Tucker Carlson: probably not in deep trouble anymore, but he should be.

[IvanKaramazov]

6 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

America the people never welcomed immigrants. The melting pot is an ideal not a shared history. Irish and Italians that came in the early 1900s were not welcomed. They were too Catholic, too criminal. We were not a melting pot on the trail of tears. We were not a melting pot during the Reconstruction. We were not a melting pot when we created the Chinese exclusion act.  But the words were always there in the DoI, all men are created equal. Maybe I value those ideals more than you do, even if we continue to struggle to live up to them. 

These are strange examples -- people like me would point to Irish and Italian immigration as exactly what we have in mind when we're talking about the "melting pot" thing (assimilation).  Nobody today actually views Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans as actual distinct groups.  It's weird even typing out the terms.

First generation immigrants, sure.  They may or may not speak English, they don't really know our culture, they don't have any of the traditional support structures (like extended family) in place that make life easier for the rest of us.  In many cases, but certainly not all, they're just trying to get by, and those folks may not fully assimilate.  No problem.  Their kids will, and their grandkids certainly will.  That's totally fine.  It doesn't have to be something that happens overnight.

[KarmaPolice]

6 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

Where do you hear of the left relentlessly pounding identity politics? How is that a constant source of frustration for a certain section of white people that causes them to "become much more racist recently?" Is it people you talk to every day, or the culture at your workplace or community? I would guess it is neither of those things, and instead driven by the media you consume and I avoid. 

That would have been my guess too.  

[GordonGekko]

7 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is wrong. Of course there are consequences. And plenty of costs. But there are also consequences and costs to NOT absorbing them as well. I believe that in the long run they’re far greater.

 

Direct Headline: Border agent shares photos of suspected criminals crossing into US

By Gabrielle Fonrouge and Kate Sheehy March 22, 2021 | 1:25pm

https://nypost.com/2021/03/22/border-patrol-agent-shares-photos-of-criminals-crossing-into-us/

 

******

Let's look at some of the costs

TWEET:  Border Patrol arrests a convicted murderer, a cartel gang member and two sexual predators

https://twitter.com/USBPDepChiefRGV/status/1373090798246432769

 

TWEET: Border Patrol arrests another registered sex offender who crossed over

https://twitter.com/CBPRGV/status/1261039893670760448

 

TWEET: Border Patrol arrests man wanted for multiple sex crimes against a child trying to illegally cross over

https://twitter.com/USBPChiefTCA/status/1308768386743177217

 

TWEET: Border Patrol arrests a man convicted of a murder in San Diego trying to illegally cross over

https://twitter.com/USBPChiefSDC/status/1293596433577201664

 

TWEET: Border Patrol arrests a man convicted of rape and had been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Also more illegals with criminal histories of murder and other sexual offenses

https://twitter.com/USBPDepChiefRGV/status/1372332175752839170

https://twitter.com/USBPChiefRGV/status/1371633269125607425

TRUNCATED FOR LENGTH***

Edited April 10 by GordonGekko

[sho nuff]

9 hours ago, ekbeats said:

Just curious tim - do you watch Tucker at all?  Or do you get all your news from Liberal sources?  What you probably didn’t read in any of the Liberal feeds is the entirety of Tucker’s “replacement” quote:

“I’m not against the immigrants. I’m just, I’m for Americans. Nobody cares about them. It’s like, ‘shut up, you’re dying, we’re gonna replace you.’”

Just so we’re clear, I’m not particularly fond of the word “replacement” either, but at least be fair and give the full statement.

Im going to bold these two as an idea...I would say if you are watching Tucker, you aren't watching news anyway.  Im wondering why anyone would watch his show at all.  its not news...its biased and misleading opinion often based on false premises.  Its exactly what so many claim is "fake news" about the "liberal media".

Its also a pretty lame excuse from tucker there...that nobody cares about Americans.  That is complete BS out of him.  The full statement doesn't really change the position.  And his history is not one of inclusive behavior or words towards immigrants.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-says-immigrants-have-plundered-the-us-2019-5

There are plenty more like this where you see quotes that he doesn't always just talk about undocumented or "illegal" immigration.  

Edited April 10 by sho nuff

[The Z Machine]

10 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

The assumption is some sort of amnesty is coming, so there's the conversion into voters.

