The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

I guess this is what's causing the Trump fuss.

Last stat I remember was about 300K illegals each year recently, so if the 100K is to be believed, its a tremendous number for one month. Article alludes to surge happening because the smugglers know how to play the game.

As Donald Trump threatens border closure, migrants overwhelm Texas

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said Wednesday during a visit to El Paso that the border had hit its "breaking point" and urged Congress to come up with legislative solutions to the problem.

Border Patrol officials were on pace in March for more than 100,000 apprehensions and encounters with migrants – the highest monthly tally in over a decade, he said. Around 90 percent of those – or 90,000 – crossed the border between legal ports of entry.

The vast majority of those crossing between ports of entry turn themselves into Border Patrol agents, seeking asylum.

“The surge numbers are just overwhelming the entire system," McAleenan said.
:
:
Increasingly, smugglers are bringing larger numbers of families together and delivering them across the Rio Grande, knowing they’ll overrun facilities and be released until their immigration court date, she said. Under U.S. law, Border Patrol is not supposed to hold any migrant for longer than 72 hours.

Usually, Border Patrol hands them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which can detain families for up to 20 days. But all of those facilities are overcrowded, Brown said, leading Border Patrol to skip the transfer to ICE and release migrants to shelters en masse.

“This is a system-wide collapse,” she said.

[Lathum]

Its the same concept as firearm sales going up when a Dem is in power or an Election year.

Trump has actually created a crisis due to the fact people want to get across before it becomes harder or more expensive.

[JPhillips]

pic.twitter.com/cHvw7ubpg4

— Blake News (@blakehounshell) March 31, 2019

lol

[Lathum]

Scary that this is where the majority of our elderly population, who is already too trusting of the media, gets their news from.

[thesloppy]

I can get you a good deal on tickets to Mexico 3

[Fidatelo]

Mexico 1 is lovely, but I won't go back to Mexico Dos anytime soon.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Scary that this is where the majority of our elderly population, who is already too trusting of the media, gets their news from.

Had to check.

MSNBC (and possibly CNN) also. For Fox, maybe add "white" elderly population. I am surprised at the median age though would have thought more in the 50's.

How Old Is the Average Fox News Viewer in America?

According to Nielsen ratings, the median age of Fox’s audience was 66 in 2016. Following something of a youthful surge the following year, Adweek reported “good news” for Fox News early in 2018. Over the past year, the median age of the cable channel’s audience had dropped to 65. Looking at prime-time numbers alone, Fox viewers kicked back up to 66.
:
Still, Fox News isn’t alone in attracting a mostly senior audience. If you look at MSNBC and CNN demographics, you’ll find only slightly younger audiences in recent years, and the median age of MSNBC viewers hit 65 in 2017. (Overall, seniors watch the most TV by a significant margin.)

But one bit of demographic data separates Fox News from its competitors.

The Fox News audience is 94% white.
:
Over at MSNBC and CNN, it’s quite a different story. MSNBC had the most African-American prime-time viewers of any cable network in 2017.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess this is what's causing the Trump fuss.

Last stat I remember was about 300K illegals each year recently, so if the 100K is to be believed, its a tremendous number for one month. Article alludes to surge happening because the smugglers know how to play the game.

As Donald Trump threatens border closure, migrants overwhelm Texas

Here's the thing. Illegal immigration, and border control is a major problem. It's a problem that was avoided by past administrations because the labor and cost of labor that was brought into the US went a very long way toward boosting the US economy. It was a major impact in keeping food and labor costs lower for the rise of the middle class. I think a nod to that is necessary.

It's rather amusing because it was D's, maybe 15 years ago, who were very concerned with the lack of control along the borders. As automation and the loss of manufacturing jobs killed a large number of high paying, low education related jobs the pain had to be turned into something else. I think this is exactly what trump tapped into prior to the election and something he continues to tap into.

I am all for doing something, spending actual legit money to not only police the border, but to create a much better system for dealing with the inevitable rush that any sort of migrant system creates. Cutting off all aid to the '3 Mexico's' probably isn't the right place to start though. We've seen it numerous places that the have not's will always look at the have's with some disdain, and a desire to get to the have position. There's a certain amount of trump and trump's base that is very much a 'let's keep the dirty little brown, poor people out' mentality and it probably has less to do with skin color than and more to do with the economic and social gap that exists and to protect that for even unemployed us workers, who would rather live in a failing coal mining town, than move across the country for a oil well job, or another labor job. They want the jobs brought directly to them, and they aren't wrong. It's not like it's cost efficient to make that kind of a life change, especially when they can't sell a home in a failing town for more than 20k, if that. Don't get me started on the correlation between failing blue collar cities and opioid drug abuse.

The bottom line is that this, like everything, is exceptionally complex. trump doesn't handle complex at all, in fact, his ability to just dumb everything down is maddening, as his ability to get people to follow his dumbed down definitions. A wall is a tremendous waste of money. People are much more liquid, can be moved, hired, fired, whatever. Tech is advancing and there's a great space in this area for a smart and effective plan, but that's not what anyone is selling. Instead, it's the wall or nothing, and no desire to explore the underlying issues that exist. trump can have 50bln for border defense as far as I'm concerned, but he can't do it just to build a dumbass wall, or to keep out the dangerous and hideous brown people.

We used to have success with comprehensive plans and strategy, but instead we can't do anything at all and it's fucking stupid.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Partly true, but at the same time every study I've seen says coverage of Trump has been far more negative than that of any other president. He deserves far worse than criticism, he deserves impeachment at a minimum. At the same time, the complicated situation vis a vis racism and Obama has a lot more involved in it than was alluded to in your post. There were also the factors of any criticism of the man being labeled racism by many quarters regardless of validity, the pro-Obama racism contributing to his support, and so on.

I am biased. imo, trump has earned every bit of negative coverage, because he has brought it all on himself. Remember when a congressman yelled 'you lied'? He lied about not understanding how the plans were going to change, and now people couldn't keep their old plans, and maybe not even their old doctors. That was all we heard for MONTHS. trump has lied nearly 10,000 times according to The Post, in less than 2.5 years. He's shotgunning all over the place, of course there's going to be negative coverage. Prison reform was a great place to start, but that's a small bone to throw when you've also been complicit in essentially ok'ing the brutal assassination of a US employed, permanent resident, member of the media, by the same country who populated the vast majority of 9/11 bombers. Pages could be filled over and over again with this stuff.



If you want to get into calling any black criticism as racism we can have that conversation, but it's going to mean that you have to recognize just how the group in power (as in White America going back a couple hundred years) has used it's position to depress life for African Americans and recognize modern uses of racial and social power that continue to have the same effect. Throwing out the reverse racism card is potent. Does it exist? Most certainly in places, but a lot of their arguments originate from a valid place. Most times we have to give the weaker party the benefit of the doubt, or we end up with corrupted power.


I find the moral and ethical dilemmas that house slaves (or even as house freemen) must have had as one example. They were clearly in a higher position of power over others, but was it best that they look out for themselves, and try and improve their own quality of life? Or should they have done more for their fellow man? Even at risk of death? And if they lose their position, and now the group collectively loses don't they? No more hope for any advancement? Should they be happy when the owner throws them a bone, or happy with a fellow house worker throws them one? Or should they feel upset and angry because one is living the 'high' life while the rest of us suffer? This same dichotomy plays itself out all over in modern society and in the black communities ( and poor white communities too).

Anyway back to the main point, the idea of referring to the party you disagree with as being the greatest enemy of America isn't new, and it isn't the sole province of the right. What D candidates said in '04 is far worse than anything Trump or anyone else since said as a candidate, and by skippy that's a low bar. On the other hand you are absolutely correct that in terms of volume of wingnuts just flat-out making stuff up, particularly in the last 15-20 years the conservative side has been clearly the worst. We do need to recognize that #NotMyPresident, calling on people to not merely oppose but resist the current government, and other extremes just don't help. You don't defeat the unprincipled demagogues by throwing your own standards out the window. As much as it disgusts me, Trump is my President and my duty is to spend more time praying for him than preying on him. But we can recover from all of this stuff. We're not even close to civil war yet, and we survived one of those. Maybe the only reason we don't do it again is because keyboard warrioring has become more fashionable than the real kind and we're too cowardly, but still - things could be a lot worse than they are and it is 100% reversible. If BS populism in the Trump vein is still just as popular or more so in 20 years ... yeah, then start worrying. But it's a bit early - we ought to let the electorate correct itself and if '18 results are any indication, that process has already begun.

Personally, once I learned more about the man, I hated him. I hated his arrogance, his I never do anything wrong, and never apologize and if I'm mad I'll sue attitude. He is a pure narcissist and one who loves to use his money and name to get what he wants, and he will fuck over anyone to get it. How is that the example that we want as American citizens. Do I want the office of the President to succeed? Sure, but the man isn't worth my time. The far right is now calling treason against opposition and saying that the Mueller probe was a legit failed coup. So naturally, they would probably like to see those people lead away and treated as such, right? I mean, I hate to invoke other authoritarian leaders, but that's exactly what an authoritarian power grab looks like. It's exactly how Erdogan in Turkey managed to do it. trump would love to do it, so spreading that idea around isn't a bad thing. Sanders was just talking about how criticism of the president is treason and treason should be met with death. All of these things, are very strong fighting words.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The bottom line is that this, like everything, is exceptionally complex. trump doesn't handle complex at all, in fact, his ability to just dumb everything down is maddening, as his ability to get people to follow his dumbed down definitions. A wall is a tremendous waste of money. People are much more liquid, can be moved, hired, fired, whatever. Tech is advancing and there's a great space in this area for a smart and effective plan, but that's not what anyone is selling. Instead, it's the wall or nothing, and no desire to explore the underlying issues that exist. trump can have 50bln for border defense as far as I'm concerned, but he can't do it just to build a dumbass wall, or to keep out the dangerous and hideous brown people.

