Democrats and Immigration
Negotiations continue on Capitol Hill that I personally consider "lose-lose", in that Democrats are considering trading something I don't want, in exchange for something from Republicans that I don't want. I'd rather they all fail in their dealmaking and go home for Christmas.
The attempted deal is to trade immigration "reform" for supplemental military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. But the main immigration change that Republicans want from Democrats is to end the guarantee of asylum that has created a backlog of nearly three million cases in our immigration courts (the average case has been waiting almost two years for a court date).
With Biden's poll numbers sagging below Trump's, the White House is looking for a way to blunt Trump's anti-immigration appeal. So now they've deployed a team of wonky Democrats to teach other Democrats about how too much immigration inevitably pushes voters to the right. So to move voters back to the left, we have to reduce immigration.
Until recently, Democrats typically treated immigration as a pet issue of their Hispanic wing, much like they treated marriage as a pet issue of their LGBT wing. Of course, most US Hispanics were born in the US, and they have a wide range of issues they care about. Some of them are even anti-immigrant.
Immigration law is complicated, and US attitudes toward immigration and immigrants are also complicated. Some people are fine with legal immigration but are against illegal immigration. Some people want to restrict legal immigration. Some people don't realize that US law offers asylum to anybody on the planet who shows up with a credible fear of persecution, and consider these people "illegal" even though they're not. Others know full well that we promise asylum to everybody and want to end this right. And there are a variety of legal, but temporary, ways to enter the US for employment or education, or even tourism. Most people think of illegal immigrants as poor Hispanics crossing an unguarded border in the middle of the desert, whereas a huge number of our illegal immigrants crossed into the US legally but then overstayed their visas.
Academic studies generally do show that high levels of immigration, whether legal or not, tend to push voters toward the right wing. In general people feel less charitable toward recent arrivals, and so pull back on social welfare programs when they perceive there are too many recent arrivals.
The main problem with enacting immigration reform in the US over the past few decades has been the complexities of the issue. Left-wing activists view any new limits on immigration as bad, while right-wing activists view any new expansions of immigration as bad, so there has been no ability to horse trade changes in the rules to create a more logical and enforceable system.
Now Republicans are trying to hold military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan hostage for a set of immigration restrictions. The White House thinks this could be a good deal for them, punching up their polling numbers by credibly restricting immigration. But left-wing Democrats view this as a betrayal, so ... ... it doesn't look like a deal will happen this year.
I wouldn't vote for any bill that sends military aid to Ukraine or Israel, so I don't want a deal, and if a deal emerges I will write to my Senators & Representative in opposition.
-----
Watching 20 Days in Mariupol didn't change my mind on military aid to Ukraine. My sole criticism of this brutal documentary is that it only showed the civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side of the front, because that's where the reporters were located. It didn't show how casualties occur on both sides during war, so it explicitly laid all the blame on Russia.
Are there zero civilians located behind Russian lines? And are none of them injured by Ukrainian artillery or gunfire?
I hear so many people calling for a ceasefire in Gaza these days, why not call for a ceasefire in Ukraine? Our White House says it up to Ukraine to decide its own war goals and timing of peace talks.
Did you know that the EU still buys natural gas from Russia? The US still imports various goods from Russia also. Isn't it supremely hypocritical to continue buying goods from Russia while we also send military aid to Ukraine? How about we first put a complete embargo on all goods from Russia? Well, that wouldn't be good for our economy, that could push up inflation, etc.
I remember the complete disgust I felt when Biden announced his sanctions against Russia following the invasion -- they were so light the stock market went up immediately after his announcement. We can't hurt Russia so badly that we also hurt ourselves.
Economic growth must come first, eh? But that's not only our rule, it is also Russia's rule, Putin feels he must fight this war without going so far as to jeopardize the Russian economy. It takes two sides to stalemate -- neither side is trying all out to win.
I want nothing to do with this endlessly deadly game.
-----
As for immigration, I live in a democracy, and our politicians will try to find a level of immigration that a majority of voters will support. But I will continue to advocate for free immigration into the US because I believe in human rights and treating all humans equally under the law regardless of where they were born. If I have the right to live in Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, then so does everybody else -- but under the same rules I live under. I wasn't born in Maryland, yet nobody restricted my ability to move into Maryland. Why do we treat our 50 state borders as freely open, but our national border as closed?
If you think of me, somebody born in Wisconsin, as freely privileged to move into Maryland, then why can't somebody born in Ecuador do the same? Why place additional requirements and restrictions on somebody born in Ecuador? If you find yourself thinking, "But, a person from Ecuador wouldn't have the same skills as somebody from Wisconsin," this is prejudice. Ecuador has schools. And not everybody born in Wisconsin graduates from high school.
In the US, the average high school graduation rate is only 85%. Do we restrict the movement of US citizens from state to state based on whether they've graduated from high school or have particular skills?
To me, judging whether a person born outside the US can enter the US is the same as judging whether a person born outside Maryland can enter Maryland. We do the former, but not the latter, and the only reason is prejudice.