That's a bold assumption about his statement in that clip. 

[sho nuff]

The melting pot comment was odd...but yes...I believe many whites do feel threatened.  Cross posting this in the January 6th thread...but a study of the demographics from that day is showing 

Quote

The Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST), working with court records, has analyzed the demographics and home county characteristics of the 377 Americans, from 250 counties in 44 states, arrested or charged in the Capitol attack. Those involved are, by and large, older and more professional than right-wing protesters we have surveyed in the past. They typically have no ties to existing right-wing groups. But like earlier protesters, they are 95 percent White and 85 percent male, and many live near and among Biden supporters in blue and purple counties…

…Nor were these insurrectionists typically from deep-red counties. Some 52 percent are from blue counties that Biden comfortably won. But by far the most interesting characteristic common to the insurrectionists’ backgrounds has to do with changes in their local demographics: Counties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a36040222/robert-pape-cpost-report-january-6-insurrection/

[thriftyrocker]

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

These are strange examples -- people like me would point to Irish and Italian immigration as exactly what we have in mind when we're talking about the "melting pot" thing (assimilation).  Nobody today actually views Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans as actual distinct groups.  It's weird even typing out the terms.

First generation immigrants, sure.  They may or may not speak English, they don't really know our culture, they don't have any of the traditional support structures (like extended family) in place that make life easier for the rest of us.  In many cases, but certainly not all, they're just trying to get by, and those folks may not fully assimilate.  No problem.  Their kids will, and their grandkids certainly will.  That's totally fine.  It doesn't have to be something that happens overnight.

Yes, that is our collective view now, that it's fine to be whatever nationality you are as long as it's white, but that is not how it was in the 1900s. The Irish that were coming here in droves were poor and escaping poverty so America the people hated them just like the current R hates people from Guatemala or Honduras who want a better life and see America as a shining city on the hill. 

https://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis

Edited April 10 by thriftyrocker

[thriftyrocker]

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

These are strange examples -- people like me would point to Irish and Italian immigration as exactly what we have in mind when we're talking about the "melting pot" thing (assimilation).  Nobody today actually views Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans as actual distinct groups.  It's weird even typing out the terms.

First generation immigrants, sure.  They may or may not speak English, they don't really know our culture, they don't have any of the traditional support structures (like extended family) in place that make life easier for the rest of us.  In many cases, but certainly not all, they're just trying to get by, and those folks may not fully assimilate.  No problem.  Their kids will, and their grandkids certainly will.  That's totally fine.  It doesn't have to be something that happens overnight.

I will say this is a great aspirational statement and I hope we can feel that way about black and brown families too.

[BladeRunner]

28 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

I will say this is a great aspirational statement and I hope we can feel that way about black and brown families too.

We already do. 

I don't understand this never-ending quest to find the Racist Boogeyman everywhere.

[thriftyrocker]

14 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

We already do. 

I don't understand this never-ending quest to find the Racist Boogeyman everywhere.

The previous page ekbeats said a lot of people feel more racist, and I am responding to the thread started with that statement. I can appreciate that he is talking in the third person (not "we" as in all conservatives but some people with strong conservative mindsets) and not mentioning his own views or anyone here. 

I view the statements by Carlson this thread is based on are a dogwhistle to people that ekbeats is talking about.

[Shula-holic]

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

That's a bold assumption about his statement in that clip. 

As someone who knows a lot of conservatives based on where I live, many to most feel that eventually amnesty will lead to converting illegal immigrants into voters beholden to the Democratic Party.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention concern over legal immigrants and their voting futures no matter their skin color or country of origin.  Maybe there are some out there, probably are a few, but I've just never met one.  I have heard people discuss merit based immigration versus family based immigration or a lottery system.  So when I read Carlson's comment, there really wasn't another prism for me to see it through other than the one I've heard discussed.  He didn't spell it out as such but to me the inference was clear, and it wasn't as sinister as many want to make it out to be.

[Sand]

2 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

just like the current R hates people from Guatemala or Honduras who want a better life and see America as a shining city on the hill. 

Complete, utter bull####.  This is nothing more than demagoguing.  The vast majority of the red team has absolutely no issue with the current legal immigration system, which is, by far, the most inclusive in the world. We let in way more people legally than other first world countries.

