Hilary singing Trump's song on migration

[turningrite]

Well, progressives must be apoplectic. According to a piece published on the NP site, Hillary Clinton now appears to agree with the proposition that migration and immigration are fueling nationalism and populism. Will she be working for Trump in the near future? For all the fuss made by progressives about Trump's views on immigration and illegal migrants, there might be something valid in Trump's position after all. If Hillary now gets it, however belatedly, can ordinary people (i.e. "deplorables") be criticized for reaching similar conclusions? I find the observation of the Italian politician Giorgia Meloni particularly relevant where she notes that Clinton appeared to acknowledge that opposition to migration was “not a problem of racism,” and that “if you don’t control migration it will affect mostly poor people, people living on the outskirts, working classes." Why has it taken otherwise intelligent people so long to figure this out?

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/hillary-clinton-says-if-europe-wants-to-curb-right-wing-populism-it-must-get-a-handle-on-migration

Edited November 24, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps Hillary Clinton is only now coming to grips with the underpinnings of her shocking 2016 loss to the very rude and crude Donald Trump, and she is paving her way to a comeback effort in 2020 that recognizes the obvious:   uncontrolled/illegal immigration not only disturbs the body politic, it challenges the very definition of sovereignty, citizenship, legal residency, and borders.   If governments cannot or will not control such migrations, then it brings into question the very notion of government control in general.

Illegal immigration does impact the poor and working class who have to compete for lower wages and benefits.  It is not difficult to find legal immigrants who are also opposed to the opening of borders to all the world's refugees and economic migrants.

[turningrite]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Perhaps Hillary Clinton is only now coming to grips with the underpinnings of her shocking 2016 loss to the very rude and crude Donald Trump, and she is paving her way to a comeback effort in 2020 that recognizes the obvious:   uncontrolled/illegal immigration not only disturbs the body politic, it challenges the very definition of sovereignty, citizenship, legal residency, and borders.   If governments cannot or will not control such migrations, then it brings into question the very notion of government control in general.

Illegal immigration does impact the poor and working class who have to compete for lower wages and benefits.  It is not difficult to find legal immigrants who are also opposed to the opening of borders to all the world's refugees and economic migrants.

It sure does seem like the demonization of Trump on this issue is highly hypocritical, don't you think? There are respected academics, like Sir Paul Collier in the UK, who've reached similar conclusions on the burden large scale immigration puts on those with the least wealth and power. However, the agenda of the progressives dovetails nicely with the interests of the elites on this matter. You've got to wonder if a lot of progressive activists and politicians are just being played for fools - or whether they're playing everybody else for fools?

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

It sure does seem like the demonization of Trump on this issue is highly hypocritical, don't you think? There are respected academics, like Sir Paul Collier in the UK, who've reached similar conclusions on the burden large scale immigration puts on those with the least wealth and power. However, the agenda of the progressives dovetails nicely with the interests of the elites on this matter. You've got to wonder if a lot of progressive activists and politicians are just being played for fools - or whether they're playing everybody else for fools?

 

Methinks the open borders progressives don't know or don't care about the political and social dynamics at play for the immigration issue, be it Europe or the United States.   Canada is also experiencing a backlash, because the underlying conflict(s) are very similar for certain demographic groups (age, language, class, etc.) and competition for economic resources.

The New York Times provided a painfully detailed explanation for just how much the immigration issue (legal or not) played in the breach of Clinton's so called "blue wall" in America's Midwest, ultimately costing her the 2016 election.   Groups in the EU are expressing the same concerns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/clinton-trump-immigration.html

U.S. states with large, long established immigrant populations (e.g. New York, California) are far more flexible and adaptable to rapid influxes and urban changes compared to static, rural areas (aka "flyover country").   Hillary Clinton has learned that no matter how much disdain she may have for the "deplorables", they still have the right to vote.

[turningrite]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Methinks the open borders progressives don't know or don't care about the political and social dynamics at play for the immigration issue, be it Europe or the United States.   Canada is also experiencing a backlash, because the underlying conflict(s) are very similar for certain demographic groups (age, language, class, etc.) and competition for economic resources.

U.S. states with large, long established immigrant populations (e.g. New York, California) are far more flexible and adaptable to rapid influxes and urban changes compared to static, rural areas (aka "flyover country").   Hillary Clinton has learned that no matter how much disdain she may have for the "deplorables", they still have the right to vote.

