Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has drawn fire from progressives over his fierce support for Israel and broken with immigration advocates with his support for curtailing migration.
The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It’s not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they’re necessary. It seems like you’re just looking for offense.
I was speaking simply from a pragmatic, economic focus because the people opposed to immigration don’t care about the human side. Of course they’re people and we should care about them as people, but the conversation is helped along if you understand what people on the other side of the convo find important.
Japan is a key example of what happens when you reject immigration. Their work force is shrinking at a rate that will have significant negative impacts on their economy. Advanced society’s have fewer children, so immigration is needed to keep the work force growing. If all you care about is capitalism and economic growth, you should care about ensuring we allow immigration to continue, legally, at a high rate.
I’m not offended in the slightest. I’m white and born in the US. I just happen to think immigration raises the tide for everyone. Usually when people talk about filling gaps in our economy, they don’t mean doctors and lawyers.
Seems like you got real defensive of someone else when I simply raised the point that as a nation of immigrants, the reason to continue allowing immigration is continuing that tradition and improving our country by welcoming everyone.
Immigration does benefit everyone. But the immigration usually discussed are asylum claims and “illegal” entries across the southern border, because ignorant people find it scary. Those folks typically aren’t doctors and lawyers, they’re typically poor with few options, and can be/are usually hugely beneficial for the US. People with resources, like doctors or lawyers typically can enter under different visa classifications.
Not defensive at all, simply pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with speaking realistically about immigration and economics. There’s plenty of dehumanizing language used with regard to immigration but I don’t think the commenter used or intended that.
Asylum seekers come from all walks of life. Look at the people fleeing Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They were welcomed to the US with open arms, even when they came here illegally. Look at past Central American migrant waves like in the 70s and 80s. Who do the US demonize? Poor central americans fleeing the same violence that rich ones were fleeing. Who received amnesty from Reagan in the 80s? The rich ones.
Violence sends everyone running for asylum, we simply choose which ones to call “illegal” and which ones to call model immigrants.
I don’t take anything anybody is here as a defense of a broken immigration system, or as offensive to people seeking asylum, a better life, escaping abusive home life, or whatever reason they decided to up and leave everything they’ve ever known. I’m just highlighting the other aspects of the topic, because even those of us that don’t intend to talk down about immigrants tend to use the language that’s been played out for the past 50 years or so.
You attacked bostonbanarama’s character by choosing to interpret what they wrote in the worst way possible. You accused them of dehumanizing, which is a social crime. A person “convicted” of a social crime can suffer serious consequences.
When you cast yourself as the lone defender of good, you accuse everyone around you of being bad. An accusation is an attack on a person’s character.
lmfao You are so far off in the deep end that I fear there’s no lifeline to help you. I hope some day you’re able to not be so fragile, but I doubt it.
My instinct is to simply walk away. I forced myself over it by reminding myself you’re human and deserve help even if you’re a jackass. That’s what motivated me to write that, not my being hurt.
If you don’t find any value in what I wrote, that’s your call.
The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It’s not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they’re necessary. It seems like you’re just looking for offense.
Thank you.
I was speaking simply from a pragmatic, economic focus because the people opposed to immigration don’t care about the human side. Of course they’re people and we should care about them as people, but the conversation is helped along if you understand what people on the other side of the convo find important.
Japan is a key example of what happens when you reject immigration. Their work force is shrinking at a rate that will have significant negative impacts on their economy. Advanced society’s have fewer children, so immigration is needed to keep the work force growing. If all you care about is capitalism and economic growth, you should care about ensuring we allow immigration to continue, legally, at a high rate.
I’m not offended in the slightest. I’m white and born in the US. I just happen to think immigration raises the tide for everyone. Usually when people talk about filling gaps in our economy, they don’t mean doctors and lawyers.
Seems like you got real defensive of someone else when I simply raised the point that as a nation of immigrants, the reason to continue allowing immigration is continuing that tradition and improving our country by welcoming everyone.
Immigration does benefit everyone. But the immigration usually discussed are asylum claims and “illegal” entries across the southern border, because ignorant people find it scary. Those folks typically aren’t doctors and lawyers, they’re typically poor with few options, and can be/are usually hugely beneficial for the US. People with resources, like doctors or lawyers typically can enter under different visa classifications.
Not defensive at all, simply pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with speaking realistically about immigration and economics. There’s plenty of dehumanizing language used with regard to immigration but I don’t think the commenter used or intended that.
Asylum seekers come from all walks of life. Look at the people fleeing Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They were welcomed to the US with open arms, even when they came here illegally. Look at past Central American migrant waves like in the 70s and 80s. Who do the US demonize? Poor central americans fleeing the same violence that rich ones were fleeing. Who received amnesty from Reagan in the 80s? The rich ones.
Violence sends everyone running for asylum, we simply choose which ones to call “illegal” and which ones to call model immigrants.
I don’t take anything anybody is here as a defense of a broken immigration system, or as offensive to people seeking asylum, a better life, escaping abusive home life, or whatever reason they decided to up and leave everything they’ve ever known. I’m just highlighting the other aspects of the topic, because even those of us that don’t intend to talk down about immigrants tend to use the language that’s been played out for the past 50 years or so.
bostonbanarama got defensive because you were attacking
If
is attacking, then I don’t know what to say to you.
You attacked bostonbanarama’s character by choosing to interpret what they wrote in the worst way possible. You accused them of dehumanizing, which is a social crime. A person “convicted” of a social crime can suffer serious consequences.
When you cast yourself as the lone defender of good, you accuse everyone around you of being bad. An accusation is an attack on a person’s character.
lmfao You are so far off in the deep end that I fear there’s no lifeline to help you. I hope some day you’re able to not be so fragile, but I doubt it.
My instinct is to simply walk away. I forced myself over it by reminding myself you’re human and deserve help even if you’re a jackass. That’s what motivated me to write that, not my being hurt.
If you don’t find any value in what I wrote, that’s your call.
Bye.