I'm incredibly disappointed to see such hackneyed virtue signaling in this forum.  

[thriftyrocker]

1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

As someone who knows a lot of conservatives based on where I live, many to most feel that eventually amnesty will lead to converting illegal immigrants into voters beholden to the Democratic Party.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention concern over legal immigrants and their voting futures no matter their skin color or country of origin.  Maybe there are some out there, probably are a few, but I've just never met one.  I have heard people discuss merit based immigration versus family based immigration or a lottery system.  So when I read Carlson's comment, there really wasn't another prism for me to see it through other than the one I've heard discussed.  He didn't spell it out as such but to me the inference was clear, and it wasn't as sinister as many want to make it out to be.

I think there are segments of the conservative movement who are equally against legal immigration. Not to call these Donald Trump cohorts the voice of the party, but here's Miller and Bannon on the evils of legal immigration

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/steve-bannon-legal-immigration-problem

There's an easy fix to worrying about losing Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party, sell how your policies are attractive to Christian families who just want to make a steady income in a safe environment. I thought that was the heart of Eisenhower/Reagan/W conservative principles, but I could be wrong.

[sho nuff]

2 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

I think there are segments of the conservative movement who are equally against legal immigration. Not to call these Donald Trump cohorts the voice of the party, but here's Miller and Bannon on the evils of legal immigration

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/steve-bannon-legal-immigration-problem

There's an easy fix to worrying about losing Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party, sell how your policies are attractive to Christian families who just want to make a steady income in a safe environment. I thought that was the heart of Eisenhower/Reagan/W conservative principles, but I could be wrong.

Trumps policies worked to limit even legal immigration. And I don’t recall the party or his supporters here being critical of that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/07/21/trump-cuts-legal-immigrants-by-half-and-hes-not-done-yet/?sh=31cda8dc6168

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration

[thriftyrocker]

2 minutes ago, Sand said:

Complete, utter bull####.  This is nothing more than demagoguing.  The vast majority of the red team has absolutely no issue with the current legal immigration system, which is, by far, the most inclusive in the world. We let in way more people legally than other first world countries.

I'm incredibly disappointed to see such hackneyed virtue signaling in this forum.  

By "current," do you mean Trump era policy based on the RAISE Act or Reagan-Obama era policy? It seems the red team had a huge issue with the historic legal immigration system so made major changes. If you mean current as Trump policy, and the red team is happy with the policies Trump enacted, then I feel your outrage is not at all warranted.

[Sand]

1 minute ago, thriftyrocker said:

By "current," do you mean Trump era policy based on the RAISE Act or Reagan-Obama era policy? It seems the red team had a huge issue with the historic legal immigration system so made major changes. If you mean current as Trump policy, and the red team is happy with the policies Trump enacted, then I feel your outrage is not at all warranted.

You have to prove that hate is the predominant motivation.  Just because there are policy changes or desire for policy changes does not point toward racial hatred as the motivating factor.  

We are moving into an automated society.  This will put pressure, in particular, on the lower end of the pay scale.  One could easily argue that restricting immigration is protecting the supply of labor at the low end and that advocating for unfettered immigration is devastating to the pay levels and quality of life for our economically challenged populace.  In fact, one could easily claim that restricting immigration is the exact opposite of hate for BIPOC, which are more heavily affected by pay scales at the lower end.

I have written in here for years about the imminent problem of automation displacing huge numbers of service workers, farm workers, etc.  Yet, according to you, any thoughts of restricting immigration is due to racial animus, not concern for the quality of life of our citizenry.  I find that repugnant, ill advised, and a convenient peanut butter spread over a complex issue.

It is often said that the red team thinks that the blue team are people with bad ideas and that the blue team thinks that the red ream are bad people.  Natch.  I continue to shake my head at these visceral, illogical, tribalistic pronouncements.

[timschochet]

1 hour ago, Sand said:

Complete, utter bull####.  This is nothing more than demagoguing.  The vast majority of the red team has absolutely no issue with the current legal immigration system, which is, by far, the most inclusive in the world. We let in way more people legally than other first world countries.

I'm incredibly disappointed to see such hackneyed virtue signaling in this forum.  