We used to have success with comprehensive plans and strategy, but instead we can't do anything at all and it's fucking stupid.

The root cause of illegal immigration is the US is a much more desirable than a bunch of other countries. The southern issue is further exacerbated by the ease of travel back and forth. Yes there are definitely valid reasons re: "fear of death" asylum but I think we all can agree its primarily economic.

So what's the next step? Hope for a meshing of minds and getting the holistic reform done? There's been attempts but hasn't happened in 20 years or so with either party what makes us think it'll happen in the near future (e.g. when Trump is out in 2 or 6 years)? Reagan's reform was supposed to be a cure all, it's only gotten worse since then.

IMO I'm all for a "simple, in your face", albeit imperfect, step to begin with vs the political equivalent of "analysis paralysis". Is it going to stop all illegal immigration, no. Will it stop a lot of illegal immigration, yes.

If the Wall is built, there will be a ton of negotiations, discussions, bills etc. for the next 10-20 years. There will be a will to tear it down or keep it up, either way healthy debate(s) will happen.

It forces the US to confront the issue vs ignoring it or kicking the can down the road.

BTW - I do not think its a "hideous brown" issue. Race/ethnicity IMO is just a strawman. All thing equal except for skin color, it would be the similar results.

[PilotMan]

And I can build 'smart' barriers that raise and lower based on sensors (that serve to funnel, or stop without hurting locals, I can launch a nearly unlimited amount of drones, and I can place men pretty much anywhere I want, and and do it quicker and cheaper than any Build the Wall right now can do.

These solutions are out there, yet they aren't even considered as probable. Only a wall you can put a name on that is expensive, and expensive to maintain.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

And I can build 'smart' barriers that raise and lower based on sensors (that serve to funnel, or stop without hurting locals, I can launch a nearly unlimited amount of drones, and I can place men pretty much anywhere I want, and and do it quicker and cheaper than any Build the Wall right now can do.

These solutions are out there, yet they aren't even considered as probable. Only a wall you can put a name on that is expensive, and expensive to maintain.

And were any of those done in the last 2 administrations? Nothing significant I don't think and that's because there wasn't the political will.

In your above post I think you have acknowledged its a major problem unlike some in this board that don't think its a major problem. If this is how Trump wants to do it and the boots on the ground Border patrol seems to support it ... why don't we give it a shot?

Its not as if we haven't wasted $5-$6B elsewhere in the past 20 years and its relatively small bet (vs the earlier $40-$50B estimates) to see what shakes out.

[PilotMan]

My point is that there is majority support on both sides for significant work to resolve any issues. I also addressed why nothing has really been done regarding it in previous administrations. I don't believe that it rises to national emergency we're going to take money from the military, that is unused and earmarked for one thing and use it for this. I think it is an overally national security issue, but one that is very multifaceted. You suggest that we just try it to see if it'll work, but I'm saying that's not how it's being sold. Instead, it's being sold as "this will for sure, 100% solve all our problems and I know that as a fact, and nothing can or will ever go wrong if we just do it." If we're going to related it to anything perhaps it's ACA. You have a strong desire for some sort of change, a lot of time, effort, negotiations with all sides went into it, and in the end something was created that was better significantly, but not the best we could have done. It was passed with a slim majority. I'm telling you that this is that all over again. Whatever work is started, especially if it's done in the manner that trump is attempting, will be torn right back down by the next D administration, simply because that's the way things work now.

5-6bln is a down payment on 177 miles of new barriers in the areas where CBP say would help the most. That's not what trump is pushing, although, to be fair, we are both already building, almost done building, and still need to keep building the wall, so there's that. He's pushing that this is all that it'll take.

Oh, and he lied about Mexico paying for the wall.


{edit to add: much of new technology has only been developed and refined in the last 10 years, so much of this tech is relatively new. But shouldn't we be working toward new and advanced solutions that we can adapt and modify to suit our needs going forward, rather than just going back to the stone age?}

[digamma]

Let me just float an alternative hypothesis. Immigration is a front of mind issue because it riles people up and the political attention it receives outweighs it's actual import or effect on the country by whatever measure you choose (economic, crime, etc.). Because the political import outweighs the actual import, it is better placed as a campaign issue than an actual policy issue.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

Let me just float an alternative hypothesis. Immigration is a front of mind issue because it riles people up and the political attention it receives outweighs it's actual import or effect on the country by whatever measure you choose (economic, crime, etc.). Because the political import outweighs the actual import, it is better placed as a campaign issue than an actual policy issue.

