Nativism -

[Joan Nyan]

The word "nativism" is thrown around as a slur these days, especially regarding the US Presidential race. Trump is called a nativist because he doesn't want illegal immigrants to stay in the country and doesn't want to take in refugees. Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with the government taking care of its own citizens rather than a bunch of refugees?

 

[millais]

people are butthurt at Trump because he wants to block all refugees without exception, whereas more moderate view is that we shouldn't take in economic migrants from Middle East, but we should accept legitimate war refugees from there on humanitarian grounds.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Since I am a hobbesian I don't consider there to be any obligation on the part of a government to do anything for non citizens. I quite dislike the term "nativism" because it implies that it is something racial when it is actually merely the social contract. I will put into dispute though anything that grants citizenship via executive order or through quickly forced through omnibus bill because who is a citizen is the most important question for a government and in democracy the people should have a larger degree of input than more minor issues

 

[AnOminous]

Since I am a hobbesian I don't consider there to be any obligation on the part of a government to do anything for non citizens. I quite dislike the term "nativism" because it implies that it is something racial when it is actually merely the social contract. I will put into dispute though anything that grants citizenship via executive order or through quickly forced through omnibus bill because who is a citizen is the most important question for a government and in democracy the people should have a larger degree of input than more minor issues

The social contract, assuming such a thing exists at all, is represented in the United States by a written Constitution, which assigns to Congress the power of naturalization. This cannot be done by executive order (Art. I, § 8, cl. 4), except as pursuant to authority granted by Congress.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

The social contract, assuming such a thing exists at all, is represented in the United States by a written Constitution, which assigns to Congress the power of naturalization. This cannot be done by executive order (Art. I, § 8, cl. 4), except as pursuant to authority granted by Congress.

Not everyone lives in america. (I know that technically they aren't executive orders but in Canada the PM can do whatever he wants on naturalization and I am not sure about european countries)

 

[Mesh Gear Fox]

Both sides of my family legally immigrated to this country. Illegals don't deserve a free ride; they can go through the process like everyone else. I'm very much opposed to giving them any rights or government assistance at all. They are criminals.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

This is basically a clash of two schools of thought;

Those who still see the issues internally within first world states, and believe we should use our vast moneys and resources to cater exclusively to the problems already there, and those who see the first world states as a good elite that can use its moneys and resources to help under developed countries and its peoples.

The issue is that over the last decade/two decades there has been a lot of cultural transplantism (mistakely conflated with multiculturalism) within certain first world states which has resulted in strain and cultural clashes on a very low scale for the time being, and could easily explode into full blown race riots and other nasty issues should things go just slightly the wrong way. British apathy and faith by the majority in the legal system has kept a decent enough lid on this, and the government is currently working on how to better integrate the more stubborn communities with language lessons and other assistance.

The United States is highly fortunate in that, for the most part, it is well isolated from the majority of the world, holding the majority of arable territory of the North American Continent. To the North is a very rich neighbour with a nice, small and stable population and to the south is a source of potentially cheap labour that will take up the jobs that "true americans" are too good for. Which has always been the traditional lot of migrants.

The bigger, underlying issue, is the fact that the majority of US heavy industry is starting to die off, favouring factories in places such as the far east where production is simply cheaper, those who might want to move into a different sector (albeit temporarily) are finding Mexicans and other minorities within those jobs already, with enough of a demand for those jobs (at the right price) being filled by more who cross the border by fair means or foul.

The nativism appeal comes about by Trump actually targeting other groups, minorities and illegal migrants which, while founded in some truth, are typically overblown to a far greater proportion than they actually are as an issue.

The isolated racist incidents at his rallies don't actually delve into Trump's nativist policies, which includes favouring native born citizens (regardless of ethnicity) over newly arrived migrants for things such as further education, grants, financial assistance and jobs. His plans on eradicating ghettos sounds a little sinister on paper, there was talk of basically moving around the poor inner city african-american minotiries to places of better jobs and ensuring there would be a disproportionate grant-based education in favour of such candidates. There's a certain, broader appeal to that than the sort of indifferent shrugging that has gone on from the Obama administration regarding the US-Mexican border.

 

[Cthulu]

The bigger, underlying issue, is the fact that the majority of US heavy industry is starting to die off, favouring factories in places such as the far east where production is simply cheape

http://www.economist.com/news/speci...es-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united

 

[KingGeedorah]

http://www.economist.com/news/speci...es-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united

"The number of firms known to have “reshored” manufacturing to America is well under 100. Doubtless many more are doing so quietly. Examples range from the tiny, such as ET Water Systems, to the enormous, such as General Electric, which last year moved manufacturing of washing machines, fridges and heaters back from China to a factory in Kentucky which not long ago had been expected to close"

Doesn't seen to be that huge if a movement, yet you're correct in saying they are coming back to the US. Just slow.