You’re lying to yourself. I know that many conservatives tell themselves, “oh it’s only the illegals we’re concerned about”. Yet the politicians you consistently elect that are the most vocal about this subject matter attack legal immigration just as much as they attack undocumented immigration. And of course when Tucker Carlson talks about bringing in people to “replace us”, he’s not making any distinction, no matter what @Shula-holicand others might assume. 

[timschochet]

55 minutes ago, Sand said:

You have to prove that hate is the predominant motivation.  Just because there are policy changes or desire for policy changes does not point toward racial hatred as the motivating factor.  

We are moving into an automated society.  This will put pressure, in particular, on the lower end of the pay scale.  One could easily argue that restricting immigration is protecting the supply of labor at the low end and that advocating for unfettered immigration is devastating to the pay levels and quality of life for our economically challenged populace.  In fact, one could easily claim that restricting immigration is the exact opposite of hate for BIPOC, which are more heavily affected by pay scales at the lower end.

I have written in here for years about the imminent problem of automation displacing huge numbers of service workers, farm workers, etc.  Yet, according to you, any thoughts of restricting immigration is due to racial animus, not concern for the quality of life of our citizenry.  I find that repugnant, ill advised, and a convenient peanut butter spread over a complex issue.

It is often said that the red team thinks that the blue team are people with bad ideas and that the blue team thinks that the red ream are bad people.  Natch.  I continue to shake my head at these visceral, illogical, tribalistic pronouncements.

Hey @Sand, I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and I know you’re coming from a good place, without racial animus (though I strongly disagree with your conclusions as you know.) 

But I think you’re grossly underestimating how much racial animus is a part of the political movement which you have chosen to support on this issue. Though they may share your goals, their reason for doing so is quite different from your own. 

[BladeRunner]

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hey @Sand, I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and I know you’re coming from a good place, without racial animus (though I strongly disagree with your conclusions as you know.) 

But I think you’re grossly underestimating how much racial animus is a part of the political movement which you have chosen to support on this issue. Though they may share your goals, their reason for doing so is quite different from your own. 

I think you're purposefully and willfully pushing the Racist-Boogeyman-Around-Every-Corner BS.  You are so far off from the truth I have to believe you know that.  You guys act like we're living in Pre-civil war times.  

I soundly reject your - and other - BS and lies regarding conservatives stance on immigration and race.  It's clear you have no idea and are just regurgitating DNC talking points (don't agree with me = RACISM!!!).

Go bake a cake and hopefully when you come back you'll be a better person.

Edited April 10 by BladeRunner

[Sand]

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hey @Sand, I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and I know you’re coming from a good place, without racial animus (though I strongly disagree with your conclusions as you know.) 

And yet we have a lot of chatter recently about a UBI.  This is a forward indicator in the thought that folks are going to be obsolesced.  I'll stick with my thoughts on the matter.  Personally I'm trying to nudge my kids to choose careers that aren't easily replaced (my oldest is doing aircraft maintenance and repair).

And I'll respectfully, though completely, disagree with the thought that there is morass of racial animus out there.  

[Amused to Death]

15 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

"It’s indefensible, so no one even tries to defend it. Instead our leaders demand that you shut up and accept this. We have a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor, they tell us, even if it makes our country poorer and dirtier and more divided” - Tucker Carlson

I'd like to hear the non-racist explanation of this comment made in 2018, given that The New Colossus is literally etched into the very symbol of our liberty.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[BladeRunner]

1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

I'd like to hear the non-racist explanation of this comment made in 2018, given that The New Colossus is literally etched into the very symbol of our liberty.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Again, no one has a problem with LEGAL immigration to the US.  

[Amused to Death]

Just now, BladeRunner said:

Again, no one has a problem with LEGAL immigration to the US.  

So, nothing wrong with Tucker referring to LEGAL immigrants as making us dirtier, poorer, and divided?

[BladeRunner]

1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

So, nothing wrong with Tucker referring to LEGAL immigrants as making us dirtier, poorer, and divided?

Did he specifically mention LEGAL immigration?

I have a sneaking suspicion you're once again making some massive assumptions.

Edited April 10 by BladeRunner

[Amused to Death]

Just now, BladeRunner said:

Did he specifically mention LEGAL immigration?

