The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

Yeah, and there's a "day without women" thing coming up in March.

I was wondering what a "Day without male citizens" would look like.

Most every day in America between 7 Dec 41 and 2 Sep 45

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I became aware of it in the late '90s. I believe it was extended under both Bush and Clinton.

ETA:
On DACA, that's right. I don't believe I proposed DACA as amnesty. It puts those people in a legal gray area. Not legal, but allowed to stay.

ETA2:
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html#2

T, thank you for the link... I vaguely remember the one for refugees from Cuban and Central American dictatorships, but the others I was not aware of...

 

[red_zr24x4]

Most every day in America between 7 Dec 41 and 2 Sep 45

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BugI02 again.

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 53239

 

[BugI02]

How to Persuade the Other Party | Scott Adams' Blog

An interesting article in The Atlantic talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language. We almost never do that. That’s why you rarely see people change their opinions.


As I often say, fairness is a concept invented so children and idiots can participate in debates. Fairness is a subjective illusion. It isn’t a rule of physics, and it isn’t an objective quality of the universe. We just think it is.


On the conservative side, morality is usually seen as coming from God. I’m not a believer, so I see morality as a set of rationalizations for our biological impulses. Luckily, we evolved with some instincts for taking care of each other.

Could this have anything to do with the last 20 pages or so?

 

[T.Lex]

How to Persuade the Other Party | Scott Adams' Blog

Could this have anything to do with the last 20 pages or so?

Scott Adams is a funny guy. But morality and fairness are 2 shades of the same hue.

Like teal and.... sea foam.

The distinction doesn't really explain the difference between liberals and conservatives, nor the discussion here.

 

[jamil]

Scott Adams is a funny guy. But morality and fairness are 2 shades of the same hue.

Like teal and.... sea foam.

The distinction doesn't really explain the difference between liberals and conservatives, nor the discussion here.

I think I have to disagree with Scott Adam's here too. In my experience, just through observations over the years, both sides seem to think that they're morally superior to the other. For example, I've related many discussions I've had with my siblings-in-law. They're quite progressive, and there is an unmistakable base of morality fueling our conversations. They think it's immoral to own firearms. I think it's immoral to prevent people from protecting themselves. They think inequality is immoral. I think forcing equal outcomes at the expense of liberty is immoral. We both think our position is morally superior. This is a dispute in morality. The difference is in what we each think is the root of morality.

Another observation about progressives, is that they seem to have a more collectivist mindset. Their morality is more collectively based, so they place more emphasis on collective morality. Conservatives emphasize more towards individual morality. Same with accountability, and responsibility. Progressives believe in both, but collective accountability and responsibility is more emphasized than individual accountability and responsibility. Both sides believe in fairness, but both sides have a different understanding of what is fair. They believe in equal outcomes. We believe fairness means you get what you earn, you earn what you get.

So those are just attributes, but not causes. I think Thomas Sowell may have hit on the root of the differences. Both sides have different beliefs about human nature, and that belief about human nature drives different philosophies of fairness, responsibility, accountability, and ultimately, morality.

According to Sowell, the difference in views of human nature is a constrained view and unconstrained. The constrained view follows a view of human nature much like Adam Smith, that humans are basically self-interested, and will always be self interested, and to behave benevolently requires incentives. When we act benevolently to help others, it is done for our own benefit. In other words, we may act benevolently, but directly because of what we get in return. To some the feeling they get when helping others, is more valuable to them to what it costs them to render the help. Smith regarded self-interest as a law of nature.

The unconstrained view is based more on the thinking of William Godwin. His view of human nature was that we most naturally feel other people’s needs are more important than our own, so our nature is that when we are in tune with our feelings of the needs of others, we act benevolently for others' benefit, and not our own. In that case, Godwin believed that we act benevolently directly for the benefit of others, without needing what it gives us in return. The importance of the unconstrained view is that the choice to act benevolently is not a law of human nature, but simply a preference. Therefore, to follow one's interests is immoral. To follow your natural tendencies to help others, is virtuous.

It's been my experience that that the constrained view most models my observations. We ARE self interested. It is not most natural to regard others as more important than ourselves. It takes a conscious effort to overcome nature and act for the benefit of others. But when people believe that self-interest is a simple choice, and that acting for other's benefit is a simple choice, it results in virtue-signaling, rather than actual virtue. (I am grateful to whomever coined the term "virtue-signaling". I have struggled for years to put that thought into so few words.)

 

[T.Lex]

I think I have to disagree with Scott Adam's here too. In my experience, just through observations over the years, both sides seem to think that they're morally superior to the other. ...