 

[Cthulu]

"The number of firms known to have “reshored” manufacturing to America is well under 100. Doubtless many more are doing so quietly. Examples range from the tiny, such as ET Water Systems, to the enormous, such as General Electric, which last year moved manufacturing of washing machines, fridges and heaters back from China to a factory in Kentucky which not long ago had been expected to close"

Doesn't seen to be that huge if a movement, yet you're correct in saying they are coming back to the US. Just slow.

True but it isn't dieing off. According to indicators.

 

[Kazami Yuuka]

The duty of a state is to protect the security of it's citizens, albeit at the expense of the freedom of citizens (e.g. needing a business licence). When you prioritize the interests of foreign nationals and people trespassing sovereign borders, you begin to delegitimize your state, as you are now actively acting against the interests and security of your citizens. Taking in refugees is entirely optional as well, since it should really be up to the state they are residing in to make amends to the poor conditions. Refugees should especially be rejected if they've been proven to have ideologies that clash with the native population.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

This is basically a clash of two schools of thought;

Those who still see the issues internally within first world states, and believe we should use our vast moneys and resources to cater exclusively to the problems already there, and those who see the first world states as a good elite that can use its moneys and resources to help under developed countries and its peoples.

The issue is that over the last decade/two decades there has been a lot of cultural transplantism (mistakely conflated with multiculturalism) within certain first world states which has resulted in strain and cultural clashes on a very low scale for the time being, and could easily explode into full blown race riots and other nasty issues should things go just slightly the wrong way. British apathy and faith by the majority in the legal system has kept a decent enough lid on this, and the government is currently working on how to better integrate the more stubborn communities with language lessons and other assistance.

The United States is highly fortunate in that, for the most part, it is well isolated from the majority of the world, holding the majority of arable territory of the North American Continent. To the North is a very rich neighbour with a nice, small and stable population and to the south is a source of potentially cheap labour that will take up the jobs that "true americans" are too good for. Which has always been the traditional lot of migrants.

The bigger, underlying issue, is the fact that the majority of US heavy industry is starting to die off, favouring factories in places such as the far east where production is simply cheaper, those who might want to move into a different sector (albeit temporarily) are finding Mexicans and other minorities within those jobs already, with enough of a demand for those jobs (at the right price) being filled by more who cross the border by fair means or foul.

The nativism appeal comes about by Trump actually targeting other groups, minorities and illegal migrants which, while founded in some truth, are typically overblown to a far greater proportion than they actually are as an issue.

The isolated racist incidents at his rallies don't actually delve into Trump's nativist policies, which includes favouring native born citizens (regardless of ethnicity) over newly arrived migrants for things such as further education, grants, financial assistance and jobs. His plans on eradicating ghettos sounds a little sinister on paper, there was talk of basically moving around the poor inner city african-american minotiries to places of better jobs and ensuring there would be a disproportionate grant-based education in favour of such candidates. There's a certain, broader appeal to that than the sort of indifferent shrugging that has gone on from the Obama administration regarding the US-Mexican border.

I don't think it is really that clash that you are talking about but rather a clash between contract theory and utilitarianism with contract theory favoring native citizens because they agreed to the contract whereas utilitarianism says that the good of humanity regardless of whether they have agreed to the contract is important

 

[AnOminous]

I don't think it is really that clash that you are talking about but rather a clash between contract theory and utilitarianism with contract theory favoring native citizens because they agreed to the contract whereas utilitarianism says that the good of humanity regardless of whether they have agreed to the contract is important

I don't remember ever agreeing to any contract. If society requires some sort of agreement to exist, then sovereign citizens are correct in just refusing to obey laws they don't agree with. Since they're clearly idiots, this agreement is an abstract fiction more than it is a real thing.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I don't remember ever agreeing to any contract. If society requires some sort of agreement to exist, then sovereign citizens are correct in just refusing to obey laws they don't agree with. Since they're clearly idiots, this agreement is an abstract fiction more than it is a real thing.

In many ways it is more a fiction than a reality but it does allow for a more easy definition for who should be in the jurisdiction of the state than other systems and a better way to show what the state should do

 

[The Knife's Husbando]

Having spent a decade in foodservice, and about as much in construction, I've spent many a day working besides "los illegales".

Two years ago, our local government passed some legislature that basically ran off most of the local Hispanic population, legal or otherwise. The local farmers basically shat themselves. They had pecans, tomatoes, watermelons, produce of all kinds rotting in the fields, and even after putting out TV and newspaper adds begging people to come take these jobs, almost no one showed up to work. Even with a state unemployment rate hovering around 7%.

I've come to discover a lot of times "I can't find a job!" translates to "I can't find a job someplace air-conditioned with no heavy lifting!" Anyone who gets up every day and humps to provide for their family gets much more respect from me than the thousands of able-bodied "real citizens" who sit on their ass & collect government money.

 

[Tranhuviya]

Why should our people bear the burden of caring for foreigners who have entered our country illegally, and why should our children, and their children after them? To propose such in this way is absolutely ridiculous, and it would get laughed out of any assembly of right-minded, free-thinking men.

Nativism is merely the political expression of this sentiment: Our people first, all others second. Charity begins at home, after all.