Racial Tension in the U.S.

[David.]

I hope this isn't a serious question. If it is, I've answered it plenty of times before, and the arguments should be obvious anyway.

I've never seen the answer to this. I seriously don't know why we would limit immigration if immigration is a net benefit. Any time I've heard the question "how many do we let in" the person doesn't answer. I don't understand the trap theyre attempting to evade and I've heard plenty of people I respect say they are essentially for open borders if it weren't for the welfare state.

That there is no reasonable, reliable methodology to track the economic performance of third generation descendants of illegal v. legal immigrants.

Ok

Ugh...you really going to start doing this? It's like I'm having this discussion with another poster who shall remain nameless. And I have no interest in those kind of discussions.

Well we're establishing principle. That was the one you offered.

Look I've heard stuff from alt right people essentially advocating an intelligence based ethnostate and those same sort of questions poked holes in the idea. I'm not comparing you to them whatsoever but the issues with the line of reasoning are similar. If it's that you want to protect Americans first and second you look at the most meritorious, ok. But that was the principle you offered.

 

[Randolphkeys]

School in the united states has not changed with the times. We are doing the same thing as we did in the early 1900's.

Think of it this way. 2 of the very best school systems in the world were made by American Education experts tinkering around in the mid 40's with their educational studies. Japan and Germany. If we had implemented any of the things we had learned from that real life experiment, we would be in a better place today.

I really believe that everyone does not have to learn math or science or certain things. You just don't need your educations to be that specific. You need to learn to deal with issues as they come up and learn to ask the right person for help when you need it.

School doesn't teach the right things or even know the right questions to ask.

By your logic, classrooms haven't changed in 100 years? They use chalk and slates at each desk without any other technology, complete wrote memorization, and get hit with a hickory switch when they misbehave or act out of line?

Asinine.

Somebody who isn't in education read about education on the internet. They think they have a better grasp on it lacking any experience in the study of education or experience in the profession.

Yawn.

It's a study that has been through different permutations for the past 100 years. The space race and cold war brought about increased pressure. The National Department of Education set about gathering research during the late 1970s. Reagan pushed for more results based improvement on standardized tests in the early 1980s. The NCLB movement is basically an across the board study meant to test certain teaching methods. Educational studies are conducted by Ph.D. candidates constantly.

If people really want to peruse some of the advanced expectations of the teaching profession, I can post them tomorrow. Fair to say there are a lot of publications that will be happy to publish a negative analysis. You can write a critique on anything if you have a strong enough mind to take a few post-grad classes.

Creating a better school system is the work of great minds. That process has also been going on for 100 years.

 

[AZ_]

It may be your opinion that it wasn't an option, but it was still a choice that he had. He made the decision to stay here. Your whole "he came when he was 10" argument doesn't really hold up when the guy has willingly spent over 2 decades here as an adult.

What purpose does this position serve?

What is gained here?

 

[Randolphkeys]

What is so bad about Mexico that going back there isn't an option?

Surely you understand that the Mexican economy collapsed for the second time in 20 years in 1994. Since then, the country has been clawing back into stability, however they had another setback when China became more profitable for manufacturing corporations to set up sweatshop labor. Mexico rising in it's economy helps the U.S. in turn because a strong North America creates better international diplomacy.

Most immigrants in dire conditions come from El Salvador and Panama. Those are economies in true collapse. Mexican migrant work is a stable micro-economy. There was never a reason to disrupt it, aside from electing a pompous windbag president.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I've never seen the answer to this. I seriously don't know own why if immigration is good we would limit immigration.

Sorry...I just can't do it. If you can't come up with any reasons on your own to answer that question, I have zero interest in explaining it.

 

[gourimoko]

I've never seen the answer to this. I seriously don't know own why if immigration is good we would limit immigration. Any time I've heard the question "how many do we let in" the person doesn't answer. I don't understand the hole their attempting to evade and I've heard plenty of people I respect say they are essentially open borders if it weren't for the welfare state.

Ok



Well we're establishing principle. That was the one you offered.

Look I've heard stuff from alt right people essentially advocating an intelligence ethnostate and those same sort of questions poked holes in the idea. I'm not comparing you to them whatsoever but the issues with the line of reasoning are similar. If it's that you want to protect Americans first and second you look at the most meritorious, ok. But that was the principle you offered.

... Told you so ... Glad you asked and hope you continue to ask.. There's lots of questions like this that you can ask of both liberals and conservatives and get nonsensical, irrational responses back.

We should always be willing to engage in critical assessment of our preconceived notions; even if we think they are quite well founded. A healthy dose of skepticism and rational doubt are the foundations of critical reasoning.

 

[David.]

Sorry...I just can't do it. If you can't come up with any reasons on your own to answer that question, I have zero interest in explaining it.

This is sort of a weird conversation dude. You could have written your reason in less characters you just used to tell me you wouldn't give your reasons. None of the talking points are very good. I've seen the rebuttals to all of them. Don't know why you've decided to be a dick but have a good one.

 

[MediumBaller]

View: https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/953115924751626240

 

[Randolphkeys]

View: https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/953115924751626240

I believe unemployed African-Americans wouldn't be a draw for these types of jobs. That isn't a judgement on African-Americans, I'm very well educated and in no way qualified for these jobs.

A real plan for immigration and native born American unemployment shouldn't be a wild publicity stunt. It should be a thought out process of preparing Americans to qualify for needed job roles in the 21st century economy.

Trump's America has been played for idiots for two years. It continues.

 

[Whittaker]

What? So poor people are lazy and stupid... That’s the problem? The students are low quality so the schools are doomed?

