A Measure of Xenophobia

[sealchan]

I don't want to address a single family.
That would be a distraction.
A problem with public discourse on immigration is that there is
much objection to this or that aspect, but no real discussion of
a systematic approach. Canuckistan has one, & I think it would
be good starting point for considering a new one for Americastan.

I'm not very familiar with the details of either. Can you give an example of what Canada is doing that the U.S. is not?

I know there are various programs for establishing citizenship and various policies. From what I read just now it seems that Canada has had mainly a need for encouraging immigration for the sake of their economy but also has felt some burdens in urban areas due to increased populations.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not very familiar with the details of either. Can you give an example of what Canada is doing that the U.S. is not?

One thing: They focus more on merit.
I like that.

 

[Anthem]

I hope you understand that our country does not have enough resources to support the population increases that would occur due to unrestricted immigration. Not all who oppose immigration are "xenophobic."

Who asked for unrestricted?

 

[Anthem]

I don't trust the study

Or that it proves anything.

 

[sealchan]

One thing: They focus more on merit.
I like that.

Ah! Yes that is nice. But Canada may also have a need to attract certain types of professionals.

I see that Canada has also opened its doors in a general way to immigration. Asians are to them as Hispanics are to the U.S.

One effective way to win hearts and minds of other nations is to allow their citizens to live in our country. That way the divide between the two countries is lessened by the experience of families who see how the values of both are shared. This gradually reduces the soil fertile for the growth of extremism, on both sides.

 

[sealchan]

Who asked for unrestricted?

No one that I am aware of has asked for unrestricted. I believe the U.S. has had, for a long time, quotas and a process whereby it can vet individuals who are sincere from those who are not. Other than a certain permeability on our southern border, I believe that the U.S. probably has maximally secure borders.

That is why immigration reform is largely a matter of xenophobia...the reality is that there are standards for security that are arguably adequate in place before the last change in administration. The argument for costs is debatable. The Muslim travel ban is not based on any facts to my knowledge regarding security issues, it is an expression of subjective fear of the other.

But I think any country has the right and responsibility to measure, enforce and legislate the conditions for immigration across its borders. That policy should be based on data, not fears of the other or prejudicial attitudes towards people of a certain kind. That policy should not discriminate based on race or religion or sexual orientation because in a democracy those elements are never relevant. Volume and ability to contribute may be...but most people from most backgrounds should prove to have an equivalent willingness in that regard.

The price of freedom in the world is exposure to people who are not like yourself.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Who asked for unrestricted?

Once you starting letting people in, you set a precedent for the future. Better to prevent immigration starting now before it leads to an over-population problem.

 

[Anthem]

Once you starting letting people in, you set a precedent for the future. Better to prevent immigration starting now before it leads to an over-population problem.

Ummmm. Prevent like stop?

Too much orwell for you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Once you starting letting people in, you set a precedent for the future. Better to prevent immigration starting now before it leads to an over-population problem.

Says the guy on behalf of a nation of immigrants...

Tell me, just who do you think is going to take care of you and the rest of your generation when the aging population demographic tidal wave hits?

 

[sealchan]

Once you starting letting people in, you set a precedent for the future. Better to prevent immigration starting now before it leads to an over-population problem.

Is, in fact, immigration a source of over-population? Is building a wall going, in any way, help with this global issue?

it may make some sense to think like this if you narrow your perspective. But you can't build walls high enough to prevent a flood unless you can survive and thrive within those walls without any outside cooperation.

That may be the dream, but it most certainly isn't a reality.

 

[sealchan]

Immigration is a major factor in US population growth...

Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S.

However, this is not necessarily an issue in and of itself although overall human population growth on the planet will certainly become an issue. There are probably many ways to address this issue but building a wall isn't a good one.

 

[tytlyf]

Once you starting letting people in, you set a precedent for the future. Better to prevent immigration starting now before it leads to an over-population problem.

An easier way to prevent over-population is to not be 'anti-choice' when it comes to abortions.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

An easier way to prevent over-population is to not be 'anti-choice' when it comes to abortions.

That and better yet using contraception to prevent too many pregnancies from occurring in the first place. But immigration still presents a problem. One country can only support a limited number of people.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is, in fact, immigration a source of over-population? Is building a wall going, in any way, help with this global issue?

it may make some sense to think like this if you narrow your perspective. But you can't build walls high enough to prevent a flood unless you can survive and thrive within those walls without any outside cooperation.

That may be the dream, but it most certainly isn't a reality.

I'm not talking about overall global population. Maybe I should have said population density or concentration. The geographical area of the United States has a limited amount of resources and can only support so many people within its borders.

 

[sealchan]

I'm not talking about overall global population. Maybe I should have said population density or concentration. The geographical area of the United States has a limited amount of resources and can only support so many people within its borders.