So I will advocate living in a prejudice-free world, treating every person equally under the law. Doesn't mean we'll ever get there.
The attempted deal is to trade immigration "reform" for supplemental military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. But the main immigration change that Republicans want from Democrats is to end the guarantee of asylum that has created a backlog of nearly three million cases in our immigration courts (the average case has been waiting almost two years for a court date).
With Biden's poll numbers sagging below Trump's, the White House is looking for a way to blunt Trump's anti-immigration appeal. So now they've deployed a team of wonky Democrats to teach other Democrats about how too much immigration inevitably pushes voters to the right. So to move voters back to the left, we have to reduce immigration.
Until recently, Democrats typically treated immigration as a pet issue of their Hispanic wing, much like they treated marriage as a pet issue of their LGBT wing. Of course, most US Hispanics were born in the US, and they have a wide range of issues they care about. Some of them are even anti-immigrant.
Immigration law is complicated, and US attitudes toward immigration and immigrants are also complicated. Some people are fine with legal immigration but are against illegal immigration. Some people want to restrict legal immigration. Some people don't realize that US law offers asylum to anybody on the planet who shows up with a credible fear of persecution, and consider these people "illegal" even though they're not. Others know full well that we promise asylum to everybody and want to end this right. And there are a variety of legal, but temporary, ways to enter the US for employment or education, or even tourism. Most people think of illegal immigrants as poor Hispanics crossing an unguarded border in the middle of the desert, whereas a huge number of our illegal immigrants crossed into the US legally but then overstayed their visas.
Academic studies generally do show that high levels of immigration, whether legal or not, tend to push voters toward the right wing. In general people feel less charitable toward recent arrivals, and so pull back on social welfare programs when they perceive there are too many recent arrivals.
The main problem with enacting immigration reform in the US over the past few decades has been the complexities of the issue. Left-wing activists view any new limits on immigration as bad, while right-wing activists view any new expansions of immigration as bad, so there has been no ability to horse trade changes in the rules to create a more logical and enforceable system.
Now Republicans are trying to hold military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan hostage for a set of immigration restrictions. The White House thinks this could be a good deal for them, punching up their polling numbers by credibly restricting immigration. But left-wing Democrats view this as a betrayal, so ... ... it doesn't look like a deal will happen this year.
I wouldn't vote for any bill that sends military aid to Ukraine or Israel, so I don't want a deal, and if a deal emerges I will write to my Senators & Representative in opposition.
-----
Watching 20 Days in Mariupol didn't change my mind on military aid to Ukraine. My sole criticism of this brutal documentary is that it only showed the civilian casualties on the Ukrainian side of the front, because that's where the reporters were located. It didn't show how casualties occur on both sides during war, so it explicitly laid all the blame on Russia.
Are there zero civilians located behind Russian lines? And are none of them injured by Ukrainian artillery or gunfire?
I hear so many people calling for a ceasefire in Gaza these days, why not call for a ceasefire in Ukraine? Our White House says it up to Ukraine to decide its own war goals and timing of peace talks.
Did you know that the EU still buys natural gas from Russia? The US still imports various goods from Russia also. Isn't it supremely hypocritical to continue buying goods from Russia while we also send military aid to Ukraine? How about we first put a complete embargo on all goods from Russia? Well, that wouldn't be good for our economy, that could push up inflation, etc.
I remember the complete disgust I felt when Biden announced his sanctions against Russia following the invasion -- they were so light the stock market went up immediately after his announcement. We can't hurt Russia so badly that we also hurt ourselves.
Economic growth must come first, eh? But that's not only our rule, it is also Russia's rule, Putin feels he must fight this war without going so far as to jeopardize the Russian economy. It takes two sides to stalemate -- neither side is trying all out to win.
I want nothing to do with this endlessly deadly game.
-----
As for immigration, I live in a democracy, and our politicians will try to find a level of immigration that a majority of voters will support. But I will continue to advocate for free immigration into the US because I believe in human rights and treating all humans equally under the law regardless of where they were born. If I have the right to live in Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, then so does everybody else -- but under the same rules I live under. I wasn't born in Maryland, yet nobody restricted my ability to move into Maryland. Why do we treat our 50 state borders as freely open, but our national border as closed?
If you think of me, somebody born in Wisconsin, as freely privileged to move into Maryland, then why can't somebody born in Ecuador do the same? Why place additional requirements and restrictions on somebody born in Ecuador? If you find yourself thinking, "But, a person from Ecuador wouldn't have the same skills as somebody from Wisconsin," this is prejudice. Ecuador has schools. And not everybody born in Wisconsin graduates from high school.
In the US, the average high school graduation rate is only 85%. Do we restrict the movement of US citizens from state to state based on whether they've graduated from high school or have particular skills?
To me, judging whether a person born outside the US can enter the US is the same as judging whether a person born outside Maryland can enter Maryland. We do the former, but not the latter, and the only reason is prejudice.
So I will advocate living in a prejudice-free world, treating every person equally under the law. Doesn't mean we'll ever get there.