Anti-immigrant rhetoric

[Stevicus]

Wasn't it a proposed ban on unvetted immigrants from
Islamic countries ? We in China are not enthusiastic about them either.

From some Islamic countries, yes, but not all of them.

 

[Audie]

Yes, that reflects my view of Trump.

The kind of language used is similar - Trump has frequently used the same kind of inflammatory language to describe immigrants today. My question is whether or not anyone considers the current situation to be different in some sense.

'some other part' = another part (of the world).

So you do equate.

And have a prejudicial attitude which is
generally unhelpful.


You didn't answer the "other part" q.

I see a lot of difference, but for now
I would like a yes/know if you do.

 

[Audie]

From some Islamic countries, yes, but not all of them.

Was it a temp ban until a more thorough vetting
process for " hotbed" countries could be devised?

 

[Stevicus]

Was it a temp ban until a more thorough vetting
process for " hotbed" countries could be devised?

Yes, if I recall correctly.

 

[Tomef]

So you do equate.

Insofar as the language used is similar.

And have a prejudicial attitude which is
generally unhelpful.

Evidence based. It can be observed that Trump (and others) use the same sort of language to describe immigrants today. Things that can be observed are not the same as prejudice - prejudice means pre judging, judging before, whereas judging based on observation is no longer 'pre'.

You didn't answer the "other part" q.

As in my last post, 'some other part' = another part. Another part of the world, some other part, i.e. not Italy or Ireland.

I see a lot of difference, but for now
I would like a yes/know if you do.

The OP is a question, do you (anyone) see a difference. In terms of the language and attitude, I don't see any difference. The circumstances differ somewhat, in that people back then who kicked up a fuss about immigration were focused on different ethnic groups than currently. Perhaps their motivations were different in some way, it's hard to say.

 

[Audie]

Yes, if I recall correctly.

Which is probably what was already part of immigration law, and applicable to all immigrants- a thorough vetting.

It's very difficult to immigrate to most countries even for the squeaky - clean.

 

[Audie]

Yes, if I recall correctly.

Which is probably what was already part of immigration law, and applicable to all immigrants- a thorough vetting.

It's very difficult to immigrate to most countries even for the squeaky - clean.

 

[Tomef]

I don't know of any groups targeted by Trump (although I haven't read all his speeches). But among the general hoi polloi, one might hear rhetoric about "Mexicans pouring over the border" and things like that. 9/11 also prompted many Americans to target Muslims as a potential threat and have wanted to limit their immigration on that basis. In fact, I recall Trump received a lot of criticism over what many perceived as a ban on Muslim immigration.

He has used a lot of similar terms, e.g. referring to immigrants as animals, accusing them on mass as being mostly rapists (without any apparent sense of irony) and murderers, drug dealers, etc., coming from '****hole' countries, speaking of an 'invasion' that is 'poisoning' the country. Very similar to the kind of language directed at Italians and Irish people earlier in US history.

 

[Audie]

Insofar as the language used is similar.

Evidence based. It can be observed that Trump (and others) use the same sort of language to describe immigrants today. Things that can be observed are not the same as prejudice - prejudice means pre judging, judging before, whereas judging based on observation is no longer 'pre'.

As in my last post, 'some other part' = another part. Another part of the world, some other part, i.e. not Italy or Ireland.

The OP is a question, do you (anyone) see a difference. In terms of the language and attitude, I don't see any difference. The circumstances differ somewhat, in that people back then who kicked up a fuss about immigration were focused on different ethnic groups than currently. Perhaps their motivations were different in some way, it's hard to say.

Your bias may account for perceived similarities.

If you note the question I asked about about
other countries yiu will note you've twice failed to answer.

As to last paragraph, that wasn't an answer at all,
but if your views are secret you could just say so.

 

[Audie]

He has used a lot of similar terms, e.g. referring to immigrants as animals, accusing them on mass as being mostly rapists (without any apparent sense of irony) and murderers, drug dealers, etc., coming from '****hole' countries, speaking of an 'invasion' that is 'poisoning' the country. Very similar to the kind of language directed at Italians and Irish people earlier in US history.

In context it is about how unvetted immigrants include
such people.
Out of context it makes for great anti Trump polemics.

Like "Harris says she will seize patents"

 

[Tomef]

Your bias may account for perceived similarities.

