How big is immigration an issue on people's minds (USA and elsewhere)?

[Farm Boy]

And I keep asking for evidence of discord, from others chiefly, and get nothing in return. Birdjaguar even talked about it in a US context (with links) on a previous page. The accord that though, not discord.

Theory is one thing. To call it an actual problem that requires action requires something more.

It's funny. I started this because some folks (not you) were talking about others being allegedly hypocritical about supporting one form of identity but not others. The same people are normally very big on facts and evidence. There's something getting in the way.

I gave you an example from our shared history andb the initial rise of the language. I correlated the public sentiment to the last US election. You can track it in history over and over and over. I am giving you big, repeated, macro level examples. The social science kind. I'm not going to give you a mathematical code that outputs migrations = conflicts. You don't need one. Even Abraham Lincoln shot down rioters in the middle of NYC with the army over tensions largely stemming from migration.

Without any agreement, newcomers will be considered more and more of a threat. Take the H1B Visa's press vs the repeated examples of gang activity or criminal behavior by the undocumented. There's a lot more heat with less accords in place. Even though the H1B Visa worker is far more likely to actually displace a desirable and compensated job.

 

[Arwon]

I don't know how in US, but in Europe (and Russia too, but immigrants from came from former Soviet Republic) problem with immigration is this (attached image).
They comes from poorest countries, where womans - just an items. And of coz, with such huge level of immigration, they just can't be controlled or assimilated (law, culture) quick.
Safety - is highest priority for ppl, not wonder they vote for it (far right parties)

This is a delicate subject to discuss, but recorded crime statistics, especially offender statistics, are almost wholly useless when it comes to measuring the prevalence of sexual violence. Most goes unreported and unrecorded, most occurs via people known to the victim, a lot is family violence.

Broadly speaking, outside of rape as a weapon of war situations, the higher the recorded and reported sexual violence rates are in a country, the better that speaks of trust in institutions and societal destigmatisation. When it comes to offenders, all we can really say is there's offenders across all social strata.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Immigration is pretty hard to stop. The best way is to have a crappy country run by crappy people. Nobody is rushing to live in Somalia or Myanmar or Venezuela.

 

[Gorbles]

The most prominent is the Freedom and Direct Democracy party led by a half-Japanese.

Interesting. The leader planning on deporting one of his parents? Or are they a "good" migrant?

I gave you an example from our shared history andb the initial rise of the language. I correlated the public sentiment to the last US election. You can track it in history over and over and over. I am giving you big, repeated, macro level examples. The social science kind. I'm not going to give you a mathematical code that outputs migrations = conflicts. You don't need one. Even Abraham Lincoln shot down rioters in the middle of NYC with the army over tensions largely stemming from migration.

Without any agreement, newcomers will be considered more and more of a threat. Take the H1B Visa's press vs the repeated examples of gang activity or criminal behavior by the undocumented. There's a lot more heat with less accords in place. Even though the H1B Visa worker is far more likely to actually displace a desirable and compensated job.

I know what examples you gave. I know you're giving me macro examples.

But you're focusing on the theoretical, macro-level discord. That's about as useful as "economy good". It doesn't correlate at the level that workable policy can impact.

Criminality is obviously a lens through which a lot of things are filtered. But that takes us back to why. Structurally, why is it that undocumented fall in with gang activity or criminal behaviour? It's kinda like my UK example of how farmers vote Tory (generally) - this is common opinion spouted by very mainstream news, and not me with my political position inferring things. Farmers also pay literal pennies for what could semantically argued to be akin to slave labour, but we can't call it that because technically someone can mount a technical defense that it isn't technically that. Farmers vote Tory, Tories say they're going to do something about immigration, but even if they wanted to, they won't, because that would alienate farmers.

Where does the discord come from then, eh? Immigration, or farmers?

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is criminality a lens? Because the behavior is something society has officially put down rules, rewards, and sanctions for. We live in a society, as the people who seem to think government can fix things and improve things seem to like to say. Membership in the group obligates the whole. Everything that gets done, somebody has to do, and everything is ultimately, finite.

 

[Gorbles]

A different why. My question was the one at the end of the post.

Lots of different answers for your why, though. In the US, you have to look at the (institutional) appeal of prison labour for one. It exists here too, but I don't think it's quite as brazen.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not really that appealing past the jobs that come with running them. Roads, prisons, schools. The three things that lay heavily on localities, which nobody talks about online, because all they have the attention span for is the federal.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Commitment to expertise on political subjects effectively means a commitment to understanding the world in a hardcore, even brutal, materialist sort of way. The social phenomenons are ignored because they cannot be quantified, and the historian or economist or politician would rather use the easier and more conclusive material lens.

But it's obviously nonsense to presume the social movement has no effect. People get angrier about illegal immigration because it ignores a social consensus that a nation has a right to control its borders and deny or grant entry based on criteria X.

Lots of different answers for your why, though. In the US, you have to look at the (institutional) appeal of prison labour for one. It exists here too, but I don't think it's quite as brazen.

...no, it's really just because it trespasses a law, and people are generally in agreement that law produces pro-social outcomes with respect for it adding and ignoring it subtracting from the outcome.

 

[Gorbles]

...no, it's really just because it trespasses a law, and people are generally in agreement that law produces pro-social outcomes with respect for it adding and ignoring it subtracting from the outcome.

Laws can be unjust, or overtly politicised if that's how you prefer it phrased. Bad incentives corrupt intent for pro-social outcomes. Tends to happen when money gets involved.

 

[Lexicus]

...no, it's really just because it trespasses a law, and people are generally in agreement that law produces pro-social outcomes with respect for it adding and ignoring it subtracting from the outcome.

Are these the same people who want to kinda just ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments because they really don't like immigrants?

 

[Farm Boy]

They can be! That laws can be unjust is not anarchism. Widespread disregard in the day to day, tho. That's how you get Greek taxes, corruption, etc. It degrades basic functions. It's a practice, too. Like buckling up because it's a good idea, not because somebody might be watching.

 

[Lexicus]

I am reminded again of the accurate quote:
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

 

[Farm Boy]

If I buy into Francis's lens, that's still one layer farther out(the group) than the liberal mindset allows.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Are these the same people who want to kinda just ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments because they really don't like immigrants?

I have previously argued that I believe the mechanics of mass deportations would recoil MAGA rank and file.

Perhaps we will find out just how upset they are at the lack of due process. Chauvinistic rhetoric followed by some high profile raids are probably the ceiling here(and with most things Trump that's what they're expecting), but in the event actual mass deportation proceeds, we will find out more clearly where the pulse of MAGA really is

 

[Birdjaguar]

Perhaps we will find out just how upset they are at the lack of due process

Trump and his MAGA followers have never cared about "due process".

 

[Voidwalkin]

Trump and his MAGA followers have never cared about "due process".

You make this characterization presumably as an opponent of mass deportation, as I am. We are essentially arguing against due process here.

I hope the irony isn't lost on us because it surely isn't lost on them.

 

[Lexicus]

Even Abraham Lincoln shot down rioters in the middle of NYC with the army over tensions largely stemming from migration.

Describing these events as "largely stemming from migration" is...well, migration didn't play zero role, but it's quite a stretch.

 

[Farm Boy]

The war was on. But the riots were not everywhere. They had a trigger and boiling point added onto everything else that changed the outcome.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Immigration is pretty hard to stop. The best way is to have a crappy country run by crappy people....

Ah, finally an explanation as to why the US voters re-elected the Donald !