Does he say "Illegal"? I just see him referring to immigrants. Are "legal" immigrants cleaner and less poor?

[Amused to Death]

Just now, Amused to Death said:

1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Did he specifically mention LEGAL immigration?

Does he say "Illegal"? I just see him referring to immigrants. Are "legal" immigrants cleaner and less poor?

Or are those descriptors reserved for the sh*thole countries Trump referred to?

[BladeRunner]

Just now, Amused to Death said:

Does he say "Illegal"? I just see him referring to immigrants. Are "legal" immigrants cleaner and less poor?

So, yes, you are making massive assumptions. 

And I would think if you have to try to sneak in then, yes, you are probably poorer.

 

[BladeRunner]

2 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Or are those descriptors reserved for the sh*thole countries Trump referred to?

You guys have no issues calling flyover states "backwater", "redneck", "hillbilly", "uneducated", "dumb", "racist", etc...

But you draw the line at sh#thole countries?  Are there sh#thole countries?  Absolutely.  If you're fleeing your country to sneak into the US then 99% of the time you're fleeing a sh#thole country.

Edited April 10 by BladeRunner

[Amused to Death]

Just now, BladeRunner said:

So, yes, you are making massive assumptions. 

And I would think if you have to try to sneak in then, yes, you are probably poorer.

 

I'm sorry, do immigrants get cleaner when they're legal?

And the sh*thole countries Trump referred to?

[Amused to Death]

1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

You guys have no issues calling flyover states "backwater", "redneck", "hillbilly", "uneducated", "dumb", "racist", etc...

But you draw the line at sh#thole countries?  Are there sh#thole countries?  Absolutely.  If you're fleeing your country to sneak into the US then 99% of the time you're fleeing a sh#thole country.

And when Carlson says 'immigrants have plundered the US' he means strictly "illegal" immigrants?

[BladeRunner]

1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

I'm sorry, do immigrants get cleaner when they're legal?

And the sh*thole countries Trump referred to?

I have no idea about the cleaning habits of rich or poor people. 

[FairWarning]

7 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

So, nothing wrong with Tucker referring to LEGAL immigrants as making us dirtier, poorer, and divided?

Odd choice of words I think he would want to take back.  

[BladeRunner]

Just now, Amused to Death said:

And when Carlson says 'immigrants have plundered the US' he means strictly "illegal" immigrants?

Yep!

[zoonation]

20 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I think you're purposefully and willfully pushing the Racist-Boogeyman-Around-Every-Corner BS.  You are so far off from the truth I have to believe you know that.  You guys act like we're living in Pre-civil war times.  

I soundly reject your - and other - BS and lies regarding conservatives stance on immigration and race.  It's clear you have no idea and are just regurgitating DNC talking points (don't agree with me = RACISM!!!).

Go bake a cake and hopefully when you come back you'll be a better person.

Your “go bake a cake” shtick is so tired and sophomoric.  Just stop with the cringe posts already. 

[Amused to Death]

1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

Odd choice of words I think he would want to take back.  

Ya think? Dog whistles. Immigrants are plundering the US, make us dirtier, poorer, and divide us. Those are Carlson's views of immigrants - and he doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal. Just immigrants.

[BladeRunner]

2 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Your “go bake a cake” shtick is so tired and sophomoric.  Just stop with the cringe posts already. 

If the shoe fits, you gotta' wear it.  Glad I struck a nerve, though.  Maybe I'll trigger some of you into thinking before you post.

Edited April 10 by BladeRunner

[FairWarning]

1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

Ya think? Dog whistles. Immigrants are plundering the US, make us dirtier, poorer, and divide us. Those are Carlson's views of immigrants - and he doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal. Just immigrants.

At least they want to work.  We can't get 10% of our population off the couch right now.

[BladeRunner]

1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

Ya think? Dog whistles. Immigrants are plundering the US, make us dirtier, poorer, and divide us. Those are Carlson's views of immigrants - and he doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal. Just immigrants.

Look at this guy talk about "dog whistles". 

It's like you guys have no memory prior to 2021.

[zoonation]

5 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

And when Carlson says 'immigrants have plundered the US' he means strictly "illegal" immigrants?

