I totally agree but the dems will just jump to the next race or new gender that are easily mislead. I have a feeling there’s going to be a lot of Hispanics voting in 2020 against trump though.
There was legislation that does exactly what Dave Rubin and Kirk agreed to in the gang of8 bill during Obama’s presidency. The bill would require illegal immigrants to register with fed, pay back taxes, and would receive legal status not citizenship. This bill came with a massive beef up to border security including the funding of an extensive electronic surveillance system. Of course though the GOP rejected the bill and killed it in the senate. Yet political hacks like Charlie Kirk and Dave Rubin who have no long term memory will somehow blame the democrats for not compromising. Also gotta love the strawmanning. The democrats want open borders. Find me a democrat who publicly advocates for open borders or proposed legislation for open borders. If Reagan was alive today he would be smeared by GOP as being for open borders based on his immigration policies
@Praetorian Also the right constantly bitches about having intent assigned to their beliefs which I actually agree with. I don’t like that democrats will call people racist for immigration policy because you can’t truly know someone’s intent when they advocate for a policy which is why you should debate the merits and be charitable towards your opponent. But Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens who rightly make this point early in the video turn around and assign intent to democratic beliefs and act in uncharitable ways. They claim democrats only advocate for certain immigration policies as a cynical means to gain more long term voters. They have no way of knowing this is their true intent behind the policy. If they wrre intellectually consistent in any way they would be charitable towards opposing viewpoints and argue the position the democrats publicly advocate for and the reasons they say they support those positions.instead of assigning a belief to their opponents which can easily be dismissed. How about we don’t call immigration restrictionists racists and don’t claim democrats are for open borders and only want immigration as a cynical means to gain more votes and actually engage the issue in a charitable manner? Once again this is a classic case of the right complaining about being strawmanned for twenty minutes then spending the next twenty mins strawmanning the left with no self awareness. Edit: Charlie Kirk “I start to question their motives I start to question their intentions.” But I thought it wasn’t fair to question the intentions of your opponents and you should have a charitable open dialogue with your opponents. Edit: “ I no longer believe the left has this country’s best interest at heart.” - Charlie Kirk with another gem
Democrats are on record countless times attacking the president for just about everything and anything immigration related. They may not advocate for full blown open borders (yet), but everything that supports the borders or is strict on illegal immigration has been condemned by them. Even if it is things that somehow made perfect sense under Clinton not too long ago. Not sure where you are getting this from. Both Owens and Kirk do a pretty good job outlining their positions and judging people and parties on what has been done so far. No assigned beliefs needed.
Dave Rubin “ what it comes down to is your either for the individual and freedom or your for the group and state power.” This is a classic false choice fallacy. You can be in certain cases in favor of state power and other cases for more freedom. Left leaning people want more state power in the case of healthcare but want more freedom in the case of abortion and drug consumption. Conservatives are the exact opposite. Nobody short of communists or ancaps would actually be able to answer rubins question because the answer is case specific for most policies. Which is why these vague nebulous questions like this are meaningless. Just debate the specific policy questions
They both claim that democrats only want increased immigration and don’t want a more strong border enforcement policy because they cynically want more votes. They clearly assigned beliefs. Am I going to have to quote an entire paragraph to show you where they clearly are assigning motives to their opponents. Even you concede they don’t advocate for fully open borders yet Candace and Kirk consistently claim they advocate for open borders with no caveats. So yes they are clear strawmanning and assigning intent and the only reason you can’t see that is because they align with your beleifs. This doesn’t indicate in any way they’re for open borders. I asked for specific policy proposals/discussions showing they advocate for open birders. They are against stronger enforcement but that can be for a myriad of reasons. Maybe they believe it is not cost effective (a big reason if you actually listen to them instead of assigning them beleifs. Maybe they believe that our current policy is acceptable even if you disagree. Just look at what they did when they were in power. Did they pass an open border bill, no. The one bill they crafted had a large border security component as a trade off for amnesty. If they were for open borders why didn’t they draw up legislation the two years they had a supermajority and ram it through. The answer is there is a wide range of views amongst the left on immigration and claiming we all want open borders because we want more illegal immigrants to vote for democrats is just as intellectually dishonest as claiming all people who want more border enforcement are racist.