Interestingly, the parts of Canada where opposition to large-scale immigration and migration might have the greatest degree of political resonance are the provinces most impacted by it, like Ontario and British Columbia. Some parts of Canada remain largely unaffected by large-scale immigration and therefore traditional (mainstream) party loyalties are more likely to hold. Canadians are less mobile than are Americans and live in a country with far fewer economic alternatives and opportunities.

The radical immigration strategy Canada has pursued over the past generation has generated a lot of economic dislocation and misery, including a precipitous decline in the middle class, and it would seem foolhardy to believe there won't eventually be a political reckoning similar to the 2016 experience in the American "flyover" states. We'll experience the same counterattack here, I'm sure, centred on claims of xenophobia and racism (i.e. the "deplorables"), which is simply a predictable progressive smokescreen.

The real issues are economic. Perhaps progressives on both sides of the border should stop to consider the phrase, 'It's the economy, stupid', because that's the real root of popular discontent with immigration and migration. If Clinton's comments reflect an evolution in her perspective, she now appears to understand the problem. Too bad progressives aren't picking up on it. In the U.S., they're now apparently trying to distance themselves from her.

Edited November 24, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, turningrite said:

I find the observation of the Italian politician Giorgia Meloni particularly relevant where she notes that Clinton appeared to acknowledge that opposition to migration was “not a problem of racism,” and that “if you don’t control migration it will affect mostly poor people, people living on the outskirts, working classes." Why has it taken otherwise intelligent people so long to figure this out

Really intelligent people actually started figuring this out decades ago - back when concerns about the effects of globalization were laughed at and written off as left-wing commie nonsense.

Its not the intelligent people who are finally smartening up, that said, they're still far too stupid to figure out what to do next - especially if nationalism and populism are anything to go by, and they are.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Interestingly, the parts of Canada where opposition to large-scale immigration and migration might have the greatest degree of political resonance are the provinces most impacted by it, like Ontario and British Columbia. Some parts of Canada remain largely unaffected by large-scale immigration and therefore traditional (mainstream) party loyalties are more likely to hold. Canadians are less mobile than are Americans and live in a country with far fewer economic alternatives and opportunities.

The radical immigration strategy Canada has pursued over the past generation has generated a lot of economic dislocation and misery, including a precipitous decline in the middle class, and it would seem foolhardy to believe there won't eventually be a political reckoning similar to the 2016 experience in the American "flyover" states. We'll experience the same counterattack here, I'm sure, centred on claims of xenophobia and racism (i.e. the "deplorables"), which is simply a predictable progressive smokescreen.

The real issues are economic. Perhaps progressives on both sides of the border should stop to consider the phrase, 'It's the economy, stupid', because that's the real root of popular discontent with immigration and migration. If Clinton's comments reflect an evolution in her perspective, she now appears to understand the problem. Too bad progressives aren't picking up on it. In the U.S., they're now apparently trying to distance themselves from her.

Immigration in and of itself, if moderate and targeted to a country's needs, at least in a country with room to grow, is not a bad thing.  It can really help a country with a problematic negative birth rate or a labour shortage in key sectors of the economy.  The main reason there's so much concern about immigration in Europe and the US right now isn't so much economics as fear.  People are scared of being displaced from familiar cultural norms, social groups, and institutions within their own country.  It wasn't much of an issue when the people who were visibly identifiable as the minority were, collectively, a small part of the population.  These immigrants faced ignorance and racism, but the majority of the populous were sympathetic with their plight, especially if the economy was doing well.  The economy is doing well right now and there have been wage gains.  The reality is that even if the middle class may not earn as much in real dollars adjusted for inflation as they did 30 years ago, the purchasing power of those dollars is much higher than it was 30 years ago.  It's not just because of cheap Chinese goods, though those help (and China is building a middle class that can one day become a market for our goods), it's because we have access to conveniences and efficiencies that didn't exist 30 years ago.  Read Stephen Pinker on the countless metrics that show improvement in living standards in the US, Canada, and worldwide across income levels.  Nevertheless, it is unsettling for people to see rapid changes to the traditionally dominant culture and to feel outnumbered by people who may not share their cultural values, or in extreme cases, are opposed to them.  This is the real reason for Brexit. 

