I think what you mean to say is that as a result of this ruling the voice of Americans can be diluted over time so that your preferred political outcomes can happen. Not everyone in my country believes that the concept of the nation state is stupid and should be done away with. I understand that there are many who do think this, and I have to live amicably among them, but it doesn't mean that I need to pretend that your ideas are good for me and my kin.

▲

danny_codes 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds like you want to have unequal representation. Or rather, you want to keep your privilege by preventing other people from gaining equal footing. You are right that this is a pretty central element of American society. However, I think we're at our best when we concede that this sort of thinking is counter-productive in the end. Cooperation is really the core mechanism for societal growth, so any efforts to prevent cooperation (in this case, by creating a subclass) is eventually self-defeating

	▲	remarkEon 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So, again, America seems to be the only country where everyone else claims a positive right to enter and dictate what we do. You do not have this right. It never existed. You were convinced that it existed by a combination of overly generous federal spending and the center-left boomer generation winning a few elections here. >Cooperation is really the core mechanism for societal growth This is an interesting claim to make when almost all of the leaps forward in technology advancement came either during a war, as part of the lead up to one, or within the context of a cold war. Similar to the entryist problem, everyone demands cooperation from the United States, no one asks for partnership. >in this case, by creating a subclass This is literally the point of the concept of the Citizen. A Citizen is prioritized in their own country. A non-Citizen is not. Something happened with education because it feels like we have to go back to deriving the point of the nation-state from first principles.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It does mean you need to pretend that. Reagan has a famous quote about it.

I mean, it's a free country, nobody can make you accept an idea you don't want to. But the nativist ideas you've adopted are not considered by most Americans to be acceptable. If you go around telling people that immigrants aren't real Americans, you will not be accepted even in many conservative circles. Even much of the Trump movement views nativists as useful dupes; the Vice President and Secretary of State, for example, clearly would not welcome your theories that their kin are diluting "the voice of Americans".

▲

remarkEon 2 days ago | parent [-]

You are wrong. My ideas aren't "nativist", they are the mean feeling on this subject for 250 years in this country. It has taken a tremendous amount of effort to convince people that things like "borders", "state sovereignty", and "being discerning about who you let into the country" is bad, evil even. That's why you think you can throw around the word "nativist" as a pejorative. I don't like Ronald Reagan for many reasons, and I don't know which quote you are referring to (though I can venture a guess), so I'm not sure what the point of that appeal is. Like I said, if you think that it's good to dilute the voice of people whose families have been here for a dozen generations by pretending that people who got here 15 minutes ago have the same values that's fine. But you won't get me to agree with you. If you want the country to be more left wing and increasing immigration gets you closer to that goal, just say that, it's cleaner.

▲

busyant a day ago | parent | next [-]

> if you think that it's good to dilute the voice of people whose families have been here for a dozen generations by pretending that people who got here 15 minutes ago have the same values that's fine.

That smacks of entitlement. Yes. I know that the other side of the argument also smacks of entitlement. But I believe I have the 14th amendment on my side.

Also, there are a lot of assumptions baked into your statement. If you think that everyone here who can trace their roots back "a dozen generations" has your ideals, well, I've got $24 worth of trinkets to sell you.

Conversely, if you think that everyone here who is newly immigrated does not share your ideals, well, I have more trinkets.

The Mythology of America that I bought into was that it was a welcoming place where you could re-invent yourself in a way that was rarely possible in the country your were leaving.

And yes. I know it's a mythology--with kernels of truth to it.

But you have your own Mythology--and I find it unpalatable, both to me and my immigrant parents.

▲

remarkEon a day ago | parent [-]

Nothing I am saying conflicts with this mythology of yours. I think the part of mythology that does not get told often enough is that every instance of large scale immigration into this country has resulted in strife and violence. The Ellis island stories, for example, were largely embellished and were done so after the fact, and it took the Second World War to finally integrate the different groups that came here over the preceding decades. The problem I have with the immigration of today is that the levels of cultural distance are much, much higher than Ellis island. America is the only country in the world where people who do not live here and have no connection to it claim a positive right to enter. I don’t blame them for wanting to enter, and you should not blame me for having the disciple to say no.

▲

danny_codes 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> The problem I have with the immigration of today is that the levels of cultural distance are much, much higher than Ellis island.

Sounds like a good thing to me. More diversity means we can incorporate the best ideas from everyone, instead of a select few. But I suppose not everyone likes to try new things

	▲	remarkEon 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right right, you get your cuisine options.

▲

SpicyLemonZest a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There simply does not exist a substantial political movement of people whose families have been here for a dozen generations. It can't, because the vast majority of Americans do not satisfy this criterion. My own family is homegrown by any conceivable standard, but we've "only" been here for six generations, although perhaps we might go around telling people it's twelve if we didn't have the records.

And again, I'd really like you to consider the honesty of the people who've told you this is a thing. In your readings about this movement to protect the voices of people who've been here for a dozen generations, did they ever mention to you that the current President is a third-generation immigrant and the Secretary of State is second-generation? If not, why do you think they didn't?

▲

remarkEon a day ago | parent [-]

I don’t understand your point. Is it that because Marco Rubio is Cuban I need to accept unlimited immigration, forever? This isn’t a position held by anyone in this administration, recent immigration history or not. My point is actually really narrow. The actual political movement with power and influence wishes to increase immigration to dilute the voice of the people already here, because the people already here do not vote in the way that the movement prefers and the immigrants do. Your condescending tone aside, I think it’s very easy to observe that my observation is correct because I can do things like “drive around my hometown” or “visit a major city” and the difference between today and, say, 1999 would make the conclusion obvious.

▲

SpicyLemonZest a day ago | parent [-]

Because Marco Rubio is Cuban, you have to accept that dichotomy between "unlimited immigration forever" and "voice of a dozen generations" is false. The people in charge who you think agree with you do not agree; they're manipulating you for political convenience, and it's convenient for them for you to believe absolute nonsense so that nobody can reason with you. Nostalgia is a powerful force, so nobody will be able to make your hometown feel like it’s 1999 again no matter what immigration policy they enact.

Another thing I'd encourage you to think about: why do you think that the party in control of the White House and Congress wants you to believe that "the actual political movement with power and influence" is their opponents? Normally one would say that controlling the government makes you powerful and influential. Perhaps they're just very humble and self-effacing, or perhaps they don't want you asking too many questions about why their power and influence hasn't achieved what they told you it would.

	▲	remarkEon a day ago \| parent [-]
		Huh? The administration that has an entire police force larger than the United States Marine Corps solely dedicated to immigration enforcement doesn’t agree with me that there is a problem with immigration diluting the voice of Americans already here. Okay. That’s certainly a take that one can have. You should just plainly state your point and preferred policy outcome because when you wrap it up in your moralizing (“I’d encourage you to think about [irrelevant point X]”) it obscures what you’re actually trying to say. I think it’s that this WH is engaged in a vast conspiracy to trick people into thinking that immigration is a policy priority when in fact it’s not. But this is obviously not true. My point about 1999 has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has everything to do with absolutely no one asking for entire neighborhoods and towns to be turned into impenetrable foreign countries. There is a stark difference between immigration that brought people like Rubio here and mass migration from e.g. Somalia, in terms of scale, context, and timeframe.