Not sure if this is what you actually think but I choose ... impact to the demographics/makeup of the country in the long run (say 20-30 years) which will impact societal/political change and therefore is extremely important.

But do agree if you insert "short term import or effect on the country". And we all know voters focus on the near term.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Oh, and he lied about Mexico paying for the wall.

Not going to disagree but honestly, everyone I know that voted for Trump knew there was some BS there. It just made for great rallying cry at rallies and it worked.

My point is that there is majority support on both sides for significant work to resolve any issues

I actually did not know this. Can you provide a source?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Personally, once I learned more about the man, I hated him. I hated his arrogance, his I never do anything wrong, and never apologize and if I'm mad I'll sue attitude. He is a pure narcissist and one who loves to use his money and name to get what he wants, and he will fuck over anyone to get it.

What kills me is that we knew all this in the 1980s. Or at least some of us did.

[QuikSand]

Donald Trump, Trade, & the Border: A Question | National Review

[JPhillips]

(But as Charlie Cooke often notes, the same people often also defend tariffs as good things in and of themselves. If tariffs are so “profitable,” why pursue free trade at all?).

I've had this thought as well.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not sure if this is what you actually think but I choose ... impact to the demographics/makeup of the country in the long run (say 20-30 years) which will impact societal/political change and therefore is extremely important.

But do agree if you insert "short term import or effect on the country". And we all know voters focus on the near term.

So how much would you say the immigration policies of the late 1980s changed the demographics/makeup of the country today and how much impact has that had in societal and political change today?

[stevew]

Every day is April Fools with this clown show in the white house.

[albionmoonlight]

I follow left wing twitter (yeah, I'm not proud), and I am starting to see some major pushback against Buttigieg by Warren/Harris supporters.

I think that most of the country is like "Wow, can you believe that an openly gay guy is actually being taken seriously as a candidate" and see it as this huge progressive thing.

But there seems to be more than I would have thought who see it as "Young man comes in once again and steals thunder from accomplished woman."

Or maybe I just need to stay off political twitter.

[ISiddiqui]

Well the issue with Buttigieg is that right now he's kind of an empty suit. He doesn't really talk policy that much. Like I think he's a moderate Dem, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Or maybe I just need to stay off political twitter.

Yeah, probably this.

I'm guilty too, I follow lots, including plenty on the center-right (?), and I liken it to... hmm, it's not like a candy addiction... more like... eating ramen noodles? I mean, I know it isn't real, but emmmmesssssgeeeee yummmm.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well the issue with Buttigieg is that right now he's kind of an empty suit. He doesn't really talk policy that much. Like I think he's a moderate Dem, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

I think this is smart, overall. (Survivorship bias) He's a longshot, of course, by name recognition. So, he's basically got three angles that I can see:

-fully embrace one issue and try to get swept onward based on it

-fully embrace being "openly gay" and try to get swept onward based on it

-project as competent and thoughtful, and remind people you're Navy too

The third is the hardest, but that's his play. Right now, he has to overcome the first mental hurdle... a smallish-town mayor can't win. He's doing okay there. Next up will be that an openly gay candidate will be dead in the general election and unappealing to the centrist voters. That's a tough sell for him, whether we like it or not. But he doesn't get there unless he gets past these first steps. So... raising $7m and becoming a non rounding-error in the polls is basically a 10/10 thus far.

Back to my first item...I don't know that there's a just-me issue in the Democratic party right now. A few years ago (2008?) Tom Tancredo ran as a Republican basically as a one-issue candidate, railing against immigration as his entire mantra. That's the model I'm thinking of, for a relative unknown, to get somewhere in a crowded party field. I'm at a loss for what issue offers such a foothold. (I guess Universal Basic Income is out there, but nobody's biting)

[JPhillips]

For the Dems I think there's a solid majority that almost only cares about electability. As people start to drop out I think Bernie's going to be in trouble as too many Dems are worried that he'd lose to Trump.

[molson]

I think Sanders is more electable now that he's more familiar to America. But who's the next best electable option if Biden decides he can't run? Next highest ranked candidates on Predictit after Biden and Sanders are Kamala Harris (a black woman with a scary name), Buttigieg (gay mayor with a funny name), O'Rourke (current crush of far-left young voters), Andrew Yang (rich asian), and then Elizabeth Warren (take your pick).

[ISiddiqui]

I think there are far more moderate Dems than a lot of people think. Mostly because the far left Dems are louder. I think Sanders will run into a wall at some point. The question is whether someone else can consolidate the rest of the voters (moderates, etc) as opposed to multiple moderates running splitting the vote and leading to the guy with the 40% ceiling winning the nomination (aka, how Trump won the 2016 GOP Primary).

[PilotMan]

I'm still in for Booker at this point. I'm not sure if he'll be able to separate himself from the group, but he's got a lot of pluses (imo) right now.

