Really? Than why so many leaked memos show that Bannon and Miller want to reduce family Visas for those already legally here? Why is Bannon and Miller's favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white? Why when Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on legal immigration way down?
You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly
Critique it.
This. so much this. Forget leaks, just stuff he's said in public is alarming enough including the fact that he takes issue with the headline OP posted here [1]. The book he keeps quoting is 'Camp of Saints' and you described it in the nicest way possible[2]. This man sets the agenda for the president :|.
As an immigrant in America, if Bannon and Miller were removed, Trumps policies are not that much different from any other boilerplate republican.
>> if Bannon and Miller were removed, Trumps policies are not that much different from any other boilerplate republican.
First and foremost thing that is apparent about Trump's administration is the anti-globalist "america first" approach. It's not just the rhetoric either - he's acting on his promises of bringing american jobs back, addressing the trade deficit disparities, cutting down on the debt (US debt is down by almost 70 billion in the last 2 months) and so on.
This sets him apart not only from the Dems but also from the mainstream and rhino GOP which is why they publicly denounce him.
Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.
There is no list of examples long enough to get the gun control people to understand why none of the pro-gun people trust them at all. Why should evidence matter here?
It's not when there's already evidence that we're slipping down the slope. We have verbal interviews of Steve Bannon's intent and philosophy and leaked drafts of policies aimed at slashing legal immigration by 50%.
Supporters of Trump and his policies go out of their way to try and soften and explain what he "really" means by saying to ignore what he or his advisors literally say. I think this is dangerously naive and the time is past giving the benefit of the doubt and sticking to rigid logical standards. This isn't philosophy class and this stuff poses real world dangers.
I had to look this up :). But I would have to disagree on that. Trump/Bannon have a recorded history of anti-immigration, anti-muslim rhetoric. And they also took a pretty long time to openly call out against the antisemitism.
The Obama administration has deported many many illegal immigrants and yet I've never felt that way for them.
While I appreciate the recognition of the fallacy, just because the reasoning fits the template for a fallacious argument doesn't mean that it is. The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if other evidence doesn't exist to suggest we're on such a slope.
There is historical precedent in this particular instance...
There is ample historic precedent for regimes and loud minorities implementing agendas by first going after the easiest targets (jews, kurds,hooligans,illegal immigrants) then slightly generalising (disabled, kurdish supporters, all "potentially violent", immigrants in general) in some steps until the end goal (political opponents, political opponents, political opponents and...political opponents). Hence in this case, the slippery slope is a given and justified.
Why do you think they are authoritarians. I don't get this.
The right in the US is about freedom. The left is the part of authoritarianism. The progressive left especially has incredibly tight control of freedom of speech. Everything they don't like is called hate speech, all discussions are shut down, and PC terminology means that it doesn't matter what you say anymore, if you accidentally choose the wrong words, you are finished.
Except when it comes to a woman's right to choose, the freedom to assemble and protest, freedom from religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement, freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender, freedom to use drugs recreationally, or any other area of personal freedoms you'd care to name wherein - to be really, really generous - the right doesn't perform any better than the left.
Free exchange of ideas. This is by far the most important right. You must imagine that someone in power has enacted harsh laws that you oppose. These laws should never prevent your ability from finding other people who oppose these laws and having a means to democratically over turn them. This is the most important part of freedom.
Everything else you mentioned can be democratically overturned if enough people support it.
> woman's right to choose
I consider myself on the right, but I support women's right to choose. The religious right is on the way out. Yes, it use to be a big issue, but its not anymore. It was not a campaign issue, and Trump says he will "leave it to the states".
> freedom to assemble and protest
Can I have examples of this? We 100% support your right to peaceful protest and assembly. Can you provide some examples of ways Trump's administration is cracking down on this?
If you are talking about non-peaceful protests like blocking highways, preventing people from getting to work, ANTIFA wearing masks and attacking people at rallies then this is not acceptable and I support laws to crack down on this more.
> freedom from religion
Tick.
> freedom of the press
Examples that are not fake news please?
> freedom of movement
What do you mean here? US citizens who are not under parole or incarcerated can move freely anywhere inside the US.
> freedom to use the bathroom associated with your gender
What about freedom to use the bathroom associated with your own sex (physical M/F)?
Two sides to every "freedom" issue.
> freedom to use drugs recreationally
You want crack made legal? Weed legalisation is non-partisan now.
> personal freedoms
If these personal freedoms you talk of prevent you from being able to assemble and vote, then I support them.
Otherwise, laws should be enacted based on debate and democratic processes.
- Is it the act of calling a homosexual person, gay instead of fag?
- Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?
- Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads?
- Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?
Its 2017, so if we have to watch our words so that we dont disrespect people who have been humiliated for years, its not much to ask for. Unless you put up everyday with something that offends you, you have no idea how much your "PC terminology" helps a disadvantaged person feel comfortable in their own skin.
If I was on the left, I could make a big deal out of your incorrect use of the word homosexual, and I could make it look like you are as bad as someone calling someone a fag in an intentionally derogative way.
> Is it referring to black people as african-americans and not niggers?
Black people is not PC. Dude, are you a racist or what?
The correct term is person-of-color. But do not say "colored person" or you will receive a massive social media outcry.
"But I am not a racist you say?". Doesn't matter, once you say the wrong word, you are already one of them.
> Is it referring to Muslim people as muslim people and not ragheads?
> Is it referring to people of east asian heritage as Asian and not chinks?
2017 PC is not about using derrogatory terms.
> In 2017...its not much to ask for.
It seems like it is for you, because in your post you have used the incorrect terms.
Now, are you a racist and a homophobe?
The right would assume you are not.
The left will be keeping their eye on you, and now have material to take you down in the future if they want to.
I think it's more accurate that both the extreme right and extreme left are the parties of authoritarianism, and the center is about freedom. Leftists want to police what you say, what you think, how you earn your living, and who you associate with. Rightists want to police what you believe, what you do with your body, what substances you inhale, and how you travel. Both sides would do well with a chill pill and the idea that people could be or believe differently than you without being a threat.
>The progressive left especially has incredibly tight control of freedom of speech. Everything they don't like is called hate speech, all discussions are shut down, and PC terminology means that it doesn't matter what you say anymore, if you accidentally choose the wrong words, you are finished.
"Freedom of speech" has nothing to do with social opprobrium. Freedom of speech means the government is not going to step in and silence you for failing to use "PC terminology". It does not mean you should be immune from other people deciding you said something distasteful enough that they no longer want to employ you or associate with you.
The left blockades right-wing events to prevent people speaking. They physically try to prevent speech.
I think a lot of democrats don't see what is happening in the progressive left. I use to identify as a democrat, but after seeing this stuff, I no longer can.
You can associate with whoever you like. 100% agree.
Re: employment. So if you accidentally referred to someone as "colored" instead of "person-of-color", and you get fired for it...you are happy about this? You want to live in this kind of society?
Definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
I'm specifically referring to the current WH. It's authoritarian because it refuses to accept facts and wants to distort them to fit its own narrative. It will discredit the press if it does not "fall in line".
> It's authoritarian because it refuses to accept facts and wants to distort them to fit its own narrative. It will discredit the press if it does not "fall in line".
And on the right, its the press who is distorting facts for their own narrative.
The press being discredited is justified. And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.
The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.
> And on the right, its the press who is distorting facts for their own narrative.
> The press being discredited is justified.
Its not simple being discredited, its being regarded as unnecessary. Sure you can discredit the press they're not perfect. But you cannot attempt to discard them or regard any criticism as fake.
> And there is no problem with this. Imagine if all the MSM press was like Fox News? What would you say then? Your argument would flip around 180 degrees and you would be fine with news being discredited.
Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?
> The press are just people. Look at how hard it is to have a debate with a liberal these days - do you think newsrooms would enjoy having Trump supporters as co-workers. Nope. They like having people around them with the same opinions, so we get the liberal MSM echo-chamber.
Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.
All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.
How so? Where do Trump supporters and right-wingers get their news from?
If you are on the right, you look at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc. and see a ridiculously biased and censored view of the world. So distorted that no one could see Trump winning.
Their viewers are mostly liberal and because of PC-culture there is a very narrow acceptable world-view. To write an article pro-anything-Trump did would put careers at risk.
Liberals receive a very censored view of the world. The ethos being something like, we need to control the facts you hear about otherwise everyone will turn into racists.
Its ironic how they are shouting fascist and big brother 1984, when they are the ones who are censoring the news, physically preventing ppl speaking at events, not engaging in debate, banning words, etc.
Look at wikileaks - use to be a hero of the left, but now it is an enemy.
A progressive-run government would be much more authoritarian.
---
> Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?
You perceive Fox News as a bad source of news in the same way that the right perceive the MSM as a bad source of news.
Its wrong to discredit the MSM...when its on your side. But if the tables are turned, you would feel the same way about the MSM.
> Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.
You think that there is 50% republicans running around the NYTimes newsroom? You think the people who work at CNN are anywhere close to 50% republican. No way. I am saying they hire like-minded people because its difficult to constantly be having arguments all day.
> All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.
> pm90: Definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
I really, really don't see this, compared to the behaviour of the progressive left.
I do not see personal freedoms of US citizens being violated. I see illegal immigrants being deported, laws being enforced, national borders being secured, and freedoms being protected.
Progressive-left is authoritarianism waiting to happen.
But I really wish you could convince me of this WH authoritarianism. I'm just not seeing it.
IMO boiling down the complexity of politics to a single axis is deceptive. Sure it makes it easy to find yourself on the map, but it really lends itself to a narrative of "ok here's US on the map. Over there is THEM."
IMO authoritarianism is totally orthogonal to right/left. It's clearly the case that members of both espouse changes that would limit our freedoms.
First they came for the illegals but I didn't speak up because my 401k has been making massive gains and this whole administration has been awesome for me but I can't say that out loud in California because people are still imagining a reason to lose their minds while the checks and balances are working out as intended the whole time!
And your 401k was up massively since Obama took office as well long before this current wave of anti-immigrant sentiment.
The market is up because of an irrational belief that Trump is going to enact the pipe dreams of the SeekingAlpha crowd with massive tax cuts that the Democrats are never going to approve.
Statistics show most likely there is going to be a big correction and a recession on Trump's watch. Never in the US's 200+ year history has it gone more than 11 years without a recession, check the NBER data.
So given the likely downturn in the markets when people realize that this stuff isn't going to be enacted, will speak up then because it's no longer "awesome" for you?
Nope. Let's give credit where credit is due. If it wasn't for Bush and Obama recognizing the problem and acting quickly to fix it, we could have had a crisis of much larger proportions. Now, I'm not saying they Personally fixed it. But they did recognize the enormity of the situation and actively took steps that helped remedy it.
Given the current composition of Congress and appointees, checks and balances are hanging on by a thread at the moment. That is what has people worried.
"Reforming the immigration system to be more “merit-based” is predicated on the idea that some of these slots are going to the wrong immigrants — immigrants who don’t have as much to give the US as the US has to give them. Proponents point to Australia and Canada — places that don’t have the American tradition of family-based migration, and that deliberately select for immigrants who are likely to contribute economically and assimilate culturally from the moment they arrive. In these countries, having a family member who’s already a citizen doesn’t guarantee you a spot as an immigrant yourself — having an advanced degree, being fluent in the language, and being able to support yourself (or have a job waiting for you when you arrive) matter as much or more."
Yes, Australia and Canada.
> Why is Bannon and Miller's favorite novel a racist French book about Europe becoming less white?
I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this?
> Why when Bannon was interviewed on radio he said he wanted to bring the numbers on legal immigration way down?
He is talking about H1-B visa abuse, just as the OP says.
"They get into graduate schools, they can’t get engineering degrees, they can’t get into graduate schools because there are all these foreign students, when they come out, they can’t get a job."
NOTE: "Foreign students". You do realise that by addressing this problem, he is helping all American citizens - who are all different ethnicities.
> You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.
Re: This is about "merit"
>He is talking about H1-B visa abuse, just as the OP says.
Trump: Trump [...] asked him about keeping “our talented people in the country,” especially international graduates of Ivy League universities.
Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post.
Yeah, fake news, from the horses mouth himself.
Do you really think American citizens are having tough time finding work because of H1-B abuse? The unemployment rate in the tech industry fell to 2% in 2016, well below the level of full employment. The median salary is $90k nationally, and >$100k in major tech centers (CA, NY, TX, etc). Sure, H1-B abuse should be reduced, but more because it hurts companies truly trying to fill requirement positions to build products, by fly-by-night consulting firms.
Speaking of someone in the tech industry for 20+ years, I'd say the biggest problem isn't the immigrants, it's the education system and the culture. It is not the fault of immigrants that Americans aren't getting advanced degrees, or that entire Phd departments are F-1 Visas, or that so many native born candidates are lack luster. American culture's "melting pot" could benefit from an infusion of immigrant culture from those who are still hungry and have a very high valuation placed on education and grit.
Keeping them out just makes us weak and complacent.
> Here, this HuffPo article links directly to SoundCloud interviews where you can hear him say it:
I cannot find it. Please give me a timecode. It being his favourite novel is implied from MSM is it not?
> Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon responded before trailing off, according to the Post.
Me and you will both have the opportunity to wait and see what happens.
Right now the left is all about scary predictions. Tell me an objective measure we can use in 4 years (or 2 if he is impeached as you like to predict), that we can point to to say that you were right and I was wrong about Bannon.
> I'd say the biggest problem isn't the immigrants, it's the education system and the culture.
H1B's are good to hire because there is the threat of having to leave, and losing ability to go for green card if they are fired. So they accept low wages, you don't have to give them pay rises, they will not leave for another company.
This is ripe for abuse. So its not just education and culture, its also government immigration policies -- and this is not the fault of the immigrants -- no-one is saying the immigrants are at fault here...
You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism.
As for H1-Bs, the reason Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, et al, hire them is not to lock in slaves at low wages who can't leave. Yes, there are companies that do this, but the reality is, tech companies love to hire new advanced degree graduates and a large chunk of those with master degrees and above are immigrants.
If I want to hire a bunch of Phds in machine learning, optics, materials engineering, etc chances are they will be F-1 Visas and you won't see many native born in these programs in proportion to their representation in the population. This is just an uncomfortable fact.
What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it. However, when it comes to native born American (primarily white) males, who have their own "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants, you see them crying for government policy changes to protect what they assume to be their birthright privilege.
Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves. This may not be true of consulting firms, but we can address those who abuse the system without lowering the overall number of H1-Bs allow -- that should be defined by market demand and right now, with unemployment at 2% in the STEM fields and salary inflation going through the roof, along with valuations, I question how much "protection" citizens need against importing the smartest people from around the world.
> I could not find the quote from Bannon or Miller saying that "Camp of the Saints is my favourite novel"? Where can I find this?
>> You're in denial, the evidence is staring you in the face, you're just not concerned. That's your prerogative, but you're probably not one of those who are going to be hurt by Bannon's misguided nationalism.
Its a book he has read. That is all. Fake news and false outrage.
> What I find interesting is, conservatives will often tout this "pipeline problem" to explain away low representation of women and minorities in STEM jobs -- as a natural outcome that nothing should be done about it.
You are saying the government needs to tell women and minorities to apply for STEM courses, because they are incapable of doing so? This is a cultural problem and it is fixing itself without government intervention.
> "pipeline problem" at the advanced degree level relative to legal immigrants
As Dr. Kaku says in the video, "the scientific establishment would collapse...50% PhD are foreign-born.". So your solution is immigration? Wouldn't the solution be to fix the education system?
What we are saying is focus on a sustainable solution - looking after the people you have. If you keep bringing people in, and they bring their families, and their kids turn out to be dummies because of poor education system, then you need to bring in more foreign-born...who will just perpetuate the problem and increase the burden on the country of dummies. Its a ponzi scheme. And it is actually an argument for restricting family visas, and favouring increase numbers of H1-B.
> Most of the H1-Bs I have worked with, including my wife, were exceedingly talented, and hired by companies for their talent, not low wage slaves.
Anecdotal, but yes, some/most immigrants are talented - of course. But there is documented abuses, and conditions available for abuses - which means abuses certainly happen.
>As Dr. Kaku says in the video, "the scientific establishment would collapse...50% PhD are foreign-born.". So your solution is immigration? Wouldn't the solution be to fix the education system?
Either-or fallacy. Keeping foreign born Phds out doesn't help us, and doesn't help create more native American Phds. We could strengthen our education system and education culture without Affirmative Action for White Males By Banning Foreigners.
You know, Clinton and Sanders supported policies that would have helped, by dramatically reducing the cost of college. Upper level advanced degrees are a filter/pipeline issue, and the more people in 2-year and 4-year programs, the greater number who might advance to graduate level.
The reason there are so many foreign Phds is that they often completed (free) 4-year programs in their home country, and go abroad for graduate degrees. My wife completed her masters degree in China, then came here and got a second masters degree.
What I hear you saying is "if only we banned these foreigners, maybe our native born people would have a chance in Phd programs". And what I interpret that to mean is "Let's not spend $80 billion on free college for everyone who wants it, because that would be 'big gubmint socialism', instead everything will work out if we just institute protectionism immigration policies."
I say, let's continue to drain the smartest people in the world to our shores and educate our own as well.
> What I hear you saying is "if only we banned these foreigners, maybe our native born people would have a chance in Phd programs". And what I interpret that to mean is "Let's not spend $80 billion on free college for everyone who wants it, because that would be 'big gubmint socialism', instead everything will work out if we just institute protectionism immigration policies."
You seem to view everything through a racial/foreigner lense. It muddies the debate. America is a melting-pot already, and US citizen focused policies are to the benefit of all US citizens regardless of race, birth-country, sex, etc. You are implying hidden motives in everyone's actions which cannot be argued against because we simply do not know what is going on in their heads.
Education is a big money making industry. It brings wealth into the country. There is far more incentive to bring in foreigners than to improve the opportunities for US citizens (who are not all white males - why does race and sex have to come into this I have no idea).
I appreciate the discussion, it has been a good insight to another side of the debate floor.
This is the comment that takes the middle ground and explains to both of you that nothing is black and white and there are bad and good things about Trump's immigration agenda. His plans could actually be philanthropically motivated, but they are undeniably being prematurely spun into action without reasonable consultation from an array of experts and this is the source of most of its flaws. These flaws may or may not be too big to ignore, but without a panel of unbiased experts assigned to investigate the matter we are making an immature decision to support his impulsive strategy of setting policy.
Don't say "There's no false middle ground" ... That is extremely assumptive and cocky.
Say what you really mean: "I only see this issue in black and white as a byproduct of my nascent understanding of the various forces at play in American politics and the motivations behind them."
You do understand that the average person sympathizes more with middle-ground attitudes, right? That speaking in extremes, except when necessary, can have the unintended effect of polarizing people? Affirming the beliefs of proponents and strengthening the resolve of opponents.
There is a reason that social disrupters who use Persona Management software aim for the middle ground when they speak. They use moderate voices that give a "balanced" view of both sides, before concluding one way or the other. Why? Because it has been shown to be a lot more effective and a greater number of people will be willing to digest the argument presented to them. Most people are on the fence and just need a little push in the right direction. They are more inclined to listen to a voice they sympathize with and less inclined to automatically become defensive and closed.
But keep up your strategy and we'll see how it goes. I'm sure your extremist "Everyone in the White House is xenophobic" argument is doing just fine.
Not to mention the efforts being made to stop legal immigration based on asylum seeking [1]. The whole "we're only against ILLEGAL immigration" cry is phony and does not square with the actual actions and opinions of policy-makers and enforcers.
What the book was actually about was the worry that the France was losing its national identity, the framework upon which it was built was Christianity. They want to preserve that identity. I don't think it's about skin color, but about shared cultural values that they found to be appealing and necessary. As it happens, white people were those people. You could easily reverse those roles with any other skin color.
This is a type of reaction that people have when faced with what they perceive to be a quick cultural change. Things to them were goo as they were, so changes present a threat to that stability. It's human nature.
Yes, tribalism is human nature, and we have done very many ugly things to one another because of it. Much of modern advancement in civil liberties and human rights have come about because of the recognition that human nature is flawed and we need to act to fight our worse instincts.
I don't think we should sweep racism and xenophobia under the rug with the argument that "boys will be boys"
>Yes, tribalism is human nature, and we have done very many ugly things to one another because of it.
We have also done as many ugly things to one another in order to build cross-national entities, like empires and communist-based internationalist mega-states.
>I don't think we should sweep racism and xenophobia under the rug with the argument that "boys will be boys"
Well, first let's not call the desire to maintain one's national identity "xenophobia", the same way wanting to have your own house and family, and live as you like there, and accept whoever you like, is not "strangerophobia".
Colonialism and Imperialism isn't about building cross-national melting pot entities, it's about strategic control of resources and geo-political regions.
You think previous empires were built because they were more concerned with equality and anti-tribalism?
>Colonialism and Imperialism isn't about building cross-national melting pot entities, it's about strategic control of resources and geo-political regions.
"Melting-pot entities" are concerned with the same things ("strategic control of resources and geo-political regions") too. Cross-national melting is mostly about whether you allow the peoples you control to keep their identities or you want to abolish them too, for less market friction and/or smoother political control. USSR comes to mind on the latter. UK/US/EU on the former.
What is racist about not wanting things to change? This is a totally separate issue from racism. Calling it "boys will be boys" or "girls will be girls" is a gross oversimplification.
When white people didn't want black people to use their water fountains, it was an existing status quo they didn't want to see changed.
You can justify anything by explaining away people'a xenophobia or bigotry by saying they didn't want change.
We just went through the same argument with gay marriage with people alleging great harm and the need to discriminate against gay people, causing greater harm to them.
I find great irony that people on HN who probably subscribe to ideas of dynamism and creative destruction and disruption as the life blood of innovation are defending cultural conservatism.
You're fooling yourself if you think this is just about undocumented Mexicans, Muslims, or H1-B abuse. There's way too much circumstantial rhetoric that's been said that indicates this is something more and we invite peril if we don't harshly Critique it.