Thanks. One useful piece of information that might talk people out of their trees is to explain how a small city/town the size of Springfield which I understand is under 60,000 peeps, needed workers, and somehow ended up with 20,000 immigrants. It reads like fiction. If you want isolationists to come to the table, they need to understand how their own town won't be next. Who decides how many people assigned refugee status are assigned to one location? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like entirely too many refugees to one location. The location's schools and cost of living, including housing, have been negatively impacted. What gives?
The next time you hear someone justify it with "But the important thing is that it's calling attention to the problems with immigration blah blah blah", be aware that they're admitting that they could have made their case without the dehumanizing horseshit, and they didn't want to.
This is such a missed opportunity, beginning with the headline. There is no careful weighing of the facts or sifting through the subtleties of overlapping concerns, which are the hallmarks of Persuasion. At least in my view.
America has a long history with Haiti. The first refugee crisis after the Revolution came from Saint-Domingue. Millions of Americans today are their descendants. America is not responsible for the original tragedy in Haiti, but America’s occupation of the tiny nation by the Wilson administration is directly responsible for making it worse. America has a history there. Whether or not it has a responsibility is debatable. I believe that America does.
The fact that Mr. Trump repeats things that he saw on television without knowing anything is nothing new to anybody. It has little bearing on the larger issues, which are mentioned in the essay, but explored little. If we use the relatively low figure of 8,000,000 undocumented people entering the United States since 2021, we are talking about thirteen times the population of Vermont. The infrastructure needs are immense and the burden is unevenly distributed to the communities of the working classes. Since America’s blue-collar population is far more racially diverse than the white-collar ones, it is the latter who will escape the consequences of bad policy. Obviously, doctors, nurses, teachers, classrooms, hospital beds and equipment, housing, and the government services necessary for thirteen Vermonts cannot be conjured into existence in either months or years. Poor communities have the least capacity to deal with an enormous problem created by the federal government. To those who live in these places, it must feel as if some powerful and uncaring demonic force is toying with their lives. Haitians are in the crossfire.
The focus on stupid comments from Mr. Trump or any other politician is typical of our political discourse. Whether intentional or not, it prevents knowledge and understanding. Too bad, since the pet story is a lamentable opportunity for a serious discussion. It feels like another example of luxury beliefs.
We can thank First Amendment free-speech zealots for the persistence of egregious partisan lies about immigrants and countless other things. Demonstrable lies made for political purposes do not deserve to be constitutionally protected speech. How is that much-revered marketplace of ideas doing at purging Trump's flood of lies from the national discourse? The quaint idea that pernicious political speech can be overcome by a copious application of truth is just that - quaint. All that does is encourage Trump to come out with even worse lies.
We're very selective when it comes to dispensing legal recourse for harms caused by lies. If a person's reputation has been harmed by lies or if a party to a business transaction has lost money because the other side lied, the courts will give them a ready forum and the prospect of injunctive relief and monetary damages. But the suggestion that the body politic be entitled to the same protection against lies is met with hand-wringing. It is a slippery slope! Who will decide? What happens when your opponents come to power? It's simple. Make sure that telling demonstrable lies isn't part of your campaign strategy. Who decides whether a statement is true is a jury in an expedited legal proceeding. As for the slippery slope, it isn't real. It is a thought-ending rhetorical device that people deploy against initiatives that threaten their interests.
Thanks. One useful piece of information that might talk people out of their trees is to explain how a small city/town the size of Springfield which I understand is under 60,000 peeps, needed workers, and somehow ended up with 20,000 immigrants. It reads like fiction. If you want isolationists to come to the table, they need to understand how their own town won't be next. Who decides how many people assigned refugee status are assigned to one location? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like entirely too many refugees to one location. The location's schools and cost of living, including housing, have been negatively impacted. What gives?
Would this be like the lie that Jussie Smollet was assaulted by MAGAs in the middle of the night in Chicago during an Arctic freeze, like that?
The next time you hear someone justify it with "But the important thing is that it's calling attention to the problems with immigration blah blah blah", be aware that they're admitting that they could have made their case without the dehumanizing horseshit, and they didn't want to.
This is such a missed opportunity, beginning with the headline. There is no careful weighing of the facts or sifting through the subtleties of overlapping concerns, which are the hallmarks of Persuasion. At least in my view.
America has a long history with Haiti. The first refugee crisis after the Revolution came from Saint-Domingue. Millions of Americans today are their descendants. America is not responsible for the original tragedy in Haiti, but America’s occupation of the tiny nation by the Wilson administration is directly responsible for making it worse. America has a history there. Whether or not it has a responsibility is debatable. I believe that America does.
The fact that Mr. Trump repeats things that he saw on television without knowing anything is nothing new to anybody. It has little bearing on the larger issues, which are mentioned in the essay, but explored little. If we use the relatively low figure of 8,000,000 undocumented people entering the United States since 2021, we are talking about thirteen times the population of Vermont. The infrastructure needs are immense and the burden is unevenly distributed to the communities of the working classes. Since America’s blue-collar population is far more racially diverse than the white-collar ones, it is the latter who will escape the consequences of bad policy. Obviously, doctors, nurses, teachers, classrooms, hospital beds and equipment, housing, and the government services necessary for thirteen Vermonts cannot be conjured into existence in either months or years. Poor communities have the least capacity to deal with an enormous problem created by the federal government. To those who live in these places, it must feel as if some powerful and uncaring demonic force is toying with their lives. Haitians are in the crossfire.
The focus on stupid comments from Mr. Trump or any other politician is typical of our political discourse. Whether intentional or not, it prevents knowledge and understanding. Too bad, since the pet story is a lamentable opportunity for a serious discussion. It feels like another example of luxury beliefs.
I see the sacred-victim, entitled parasite culture (SVEP) is kicking into hyperspeed.
And by the way, speaking of egregious lies- How about the whopper that our current president is fully fit for duty?
We can thank First Amendment free-speech zealots for the persistence of egregious partisan lies about immigrants and countless other things. Demonstrable lies made for political purposes do not deserve to be constitutionally protected speech. How is that much-revered marketplace of ideas doing at purging Trump's flood of lies from the national discourse? The quaint idea that pernicious political speech can be overcome by a copious application of truth is just that - quaint. All that does is encourage Trump to come out with even worse lies.
We're very selective when it comes to dispensing legal recourse for harms caused by lies. If a person's reputation has been harmed by lies or if a party to a business transaction has lost money because the other side lied, the courts will give them a ready forum and the prospect of injunctive relief and monetary damages. But the suggestion that the body politic be entitled to the same protection against lies is met with hand-wringing. It is a slippery slope! Who will decide? What happens when your opponents come to power? It's simple. Make sure that telling demonstrable lies isn't part of your campaign strategy. Who decides whether a statement is true is a jury in an expedited legal proceeding. As for the slippery slope, it isn't real. It is a thought-ending rhetorical device that people deploy against initiatives that threaten their interests.
"Demonstrable lies made for political purposes do not deserve to be constitutionally protected speech."
Wow so I guess we should plan to tape the mouths of all politicians, yes?