[stevew]

Yang is the universal basic income guy.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Next up will be that an openly gay candidate will be dead in the general election and unappealing to the centrist voters. That's a tough sell for him, whether we like it or not.

I think being gay will be an asset for him in the Democratic primary. This isn't the 20th century anymore. No self-respecting liberal is going to publicly argue that being a LGBT is harmful to his candidacy. Many will want to see the first LGBT president in their lifetime and say they voted for him/her.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yang is the universal basic income guy.

Yup, for better or worse

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think being gay will be an asset for him in the Democratic primary. This isn't the 20th century anymore. No self-respecting liberal is going to publicly argue that being a LGBT is harmful to his candidacy. Many will want to see the first LGBT president in their lifetime and say they voted for him/her.

I had the same logic when Hillary was running. Many will want to say they voted for the first woman President...and we got Trump.

[NobodyHere]

Well note that I did say "in the Democratic primary"

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I had the same logic when Hillary was running. Many will want to say they voted for the first woman President...and we got Trump.

Patton Oswalt's bit on the voter decisions for president in his Annihilation special on Netflix is perfect.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

So how much would you say the immigration policies of the late 1980s changed the demographics/makeup of the country today and how much impact has that had in societal and political change today?

The demographic/makeup of the country (e.g. ethnicity, race) are easy enough to find but I think the thrust of your question is how has it impacted societal and political change - this has been harder to find a scholarly analysis, vast majority of articles is on how immigration policy has changed.

With that said, a couple articles. Please note I'm not advocating either as the right answer to your question, its just a sampling of what's out there. Regardless, I do think its undeniable that immigration changes has and will change the "makeup" of the US.

403 Forbidden

Most migrants come, not to settle, but to support their families at home.[44] Indeed the remittances from international migrants to developing countries far exceed the funds going to poor countries from foreign aid, direct capital investment, and manufacturing exports (Massey et al. 1998).[45] The gains of international migration to the economies of advanced countries are also substantial. Most industrial economies do not have sufficient domestic supplies of low-cost labour.
:
The demand for immigrant labour is not restricted to unskilled manual labour. The United States and other industrial countries have encountered a shortage of scientific and engineering workers, particularly in the high-tech sector. This demand has been met, in part, by allowing many talented foreign students in American universities to convert their student visas to immigrant status.

Immigration & Cultural Change | National Review

Why is this an issue now? Because the vast majority of past immigrants changed their values, not America’s, when they came to this country. They came here to become American, not only in terms of language, citizenship, and national identity, but also in terms of values.

But while some immigrants still do, the majority does not. They want to become American citizens in order to better their lives — a completely understandable motivation — not to embrace American values and identity. The majority of today’s immigrants from Latin America, for example, wishes to become wealthier . . . Latin Americans.
:
Tens of millions of people have been coming to America with non-American values — essentially, values of the left such as big government and a welfare state. And thanks to the Democratic party and the Left, they don’t jettison these non-American values at the border and are encouraged to hold on to them.

[Edward64]

Nice consolation I guess.

McConnell to Trump: We're not repealing and replacing ObamaCare | TheHill

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told President Trump in a conversation Monday that the Senate will not be moving comprehensive health care legislation before the 2020 election, despite the president asking Senate Republicans to do that in a meeting last week.

McConnell said he made clear to the president that Senate Republicans will work on bills to keep down the cost of health care, but that they will not work on a comprehensive package to replace the Affordable Care Act, which the Trump administration is trying to strike down in court.
:
“I was fine with Sen. Alexander and Sen. Grassley working on prescription drug pricing and other issues that are not a comprehensive effort to revisit the issue that we had the opportunity to address in the last Congress and were unable to do so,” he said, referring to Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the failed GOP effort in 2017 to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Immigration & Cultural Change | National Review

This is just a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage.

[checks author]

Dennis Prager? Yeah, that sounds right.

[PilotMan]

They want to become American citizens in order to better their lives — a completely understandable motivation — not to embrace American values and identity.

This bit right here. This has always seemed like a double standard imo. It's quite literally the very same thing that was said about Irishmen, Chinese, etc, and there are generations of immigrants from early US history who are fine and upstanding Americans today. The concept of taking on American values vs. maintaining your group identity is so double sided in American culture. The same groups that claim this also fail to rail against sects that while religious in nature, are still completely separate cultures within the larger US mainstream culture. You don't hear these groups complain about Amish, Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, or quite literally any other sub culture of Americans that they personally view as 'American'. It's one of the tag lines that immigration critics love to point out, but when confronted with the idea that it's widely recognized that over time this viewpoint is considered alarmist and racist (at least in the history books I had growing up it was), they have no issue with say, Boston and it's heavy Irish Catholic heritage (because duh, their obviously American now), where the entire concept of you're free to be who you are originates from. I haven't lived in ND in well over 20 years, but I guarantee that the culture in the state has been permanently altered because of the massive influx of oil workers from the south. I can also guarantee that the state is old enough (ie. generational families that have lived in the same areas for nearly 100 years) conservative enough, that if these workers aren't white (because even growing up, racism against Native Americans was a given, nobody else mattered, because nobody else was there), that there is a quiet seething of long time, rural locals who feel like they have ruined everything. In the end it's a con job. It's really ok to be from Anglo European decent and be here, anything else is dangerous, but this is just another way to say that.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The demographic/makeup of the country (e.g. ethnicity, race) are easy enough to find but I think the thrust of your question is how has it impacted societal and political change - this has been harder to find a scholarly analysis, vast majority of articles is on how immigration policy has changed.

