In his blunt and imprecise way, Trump has shifted the Overton window on immigration, borders, and national security. The fact that he did so insensitively and that his approach lacked nuance does not make his deeper observation and critique erroneous, however.
I was excited to read something that made me question my own views, especially since me and most of my family are immigrants, but IMO this article makes a really poor argument for why "Trump is right" about immigration; it's mostly concerned with making a bunch of obvious points about why "the US doesn't HAVE to do anything, the US doesn't HAVE to help anyone" with Constitutional and (frankly very flimsy) philosophical arguments. Then when it finally does start addressing specifics (like the study about ethnically diverse US neighborhoods), he offers skin-deep half-truths and doesn't pursue the more interesting line of questioning, like the relationship between ethnic diversity and poverty in US cities, and the causes of it. Also: I've seen this guy around Twitter. He's a Men's Rights Activist and one step short of a white supremacist. While that by itself doesn't invalidate any of the arguments in this article, it does cause me to chuckle at how hard he tries to separate himself from the "Alt Right".
The big thing that I think that article misses is the core reason why high immigration to the US happened late last century: there was work that needed to be done and people that needed work. The ironic thing about Trump harping about this is that since the Great Recession immigration from Mexico has actually been falling. I'm hoping it won't be much longer when this is an exploitable issue on the campaign trail.
In his blunt and imprecise way, Trump has shifted the Overton window on immigration, borders, and national security. The fact that he did so insensitively and that his approach lacked nuance does not make his deeper observation and critique erroneous, however.
I was excited to read something that made me question my own views, especially since me and most of my family are immigrants, but IMO this article makes a really poor argument for why "Trump is right" about immigration; it's mostly concerned with making a bunch of obvious points about why "the US doesn't HAVE to do anything, the US doesn't HAVE to help anyone" with Constitutional and (frankly very flimsy) philosophical arguments. Then when it finally does start addressing specifics (like the study about ethnically diverse US neighborhoods), he offers skin-deep half-truths and doesn't pursue the more interesting line of questioning, like the relationship between ethnic diversity and poverty in US cities, and the causes of it. Also: I've seen this guy around Twitter. He's a Men's Rights Activist and one step short of a white supremacist. While that by itself doesn't invalidate any of the arguments in this article, it does cause me to chuckle at how hard he tries to separate himself from the "Alt Right".
The big thing that I think that article misses is the core reason why high immigration to the US happened late last century: there was work that needed to be done and people that needed work. The ironic thing about Trump harping about this is that since the Great Recession immigration from Mexico has actually been falling. I'm hoping it won't be much longer when this is an exploitable issue on the campaign trail.
Immigration from Mexico fell, but was there a net decrease in immigration from central/ south america? Specifying Mexico as the origin seems to be overly specific, possibly to mislead on overall trends. There may be a net decrease, but the uptick of central american unaccompanied minors seems fairly significant.
In his blunt and imprecise way, Trump has shifted the Overton window on immigration, borders, and national security. The fact that he did so insensitively and that his approach lacked nuance does not make his deeper observation and critique erroneous, however.
I was excited to read something that made me question my own views, especially since me and most of my family are immigrants, but IMO this article makes a really poor argument for why "Trump is right" about immigration; it's mostly concerned with making a bunch of obvious points about why "the US doesn't HAVE to do anything, the US doesn't HAVE to help anyone" with Constitutional and (frankly very flimsy) philosophical arguments. Then when it finally does start addressing specifics (like the study about ethnically diverse US neighborhoods), he offers skin-deep half-truths and doesn't pursue the more interesting line of questioning, like the relationship between ethnic diversity and poverty in US cities, and the causes of it. Also: I've seen this guy around Twitter. He's a Men's Rights Activist and one step short of a white supremacist. While that by itself doesn't invalidate any of the arguments in this article, it does cause me to chuckle at how hard he tries to separate himself from the "Alt Right".
The big thing that I think that article misses is the core reason why high immigration to the US happened late last century: there was work that needed to be done and people that needed work. The ironic thing about Trump harping about this is that since the Great Recession immigration from Mexico has actually been falling. I'm hoping it won't be much longer when this is an exploitable issue on the campaign trail.
Immigration from Mexico fell, but was there a net decrease in immigration from central/ south america? Specifying Mexico as the origin seems to be overly specific, possibly to mislead on overall trends. There may be a net decrease, but the uptick of central american unaccompanied minors seems fairly significant.
Aren't you a free market guy?
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Fri July 01, 2016 7:25 pm
by Green Habit
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Fri July 01, 2016 8:32 pm
by bart
Green Habit wrote:
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sat July 02, 2016 8:38 am
by dimejinky99
Harrison ford on Donald Trump is gold:)
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sat July 02, 2016 7:35 pm
by B
Alright, I'm feeling good. Nate Silver is currently giving Hillary a 78% chance of winning this.
I'd quite like if you guys could vote in Trump so that WrestleMania tickets would be cheap when they release in November.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sat July 02, 2016 8:23 pm
by Simple Torture
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
Yeah, I mean, especially since her chances have dropped from 80% to 78% in like 3 days, and it's at 76% in the nowcast, and 72% in the polls-plus model. If you read the commentaries published on the site, they constantly remind readers that they're taking big guesses about how polls will move between now and November. If the economy slows or tanks or Clinton gets indicted (not likely), it's only a 20-point swing for it to be 50/50.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sun July 03, 2016 12:25 am
by B
Sure, she dropped some in the last couple days, but that was after climbing from a 65% chance in June. There are surely a lot of "ifs," but it's hard to imagine sitting in a better spot than 78% chance of winning in July.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sun July 03, 2016 12:26 am
by Kaius
Worst election ever.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sun July 03, 2016 12:42 am
by BurtReynolds
Still paying attention to Nate Silver, huh?
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sun July 03, 2016 12:45 am
by Simple Torture
As usual, only 4-5 states will actually matter anyways. I'd feel much more comfortable if Clinton's lead in Ohio was bigger; Arizona might also be a state to watch.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sun July 03, 2016 2:25 am
by LoathedVermin72
Simple Torture wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
Yeah, I mean, especially since her chances have dropped from 80% to 78% in like 3 days, and it's at 76% in the nowcast, and 72% in the polls-plus model. If you read the commentaries published on the site, they constantly remind readers that they're taking big guesses about how polls will move between now and November. If the economy slows or tanks or Clinton gets indicted (not likely), it's only a 20-point swing for it to be 50/50.
Yeah, and even if she wins, we'll have Hillary Clinton as our president. How exciting.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Sun July 03, 2016 4:09 am
by 4/5
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Simple Torture wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:That doesn't exactly make me feel "good."
Yeah, I mean, especially since her chances have dropped from 80% to 78% in like 3 days, and it's at 76% in the nowcast, and 72% in the polls-plus model. If you read the commentaries published on the site, they constantly remind readers that they're taking big guesses about how polls will move between now and November. If the economy slows or tanks or Clinton gets indicted (not likely), it's only a 20-point swing for it to be 50/50.
Yeah, and even if she wins, we'll have Hillary Clinton as our president. How exciting.
