What can the Democrats do?

[stfoskey12]

High immigration countries coukd just reduce visas by 50% and that brings them roughly in line with current USA rates.

Alotvof the infrastructure was built to accommodate vastly lower people. That depends on exactly where you live.

It pumps the economic numbers short term but puts pressure on that infrastructure or number of kids per class room things lije that.

High immigration countries coukd cit even deeper than 50% short term to reduce pressure on housing for exampke. 5-10 years.


No one's sat down (politically) and said we need XYZ immigrants to keep population stable (2.1 kids per women). Nor we need XYZ to pay for pensions etc.

That's why people are are getting salty even in more liberal nations than USA. Housing in USA is comparatively cheap.

American friends wanting to flee USA to come here. Sire pay50% more for house take 30% pay cut.

That's how bad it is here post bubble popping. Emigration is up prices are down compkete mystery. Australia and Canada are even worse.

Right wings made it racist and wont solve crap. But there's legitimate concern around prices and infrastructure. Espicially since voters are not voting for more taxes to upgrade water, universities, schools etc or build more of them. Or social housing.

Worlds mostly conservative as well so in places where the local population is 40% foreign born they tend to vote right wing as well.

Im America they exploit illegals. So labour conditions are worse, people don't want to pay more for food to pay higher wages. Or do the work themselves or live where you need to do said work.

Average Democrat (and leftists in general) have no idea what's required in red/rural states/areas.

I think it is not crazy that some countries may want to reduce or limit some forms of immigration in some contexts. But I think it's also important to distinguish what you are saying from people who think all immigration is bad or who demonize immigrants.

In the US we have a weird thing where a lot of rural America is losing population, and plenty of people would love to immigrate and work there, but the local population is opposed to it. Back to the topic at hand though, I think a president running on pro-legal immigration and pro-border security is probably a winning message.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it is not crazy that some countries may want to reduce or limit some forms of immigration in some contexts. But I think it's also important to distinguish what you are saying from people who think all immigration is bad or who demonize immigrants.

In the US we have a weird thing where a lot of rural America is losing population, and plenty of people would love to immigrate and work there, but the local population is opposed to it. Back to the topic at hand though, I think a president running on pro-legal immigration and pro-border security is probably a winning message.

Our rural areas are comparatively booming.

Legal vs illegal is key I think. Refugees and illegals aren't a problem here.

Numbers have also fallen (recession) so short term its improved.

USA immigration reform probably some sort of visa reform for peopke willing to give to rural areas.

Clamp down on employers employing illegals would take care of it along with reform of visas.

Oh. My. God. The irony is palpable. Imagine telling someone in a different hemisphere you know more about what their state/county/city needs than they do.

Clearly, we need more whining about immigration instead of actually addressing the economic issues that affect us regardless of how many immigrants live here.

My state, West Virginia, has the lowest percentage of immigrants in the country.

And guess what we have to show for it? The Fourth Highest Poverty Rate in the Country.

I've been talking with a West Virginian last year or so. He's been working on a pipeline recently has a farm.

Comparing notes on things as well have similar back grounds.

Democrats wont be winning WV any time soon right?

Hence comnent they have no idea on how to areas to voters in locations like that. WV needs government money.

Morgantown looks great would love to visit. State capital not so much. Really interesting state.

 

[Lexicus]

Hence comnent they have no idea on how to areas to voters in locations like that.

Typos rendering the sentence gibberish, 12/10

 

[Zardnaar]

Typos rendering the sentence gibberish, 12/10

I was in a hurry.

 

[Akka]

Given that "society" has existed far longer than the concept of citizenship how can this be true? This is just a circular argument.

Oh yeah, obviously before the word "citizenship" was coined, the concept of "in-group" and "out-group" didn't exist and a tribe totally didn't care about its members first and other people second (if at all) !

You know, when you reach such level of playing dumb, it should ring a bell that maybe it's because your argument is stupid to begin with.

