|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Xenophobia and the fear of foreigners and immigration hurts the United States in so many real and measurable ways that people don't consider... it's not just a matter of liberals being afraid of hurting people's feelings. Again, The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.
Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
If people truly want to put the United States first, they'll welcome immigration. Trump has it backwards, much like many of his other views.
|
On January 01 2018 07:04 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2017 21:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 31 2017 19:02 mozoku wrote:On December 31 2017 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 31 2017 12:23 Danglars wrote:
All Trump’s done to involve America in this is a tweet in support. I hope for more behind the scenes. The Iranian people deserve freedom from the repressive Islamic Republic. (Whole twitter thread is worth seeing) I love how people in the US so easily forget how Iran got this way in the first place. Remind me again what tyrannical maniacs ousted Iran's democratically elected leader and sponsored a dictator? Then who was it that sponsored Iraq invading Iran after they overthrew that dictator that others installed? The US has no interest in promoting freedom and democracy if it isn't subservient to US interests. Pretending otherwise is how we've been spending the last ~60 years fighting former allies armed with weapons they got from us. I have zero idea why you're using 1953 USA actions about to inform judgements about how 2017 USA uses its power. Really? No idea? My bad. Obviously a British-initiated coup in the 50s over a vaguely legitimate oil dispute (of which the US was generally on Iran's side and was a resulting point of tension in US-British relations due to the concurrent Korean War where Britain was a US ally) that Truman opposed and more aggressively anti-communist (a platform he ran on in 1952) Eisenhower continued (only months after his inauguration) after the "democratically elected leader" (who himself had a loyal Soviet-supported violent mob behind him) won his rigged referendum that essentially made him a dictator says tons about the value US places on promoting foreign democracy for its in sake in 2017. Like I said, your portrayal of the relevant history is uselessly shallow and obviously curated to fit your leftist anti-US narrative. Just like your portrayal of Iraq's "US-sponsored" invasion of Iran in 1980.
What does it matter whose idea it was? The USA supported the coup and the CIA played a key role in it. And why would you put “democratically elected” in scare quotes.
|
Remember how mentioning bad things the US has done in the past means you have an anti-US narrative?
Best to completely forget about them forever to avoid being lefty communist scum.
|
From someone who taught US history, Americans are adverse to any sort of accuracy about the short commings of America. Because people today didn’t do the the bad things America did in the past, they don’t want to feel uncomfortable hearing about them.
|
On January 01 2018 08:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Xenophobia and the fear of foreigners and immigration hurts the United States in so many real and measurable ways that people don't consider... it's not just a matter of liberals being afraid of hurting people's feelings. Again, Show nested quote +The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.
Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy If people truly want to put the United States first, they'll welcome immigration. Trump has it backwards, much like many of his other views.
You can preach about immigrants being a boon to the economy, or even being lower crime risks than native born Americans, but Trump's nationalist immigration agenda is all about culture.
|
Grumbels: It's not an issue of "whose idea it was." It was an entirely British affair that America didn't even support until Britain succeeded and Eisenhower was afraid the country could fall to communists (arguably an overblown fear, but it was quite clearly the motivation at the time). By the time the US got involved, there was no real Iranian democracy to speak of as the incumbent Iranian president had just held a rigged referendum to give himself unchecked legislative powers. If the democracy was gone by the time the US started aiding the coup, it's pretty nonsensical to be blaming the US for the fall of Iran's democracy--even if GH's statement about the US overthrowing a democratically elected leader is technically true.
The events also unfolded over the course of two presidencies who had opposite views on whether to support the coup, so it doesn't make sense to make a general statement about how "Americans" or "America" feel(s) about foreign policy.
Can you guys make this easier and just read the damn Wikipedia pages on historical events before picking which position you're going to defend? "This is what other internet leftists said" isn't going to get you very far in life.
|
On January 01 2018 06:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2018 06:08 wasaru79 wrote:
Record number of illegal immigrants being arrested crossing the border, record low immigration, 2018 plans to allow in fewer refugees, record low unemployment rate, stock market that continues to get stronger and stronger each day...