It is the particular dominance of one religious group, Muslims, that is worrying people, because they've heard the reports of terrorism perpetrated by extremists amplified in the media.  Also, many of these newcomers seem to be holding onto their cultural beliefs, some of them quite traditional and out of step with modern ideas about the liberation of women.  Many of us have abandoned or watered down our ancestral religious beliefs, so we feel challenged: Do we try to rehabilitate our own traditional cultural practices and beliefs or do we try to modernize everyone, including the newcomers?  We have learned that some of these newcomers will not abandon their traditional beliefs, and it is some of these traditionalists who are having large families and becoming more dominant in some communities.  I think immigration has forced us to think seriously about whether it was worth abandoning some of our cultural beliefs.  Did they have more value than we saw at the time we started neglecting them?  Is it okay to assert some of these narratives?  We know that our institutions were partly formed by these beliefs and we value our institutions.  We know that not all belief systems are as accepting or loving.  We know that some belief systems are more open minded than others. 

Thankfully it isn't too late to slow down the rate of change and to protect the traditions and cultures that have existed in our countries for a long time.  Perhaps if we stop watering these down and apologizing for them, we will be better positioned to manage immigration.  We will have a clearer sense of what we want for the country in the longer term and can target immigration to meet those goals.  If we shy away from having such conversations in our legislatures, we risk swinging between the extremes of a xenophobic right and a destabilizing left.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

The real issues are economic. Perhaps progressives on both sides of the border should stop to consider the phrase, 'It's the economy, stupid', because that's the real root of popular discontent with immigration and migration. If Clinton's comments reflect an evolution in her perspective, she now appears to understand the problem. Too bad progressives aren't picking up on it. In the U.S., they're now apparently trying to distance themselves from her.

 

Progressives in the U.S. are now attacking all government mechanisms that control legal and illegal immigration.   Sanctuary cities continue to harbour illegal undocumented aliens and refuse to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement.   A few progressive politicians have called for ICE to be abolished.  Driver's licenses are now routinely issued to illegals for mobility and economic viability.    Progressives seek to consolidate their political support in urban areas through so called "human rights" platforms that appeal to like minded folk.

The political and media battle was enjoined long before Donald Trump became a candidate for president.   "Immigration reform" is a political football that gets passed around each U.S. election cycle as the obvious stresses from 10 - 15 million illegals cannot be ignored.   Band-aid legislation like the Dream Act and Obama's DACA executive order sought to normalize illegal residents and address the growing backlash that pushed Donald Trump into office.  The very word "amnesty" is now seen as racist and oppressive.

A smooth Brexit transition for the UK has been impossible because of existing open borders mobility for Europeans in general, and Ireland specifically.  The economics of skilled and unskilled labour are chipping away at nation state boundaries and citizenship.  It will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle because of demographics and continuing refugee inflow.  

Edited November 24, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

At a time when its popular to remove old statues that are an affront to present day sensibilities, I wonder how long will it be until the Stature of Liberty gets put into storage?

Edited November 24, 2018 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

At a time when its popular to remove old statues that are an affront to present day sensibilities, I wonder how long will it be until the Stature of Liberty gets put into storage?

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen...the Statue of Liberty is a revenue generating tourist attraction.

...but it was buried in sand in Planet of the Apes (1968).

[Zeitgeist]

I still don’t understand why managing the border is a challenge today, given satellite and drone technology, as well as infrared cameras.  Simply have a system of drones over borders, co-managed by both countries.  If someone crosses a border illegally, track them and deploy law enforcement.  I think even Trump knows that walls are a medieval solution: “Okay maybe a ladder” can surmount the wall.  As for existing illlegals, deport in a humane way and make it easier to immigrate for Dreamers who’ve been in the country more than a couple of years through no fault of their own than it is for their parents. These shouldn’t be such polarizing issues, if we tone down the rhetoric, proceed humanely, and stop separating children from their parents.  

As for Britain, yes Brexit will be messy, but it looks like they’ll reestablish their independence, for better or worse.  Being an island has always made managing the border easier than for mainland Europe.  I still think we’re better off with free movement of residency and labor within free trade blocks, but security of the block must be carefully managed and the federal government of such a block should have very limited power and spending ability.  National identities and values must be protected. Loose federations with good security.  