With that said, a couple articles. Please note I'm not advocating either as the right answer to your question, its just a sampling of what's out there. Regardless, I do think its undeniable that immigration changes has and will change the "makeup" of the US.

403 Forbidden


Immigration & Cultural Change | National Review

I wouldn't call the second piece scholarly. I also think you're walking a pretty fine line with your statement on changing the "makeup" of the US. Be careful.

[lungs]

Group movement versus individual movement in immigration colors this debate. Waves from different countries. My hometown is to this day two separate villages that run right into each other geographically. One side was German Catholic and the other side was Yankee Protestant. The German side kept the German language up until World War II. Schools merged in the 1960s, which probably was the last generation to care about the religious division of the town. Police and fire are merged. Yet there are still two separate governments to this day.

I'm learning the Danish language right now. And as I learn it, I'm seeing lots of things in the way my own family talks that have carried through from our Danish/Norwegian ancestry, even though I've never lived in a Scandinavian community (my Danish/Norwegian grandfather married a German Swiss girl and moved here).

Point being with all my personal tales is that fitting into this 'American culture' is nonsense. American culture is a mishmash of where we all came from.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This bit right here. This has always seemed like a double standard imo. It's quite literally the very same thing that was said about Irishmen, Chinese, etc, and there are generations of immigrants from early US history who are fine and upstanding Americans today. The concept of taking on American values vs. maintaining your group identity is so double sided in American culture. The same groups that claim this also fail to rail against sects that while religious in nature, are still completely separate cultures within the larger US mainstream culture. You don't hear these groups complain about Amish, Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, or quite literally any other sub culture of Americans that they personally view as 'American'. It's one of the tag lines that immigration critics love to point out, but when confronted with the idea that it's widely recognized that over time this viewpoint is considered alarmist and racist (at least in the history books I had growing up it was), they have no issue with say, Boston and it's heavy Irish Catholic heritage (because duh, their obviously American now), where the entire concept of you're free to be who you are originates from. I haven't lived in ND in well over 20 years, but I guarantee that the culture in the state has been permanently altered because of the massive influx of oil workers from the south. I can also guarantee that the state is old enough (ie. generational families that have lived in the same areas for nearly 100 years) conservative enough, that if these workers aren't white (because even growing up, racism against Native Americans was a given, nobody else mattered, because nobody else was there), that there is a quiet seething of long time, rural locals who feel like they have ruined everything. In the end it's a con job. It's really ok to be from Anglo European decent and be here, anything else is dangerous, but this is just another way to say that.

I do agree that it's usually been overblown and we really shouldn't expect the first generation to fully assimilate, but instead their children/grandchildren. But I also do think that technology that has made the world smaller also makes it easier to retain links to your old culture instead of being forced to interact with the country you live in. True, many of the poorer (brown) immigrants coming in caravans won't be flying back and forth on visits home, but you can facetime with the people you left, you can watch TV shows and read newspapers from the home country, etc. There's also the demographic realities that 1st world societies have lower birth rates

Precisely because advanced societies have so few children of their own, immigration brings change at startling speed. Relative to the existing native-born population, the migration of 1880–1914 was larger than that of today. (The 75 million Americans of 1900 would receive 8 million immigrants, or almost 11 percent of their number, over the next decade. The 249 million Americans of 1990 would receive 15 million to 16 million immigrants, or 6 percent of their number, over the next decade—the peak of the current wave.) Yet from 1890 onward, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population actually declined, because so many children were born in the United States. Today, a relatively smaller amount of immigration is exerting larger population effects, because Americans are not replacing themselves.

If you want a more scholarly read on this from a centrist perspective, The Atlantic has a cover story on it this month David Frum: How Much Immigration Is Too Much? - The Atlantic

By 2027, the foreign-born proportion of the U.S. population is projected to equal its previous all-time peak, in 1890: 14.8 percent. Under present policy, that percentage will keep rising to new records thereafter.
...
Hundreds of millions of people will want to become Americans. Only a relatively small number realistically can. Who should choose which ones do? According to what rules? How will those rules be enforced? The Trump-era debate about a wall misses the point. The planet of tomorrow will be better educated, more mobile, more networked. Huddling behind a concrete barrier will not hold the world at bay when more and more of that world can afford a plane ticket. If Americans want to shape their own national destiny, rather than have it shaped by others, they have decisions to make now.

