Originally Posted by Vanilla (Post 1629755)

Why do people think that because you're white and middle class you're not allowed to have opinions about things that may not affect you? Or opinions about racism and minorities? There is such a thing as having a factual, well researched argument not dependent on your background.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1629960)

Well I went at it with Roxy over this and basically I got told "You're not black so your opinions don't count", or some variant of that. I let it go in the end because our friendship was starting to come under threat, but it still doesn't seem right to me.

This was, in fairness, in response to my thread about that woman getting arrested and then "hanging herself" in prison a little while back, and I understand feelings may have been a bit raw, but still, I don't see any reason why I, you or any other white or non-black person should not be allowed to express our outrage over the crimes and injustices perpetrated against those who are not our own race... not that I will stop doing that of course.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629998)

I don't know, I think there are definitely situations in which I as a well-off white guy have to take a step back and refrain from discussing certain issues. I don't really think this is one of those situations, but in general I'm pretty sympathetic to arguments like that - and I don't know that it's up to me, when discussing more fraught situations like the policy brutality thing you mention, to decide when I have to bow out of a discussion because I'm offending someone or because I'm coopting a narrative that should belong to poor people/people of color/women/whatever. Basically: if my support for equality or for marginalized groups of people is ever making people who belong to those groups leave a discussion because I'm talking about them in a way that's dehumanizing or offensive, I'm not really supporting equality or those people.

But yeah, I sort of don't think that applies here - whether the studies I cite and the arguments I make are accurate doesn't really depend on my class. But if I'm talking about the experiences of others, I absolutely want to know if the way I'm talking about those experiences is a problem.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1630019)

Well not to derail things, but that's the point. Everything I said about that particular situation was supportive and expressed outrage for what happened. I don't think I ever said anything that might be seen to have caused offence. I was just basically told to shut up and people were not to make these threads any more. Obviously if I were making a joke about it or putting anyone down, then yeah, sure, slap me down. But if I'm supporting your cause then why does it matter that I'm not the same colour? Like, if I started a thread about how Chinese people are treated and then a Chinese member came on saying "You can't say that, you're not Chinese!" How does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629745)

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

But it doesn't matter because you're not responding to the substance of my argument - even if this costs the government money, you don't show me any evidence that that's causing tax increases and you don't give me any reason why this is the place we need to be making cuts. (ETA: And you never give a reason why it's not okay to have increased spending if we're giving social services to people who need them.)

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make them all wrong. If "Americans" deserve access to certain services, don't all people deserve access to those services?

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

You also refuse to provide any evidence that shows wages decreasing - I assume you got that initial number from FAIR as well, so my earlier objections apply there - so here's some evidence which says that, if anything, the opposite happens.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

"Don't take this personally but you're a twat." Thanks man.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1629741)

Don't take this personally, I asked if you were middle class because whenever I encounter someone on the net giving someone else lectures on immigration or diversity, its always some politically correct middle class twat who grew up in a comfortable home environment. I often find that they are people who never got over being bullied in high school, and therefore often bear grudge against their own culture by championing every socialist agenda on the planet no matter who it adversely impacts. If they had to grind through life they would have a completely different outlook.

Bit of a rant there, but it really, really gets my goat.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1630231)

your all about political ideology no matter who it hurts. Middle class liberals have completely hijacked working class parties in the west with their own agenda

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1630298)

He's still in high school.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1630231)

I don't know anything about FAIR other than that they have been called to testify in front of the United States Congress on immigration bills & are cited in many mainstream news sources. However, if its being cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center, its probably complete bull$hit.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center is a highly political far left organization that has written for Communist newspapers in the United States. They have faced lawsuits for delibertly expanding their hate list group to include anyone who opposes immigration." I imagine Trump is next.

I am the furthest thing from an evangelical Christian, but these guys do a good job on the SPLC.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1630364)

I mean it doesn't really matter that they're cited in the mainstream press if they take money from neo-Nazis, and maybe it's no coincidence that the groups who are virulently opposed to immigration tend to be racist hate groups. But since I'm giving you independent reasons why the evidence you get from FAIR is wrong, it doesn't really matter whether either they or the SPLC are a good source.

So... still no response. Cool.

I question some of these too - Townhall and the Daily Caller are very ideological publications, about.com isn't really very serious, The Odyssey says it's crowdsourced journalism (so this is just a random person talking) and that article only cites the same FAIR report anyway, and as for that WaPo piece, this is the first paragraph:

So this isn't just "I have evidence and you evidence," because your evidence has serious methodological problems.

Anyway, the solution, once again, is further liberalization. Look to this report, which says that if we had a better path to citizenship, our economy would benefit in a huge number of ways - debt would decrease, additional spending would create jobs, wages go up, a bunch more. The links to some actual studies are in there as well.

That first study I linked says that other studies which conclude the other way don't take a holistic enough view of the economy. I can check to see whether it mentions your study by name, but again, your methodology is flawed regardless. I don't mean to discount your personal experiences, but if we're trying to figure out whether there's a net decrease in wages, the fact that you've seen people lose jobs is a little less important.

Okay, good for you. You sound like a cool person, and I mean that sincerely. I don't really understand "animosity to my own culture"? Maybe I just have beliefs that are different from yours.

So, in sum, you give two reasons why immigration is bad. First is increased government spending. I tell you that even if this is true:

1. We ought to be spending money on social services anyway
2. This isn't causing tax increases
3. This isn't the place where we should be making cuts

Second is depressed wages. I tell you that even if this is true:

1. This is a short term problem
2. A lot more people are getting jobs, which is good

I also tell you that it's not true and that the economic consensus, when looking at all sectors of the economy, is that native workers - even uneducated native workers - benefit.

But finally, you completely ignore the argument I keep making that further liberalization solves both of these problems by allowing undocumented immigrants to fully participate in the economy, increasing spending and creating jobs, and by keeping employers from threatening undocumented immigrants and getting away with wage theft. The solution isn't "Build a wall," it's "Treat people better when they're here."