Yes and good urban planning is important.

I see that immigration is a significant source of population increase and I think it would be justifiable for the U.S. to continue its long time practice of using quotas. These quotas do not need to be based on ethnicity or religion or such things of course. If the current quota needs to be adjusted, it should be done with some transparent method for establishing that number.

 

[sealchan]

I think it is these sorts of incidents that the Trump voter I have measured above are likely to cause because of their fear of losing white privilege...

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/05/us...panish-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

 

[icehorse]

Here is a breakdown of the claims of this more in-depth study of the Trump voter from...

When I Google xenophobia I get:

intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

I do NOT think I'm nitpicking when I say that a strong dislike of the ideas inshrined in Islam is not xenophobic. To make a ridiculous parallel, when folks from New Guinea immigrate, we might well welcome them, but we do NOT allow them to bring with them the IDEA that cannibalism is acceptable. We separate the idea from the person.

I think we should do the same with Muslims. Being a Muslim means to VOLUNTARILY subscribe to a set of ideas, the ideas built in to Islam. IMO, a person can immigrate if they bring some value to the table (which has always been true in immigration policy), but we can say no to ideas they hold. Islam IS fundamentally anti-secular. In other words, the teachings of Islam are in stark contrast to the separation of church and state. This is one problem with Islam, it is NOT simply a religion. It is an entire political ideology that happens to have a religious facet.

(BTW, Islam has a lot of other horrible ideas, but that's for another thread.)

Now I'm no trump supporter, and I think his travel ban was ham-handed. But I can hold all of these opinions simultaneously without feeling any cognitive dissonance.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Definitely racist. They don't realize what they say is racist though. It's normal to them. Very paranoid, fearful and low income.

In my area Trump voters are easy to spot. Usually a beat up truck pulling a landscaping trailer competing with the experts in the area.

Insulting poor people just plays up the limousine liberal elitist stereotype.

 

[sealchan]

When I Google xenophobia I get:

I do NOT think I'm nitpicking when I say that a strong dislike of the ideas inshrined in Islam is not xenophobic. To make a ridiculous parallel, when folks from New Guinea immigrate, we might well welcome them, but we do NOT allow them to bring with them the IDEA that cannibalism is acceptable. We separate the idea from the person.

I think we should do the same with Muslims. Being a Muslim means to VOLUNTARILY subscribe to a set of ideas, the ideas built in to Islam. IMO, a person can immigrate if they bring some value to the table (which has always been true in immigration policy), but we can say no to ideas they hold. Islam IS fundamentally anti-secular. In other words, the teachings of Islam are in stark contrast to the separation of church and state. This is one problem with Islam, it is NOT simply a religion. It is an entire political ideology that happens to have a religious facet.

(BTW, Islam has a lot of other horrible ideas, but that's for another thread.)

Now I'm no trump supporter, and I think his travel ban was ham-handed. But I can hold all of these opinions simultaneously without feeling any cognitive dissonance.

I would include under xenophobia blaming others for personal fears and concerns without rational foundation.

I would caution you regarding the assumptions you are stating regarding Islam. I suspect that many Muslims would appreciate the freedoms in Western countries but you won't hear that from people within reach of less open governments.

By having an open door to Muslims when their nation's policies are less friendly... that shows acceptance and tolerance and makes the case that a people can be successful without having to be so militant or strict in their practices.

As a guest or resident in this country they certainly are not going to try to change our government. By the time they ever grew to a majority they would be so Americanized that they would hardly be seen as foreign.

Looking back at history, having a majority slave population with every reason to want to revolt is a far more dangerous problem than legally immigrating people.

I'm a Christian and I happen to think that a lot of people of my faith have a lot of horrible ideas. Doesnt mean I have to worry if I see them walking down my street.

 

[icehorse]

I would include under xenophobia blaming others for personal fears and concerns without rational foundation.

I have loads of rational foundation. Islam leads to backwards societies. If you disagree, please list one or two Muslim majority countries you think have good records regarding women's rights, LGBT rights, and the rights of religious minorities.

By having an open door to Muslims when their nation's policies are less friendly... that shows acceptance and tolerance and makes the case that a people can be successful without having to be so militant or strict in their practices.

The nation's policies you refer to are consistent with Islam. Islam is not tolerant.

As a guest or resident in this country they certainly are not going to try to change our government. By the time they ever grew to a majority they would be so Americanized that they would hardly be seen as foreign.

The point of immigration has ALWAYS been as a mechanism for host countries to strengthen themselves. ALWAYS. How does importing people who's ideology is theocratic (anti-secular) strengthen us? Why should we import people who's faith is misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic, supremacist and intolerant? How about if they simply reform their faith first?