Funny how all the people he's seeking to ban just happen to have the same skin color.
Even if that was true, which it is not it would still be irrelevant. They would still be just a subset of a wider group that also shares that same attribute that he has not banned. Call me when you can show he would have restricted access to Chinese or European muslims or citizens of those regions of arab descent.
Also to say nothing of this bizarre semantic end-around apologists want to play any time discussion of immigration pops up. Let's say for a second that this end-around successfully proves that these immigration bans were not undertaken with a racial animus, does that thereby render the act no longer morally reprehensible? Does it render his treatment of immigrants as no longer a human rights disaster? Does it render his motivation for these bans as no longer predicated on unfounded fearmongering? Even if you were to win this patently absurd semantic game, what did you win? What of substance has changed about his actions? Or how we are to perceive them?
There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with restricting migration on any grounds. Moving to another country is a privilege that country can give or deny at will and not a right.
Maybe "mexican" isn't a race, and maybe "Muslim" isn't a race. But Trump's immigration policy has, from the very outset, been constructed around an "us vs them" narrative. "They" are coming to rape and/or steal and/or murder "our" women. "They" are coming to sell drugs to "our" opioid-addicted children. "They" are coming to take "our" jobs and depress "our" wages. "They" are coming to exploit systems originally set up to benefit "us". Maybe the "they" isn't a race, but I'd say it's pretty undeniable who the "us" is referring to in Trump's speeches.
All migration politics are. Unless you subscribe to the abolishment of nationality and infinite freedom of movement. Indeed all politics are us vs them because it is one nation vs another. You literally have to abolish countries to get rid of that.
So unless you are actually advocating for that I don't see your point. And if you are I vehemently disagree.
This is such a laughable mischaracterization of something which has been emphatically and repeatedly explained to you.
I am not characterizing anything. I just disagree with your line of reasoning. I find your your explanations to be based on conjecture, assumption, logical leaps and an interpretation of the facts that I don't see as reasonable.
Lexicus is describing an understanding that many (other) people have of "our existing meritocracy" and how Trump disrupts that order. That order is a large social institution that claims the mantel of meritocracy regardless of a fuller understanding of merits.
But that understanding is wrong, and evidently so as shown by every democratic system that exists on the face of the planet and every political figure in any position of any power irregardless how large or small within those systems.
The facts demonstrate clearly that democracy is just rule by popularity pageant. If for no other reason than because no democratic system in existence has or ever had any sort of prescribed list of additional qualifications of a professional nature. At best they may require citizenship or being born in the country or something like that.
It's literally a job interview with no requirements other than who impresses the interviewer the most.
I try to explain
Stability and continuity of policies of a country have as much a value as the opinion of the moment, of the people of that moment and at that moment.
Polarised flipflopping laws every time your government changes from Red to Blue is imo a primitive and wastefull/confusing way to be "democratic".
...
...
Which is why you don't often see radical shifts from business as usual in party programs. And when you do you know it won't be followed upon.
The people think they want change. What they actually want business as usual but with them being on top for a change. What they are promised is radical change. And what they get is business as usual but with the ruling class playing musical chairs for a term or two.
The whole system is basically designed around the fact that no matter what you do you can't keep the ruling class from screwing you over, but you can at least give them enough pause that they don't go all Caligula on you.