'Percieved' as in the same words - murderers, rapists, not human, sub-human, 'poisoning the blood' of the country, an invasion, bad hombres and so on. The language is the same, the words used by Trump are the same as those used by anti-immigrant opportunists in the 19th C and earlier. Your perception of my bias does not magically change those words into words which are not the same.

If you note the question I asked about about
other countries yiu will note you've twice failed to answer.

I don't understand what you are asking. Do you mean you want to know what the phrase 'some other place' means? As I already said in 2 posts, 'some other place' means another place. If your question is about something else, what is it?

As to last paragraph, that wasn't an answer at all,
but if your views are secret you could just say so.

What's unclear about it?

The language is the same.

Is there a difference anyone (i.e. not me) is aware of? <- this is a question. I don't have a 'secret' opinion about it. As I have said several times, the language used is the same, the language indicates a similar attitude. I am asking a question, in the traditional fashion, to see what other people think.

If any of that unclear to you, you'll need to explain why, as I don't understand what you think is missing.

 

[Tomef]

In context it is about how unvetted immigrants include
such people.

What context are you referring to?

Trump has made such comments numerous times in reference to immigrants in general, without any kind of qualifying context. In which context do you think he was referring to unvetted immigrants rather than all immigrants? In that context, if it exists, in what sense do you think it acceptable to use terms like animals, poisoners of the 'blood', sub-human and so on? What makes that different to someone using the same terms about Italians and Irish people at an earlier time?

 

[Audie]

He has used a lot of similar terms, e.g. referring to immigrants as animals, accusing them on mass as being mostly rapists (without any apparent sense of irony) and murderers, drug dealers, etc., coming from '****hole' countries, speaking of an 'invasion' that is 'poisoning' the country. Very similar to the kind of language directed at Italians and Irish people earlier in US history.

In context it is about how unvetted immigrants include
such people.
Out of context it makes for great anti Trump polemics.

Like "Harris says she will seize patents"

 

[Tomef]

Like "Harris says she will seize patents"

Not really. A similar comparison would be something like 'Harris says drug companies are evil, sub-human scum' or something of that sort.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

As has been noted, this is old text, but not appreciably different from Trumpian xenophobia apart from who the immigrants are today. Then, it was the Irish and Italians, now, its Hispanics and Muslims.

if any, is this different from the rhetoric pushed by Trump (etc) today.

No. As said, it's been redirected to brown people, and Trump characterizes his boogeymen differently - diseased, rapists, insane asylum escapees, drug and human traffickers - but it's the same bigotry used for the same purpose. As you know, it was Trump's primary campaign issue in 2016. It's what the wall was about and the sentiment to make the Mexicans pay for it. It's what MAGA means - keep America a white Christian patriarchy.

anti-immigration rethoric of today is because of safety...first of all.

That is incorrect. It's still a manufactured wedge issue. America needs its immigrant laborers. It's the indigenous Americans and their guns and hatreds that you need to watch out for there, not the guy picking lettuce and sending his income home to another country.

Not to mention Corey Comperatore, a firefighter that died because of the anti-Trump hatred spread by the Left.

Also incorrect. He died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time in a country with serious mental health and gun issues and a serious breach of security protocols.

Trump himself is the source of anti-Trump hatred, not "the left." I detest the man because of what he says and does, not because I was told to.

It's common in the States for MAGA conservatives to project themselves onto others and assume that their minds are being made up for them, as if nobody can filter out indoctrination, as if the left or the media have the power to capture all minds subjected to it. In such minds, Trump is detested because people are conditioned to think that way, not because the man is detestable. It's a manifestation of the false consensus effect:

"In psychology, the false consensus effect, also known as consensus bias, is a pervasive cognitive bias that causes people to "see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances". In other words, they assume that their personal qualities, characteristics, beliefs, and actions are relatively widespread through the general population."

This just means that if your beliefs are passively and uncritically received, you assume that that is human nature across the board, and that those disagreeing with you also came to their positions because others decided to make them think what they think.

There's also a touch of Dunning-Kruger effect there, which is described as people overestimating their capabilities, but in my experience is more common in people underestimating the ability of others. It's not so much that they see themselves as experts as that they aren't aware that expertise exists, which is also false consensus. In their minds, everybody is as clueless as they are, but they don't see it in those terms. To them, they are normal, and all opinions are equivalent.