But at present, the most important immigration decisions are made through an ungainly and ill-considered patchwork of policies. Almost 70 percent of those who settle lawfully in the United States gained entry because they were close relatives of previously admitted immigrants. Many of those previously admitted immigrants were in their turn relatives of someone who had arrived even earlier.

Every year some 50,000 people are legally admitted by lottery. Others buy their way in, by investing a considerable sum. In almost every legal immigration category, the United States executes its policy less by conscious decision than by excruciating delay. The backlog of people whose immigration petitions have been approved for entry but who have not yet been admitted is now nearing 4 million.
...
And what happens when those vast numbers of newcomers arrive, not in mass-production economies whose factories and mills need every pair of hands they can hire, but in modern knowledge economies that struggle to achieve full employment and steady wage growth?
...
Yet nonmetropolitan places are experiencing immigration in their own way. Mobility between countries appears to have the perverse effect of discouraging mobility within countries—in effect, moating off the most dynamic regions of national economies from their own depressed hinterlands.

Americans in the 2010s are only half as likely to move to a new state as their parents were in the 1980s. What has changed? Economic researchers have refuted some possible explanations—the aging of the population, for example. The most plausible alternative is directly immigration-related: Housing costs in the hottest job markets have grown much faster than the wages offered to displaced workers.
...
But here’s something more surprising: Evidence from North Carolina suggests that even a fairly small increase in the non-native-speaking presence in a classroom seriously depresses learning outcomes for all students. The nation has undertaken important educational reforms over the past generation. In many ways, that commitment has yielded heartening results. Yet since about 2007, progress has stalled, and in some cases even reversed. Cuts to state budgets during the Great Recession bear some of the responsibility. But so does immigration policy. The Hechinger Report, from Columbia University’s Teachers College, observes that the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress “was the first time that white students dropped below 50 percent of fourth-grade test takers. Hispanics now account for 26 percent of the fourth-grade population, up from 19 percent 10 years ago. Disproportionately poor, and sometimes not speaking English at home, Hispanics tend to score considerably lower than white students.”
...
But immigration needs to be thought of as a system, not a symbol. And the system is not working. No intentional policy has led the U.S. to accept more low-wage, low-skill laborers and fewer cancer researchers. Yet that is what the United States is doing. Virtually all the Central American families and unaccompanied minors who crossed the border in the summer of 2014 still remain in the United States. Meanwhile, the number of people coming to study in the United States on F-1 visas has sharply declined since 2015.
...
Family ties also help explain the dynamics of unauthorized immigration. Central American asylum seekers say they are fleeing crime in their home countries. Yet asylum-seeking has surged even as crime in Central America has subsided. El Salvador’s homicide rate has dropped by half since 2015; Honduras’s has plunged by 75 percent since 2013. As these asylum seekers have settled in the United States, they have beckoned their families to follow. U.S. adjudicators have rejected the vast majority of Central American asylum applications. But that has not diminished the flow from Central America. The process is slow, and a rejected application can be appealed. As the proceedings grind on, asylum seekers can vanish into diaspora communities where they can find housing, work, and welcome.
...
In a decade or two, millions of people without legal status will reach the age of 65. What happens to them? Under present law, they will receive no Social Security from the United States; they will not qualify for Medicare. Will we allow them to sink into illness and destitution in their old age? Many of the Democratic candidates for president want to expand Medicare to citizens under age 65. Will millions of people in the United States be left without care? Health care for all is not consistent with an immigration policy that does not police the boundaries of that “all.” If undocumented immigrants are to be included in the American “us” (as sooner or later many will have to be), then the country has to be assured that large-scale illegal immigration will never again be tacitly tolerated as it was over the past generation.
...
The years of slow immigration, 1915 to 1975, were also years in which the United States became a more cohesive nation: the years of the civil-rights revolution, the building of a mass middle class, the construction of a national social-insurance system, the projection of U.S. power in two world wars. As immigration has accelerated, the country seems to have splintered apart.

Many Americans feel that the country is falling short of its promises of equal opportunity and equal respect. Levels of immigration that are too high only enhance the difficulty of living up to those promises. Reducing immigration, and selecting immigrants more carefully, will enable the country to more quickly and successfully absorb the people who come here, and to ensure equality of opportunity to both the newly arrived and the long-settled—to restore to Americans the feeling of belonging to one united nation, responsible for the care and flourishing of all its people.

[RainMaker]

This is kind of fascinating with all the talk of crime coming from immigration. Seems the Saudi government is helping citizens escape prosecution and the federal government is turning a blind eye to it.

