

 

[Ausage]

I agree with Watson insofar as there's a time/number component to a successful immigration program. Too many new people in too short space of time causes at least short term stresses on housing, jobs and the social fabric. That's why I don't see efforts to have some measure of control over the people coming to a country as being about racism. Having a good estimate on how many people will be coming allows you to provide assistance with housing, finding a job, learning the language and even higher education and that's before you take into account bringing the right kind of labour for your society's needs. You can't do that with open borders and that's where you open yourself up to problems.

That said there's no way it's a major problem in Australia. We've been doing it right for decades evidenced by the fact we have a peaceful successful society comprised almost entirely of immigrants. We take a pretty low number of people over a reasonably long stretch of time. Kogarah isn't being "obliterated" and there's absolutely no way Arabs/Africans/Asians/whatever are responsible if it is.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree with Watson insofar as there's a time/number component to a successful immigration program. Too many new people in too short space of time causes at least short term stresses on housing, jobs and the social fabric. That's why I don't see efforts to have some measure of control over the people coming to a country as being about racism. Having a good estimate on how many people will be coming allows you to provide assistance with housing, finding a job, learning the language and even higher education and that's before you take into account bringing the right kind of labour for your society's needs. You can't do that with open borders and that's where you open yourself up to problems.

The fundamental problem I have with this argument is that you could just as easily apply to something like forced sterilisation or China's one child policy instead. From a practical standpoint it's true that a population growth rate higher than a certain point will decrease average living standards in an area (although I disagree with watson about what exactly that certain point is), but enforcing this idea through government immigration controls or the other measures I mentioned seems to violate people in a much more basic sense than merely having them inconvenienced by the choices other free people make with their persons and their property.

The idea that your legal rights should hinge on where your mother was when you were born seems very hard to justify from my perspective. "It works out better for people already living in prosperous societies" doesn't really cut it for me.

 

[NZTailender]

I like how he thinks development and gentrification started in the early 90s.

 

[DriveClub]

Make Hurstville great again!?

So white culture is the indigenous culture of Australia which has been destroyed by leechy immigrants?

 

[Ausage]

The fundamental problem I have with this argument is that you could just as easily apply to something like forced sterilisation or China's one child policy instead. From a practical standpoint it's true that a population growth rate higher than a certain point will decrease average living standards in an area (although I disagree with watson about what exactly that certain point is), but enforcing this idea through government immigration controls or the other measures I mentioned seems to violate people in a much more basic sense than merely having them inconvenienced by the choices other free people make with their persons and their property.

The idea that your legal rights should hinge on where your mother was when you were born seems very hard to justify from my perspective. "It works out better for people already living in prosperous societies" doesn't really cut it for me.

I don't think it's in any way as easy to apply this approach to forced sterilisation/OCP as it is to immigration. The former is about as a fundamental a human right as you can have, I don't put people living in a country of their choosing on the same pedestal.

It really comes down to whether you think national governments should primarily govern for their constituents or for the global mass of humanity. I lean towards the former, both on a moral level and from a practical standpoint. There's a limit of course, I wouldn't support conquering New Zealand for no other reason than to marginally improve my quality of life but the flip side of people granting governments some level of power over them is a responsibility to put the interest of it's constituents at the forefront of their decisions.

But to reiterate, the question is mostly theoretical, at least in Australia. There really isn't a problem here.

 

[Anil]

if trump wins, assange should really be pardoned, granted citizenship and offered a cabinet position...he is working really hard to help the guy win...

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I was watching a 2010 Colbert interview with him and it's pretty striking how much being locked in an embassy for years ages you.

 

[Burgey]

How good is it to see the Loony Right devouring itself in the lead up to this election?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

 

[Burgey]

You should catch up with social. He's over in London for a few weeks.

 

[Burgey]

Should probably also post it in the right thread.

 

[silentstriker]

Damn it!

 

[watson]

At the cost of "destroying" the "cultural heritage" of the "indigenous" and "egalitarian" white population?! Totally not worth it!

Make Hurstville great again!?

So white culture is the indigenous culture of Australia which has been destroyed by leechy immigrants?

These quotes are pretty close to the mark although 'leechy' is inappropriate.

Social Conservatives ('Cultural Conservationists') argue that Australian culture and American Protestent culture have just as much right to exist and flourish as Native American culture, AborigInal culture, Sikh culture, Eskimo culture, Scottish culture, Turkish culture, Saudi Arabian culture, Mexican culture, Sudanese culture, Thai culture, Jordanian culture or Palestinian culture. They would also argue that both Australian and American Protestant culture are under direct assault by rapid immigration, 'left' academia, and the crass commercialism that goes hand-in-hand with globalisation. Now you could easily argue that there is no direct assault, but the elevation of Trump et al in contemporary politics suggests otherwise.

 

[Anil]

 

[NZTailender]

It's been existing and flourishing as a dominant culture to the point it's largely erased or overshadowed anything else that existed previously or has finally established a small foothold. Giving other cultures their right to exist and flourish ≠ destroying 'American and Australian protestant culture' compeltely, which is where 'Social Conservatives' consistently go wrong.

 

[Burgey]

Trump, the GOP, and the Fall ? Whatever

 

[Scarlett]

lol
https://youtu.be/jB2zoidUeLU

 

[Anil]

a typical trump supporter

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

These quotes are pretty close to the mark although 'leechy' is inappropriate.

Social Conservatives ('Cultural Conservationists') argue that Australian culture and American Protestent culture have just as much right to exist and flourish as Native American culture, AborigInal culture, Sikh culture, Eskimo culture, Scottish culture, Turkish culture, Saudi Arabian culture, Mexican culture, Sudanese culture, Thai culture, Jordanian culture or Palestinian culture. They would also argue that both Australian and American Protestant culture are under direct assault by rapid immigration, 'left' academia, and the crass commercialism that goes hand-in-hand with globalisation. Now you could easily argue that there is no direct assault, but the elevation of Trump et al in contemporary politics suggests otherwise.

So what specific aspects of American Protestant culture are being destroyed immigration? So far I've got:

- Being a racist shitbag whenever you want.
- Living in a terraced house surrounded by other white people in terrace houses.