So no to the idea that the left spreads hatred or is indoctrinated with hatred. That's the MAGA right, but for reasons just given, most don't know that and believe what you do.

I think that a person who shoots at Trump that's because he hates his guts.

This shooter only settled on Trump. He just wanted to kill somebody. From Gunman in Trump assassination attempt saw rally as 'target of opportunity,' FBI official says

"The FBI analysis of his online search history reveals a “sustained, detailed effort to plan an attack on some event, meaning he looked at any number of events or targets,"

Trump has never mentioned that all Hispanic migrants are bad.

Trump is a racist. Everybody not a white male with money is inferior to him in his mind. Non-white countries are sh*thole countries.

 

[Stevicus]

He has used a lot of similar terms, e.g. referring to immigrants as animals, accusing them on mass as being mostly rapists (without any apparent sense of irony) and murderers, drug dealers, etc., coming from '****hole' countries, speaking of an 'invasion' that is 'poisoning' the country. Very similar to the kind of language directed at Italians and Irish people earlier in US history.

Yes, I've heard this and similar kinds of bigoted rhetoric over the years. I've actually heard a lot worse things said, but we don't need to get into that right now. It's different than the 19th century, as the political issues America was facing were different back then.

 

[anotherneil]

Immigration is legal; all nations have borders, and when someone enters a country by crossing its border without its permission, that's not legal.

Next question.

 

[Tomef]

Yes, I've heard this and similar kinds of bigoted rhetoric over the years. I've actually heard a lot worse things said, but we don't need to get into that right now. It's different than the 19th century, as the political issues America was facing were different back then.

Do you mean different contextually, but the same attitude, or something else?

 

[Tomef]

Immigration is legal; all nations have borders, and when someone enters a country by crossing its border without its permission, that's not legal.

Next question.

Back to the first question, as your answer is to some other question that isn’t in the OP.

 

[wellwisher]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. It is similar to the difference between a shopper and a shoplifter. The Left does not seem to understand this difference, encouraging both as though they are the same. Businesses encourage shoppers since they add value. They do not like shoplifters, since they have a lot of extra costs. It is simple math with Liberals arts not too keen on math, so this may still be hard for them to grasp.

A legal immigrant will take the time to go through a vetting process, that may take a year or more before entering the new country. When they enter there are no surprises and the host country is ready to accept them. An illegal alien tries to sneak into a country like a thief in the night. The analogy is having a party with a guest list so you can prepare what you will need to feed all the invited guests, versus a bunch of strangers crashing the party, so your invited guests get short changed. Legal immigrants do not like the illegal party crasher immigrants. Honorable does not wish to be lumps with dishonorable. The other way around would be an unearned upgrade.

The Italian and Irish immigrants of the past, needed papers; documentation, to get onto ships to go to the USA and enter the USA. If they got sick on the journey they were turned back. That was legal immigration. I remember a story about my late father's parents and older siblings who immigrated from Poland just before WWI. The papers for one of their children was not correct, so he had to be left behind with relatives. My Grandmother had to make a second journey to get him, after his paperwork was processed. The value of legal immigration is the host country can balance the needs of the vetted immigrants with the logistics of the citizens, so citizen resources are not overwhelmed, like is occurring with illegal immigration. The USA allows 1 million "legal" immigrants each year. That is the most of any country.

Trump's version of legal immigration was not to recruit the money pit crowd, who come here for free assistance that add social costs. Rather he preferred we recruit the educated high tech crowd who would be self sufficient, with good paying jobs, and will add to the tax base. The Left has a more parasitic vision, needed for growing Government, which is better served with illegal aliens, who require free social services. Even violent gangs and other criminal enterprises like human trafficing allow government to grow, but also at the expense of the citizens.

The best solution so we all can have our way is, all those who think illegal immigration is good have to pay extra taxes to cover all the costs. The DNC will have a different tax bracket to cover all their handout programs, the Right does not want to support. There are already too many DNC parasites. They added the abortion and trans parasites. The RNC wants to get out of the parasite racket and get a tax cut. As long as these parasites programs do not impact me, the DNC is fine to tax itself higher and spend to their own money on their own self serving ideas. Trump's vision turns a profit, while the Left vision adds to the debt. A tax break for the RNC will get rid of the profit, and a higher tax on DNC will lower the debt. We will have a la cart Government that each party pays for what they sell.