It's been my experience that that the constrained view most models my observations. We ARE self interested. It is not most natural to regard others as more important than ourselves. It takes a conscious effort to overcome nature and act for the benefit of others. But when people believe that self-interest is a simple choice, and that acting for other's benefit is a simple choice, it results in virtue-signaling, rather than actual virtue. (I am grateful to whomever coined the term "virtue-signaling". I have struggled for years to put that thought into so few words.)

For the record, I do not believe myself morally superior to OakRiver.

He has a rule-oriented view of fairness in this matter, which I COMPLETELY understand. It is a reasonable position.

I have a different view of what is right in this matter, for a relatively narrow scope of people in this situation. While I believe my position to be reasonable, I do not expect people to agree with it.

I do not know if my opinion on the matter is a result of virtue or empathy or self-interest. I do know that it is not virtue-signaling. In fact, it is something that I tend to hold discretely. Except on public, internet, gun forums.

 

[jamil]

For the record, I do not believe myself morally superior to OakRiver.

He has a rule-oriented view of fairness in this matter, which I COMPLETELY understand. It is a reasonable position.

I have a different view of what is right in this matter, for a relatively narrow scope of people in this situation. While I believe my position to be reasonable, I do not expect people to agree with it.

I do not know if my opinion on the matter is a result of virtue or empathy or self-interest. I do know that it is not virtue-signaling. In fact, it is something that I tend to hold discretely. Except on public, internet, gun forums.

I wasn't pointing to anyone specifically. it was just a philosophical mind dump.

 

[HoughMade]

Most every day in America between 7 Dec 41 and 2 Sep 45

Except for many farmers, police and firemen, most men over the age of 37, etc...

...but I get your point.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump Admin Weighs Use of National Guard For Rounding Up Illegal Immigrants | RedState

Based on a draft memo, and administration has claimed this as false.

AP reports that DHS wrote the memo

“There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants," Spicer told press pool on AF-1

Pick which one you want to believe.

 

[T.Lex]

Trump Admin Weighs Use of National Guard For Rounding Up Illegal Immigrants | RedState

Based on a draft memo, and administration has claimed this as false.

AP reports that DHS wrote the memo

“There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants," Spicer told press pool on AF-1

Pick which one you want to believe.

The government - especially the military - does all sorts of contingency planning. Some of the contingencies are pretty wild. I can believe DHS (although not technically military) would do a memo on something like this. I would expect the final paragraph to include something along the lines of "and we recommend against this line of action."

It is possible for both to be true: a memo describing using the NG to round up immigrants, and there is no effort to use the NG to round up immigrants.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The government - especially the military - does all sorts of contingency planning. Some of the contingencies are pretty wild. I can believe DHS (although not technically military) would do a memo on something like this. I would expect the final paragraph to include something along the lines of "and we recommend against this line of action."

It is possible for both to be true: a memo describing using the NG to round up immigrants, and there is no effort to use the NG to round up immigrants.

Term floating around about this right now is trial balloon.

 

[HoughMade]

It bothers me that this got leaked more than anything else, at this point.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

BREAKING: DHS, White House Call AP Story on National Guard "100% False" | RedState

 

[T.Lex]

Term floating around about this right now is trial balloon.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense as a trial balloon. You trial something that you think has a chance of catching a favorable wind.

A lead balloon has no chance to get airborne.

This almost seems more like a fake news setup. The draft memo might be real, but they see who'll take the bait on framing it is a "plan."

 

[femurphy77]

Joseph Goebbels would have LOVED social media and our contemporary MSM back in his day. Can you imagine the damage he could have done with todays resources?

 

[T.Lex]

Joseph Goebbels would have LOVED social media and our contemporary MSM back in his day. Can you imagine the damage he could have done with todays resources?

Uh... its kinda hard to imagine how much worse it could've been.

In fact, with social media, my thought would be the opposite - the decentralized reporting would've allowed people to know what was happening in time to do something about it. But this is probably a derail too far.

 

[HoughMade]

Uh... its kinda hard to imagine how much worse it could've been.

In fact, with social media, my thought would be the opposite - the decentralized reporting would've allowed people to know what was happening in time to do something about it. But this is probably a derail too far.

It goes both ways. Decentralized reporting both makes it easier to plant and spread false stories and to get the truth out...discerning between the two, aye, there's the rub!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Another thing to consider... perhaps it's a ploy to weed out the leak sources?

Genius.

"Just send this to Marsha in accounting. No one else."