The Cheshire Cat posted:

Tsyni posted:

I mean, surely this is a reaction to white people saying things like, "those Mexicans hate whites!!" but... Still seems like a dumb thing to say.

The idea that you can't be racist against a non-minority group seems false just on definition. I'm always troubled when I hear it repeated. Maybe someone has a compelling argument?

I obviously don't think racism against whites is a pressing issue right now.

It's basically two separate things (which is why I've split your post into two quotes). The first is a semantic argument where going by definition, yes, obviously people can technically be "racist" against white people because racism is just about judging someone based on a superficial quality shared by a group rather than their actions as an individual.

The second is about privilege, where the argument is more that because white people are such a privileged group, racism against white people doesn't actually matter because it has no meaningful consequences for them. Meanwhile racism against minority groups absolutely DOES have significant consequences for a lot of people.

When people are making the semantic argument as a serious point, it's usually a disingenuous attempt to equate "some people said some mean things about white people on facebook" and "black people are being murdered by cops who then face no consequences" as being morally equivalent.

Eej posted:

The only reason we're hearing about this now is that Chinese people stayed out of politics most of the time but now times are a changing and now white people get to hear what us kids have always heard for all of our lives around the dinner table

berenzen posted:

Anti-immigration policies to appease chinese voters have been a thing since the Mulroney days.

Dreylad posted:

A lot of that has to do with the discourse around migrants, immigrants, and refugees these days, I get that. But I wonder if left-wingers need to take a long hard look at immigration policy and figure out how much any given nation can take on without diminishing social services for the people who already live in the country. I think it's our country's moral duty to take in those who have been displaced, but I'm skeptical - as Helsing posted a while ago - about justifying immigration and refugees as a form of economic stimulus. At the very least I don't think it should be thought in those terms because it seems like it could backfire.

ARACHTION posted:

You could even have a system where the point of origin and country of destination are shuffled so no one is able to say “too many drat “x” people in our city!”. Families would get to move together though.

PT6A posted:

That sounds awful. Sure, shuffle everything around so that refugees feel even more isolated from their own culture and other people who understand what they've been through -- what could go wrong with that???

How 'bout we just tell butthurt nativists to suck it up and quit their bitching?

NZAmoeba posted:

Immigrants aren't diminishing social services. The wealthy are being taxed significantly less than they used to be, and that is diminishing social services. For a lot of social services, recent migrants aren't even entitled to them.

You've been sucked into that false discourse you yourself acknowledges exists, then and then talk as if it's true anyway.

Dinosaurtrain posted:

I'm surprised that anyone thinks that conservatives care about math and statistics, much less facts at this point in the History of Mankind.

vyelkin posted:

I'm torn because on the one hand most immigrants are a net economic gain for the receiving country and pay more in taxes than they cost in social services just like most people in general and they grow the economy and they're young and support our aging population pyramid and that's a very compelling counterargument to the narrative that immigrants are leeches on the taxpayer but on the other hand I think it's morally wrong and insanely neoliberal to frame immigration in that way as if the only thing that should determine whether we allow something or not is if it is economically productive and maximally efficient in the market because some things are just the morally and socially right thing to do whether or not they're economically efficient like for example we should be able to make the moral case for allowing refugees even if they weren't economically efficient because we're an insanely wealthy civilization and we can afford to help out people who are suffering the consequences of our economic and environmental rape of the planet but that moral case is a lot harder to make than just agreeing to the economy-above-all framing and saying yeah well actually immigration is good for the economy.

ARACHTION posted:

We are currently accepting such a small amount and like 40% or more (i forgot the percentage in that horrifying study) of the country thinks we should stop altogether. How does the left win this battle?

CBC posted:

The government is hoping to get brewers on board by launching what it calls a "buck-a-beer challenge" with incentives for those who cut prices to $1, the source said.

The Butcher posted:

That's noble but probably a little bit too utopian to be practical. We aren't post-scarcity yet in many different areas.

A 100% open door policy just doesn't make sense logistically.

EvidenceBasedQuack posted:

https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1025455880236675072?s=19

WilliamAnderson posted:

People who don't understand statistics are worried about immigration without understanding numbers. Remember, people are scared of formulas.

