What did Democrats do wrong?

[Emily's Cat]

Immigrants don't drive down the cost of labor. the people hiring them do.

The reality is, people across the political spectrum love love LOOOOVE illegal immigration. At least, we love how it benefits us. We love how we can have cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap oil, cheap electronics, etc. What we object to is seeing the people performing this labor and being force to acknowledge their humanity. Or think about how our lifestyles contribute to the conditions in the countries they are fleeing.

Alternatively... it's quite entirely within your power to choose to buy ethically produced goods that don't rely on exploitation. Sure, it might cost you a bit more, but that's a perfectly reasonable sacrifice for you to make if it reduces the incentive for such abuse, isn't it?

 

[Thermal]

I'm going to assume that you have a reasonable understanding of what qualifies someone for asylum in the first place, so you're not working from the errant assumption of "my home country is poor and sucky" being an acceptable reason.

I work with a bunch of brothers from central and south America, of questionable immigration status. You don't want to know what they were running from. It sounds like something from a horror movie. Although in the last decade or so, things have changed for the better a bit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, but someone fleeing Central America might well be right in believing that Mexico, while being safer, ain't exactly a safe port, especially if the cartels they were fleeing had significant power in Mexico.

What is the reason for their flight from other countries in Central America? Does that form of persecution also exist in Mexico? "Lots of crime" isn't currently a legitimate claim for asylum. It sucks, absolutely, but in many cases it doesn't meet the bar for persecution.

Asylum, to me, means a safe harbor that you could reasonably intend to start over under the welcoming arms of a country that was built on that principle. Dropping into an utterly foreign culture (like a Nigerian in Japan) would likely make you a drain on the host nation. In the States, you have opportunity and a fighting shot at being a contributor.

I find the implicit double standard frustrating. I get that you want to be nice and welcoming. But you're giving Japan a complete pass on taking in Nigerian refugees because it's a foreign culture and would be a drain on Japan? The US isn't really any less foreign a culture, and those refugees would be a drain on the US as well. Yet you seem to feel that the US should be obligated to accept them, where Japan has a right to refuse.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I work with a bunch of brothers from central and south America, of questionable immigration status. You don't want to know what they were running from. It sounds like something from a horror movie. Although in the last decade or so, things have changed for the better a bit.

There are a lot of horrors in the world, there are a lot of horrors right here. I'm not downplaying the challenges your undocumented colleagues have faced. That said, there are actually requirements for asylum.

 

[Segnosaur]

The reality is, people across the political spectrum love love LOOOOVE illegal immigration. At least, we love how it benefits us. We love how we can have cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap oil, cheap electronics, etc. What we object to is seeing the people performing this labor and being force to acknowledge their humanity. Or think about how our lifestyles contribute to the conditions in the countries they are fleeing.

Alternatively... it's quite entirely within your power to choose to buy ethically produced goods that don't rely on exploitation. Sure, it might cost you a bit more, but that's a perfectly reasonable sacrifice for you to make if it reduces the incentive for such abuse, isn't it?

That is certainly an option.

But here's the problem... The illegal immigrants that are earning wages below that of natural born Americans, still feel it provides enough of a benefit for them to come to American and live on sub-standard pay. (Had no job prospects in, or safer than living in their home countries) . If you go the 'ethical' route and buy only stuff produced with people earning 'normal' wages, you could be condemning thousands of illegal immigrants fleeing truly horrible conditions in their own countries.

There is of course the issue of how you verify your stuff really "ethicicaly sourced". They may claim "yeah we pay high wages" but still employ dozens of illegal immigrants earning almost nothing

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The very reasonable and rational idea is that if you're being persecuted, you should declare that you're seeking asylum from persecution as soon as you're no longer at risk of persecution.

Regardless of whether that is the "very reasonable and rational idea", it is not what Article 31.1 says, nor how it is interpreted by the UNHCR, nor by UK and EU case law that the UNHCR guidelines I linked to cited. Your opinion about what is "very reasonable and rational" is just that: your opinion. And it is at odds with the opinions of those who do this for a living.

