Categories
2017 January

The Roots of a Counterproductive Immigration Policy

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


Whether you’re for him or against him, Trump is a symptomatic response to an overreach.  And I would even go so far as to say a profound naivete on the part of liberals.  Below is an interesting analysis of how the US got to where it is at on the clamp down that is occurring.  It is not a defense but an explanation.

Trump’s executive order has unleashed chaos, harmed lawful U.S. residents, and alienated potential friends in the Islamic world. Yet without the dreamy liberal refusal to recognize the reality of nationhood, the meaning of citizenship, and the differences between cultures, Trump would never have gained the power to issue that order.

Liberalism and nationhood grew up together in the 19th century, mutually dependent. In the 21st century, they have grown apart—or more exactly, liberalism has recoiled from nationhood. The result has not been to abolish nationality, but to discredit liberalism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/an-immigration-order-as-stupid-as-it-is-counterproductive/514847/?utm_source=twb

 


Mike’s response:

“And it is worth some reflection to understand that to some (or large) degree that soil was firmly enriched by strong/adamant/inflexible “liberal” positions.”

And values which are NOT a reflection of the majority–but better majority-building strategies.

mike

 

16 replies on “The Roots of a Counterproductive Immigration Policy”

Heidi,

Just to clarify, my sense is that the naivete/overreach of the typical liberal position on immigration policy (which has largely won the day over the last decade) is what created the climate for Trump to become possible.

The article makes that point.

The larger point is that Trump is a counter-reaction to that overreach, and will likewise severely overreach…which is occurring on his ban.

What I am most interested in is the political “roots” that spawned the possibility of a Trump.

And it is worth some reflection to understand that to some (or large) degree that soil was firmly enriched by strong/adamant/inflexible “liberal” positions.

Jim

If the goal is to exclude radical Muslims from the United States, the executive order Trump announced on Friday seems a highly ineffective way to achieve it.
Yes, I was reacting to this line in the article and saying there might have been another goal – clearly, if you exclude Saudi Arabia from the ban, then you aren’t that worried about radicals anyway.

I don’t disagree with some of the premise. I would add that the neo-liberals were ignoring the same issues the conservatives ignored in terms of working in favor of corporate lobbyists and allowing things like big companies to merge like mad, and other policies that ignored peoples’ needs and thus caused layoffs and more wealth to rise to the top etc causing fear for tomorrow and a need for people to shrink their world to a manageable size. This is of course connected to nationhood – and the lack of willingness to set parameters. And, also to the complexity of world markets and a desire to not get left out of them, but a misunderstanding of how to balance the two.

Heidi Mehltretter

I think this is generally right. You better understand that conceptually a muslim ban has lots of support for lots of defensible reasons. If you can’t pull back enough to see that then you cannot create an adequate counter response.

Herb,

You asked me a while ago about what an adequate counter response looks like….

I am probably past my pay grade on this one but a quick take on if I were to craft a political strategy from the left it would strongly endorse:

· Borders really matter, national sovereignty really matters. Protecting our borders from illegal immigration is incredibly important. You must come to our country legally. If you don’t, our policy is to deport you.

· We must recognize that we, as do all countries, have a very limited ability to absorb refugees from other countries. The world has a near unlimited number of refugees.

· Who we let in to the US is a matter of highest national security, economic and cultural importance.

· Globalization has really hurt a lot of people, our response to date has been anemic and insincere. Our policy proposals need to reflect the scope and scale of the problem.

· Maybe most importantly….terrorism toward the destruction of western civilization is almost exclusively coming from muslim countries and muslims radicalized within western countries. It is generally not coming from other groups (except white nationalists). We need to fully recognize this and gauge our response accordingly. Caution is the approach now needed.

And from this, you then craft a “compassionate” public policy responses to each of these that also holds firm boundaries/borders. The left is in a world of hurt until it recognizes some of this. My sense anyway.

Jim

As would I, Alicia.

Jim – All of your points look reasonable to me. I expect we’re already doing a lot of this but are not declaring it enough. The rhetoric would have us believe that there are terrorist acts every day in the US committed by Moslems. No one on either side seems to be paying attention to how well our security agencies have been performing.

Herb

This would require increasing DQ-BLUE density and frequency at all levels, IMHO–in a sophisticated form of lateral complexity (which we are capable of) with Oblique tension continuously supplying more complex memes for hybridization–compassion, as an example.