If Democrats are on historic record as beneficiaries from Immigrant voters, does it not make sense to assume that their politicians would be interested in retaining those votes, and doing whatever it takes to do so? Not sure why you're harping on the fact that someone made that conclusion and accusation. Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk are not the first ones to mention this.
No it doesn’t make sense to assume that their motivations for their immigration positions are any different than their stated positions which are ones of ethical and logistical arguments not cynical self serving ones. This is what someone would do if they actually believe in the principal of charitable interpretation. I don’t know how many times I can restate the same point before it clicks. I’m harping on them because they use the same dirty tricks many on the left use and conservatives freak out every time the left uses these rhetorical tricks. I’m pointing out the naked hypocrisy of these people who claim the left constantly misrepresents their position and assigns motives to their positions they don’t actually hold like racism in the case of immigration. Yet they turn around and assign motives to positions on the left that most left leaning people and politicians don’t actually hold. Saying they are not the first to mention this doesn’t refute my point or even address my point in any way. Im criticizing them for their blatant hypocrisy and it doesn’t really matter if they’re the first seventh or seven thousandth person to make that point. They ask for charitable interpretations of their positions from the left and don’t return the favor. That being said this is a huge problem on the left too and political dialogue across the spectrum. People don’t want to actually follow the principle of charitable interpretation yet they expect everyone else to do so. But I think this video is a pretty clear example of people acting in bad faith while complaining about everyone else acting in bad faith.
Did she campaign on this or believe she would ever pass it no. This was her belief of a long term goal for all countries and on that would take several centuries to enact. She never proposed an actual open border policy. Also if this was so pervasive a belief amongst the left you could find me many representatives who support this idea and who have signed onto legislation to make it happen but you can’t. The fullest part of the quote I can find is this on WikiLeaks site. Wish they included the full context but you can see she is talking about the future “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
So you are attacking Right Wingers, and classical liberals like Rubin, for pointing out the glaring issues on the Left, because it isn't charitable enough for your taste? You would prefer they remain more neutral in their approach, because otherwise you interpret it as them assigning motives? Has the Left not condemned the wall from the start? Has the Left not condemned Trump for being tough on illegal immigration? Has the Left not supported sanctuary cities for illegals? Has the Left not historically benefited from immigrant/minority votes? Where you see someone "assigning motives" , I see people accurately commentating on what is actually going on and rightfully getting famous for it. Good for them. They were at a place where they were invited to speak, until the leftist mob tried to shout them down and hijack the platform. The video basically begins with Charlie and Dave having to explain to the mob that their right to speak does not allow them to prevent someone else from speaking. Pretty clear who acted in bad faith that day.
Where is the "several centuries" part??? And the open borders part is the same regardless of the context. Do you ever tire of dancing?
Are you talking about the average democrat voter or the politicians, lawyers and elites? Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I legitimately think that it’s wrong when it comes to both the politicians and the voters. I think a lot of democratic politicians who move to the left on immigration don’t do so because of wanting future voters who may vote democrat. I don’t think many politicians think that long term and are mostly out for themselves and to get re-elected (i think we can agree on that point). Any benefit from allowing illegal immigrants in would be at least 20-30 years down the road. In order for an illegal immigrant to have a kid who is an American citizen they have to be in the country which means it’s gonna take 18 years before their natural born kid can vote and that’s if they pop the kid out the day after crossing the border. Most democratic politicians aren’t going to see any advantage from letting in immigrants themselves as they’ll be out of office by the time these kids can vote. I think the present moment is far more present on their minds than 20 years down the road. In the present political moment stronger border enforcement policies are not very popular amongst democratic voters, especially the more active base of democratic voters who show up for primaries. Obviously this is speculative but I think the threat of a primary challenge is a far bigger motivator for the democrats to move left on immigration than any potential long term benefits that they likely will never see. Let’s look at some polling data on immigration because I think it’s instructive and a better representation of how voters feel than us squabbling over what we think. This is from a Harvard Harris Poll from around January. The raw data is on page 69-72 if you don’t want to take my word for it but I’ll transcribe since looking