What does the FBI know about Saudi students escaping US justice? It won’t say - oregonlive.com

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by digamma

I wouldn't call the second piece scholarly. I also think you're walking a pretty fine line with your statement on changing the "makeup" of the US. Be careful.

Sorry, I can see how it was read as me saying the 2 examples were scholarly articles. Poorly written, did not mean to say that at all.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

Point being with all my personal tales is that fitting into this 'American culture' is nonsense. American culture is a mishmash of where we all came from.

I agree that American culture/society (probably a difference but lets use that interchangeably here) changes over time and certainly with the addition of new immigrants - this is the point I was trying to make, society and inevitably political views are impacted by a lot immigration (good and bad).

I've always heard the "melting pot" analogy but I prefer "salad bowl", there is definitely a retention of one's culture but we are "one big happy family with the special salad dressing".

However, I do think American culture, like for many other countries, is unique (but do change over time).

I'm not a sociologist but tossing out some examples below.

Note that I'm not saying each are uniquely American because there are certainly other/fewer countries that share some of the traits. I am saying taken in combination, it does make up the American psyche (just like many other countries are uniquely themselves).

1. US gun culture (hopefully it will change towards the right direction)
2. US on take on family unit - an example is mobility and how nowadays its not unusual for families to be spread out across the country and grow apart; I'd also say how its somewhat the norm to not "care as much" for elderly parents
3. ... and likely the most controversial among this board, is the American expectation of self-determination. The idea that a large % believe "you can be whatever you want to be with enough hard work and some luck".
4. etc.

For #3, there are other peoples in countries with this value also but think US is unique in the % of Americans that think this is true or expect it to be true. This is certainly not a belief held by the majority of asian population in Asian countries nor (I think) in Muslim dominated countries.

Looking forward to a good debate here and to learn different POVs.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Back to my first item...I don't know that there's a just-me issue in the Democratic party right now. A few years ago (2008?) Tom Tancredo ran as a Republican basically as a one-issue candidate, railing against immigration as his entire mantra. That's the model I'm thinking of, for a relative unknown, to get somewhere in a crowded party field. I'm at a loss for what issue offers such a foothold. (I guess Universal Basic Income is out there, but nobody's biting)

Maybe it's guns... all the Dems are for gun control, but Swallwell seems to want to run almost exclusively on gun reforms as his platform. Good example of what I'm talking about here, I guess.

(edit: oopslink)

[Thomkal]

Swalwell was the one I was most curious about running before everyone and their neighbor decided to run. Has an uphill battle against some more established candidates especially if Biden runs. He's definitely trying to appeal to a younger crowd with announcing on Colbert and having a townhall with a Parkland survivor. Already has an established social media presence. Guess I need to see more bite then bark-more substance on the issues instead of sound bites before I'd back him though.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think this is smart, overall. (Survivorship bias) He's a longshot, of course, by name recognition. So, he's basically got three angles that I can see:

-fully embrace one issue and try to get swept onward based on it

-fully embrace being "openly gay" and try to get swept onward based on it

-project as competent and thoughtful, and remind people you're Navy too

The third is the hardest, but that's his play. Right now, he has to overcome the first mental hurdle... a smallish-town mayor can't win. He's doing okay there. Next up will be that an openly gay candidate will be dead in the general election and unappealing to the centrist voters. That's a tough sell for him, whether we like it or not. But he doesn't get there unless he gets past these first steps. So... raising $7m and becoming a non rounding-error in the polls is basically a 10/10 thus far.

Back to my first item...I don't know that there's a just-me issue in the Democratic party right now. A few years ago (2008?) Tom Tancredo ran as a Republican basically as a one-issue candidate, railing against immigration as his entire mantra. That's the model I'm thinking of, for a relative unknown, to get somewhere in a crowded party field. I'm at a loss for what issue offers such a foothold. (I guess Universal Basic Income is out there, but nobody's biting)

He just came out against free college with a "why should working class people have to subsidize the education of people who will get college degrees and end up making more money" argument.

So another thing he is doing it seems is taking some more moderate positions than most of the other people running. That, again, seems pretty smart. How do you distinguish yourself? Well, if everyone is running to the left, you stay in the middle.

And, because his personal brand (for lack of a better word) is leftist (young, gay), he might be able to run to the middle substantively and not turn off the base in the way that someone like Biden (old, creepy) might not.

Right now, it feels like his campaign is a March Madness 15 seed that came in with the perfect gameplan against UNC and is up by 1 halfway through the first half. He still is more likely to lose than not. But he's playing the game about as perfectly as you could hope.

[JPhillips]

In a country where well under 50% have a college degree, free college doesn't seem to me to be the political winner some think. I get the truth that college degrees mean higher incomes and higher taxes, but that's not a winning argument IMO.

[JPhillips]

dola

Trump expected to name Herman Cain to the Fed

lol

Should be fun watching the GOP elevate and defend Cain.