Edited November 24, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

Really intelligent people actually started figuring this out decades ago - back when concerns about the effects of globalization were laughed at and written off as left-wing commie nonsense.

Its not the intelligent people who are finally smartening up, that said, they're still far too stupid to figure out what to do next - especially if nationalism and populism are anything to go by, and they are.

I view large-scale immigration - which is promoted by both the left and right, at least in Canada - along with so-called "free trade" deals as the twin pillars of a unified agenda. In reality, it's taken the two in tandem to decimate the wage-earning middle classes in Western countries. I think the right understood the likely impacts all along, although I've read that Harper now says that the impact of "free trade" on industrial employment in the West was underestimated by right-wingers like himself. I guess there was a lot of wishful thinking going on - or more likely self-interest clouded the judgement of many in the economic and political elites. But I've never understood why the left jumped into the globalization camp and has stayed there ever since. My guess in that HIllary Clinton, an elitist at heart, was never a real lefty. But supposedly intelligent people on the left are still loathe to admit to or even consider the implications of their attachment to the instruments of corporate globalism. I believe this is why they're being eclipsed by nationalist movements throughout the West. The left lost the plot long ago. I don't know if it can recover.

[GostHacked]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

At a time when its popular to remove old statues that are an affront to present day sensibilities, I wonder how long will it be until the Stature of Liberty gets put into storage?

I found it very disturbing when we saw the mass destruction of ancient site in the middle east. And I also find it disturbing that these statues in the USA were removed.  Erasing history from your immediate visual view will mean things are forgotten in time. No matter if the statue/monument represents something good or bad, we should not ignore the past, or we'll be going down that road again soon enough.

Now removing statues is also being done in Canada.  'Statues are not history' , while that notion may be true, we need certain things to remind us of those times and why we should never go down that road again.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4380641/does-removing-statues-change-history/

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

I view large-scale immigration - which is promoted by both the left and right, at least in Canada - along with so-called "free trade" deals as the twin pillars of a unified agenda. In reality, it's taken the two in tandem to decimate the wage-earning middle classes in Western countries. I think the right understood the likely impacts all along, although I've read that Harper now says that the impact of "free trade" on industrial employment in the West was underestimated by right-wingers like himself. I guess there was a lot of wishful thinking going on - or more likely self-interest clouded the judgement of many in the economic and political elites.

That self-interest was also well supported by the thick miasma of loathing disdain that has characterized right-wing discourse towards anything liberal, progressive or left-wing for decades now.  Right-wing economic and political elites have a lot more to backpedal against than just its underestimations and it'll take an enormous amount of intelligently managed political capital to bring the sort of people populists attract to turn things around. As for investing issues with loathing and disdain just wait until the right finally wakes up to its underestimation of climate change.  You'll probably blame the left for not being alarmist enough.

 

Quote

But I've never understood why the left jumped into the globalization camp and has stayed there ever since. My guess in that HIllary Clinton, an elitist at heart, was never a real lefty. But supposedly intelligent people on the left are still loathe to admit to or even consider the implications of their attachment to the instruments of corporate globalism. I believe this is why they're being eclipsed by nationalist movements throughout the West.

I don't know where this sentiment is coming from at all really, Whatever else Hillary Clinton is she is powerful and wealthy.  Whatever progressiveness she possess' it is subordinate to her power and wealth.  AFAIC the olde fashioned left right squabble is a terrible distraction from the real division that needs addressing in our world, the yawing gulf between governments and the governed. I think its too late myself - we're accelerating downhill towards a cliff.  

 

Quote

The left lost the plot long ago. I don't know if it can recover.

Yeah well the left has had its populist movements to. I don't think I want to be around when the pendulum swings that way again any more than you.

Edited November 25, 2018 by eyeball

[eyeball]

51 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

'Statues are not history' , while that notion may be true, we need certain things to remind us of those times and why we should never go down that road again.

Maybe someone could at least underline the part where the statue of Liberty refers to the poor huddled masses. Why they mattered seems to have been lost along the road we're travelling down now.