What’s not clear are the institutional details/procedures which are being paid political lip service and not being applied as DQ-BLUE, but as green acquiescence–e.g. deportation and the permeability of the “borders.”

mike

“Trump’s executive order has unleashed chaos, harmed lawful U.S. residents, and alienated potential friends in the Islamic world. Yet without the dreamy liberal refusal to recognize the reality of nationhood, the meaning of citizenship, and the differences between cultures, Trump would never have gained the power to issue that order.”

This is continued “sensationalism” by the liberal media.

There is no chaos.

There are a few people stuck in transit as is always the case when any kind of time order is given stopping something.

The message it’s sending is far more important than what it will do.

Armstrong once said that everything regarding confidence–his lever of choice–is in anticipation of what will happen; not what actually happens.

First, by TRUMP quickly and methodically fulfilling his campaign promises unlike most politicians who will say ANYTHING to get elected, you can only blame the people who elected him as he is going right down the center of his platform.

I think it’s sending and interesting and strong message to the world about changes that are occurring.

As to the effects?

It’s anyone’s guess and the liberal’s right to write anything they see fit, but it’s far from chaos!;)

mike

Yes, tend to agree there is limited chaos in the immediate impact from the
ban including the few 1000 stuck in transit. A few 100,000 lives /
families overall to be affected by this at the most, at least in the short
term. I heard a figure of about 20,000 students attending universities in
the US will likely get caught up in this. Highly consequential for these
individuals and families obviously but in the particular moment of those
stuck in transit etc. a very limited impact, relatively speaking.

But that is not really what is of concern. Mike you are accurate to say: ”
The message it’s sending is far more important than what it will do.”
That’s the nub of it. Watch what it will do. It is going to be
fascinating. From a systems impact perspective, I keep getting this sense
that he has just a club to whack, no nuance, subtlety…so the counter
response will be extremely strong and galvanizing. So many better ways to
do what he is doing to get the impact he wants to get. But that is a
different discussion all together.

In terms of the media, it isn’t just a bunch of liberals whacking off at
Trump. Here is a thought piece from a conservative pundit that is typical
of a segment of the conservative establishment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clarifying-moment-in-
american-history/514868/

The first words I heard after the election that helped me make sense of it was that liberals took Trump literally but not seriously and his supporters took him seriously but not literally. Looks like both sides got it half right.

Herb

“From a systems impact perspective, I keep getting this sense
that he has just a club to whack, no nuance, subtlety…so the counter
response will be extremely strong and galvanizing.”

1. Who isn’t mole whacking?

The past administration? Hehe

2. What you are seeing, IMHO, is an entirely different set of values emerge that are archetypically “different in nature” and this is precisely what is needed to encourage the conflict that must come in order for conditions to arise to produce A’N’-YELLOW.

3. The world is being moved too quickly by complexity which is far more order of complexity than all but .5% on the planet can handle.

TRUMP’s as well as other elections occurring around the globe are in response to this phenomena.

We are building too high too fast and the leadership is too far from the follower ship.

The next decade will prove this and recreate the density and frequency of memes necessary to pose the next conditions which are required for the emerging neurological response.

Whack a mole away;)

mike

I’d agree with Herb. Yesterday at my son’s soccer game I was talking to one of the parents, a Syrian immigrant. Both parents are doctors, partners in a large practice here. They have 4 boys, the eldest of which is top of his class at school and just applied to Stanford. The husband wanted his mom to come live with them, and she did manage to arrive a week before the ban. She is blind and deaf and had to sit in Canada for TWO YEARS on a visitor’s visa while awaiting background checks. That sounds like pretty rigorous vetting to me.

Because of what is happening here, they have decided to begin the process of trying to immigrate their family to Canada.

Heidi Mehltretter

I’m not so sure about the need for greater DQ-Blue density on this. Just a political pivot.

My sense is that the Democrats attempted to lock up the Hispanic vote and did not bifurcate the issue of immigration and border control cleanly. And differentiate it from other immigration patterns and groups.

Just watch as blue density starts to come on line to “protect the institutions of democracy.” A LOT of blue base in the US.

And like Heidi pointed out, it is wickedly difficult to legally immigrate to the US already.

Laws are there, they are not enforced.

It will take much more than politics and a pivot.

It’s not so hard to immigrate, just takes time.

The system is designed NOT TO TAKE JUST ANYONE, as it should be.

People forget how hard it is to get into other countries, CAN’T become citizen of Philippines without presidential favor!!

Try getting into Switzerland?

mike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *