I strongly disagree. This is the rightward ratchet that led us to Trump and will lead to worse. Haven’t we all seen by now how lesser-evilism is a failed strategy?
Embracing neoliberalism even harder will only embolden the abusive class and it doesn’t have the popular support.
I have family members a couple generations back who were builders and roofers and made a good living at it. They were US-born citizens and could support a family on that job. Other families could afford to afford to hire them to work on their houses.
The lie that there are “jobs that Americans won’t do” or that we can’t afford to pay Americans to do is historical revisionism and is only coming true because we keep basing every decision on how to make our ultra-wealthy abusers even richer. We can do better than this.
The lie that there are “jobs that Americans won’t do” or that we can’t afford to pay Americans to do is historical revisionism and is only coming true because we keep basing every decision on how to make our ultra-wealthy abusers even richer. We can do better than this.
The “jobs Americans won’t do” is acknowledging the current situation, not a comment on whether it was always true. In fact, it could also be said as “jobs Americans won’t do any longer because they are underpaid and only immigrants will accept the pay”.
True, but by accepting that the chosen argument against mass deportation is that our economy depends on having illegals to exploit, we’re normalizing the situation instead of working toward a better economic reality.
I get that the argument is supposed to appeal to the right wing types in order to shift their actions away from mass deportation. My argument is that ratcheting to the right this way won’t actually resonate with them in an effective way (their blue collar ancestors also raised families on these jobs and they see the immigrants as “stealing” the jobs), but will also shift the thinking of the left wing crowd toward an expectation that the permanence of our current situation is a fait accompli.
This is not only an ineffective argument, it’s a damaging one in the long term.
I get that the argument is supposed to appeal to the right wing types in order to shift their actions away from mass deportation.
It is a statement about the short term impacts of mass deportation by removing the majority of people that do a certain type of work that has nobody waiting to fill the positions. It is actually contradicting the right wing talking point that immigrants are stealing jobs from citizens, by pointing out that they aren’t stealing jobs from anyone.
this is a facile childs argument, no, not at present, we obviously can’t do “better than this”, “we” couldn’t even hold the line to keep the fascists from taking power again, after every failure from trumps first bite at the apple, and every open threat coming into this next one. we need less dreamers, and more pragmatic political realists.
I guess, man. We’ve been playing your realpolitik strategy game for the last few decades and here we are. My strategy didn’t involve electing Trump yet again…
The last president we had that appealed to “dreamers” was Obama, who had two terms and got some stuff accomplished. Since then, we’ve had a set of “pragmatic” choices who have outright lost or at least failed to keep the fascists out: Clinton, Biden, and now Harris. Should we stick with the “pragmatic” route in hopes that it starts making returns someday?
I strongly disagree. This is the rightward ratchet that led us to Trump and will lead to worse. Haven’t we all seen by now how lesser-evilism is a failed strategy?
Embracing neoliberalism even harder will only embolden the abusive class and it doesn’t have the popular support.
I have family members a couple generations back who were builders and roofers and made a good living at it. They were US-born citizens and could support a family on that job. Other families could afford to afford to hire them to work on their houses.
The lie that there are “jobs that Americans won’t do” or that we can’t afford to pay Americans to do is historical revisionism and is only coming true because we keep basing every decision on how to make our ultra-wealthy abusers even richer. We can do better than this.
The “jobs Americans won’t do” is acknowledging the current situation, not a comment on whether it was always true. In fact, it could also be said as “jobs Americans won’t do any longer because they are underpaid and only immigrants will accept the pay”.
True, but by accepting that the chosen argument against mass deportation is that our economy depends on having illegals to exploit, we’re normalizing the situation instead of working toward a better economic reality.
I get that the argument is supposed to appeal to the right wing types in order to shift their actions away from mass deportation. My argument is that ratcheting to the right this way won’t actually resonate with them in an effective way (their blue collar ancestors also raised families on these jobs and they see the immigrants as “stealing” the jobs), but will also shift the thinking of the left wing crowd toward an expectation that the permanence of our current situation is a fait accompli.
This is not only an ineffective argument, it’s a damaging one in the long term.
It is a statement about the short term impacts of mass deportation by removing the majority of people that do a certain type of work that has nobody waiting to fill the positions. It is actually contradicting the right wing talking point that immigrants are stealing jobs from citizens, by pointing out that they aren’t stealing jobs from anyone.
this is a facile childs argument, no, not at present, we obviously can’t do “better than this”, “we” couldn’t even hold the line to keep the fascists from taking power again, after every failure from trumps first bite at the apple, and every open threat coming into this next one. we need less dreamers, and more pragmatic political realists.
I guess, man. We’ve been playing your realpolitik strategy game for the last few decades and here we are. My strategy didn’t involve electing Trump yet again…
The last president we had that appealed to “dreamers” was Obama, who had two terms and got some stuff accomplished. Since then, we’ve had a set of “pragmatic” choices who have outright lost or at least failed to keep the fascists out: Clinton, Biden, and now Harris. Should we stick with the “pragmatic” route in hopes that it starts making returns someday?