That's not what I said.
If you want to disagree with something I actually said, have at it. But stop with the rephrasing my statements into something you think you can argue against.
The alternative is joining the less fortunate in my ignore pit and you don't want that. Its a shit-hole.

 

[gourimoko]

View: https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/953115924751626240

Errr... what??

We have a quota-based visa program; so.. if we're replacing that with a quota-based racial affirmative action program.... I'd be forced to oppose that.

Seems .. more like a ploy than anything else; I don't think Democrats or Republicans would want to do something like this.

 

[David.]

View: https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/953115924751626240

Hes a fucking social justice warrior! The long troll! All these years and this was it the entire time..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

None of the talking points are very good. I've seen the rebuttals to all of them. Don't know why you've decided to be a dick but have a good one.

Not being a dick. You're a smart guy, so if you are claming you can't see any potential downside of unlimited immigration...there's something else going on.

You're also apparently not reading/considering the things I've already said about the data. For example:

Why isn't "preferable" enough? If there's a better way to do things...why not do it?



That's a huge "if". So first, I'm going to start right off by saying that I do not trust the data provided by a lot of groups regarding the "value" of immigration. While I do acknowledge that immigration in general is good for the country, that does not mean that every subcategory of immigrants are equally valuable -- you may have a lot of unproductive people buried in there with the productive. Therefore, a good immigration policy should seek to draw that distinction wherever possible. Most of the studies I've seen deliberately lump people together, and then play the "immigration is good, therefore anything that restricts immigration is bad" card. And that's not true.

Second, cherry-picking one generation as exceeding that of people who have been here for longer (and I'd have to see the actual data before believing it) doesn't tell you much even if true. I'm not really keen on waiting for three generations to see a benefit if we don't have to do that, and it begs the question of what happens after that third generation. Does it slip back to the mean?

Third, the America to which the ancestors of those now-third generation Americans immigrated is not the same as what we have today. The labor market, etc., is just different. So, just because a certain level of immigration was good in the past does not mean it is equally good today, which means data based on how immigrants succeeded 40 years ago may not reflect what would happen today.

Fourth, the country in which those immigrants had to succeed to survive is simply not the same today. Far more government-mandated benefits, etc.. Simply put, we cannot assume the same outcomes three generations down the road that happened to three generations in the past.



Just because we cannot accurately quantify something doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it. Wouldn't setting up a system in which a higher percentage of immigrants already are fluent in English logically be preferable?

And if you can't fathom any difference between a labor shortage and and a labor glut, particularly in a modern social welfare state....

It seems like trolling.

 

[-Akronite-]

That's not what I said.
If you want to disagree with something I actually said, have at it. But stop with the rephrasing my statements into something you think you can argue against.
The alternative is joining the less fortunate in my ignore pit and you don't want that. Its a shit-hole.

Well then help me understand what you're saying then.

My point was NOT to say that rich people have better traits and thus their children do better in school. It was more about how privilege from having more money both in your home and your neighborhood provides a higher quality education and creates more opportunity to avoid the deadly cycle of poverty. But you extended my argument to state that it's because they pass on the good traits that helped them become wealthy.

You SEEMED to be stating that it is the input of better students; as people inherit the good, hardworking, and smart traits of their wealthy parents; that makes the difference and it has less to do with the affluence itself. I extended your logic to presume that this means that poor people tend to be lazy and stupid, at least in comparison.

If that's not what you feel, please explain. In fact, it seems you're offended by the idea that I would presume that. I don't think you actually feel that way, that's why I asked the question because I think it makes clear what I find wrong about the rest of your argument. But if I'm misinterpreting what you've said, help me out.

 

[Whittaker]

Well then help me understand what you're saying then.

My point was NOT to say that rich people have better traits and thus their children do better in school. It was more about how privilege from having more money both in your home and your neighborhood provides a higher quality education and creates more opportunity to avoid the deadly cycle of poverty. But you extended my argument to state that it's because they pass on the good traits that helped them become wealthy.

You SEEMED to be stating that it is the input of better students; as people inherit the good, hardworking, and smart traits of their wealthy parents; that makes the difference and it has less to do with the affluence itself. I extended your logic to presume that this means that poor people tend to be lazy and stupid, at least in comparison.

If that's not what you feel, please explain. In fact, it seems you're offended by the idea that I would presume that. I don't think you actually feel that way, that's why I asked the question because I think it makes clear what I find wrong about the rest of your argument. But if I'm misinterpreting what you've said, help me out.

Let's start with the basics.
Here is what I said:
"Wealthy people tend to be intelligent and hard-working."
Do you disagree with this part?
Isn't it true that successful people, in general, work hard and make wise decisions, and that often leads to wealth?
"They pass both those traits down to their children through DNA and through parenting."
Surely you don't dispute that intelligence is partially inherited, and that work ethic is often instilled through parenting?

Can you see that a school zone with many $400,000+ homes would be more likely to contain parents that are engineers, doctors, upper management, lawyers, etc? And that their children might be more intelligent and have a stronger work ethic than children from a low income area?
And can you see how this would explain the correlation you identified between school performance and wealth in the district?...as opposed to the assertion that the level of funding to the school explains the correlation.

I am speaking in general terms here. Wealth doesn't fall from trees. In most cases it is earned through hard work and wise decision-making that indicates intelligence.
I gave a much likelier explanation for the correlation you brought up. But if you think wealth & success are a crapshoot, that some people just get lucky, and that 'work ethic' and 'intelligent life choices' are just racial code words in the political culture war, we won't agree on much.