 

[danjuno]

I've been talking with a West Virginian last year or so.

Guess that makes you an expert now.

 

[Angst]

Average Democrat (and leftists in general) have no idea what's required in red/rural states/areas.

i presume you mean economically required.

let's focus on leftists. please enlighten me what you believe leftists think are required in rural areas. what is the leftist solution to this that is mistaken

 

[Lexicus]

Oh yeah, obviously before the word "citizenship" was coined, the concept of "in-group" and "out-group" didn't exist and a tribe totally didn't care about its members first and other people second (if at all) !

You know, when you reach such level of playing dumb, it should ring a bell that maybe it's because your argument is stupid to begin with.

So you think a primitive 'tribal' organization where there's communism for the "in-group" and basically genocide toward out-groups is an appropriate principle for organizing modern society?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Caring about other people second is NOT the same as genocide.

For instance as an Englishman I care more about the English than the French, but that doesn't mean I want to murder the French.

 

[Joij21]

So you think a primitive 'tribal' organization where there's communism for the "in-group" and basically genocide toward out-groups is an appropriate principle for organizing modern society?

It's human nature. Biologically coded.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

In response to the original article, I think religious progressivism is something that has not been explored as much as it should (for candidates who want to win, that is). However with the exception of Black Baptists I do think there is a significant hurdle to clear in the sincere belief among many that organized religion is somehow a sole purview of the Right. And that it is something to be ultimately tarnished and let go of.

That is not something to discount; it should be an opportunity. All too often the interplay operates as thus:
Leftist: if the Right were so sincere in their faith, they would have policies which reflect the teachings of Jesus.
Critic: Ok so why don't you do that...?
Leftist: ...

It's a route of attack which goes nowhere other than snark. No circumvention.

Take Israel. One could accept the common view that it's the position of Democrats to accept whatever the ruling of the UN is in how Israel conducts itself, hamstringing that country into accepting a geopolitical solution it doesn't like as the moral "loser" in the conflict, and siding with its mortal enemies. Or, one could be a bit more clever about it and say that Democrats should be opposed to war qua war, and that neither Israel or its enemies should be so combative; and also that China's oppression of Uyghurs should be just as much on notice as well.
Will it be successful? Well, it will certainly be more interesting than what we've seen.

 

[Lexicus]

Caring about other people second is NOT the same as genocide.

In theory, sure. In the real-world case of, say, French immigration policy we are indeed talking about protecting the French citizens by drowning a presumably rather large number of people in the Mediterranean.

 

[Ordnael]

In theory, sure. In the real-world case of, say, French immigration policy we are indeed talking about protecting the French citizens by drowning a presumably rather large number of people in the Mediterranean.

I doubt the French or any other European country are instructing their coastal guard in the Mediterranean to actively drown people.
Keep that unhinged rhetoric going man!
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[Broken_Erika]

In theory, sure. In the real-world case of, say, French immigration policy we are indeed talking about protecting the French citizens by drowning a presumably rather large number of people in the Mediterranean.

Wasn't that Greece, not France? or did i miss something....

 

[Birdjaguar]

Our rural areas are comparatively booming.

This thread is not about NZ. In size, scale, scope and the dynamics of its issues, NZ is hardly a blip compared to the US. Comparing the two is hardly relevant.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I've been talking with a West Virginian last year or so. He's been working on a pipeline recently has a farm.

Comparing notes on things as well have similar back grounds.

Democrats wont be winning WV any time soon right?

Hence comnent they have no idea on how to areas to voters in locations like that. WV needs government money.

Morgantown looks great would love to visit. State capital not so much. Really interesting state.

Dixiecrats - segregationist Democrats - that did win in the south are NOT what people commonly perceive. They were not pro welfare racists. Dixiecrats were anti tax, anti spending racists. You can find their speeches and policies going back decades - they rant about welfare going to the wrong people, balanced budgets, yada yada.