into cross tabs on a poll is not something most blades will take the time to do. Question on page 69: Do you think current border security is adequate or inadequate GOP: 84% inadequate/16% adequate Dem: 40% inadequate/60% inadequate Ind: 64% inadequate/36% adequate Question on page 70: Do you think we should basically have open borders or do you think we need secure borders? (This question gets to the heart of what we’re discussing) GOP: 7% open border/93% secure border Dem: 32% open border/68% secure border Ind: 20% open border/80% secure border It’s clear from the numbers 2/3rd of democratic voters don’t want open borders. About a third of democratic voters advocate for open borders and about one fifth of independent voters advocate for open borders and actually surprising about 7 percent of GOP voters. Surprisingly as well about 30% of democratic voters support building electron/physical barricade to prevent illegal immigration (question on 71). So if you’re going to claim that 32 percent of Democrats supporting open borders means the Democratic Party/voters as a whole overwhelmingly supports open borders than you also have to claim that the Democratic Party as a whole overwelmingly supports building a wall as the support level is similar (literally two percent higher) which I don’t think a lot of people would claim. These numbers mainly illustrate that the issue amongst democrats is more split and complicated than the democrats want open borders meme that a lot of conservatives are spreading. If you’re a smart democratic politician you wouldn’t advocate for open borders as a majority of democratic voters don’t support it nor independents. But the data does also show that by and large democrats believe current enforcement are adequate and that increased enforcement like building a physical barricade is not necessary. The numbers also show bipartisan support for programs like DACA. This is why democrats mainly advocate against Trump’s policies, which Dems don’t like, and for things like DACA. Its speculation but I think if the voters were more strongly in favor of open borders amongst democrats the politicians would follow and advocate for it because they would be more likely to win their primary elections. Everything these guys/ladies (as a bloody sjw post modern neomarxist I gotta keep it pc) do is calculated and positioning themselves to win their elections? They’ve looked at the data and found advocating open borders or stronger enforcement is not popular amongst democrats and that the status quo is the best move for them to make politically. This is why @Bravedave can’t find a single democratic politician who actively campaigns on open borders and has to use a quote Hilary Clinton said a couple years ago talking about a hypothetical future as proof of the democratic push for open borders. http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-con...HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf
@nativetongues I don't think it is just democrats, the number of people flooding in is an invasion, and should be viewed as such, but both parties have been largely apathetic to the problem. Sent from my VS995 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
First was my answer sufficient in detailing why the left both from a politician standpoint and the voters are not motivated by cynical self serving reasons but actually by principles having to do with logistical considerations or moral reasons? I think I did a pretty good job showing there is far more that motivated the left on immigration than wanting future voters, especially from politicians who will never see the benefit of future voters. Second, the number of people flooding in is not an invasion. It’s a minor amount of immigrants compared to the overall population. There’s even some data such as a pew report that suggest we actually have net negative immigration from Mexico since the recession for. Here’s a snippet from the report “More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.” The point being that the numbers of those immigrating here is nowhere close to an invasion. Even on the high end of illegal immigration estimates it’s still a relatively small percentage. You see a range of estimates from 10 million (more liberal sources) to 20 million (more conservative sources). That’s about 3-6 percent of US population. If it’s an invasion it’s not going very successfully. Are there potential issues associated with immigrants, sure and that’s a debate worth having but characterizing this issue as an invasion is incredibly misleading. It also implies their goal is take over the country and change the way this country functions. When in reality most of them come here to work and do a decent job assimilating into the culture. We can debate about what policies we should enact and the cost of immigration but characterizing it as an invasion is wrong imo. More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.
@Praetorian @Bravedave @NorseMythology Anyone care to respond to my immigration posts showing a majority of democratic voters are not in favor of open borders.
Seems you have editted one adding a little call-out to me. Dude, you made the statement about no politician endorsing..."dreaming" even, for open borders...and I gave you one. You first try to dismiss it by inventing that she was talking about 150 years in the future. In the call-out, you still try to discount it with the same excuse dialed back but yelled louder. In any case, even without looking, Luiz Gutierriez is obviously for open borders. Oh and the 32% of Dems who want open borders is nothing to brag about. You make my teeth hurt.