GOD I love my president! opinion noted, but you shouldn't falsely attribute to him things that had little to nothing to do with him (the economic stuff).
is it logically possible that lower immigration has reduced unemployment>?
|
We could talk about the problems of the past century all we want, but ultimately take the protests for what they are: a demonstration of Iranian citizens displeased with the state of affairs in Iran. Despite not the worst development level and a fairly well-educated population they have the problems of a theocratic and decidedly ineffectual government. Sure, some foreign-backed coups start that way but it looks like little more than the standard gripes of displeased citizens at this point. I doubt it’ll really escalate beyond that because Iran just doesn’t look like a good breeding ground for ill-conceived regime change right now.
|
On January 01 2018 09:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2018 06:10 zlefin wrote:On January 01 2018 06:08 wasaru79 wrote:
Record number of illegal immigrants being arrested crossing the border, record low immigration, 2018 plans to allow in fewer refugees, record low unemployment rate, stock market that continues to get stronger and stronger each day...
GOD I love my president! opinion noted, but you shouldn't falsely attribute to him things that had little to nothing to do with him (the economic stuff). is it logically possible that lower immigration has reduced unemployment>?
The number of people granted lawful permanent resident status in 2017 is looking to be just about equal to that of 2016. There are no 4th quarter numbers yet, but DHS statistics show the numbers to be very similar to last year, close to 1.1mil. Deportations are very similar to 2016 as well. Refugee numbers will likely see a decrease by roughly 30k for 2017.
I don't think the immigration numbers have changed enough to have any significant impact on the unemployment rate. Logically the unemployment rate has been steadily decreasing since 2010, and 2017 is just a continuation of the trend.
|
On January 01 2018 09:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2018 06:10 zlefin wrote:On January 01 2018 06:08 wasaru79 wrote:
Record number of illegal immigrants being arrested crossing the border, record low immigration, 2018 plans to allow in fewer refugees, record low unemployment rate, stock market that continues to get stronger and stronger each day...
GOD I love my president! opinion noted, but you shouldn't falsely attribute to him things that had little to nothing to do with him (the economic stuff). is it logically possible that lower immigration has reduced unemployment>?
it is logically possible. but i'm not sure why you're bringing that up because that doesn't seem relevant.
|
On January 01 2018 10:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2018 09:41 IgnE wrote:On January 01 2018 06:10 zlefin wrote:On January 01 2018 06:08 wasaru79 wrote:
Record number of illegal immigrants being arrested crossing the border, record low immigration, 2018 plans to allow in fewer refugees, record low unemployment rate, stock market that continues to get stronger and stronger each day...
GOD I love my president! opinion noted, but you shouldn't falsely attribute to him things that had little to nothing to do with him (the economic stuff). is it logically possible that lower immigration has reduced unemployment>? it is logically possible. but i'm not sure why you're bringing that up because that doesn't seem relevant.
Speaking of relevant:
"Happy 201....wait what time is it?...Where's my hat?!... can someone light my sparkler?!
Damn it missed it again.....wait, what 10 more minutes... are you freakin kiddin me?!"
It's also logically possible new years eve is totally irrelevant....yet here we are...
|
Happy New Years by now / within the next few hours!
|
Have a nice year everyone
|
Sure hope it's better than '17. It's been one hell of a ride.
|
|
|
While I understand Danglars is a controversial figure in this thread, I'm sort of baffled by the series of posts in the last few pages. Sure, maybe he follows an Australian shit heel journalist. So what? This seems the definition of shoot the messenger.
The protests in Iran, irrespective of the lady's intent, seem newsworthy and worth highlighting. It's a (rare) sign of positive change in the Middle East that will surely be good for all of us in the long run? Right?
As to the general topic right now; it's difficult to really parse our nations (UK and US in particular) history with actions in the MIddle East. For my own part I believe most actions were taken with good intent but ended horribly, and are mostly the result of us trying to influence the politics of a region whose politics we don't really understand because they're based on a kind of thinking we haven't employed over here... maybe ever. They are different folk over there, and while it's easy to criticise from the armchair, I can't imagine what those in power go through when an advisor comes to them with some issue from the Middle East and says 'Mr President/Prime Minister, we have to do something about this. What's the plan?'
Just hope one day we can learn from all the disasters and use the knowledge either to know when not to get involved, or to do the right thing if we do.
|
On January 01 2018 19:26 iamthedave wrote:
While I understand Danglars is a controversial figure in this thread, I'm sort of baffled by the series of posts in the last few pages. Sure, maybe he follows an Australian shit heel journalist. So what? This seems the definition of shoot the messenger.