 

[Donal]

Alternatively... it's quite entirely within your power to choose to buy ethically produced goods that don't rely on exploitation. Sure, it might cost you a bit more, but that's a perfectly reasonable sacrifice for you to make if it reduces the incentive for such abuse, isn't it?

We do try that. Even if "ethically sourced" or similar claims were anything more than marketing slogans (they aren't), that only applies to so many products. Plus, we have three kids. have you had to buy clothes for three kids recently? We can do hand me downs between our 2 boys, but those don't always survive our older boy. The hand-me-downs from their cousins are in even worse shape. they simply don't make good quality clothes for kids any more.

and electronics manufacturers don't even try to claim they ethically source anything. Sure I recycle old computers and phones into something useful but that doesn't cover half our needs.

We can all do better. I keep saying the single best thing any individual can do for their finances and the environment is reduce consumption. But, that only goes so far. It is a systemic issue. We need to look at government policy and corporate behavior.

 

[theprestige]

We do try that. Even if "ethically sourced" or similar claims were anything more than marketing slogans (they aren't), that only applies to so many products. Plus, we have three kids. have you had to buy clothes for three kids recently? We can do hand me downs between our 2 boys, but those don't always survive our older boy. The hand-me-downs from their cousins are in even worse shape. they simply don't make good quality clothes for kids any more.

and electronics manufacturers don't even try to claim they ethically source anything. Sure I recycle old computers and phones into something useful but that doesn't cover half our needs.

We can all do better. I keep saying the single best thing any individual can do for their finances and the environment is reduce consumption. But, that only goes so far. It is a systemic issue. We need to look at government policy and corporate behavior.

I mean... Three kids is a choice. If a well educated, well off person such as yourself is choosing an unsustainable number of offspring, why even bother with any of this climate stuff?

Have we already added "colossal and unabashed hypocrisy" to the list of things Democrats did wrong?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I haven't got kids, I cede my allowance to Donal.

 

[gabeygoat]

I haven't got kids, I cede my allowance to Donal.

+1

 

[esquel]

+1

+2 There is every chance when Donal had his sprats, times were not so dire as currently.

 

[theprestige]

+1

+2 There is every chance when Donal had his sprats, times were not so dire as currently.

It doesn't work that way. The doctrine is significantly less consumption across the board. Not some people consuming less so that others can consume more. Certainly not so that well to do westerners can consume more. Maybe if Donal were an impoverished family man in a developing country, your virtue signaling might signal real virtue. But rich westerners trading carbon credits with other rich westerners ain't it.

And if Donal's sprats are under twenty, then they were conceived by informed decision in the context of western contributions to unsustainable consumption.

 

[Brainster]

I haven't got kids, I cede my allowance to Donal.

Papal indulgences under another name.

 

[EHocking]

I find it ironic that my life hasn’t changed that much.
As a child I received an allowance from my parents , these days I get it from my wife.

 

[theprestige]

+1

+2 There is every chance when Donal had his sprats, times were not so dire as currently.

Papal indulgences under another name.

Really, you guys should be incensed Donal isn't doing his part, not enabling his profligacy.

It's almost like you're not serious about this thing. Which brings us right back to the question of what Democrats did wrong. And to the answer of "colossal and unabashed hypocrisy".

 

[Donal]

I mean... Three kids is a choice. If a well educated, well off person such as yourself is choosing an unsustainable number of offspring, why even bother with any of this climate stuff?

Have we already added "colossal and unabashed hypocrisy" to the list of things Democrats did wrong?

Where do you see hypocrisy? I thought you people were all about white folks breeding to fight off the Great Replacement

 

[thaiboxerken]

Really, you guys should be incensed Donal isn't doing his part, not enabling his profligacy.

It's almost like you're not serious about this thing. Which brings us right back to the question of what Democrats did wrong. And to the answer of "colossal and unabashed hypocrisy".

What you said is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[theprestige]

Where do you see hypocrisy?

Between your words and your actions. You pay lip service to the doctrine of sustainability, but go on consuming more and more anyway.

I thought you people were all about white folks breeding to fight off the Great Replacement

"You people"?

 

[theprestige]

What you said is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

I think it's well supported by the text.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps what the Democrats did wrong was waste time engaging with bad faith interlocutors.