They won in the south.

They then left the Democrat party over time to join the Republicans post Civil Rights era, and win in the south. Their policies actually have NOT changed.

So. What is your proposal for modern Democrats to win West Virginia? Or Mississippi? Given 70 years of dominance of anti spending, anti welfare, pro racism. What plank should Dems take on? How would that work?

Biden just oversaw a presidency that gave more money to GOP states than ANY presidency ever. Dems ploughed money into rust belt areas, southern factories, etc. Then in 2024 they won WV 65-35- oh wait.

 

[Akka]

So you think a primitive 'tribal' organization where there's communism for the "in-group" and basically genocide toward out-groups is an appropriate principle for organizing modern society?

So you just backflip from "there was no concept of in-group/out-group before the word 'citizenship'" to "people were genocidal in the past for anyone not in their tribe", which is about just as comically wrong and stupid ?
=>

You know, when you reach such level of playing dumb, it should ring a bell that maybe it's because your argument is stupid to begin with.

Are you going to have a bit of self-reflection about this, or are you going to find yet another way to play dumb ?

In theory, sure. In the real-world case of, say, French immigration policy we are indeed talking about protecting the French citizens by drowning a presumably rather large number of people in the Mediterranean.

First, that's certainly not a policy.
Second, even if it were, it take a special terminal case of bad faith mixed with stupidity to equate "killing people who are unlawfully trespassing" with "genociding". Yet another stark case of completely bastardizing the meaning of words.
But I guess it answers my previous question. Your ability to keep playing dumb is pretty impressive, even if that's not the best way to impress.

 

[Lexicus]

So you just backflip from "there was no concept of in-group/out-group before the word 'citizenship'" to "people were genocidal in the past for anyone not in their tribe", which is about just as comically wrong and stupid ?
=>

Are you going to have a bit of self-reflection about this, or are you going to find yet another way to play dumb ?


First, that's certainly not a policy.
Second, even if it were, it take a special terminal case of bad faith mixed with stupidity to equate "killing people who are unlawfully trespassing" with "genociding". Yet another stark case of completely bastardizing the meaning of words.
But I guess it answers my previous question. Your ability to keep playing dumb is pretty impressive, even if that's not the best way to impress.

How many "trespassers" do you feel would it be acceptable to kill in order to "protect" France?

 

[Akka]

How many "trespassers" do you feel would it be acceptable to kill in order to "protect" France?

About 0 if they don't tresspass, it's not like France forces them to come after all.

Care to check back your previous other insane ramblings and reflect a bit on how unhinged you went and what it does implies about your ability to think on this subject, though ?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[Angst]

I doubt the French or any other European country are instructing their coastal guard in the Mediterranean to actively drown people.
Keep that unhinged rhetoric going man!

my gf actually works with an eu-aligned organization which has the purpose of identifying the many corpses of asylum seekers that drown/wash up ashore/etc (she works primarily in identifying biological signifiers on skeletons, designating age, biological sex, etc; she mostly does work in archaeology).

her primary work isn't on the actual lifeboat, but she deals a lot with the professional environment of this, where professionals circulate what's actually going on in dealing with asylum seekers. and let me just say this, you'd be surprised at the grey area migrants are treated depending on the coast guard vehicle; that is, how often your assertion here doesn't hold up. it's kind of a gamble for asylum seekers whether coastguards even respond to a distress signal (which will cause them to drown), and there is even a chance they're chased away, depending on the guard/ship/country (which will cause them to drown)

and yes, it's all in spite of international law

edit bonus info, not because it has relevance to the argument per se, but because i think it's important to the general european attitudes toward asylum seekers. there's so many corpses. but european countries don't do any real work to identify the corpses, where they're even from, who they are, etc. age, sex, nationality, none of this is really known for most of the dead. the policy is basically just defleshing and dumping into some mass grave or similar treatment.