The protests in Iran, irrespective of the lady's intent, seem newsworthy and worth highlighting. It's a (rare) sign of positive change in the Middle East that will surely be good for all of us in the long run? Right?
As to the general topic right now; it's difficult to really parse our nations (UK and US in particular) history with actions in the MIddle East. For my own part I believe most actions were taken with good intent but ended horribly, and are mostly the result of us trying to influence the politics of a region whose politics we don't really understand because they're based on a kind of thinking we haven't employed over here... maybe ever. They are different folk over there, and while it's easy to criticise from the armchair, I can't imagine what those in power go through when an advisor comes to them with some issue from the Middle East and says 'Mr President/Prime Minister, we have to do something about this. What's the plan?'
Just hope one day we can learn from all the disasters and use the knowledge either to know when not to get involved, or to do the right thing if we do.
I don't think it was always a case of good intentions and bad execution. Its hard to argue about the intentions of historical figures though since we will never know.
It is important to examine where we have gone wrong in the past though. We can't learn from it otherwise, and the American attitude of crying and screaming every time someone brings it up is counterproductive, and that can be seen by the way our respective countries have completely failed to learn their lessons about interfering in the middle east, with each successive intervention causing more and more chaos without really helping the west and just perpetuating a war which is at best unnecessary.
I'm not against intervention per se, but the US and UK have a way of going into conflict without learning about local politics on the ground. Its self defeating, as can be seen by the total mess that happened in Afghanistan.
|
On January 01 2018 07:47 Jockmcplop wrote:
Imagine how horrible it'll be if immigration goes down and all the problems that simpletons attribute to foreigners still persist. Will they start blaming Americans?
They will start blaming Portugal. 
|
On January 01 2018 19:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2018 19:26 iamthedave wrote:
While I understand Danglars is a controversial figure in this thread, I'm sort of baffled by the series of posts in the last few pages. Sure, maybe he follows an Australian shit heel journalist. So what? This seems the definition of shoot the messenger.
The protests in Iran, irrespective of the lady's intent, seem newsworthy and worth highlighting. It's a (rare) sign of positive change in the Middle East that will surely be good for all of us in the long run? Right?
As to the general topic right now; it's difficult to really parse our nations (UK and US in particular) history with actions in the MIddle East. For my own part I believe most actions were taken with good intent but ended horribly, and are mostly the result of us trying to influence the politics of a region whose politics we don't really understand because they're based on a kind of thinking we haven't employed over here... maybe ever. They are different folk over there, and while it's easy to criticise from the armchair, I can't imagine what those in power go through when an advisor comes to them with some issue from the Middle East and says 'Mr President/Prime Minister, we have to do something about this. What's the plan?'
Just hope one day we can learn from all the disasters and use the knowledge either to know when not to get involved, or to do the right thing if we do. I don't think it was always a case of good intentions and bad execution. Its hard to argue about the intentions of historical figures though since we will never know. It is important to examine where we have gone wrong in the past though. We can't learn from it otherwise, and the American attitude of crying and screaming every time someone brings it up is counterproductive, and that can be seen by the way our respective countries have completely failed to learn their lessons about interfering in the middle east, with each successive intervention causing more and more chaos without really helping the west and just perpetuating a war which is at best unnecessary. I'm not against intervention per se, but the US and UK have a way of going into conflict without learning about local politics on the ground. Its self defeating, as can be seen by the total mess that happened in Afghanistan.
Americans whinge if you point out their failures, the British just politely refuse to discuss the matter. I find that Americans revising history books to throw more favourable light on certain events to be more troubling. It's good for us to know what injustices our nation did in the past.
I'm not sure that the problem is what you're highlighting. I think it's more that we go into an objective-focused mindset and take our eye off the long term. I remember as a kid reading articles in the newspaper about how we were going to help the heroic freedom fighting Taliban overthrow their despotic government. That didn't quite work out now did it?
But we wanted those guys gone, so we didn't mind taking a bit of help to make it happen, and damn the realities (that we were just replacing bad with bad, and at best bad with someone who likes us but is still bad). I'm growing to believe that unless there's a pressing national security reason or humanitarian concern we should stay out of foreign power politics, and let them have their own revolutions. It strengthens a society to cast down its own tyrants, and helps them decide what they don't like from within. When we swoop in to 'help' it muddies the waters and we start getting blame and taking credit, and it weakens societies as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