[Zeitgeist]

All this mention of a shrinking middle class caused by trade and immigration isn’t true.  The segments of society traditionally called the middle class and the poor may have less money in their pockets than they used to, but that money goes a lot further than it used to, in part because of trade, because it made most goods much cheaper and the increased exchange of goods, services, and ideas has increased the pace of technological and human development world wide, as most statistics very powerfully illustrate. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

All this mention of a shrinking middle class caused by trade and immigration isn’t true.  The segments of society traditionally called the middle class and the poor may have less money in their pockets than they used to, but that money goes a lot further than it used to, in part because of trade, because it made most goods much cheaper and the increased exchange of goods, services, and ideas has increased the pace of technological and human development world wide, as most statistics very powerfully illustrate. 

Then why are so many poor people around the globe trying to flee their economies?

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Then why are so many poor people around the globe trying to flee their economies?

The causes of many mass migrations are political, mostly related to climate change.  That was the case in Syria.  That civil war had its roots in a drought. 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The causes of many mass migrations are political, mostly related to climate change.  That was the case in Syria.  That civil war had its roots in a drought. 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

 

I have no doubt climate change and other environmental degradation is involved. It was pointed out decades ago that globalization would exacerbate these - much to the hilarity of the usual suspects.

In any case the absence of virtue vis a vis the economy is the biggest root cause of all our problems.  Now if there's anything that REALLY gets the lol's and eyes rolling, its pointing out that. Its enough to even make a self-loathing right-winger puke.

Edited November 25, 2018 by eyeball

[Zeitgeist]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I have no doubt climate change and other environmental degradation is involved. It was pointed out decades ago that globalization would exacerbate these - much to the hilarity of the usual suspects.

In any case the absence of virtue vis a vis the economy is the biggest root cause of all our problems.  Now if there's anything that REALLY gets the lol's and eyes rolling, its pointing out that. Its enough to even make a self-loathing right-winger puke.

It's in everyone's interests, on the right and left, to fight climate change.  This must happen globally because climate knows no borders.  Global rules are the answer.  I realize there is resistance due to the short-term economic costs, especially if some developing countries seem to be getting special treatment.  Globalization is inevitable and has been largely beneficial, but it also creates opportunities for conflict, at least early on, as cultures clash and peoples confront new perspectives, some of which are dangerous and worth rejecting.  The worst forms of extreme ideology/religion gain traction in countries where people are suffering economically.  We see the places where environmental degradation, the ravages of war, or sometimes bad political leadership, have had economic consequences and led to extremism.  One or more of these factors have been at play throughout the Middle/Near East.  When people feel desperate or excluded from the party that others seem to be having, they are ripe for extremism.  People need something worth protecting, which means having a stake in the economy: employment, possessions such as a home or car, children who require health care and education, etc.  People are less vulnerable to bad ideas when times are good.  Neither the wealthiest countries nor the wealthiest individuals will be saved if social unrest and migration get out of hand due to the factors mentioned above, such as climate change.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

The worst forms of extreme ideology/religion gain traction in countries where people are suffering economically.  

Or simply convince people they're suffering economically due to globalization and then point at someone else to blame - like immigrants who actually are suffering the economic fallout of globalization.

Edited November 25, 2018 by eyeball

[Centerpiece]

Even so - she and the Left still don't get it. Anything they don't approve of - is called populism! Fact is, the majority of these "populist" governments are not "anti-immigration" - they are simply anti "open borders" and rightfully want control over how many are welcomed into their country - and ensure that they are willing contributors and willing to integrate into the broader society. Pretty natural reaction. Elites like Clinton are hypocrites - too far removed from the unwashed masses she calls "deplorables". If anyone wants a good read about the political turmoil of today - and how we got here - read Stephen Harper's latest book - Right Here, Right Now........its a quick read and puts things in pretty clear perspective. Smart man. As the song says.....you don't know what you've lost till it's gone.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Maybe someone could at least underline the part where the statue of Liberty refers to the poor huddled masses. Why they mattered seems to have been lost along the road we're travelling down now.

 

Sorry, but it's from a sonnet (The New Collosus) written specifically to raise money for the statue's pedestal base, the same year that the Chinese Exclusion Act became law (1883).

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry, but it's from a sonnet (The New Collosus) written specifically to raise money for the statue's pedestal base, the same year that the Chinese Exclusion Act became law (1883).

Can you point out the part that refers to money, specifically?

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Can you point out the part that refers to money, specifically?

 

The entire exercise was based on money...including a lottery.

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-paid-for-the-statue-of-liberty-1773828