EvidenceBasedQuack posted:

vyelkin posted:

hahaha "buck a beer"*


*the rest of the price comes from your taxes

Dreylad posted:

The NYtimes had an article about immigration with some info and Canada has roughly 22% of its population as immigrants, which puts us near the top of the list. I wonder how much further we can go as a nation before resentment hits the point where reactionary sentiment can be drummed up and things go really south. It already seems to be happening with only the slightest uptick in pressure.

A lot of that has to do with the discourse around migrants, immigrants, and refugees these days, I get that. But I wonder if left-wingers need to take a long hard look at immigration policy and figure out how much any given nation can take on without diminishing social services for the people who already live in the country. I think it's our country's moral duty to take in those who have been displaced, but I'm skeptical - as Helsing posted a while ago - about justifying immigration and refugees as a form of economic stimulus. At the very least I don't think it should be thought in those terms because it seems like it could backfire.

quote:

It seems fashionable on the liberal and left side of politics to advocate for open borders, where, admittedly, 'open borders' has a variety of definitions. I can't really get behind it. We accept the destructive power of free trade, but when we think about the free movement of people - labour - we gloss over it for moral reasons.

PT6A posted:

hosed if I know. I'm sick of this idea that we need to coddle morons and slow-walk them to the process of not being an awful human being. Every time they spout bullshit, just say "no, you're wrong, that's not true." Do not allow them to lie, do not allow them to speak.

ARACHTION posted:

I think I saw this idea in this thread but I would 100% support giving people over 65 a large universal income with the condition that they lose the right to vote.

ARACHTION posted:

I agree with no platforming and also arguing for immigration as a net gain as well as a humanitarian one. That said, there seems to be a magic number where more immigration becomes unacceptable to most of the population. What worries me is that especially with American political discourse having the Overton window moved massively to the right, that magic number has dropped to something irrationally.

PT6A posted:

The magic number is a creation of brainworms and racism, there is no reason to treat it as anything worth discussing. Immigration* will always be too high for some segment of idiots even when they directly benefit from it, so why pretend there's some value in appeasing them?

* Notice, specifically, how often you hear about the problems created by immigration from Europe and the US. It's "never" and the reason is that no one is actually concerned about immigration, they are concerned about having to deal with people who aren't white. They can all gently caress straight off to some sun-baked desert shithole in the States run as a fiefdom by some fat racist wankstain like Joe Arpaio, for all I give a poo poo at this point.

Furnaceface posted:

Lets give them credit for at least knowing how bad the average Ontario voter is at understanding taxes and subsidies.

Arcsquad12 posted:

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/star-columnists/2018/08/03/donald-trump-should-sue-doug-ford-for-royalties.html

Fangs out at the Toronto Star today

T.C. posted:

The total number of asylum seekers in Canada last year made up 8/10ths of 1 percent of total immigrants. That's not accepted asylum seekers, that's everyone processed including irregular border crossers.

Irregular border crossers aren't doing it because they're dastardly people flouting the law. It's because we have to process an asylum claim if it's made on our territory. The Safe Third Party agreement is a treaty between the US and Canada that agrees that neither party will allow people to cross the border from the other country to claim asylum except in specific situations. Basically, people have to claim asylum in whichever of the two countries they land in first, and we stop them from doing it by denying them entry into the second country.

Weirdly, people are a bit terrified of seeking asylum in the US right now, so legitimate asylum seekers are trying to get around this. If they can cross the border, they're entitled to make a claim, so they understandably do that.

People are crossing the border irregularly and then immediately reporting to the border services. The thing that's being broken is a US/Canada treat, not some criminal law. There's no crime here.

One of the exceptions to the agreement is in relation to family members. They can cross from one country to the other to make a claim so that you don't have a situation where half a family lands in Canada and has to claim there and the other half lands in the US and has to claim there. It's to avoid splitting families of these vulnerable groups.

The real lesson is that we should suspend the Safe Third Party agreement for as many situations as possible until the US relaxes on the human rights abuses a little bit. It makes us complicit.