Of course not.  That is absurd. 

[ekbeats]

53 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

I think there are segments of the conservative movement who are equally against legal immigration. Not to call these Donald Trump cohorts the voice of the party, but here's Miller and Bannon on the evils of legal immigration

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/steve-bannon-legal-immigration-problem

There's an easy fix to worrying about losing Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party, sell how your policies are attractive to Christian families who just want to make a steady income in a safe environment. I thought that was the heart of Eisenhower/Reagan/W conservative principles, but I could be wrong.

I remember hearing that interview between Bannon and Miller live.  By and large their discussion was intelligent and reasonable.  First off, they were calling out H1B visas.  I happen to know a lot about this issue as years ago I managed a group of H1B Programmers from India.  I can say from firsthand experience that the H1B program is one of the grossest abuses of the American worker in modern history.  It’s absolutely indefensible.  The raison d’etre of the program was the false notion that America didn’t have enough IT workers.  While that may have been the case even it was signed into law, it hasn’t been the case for many many years.  

The company I worked for - The Hartford - had a fully staffed, fully functioning IT Department composed of on-site American workers.  They knew the legacy systems inside and out and the quality of their work was superior.  In 2010 the company decided to cut expenses by outsourcing their IT Maintenance work to Accenture, who utilized Indian H1B workers.  I was a party to several of the meetings where this decision was vetted.  It was purely an expense play.  They even acknowledged that the quality of the work would be far less, but that the savings would be so large that it would more than offset that downside.  They laid off a large portion of the Hartford based IT team.  Some were given a two month grace period so they could train their replacements.  Laid off employees were given a respectable severance package - I believe 2 weeks pay for every year served - but in order to get it they had to sign an agreement not to bring any type of lawsuit against the Hartford.  They essentially bribed them to shut their mouths.  For the next 9 years I witnessed the steady disintegration of quality in IT at the company, to the point where I was convinced that from a CBA standpoint the decision was a net negative.  I also got to witness the horrible treatment of the Indian workers - nice, hard working people who were caught in the middle of a hose job.  They were paid peanuts and treated like crap, and if they dared complain there were a hundred thousand folks in India who’d happily take their place.

But you know who loved the H1B system?  The Executives who made the decision back in 2010.  They were able to present a flawed, long term CBA outlook that showed the company saving millions of dollars.  They made nice fat bonuses and for a few years rode the wave of expense savings.  When the quality issues started to hit the cost side of the ledger the Executives didn’t want to hear any of it.  You know how I know this?  Because I was the fool who raised those issues at an infamous meeting in 2012 which basically ended my career at the company.  I simply presented the facts and assigned dollar value estimates for the amount of rework and fines we were facing because of the severe drop in quality.  I knew I was dead in the water as soon as I saw the looks on people’s faces.  As soon as my boss and I were alone in the elevator after the meeting he looked up and said, “What the hell was that?!!!”  It was that day I learned the hard lesson about how corporate corruption works.  It isn’t about what is spoken.  It’s about what is unspoken, and what is never to be spoken.

The H1B program was created in the Immigration Act of 1990, and it was never designed to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labor.  The text of the law is as follows:

SKILLED WORKERS- Qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least 2 years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.

In 1990 America didn’t have enough IT workers, but within a few short years that was no longer the case.  The legacy of the H1B program will be that it stifled the growth of IT salaries and resulted in many well qualified American workers being laid off.  Bannon and Miller were 100% right to call it out.

[BladeRunner]

20 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Of course not.  That is absurd. 

It's absurd for you to think it isn't. 

The fact of the matter is - you don't know so you're making guesses, once again.  Seems pretty obvious to me that's who's he's talking about.  It isn't LEGAL immigrants flooding the border.

[ekbeats]

28 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

And when Carlson says 'immigrants have plundered the US' he means strictly "illegal" immigrants?

Another selective quote without the proper context of the point he was actually making.  Carlson said that undocumented immigrants are sending billions of dollars they earn in the US back to family members in their native countries, while simultaneously benefiting from "free healthcare, free education, subsidized housing, food stamps."  That is a true statement.  Does it rise to the level of “plundering”?  I’ll let the resident Word Police in here make a ruling on that.

[thriftyrocker]

1 hour ago, Sand said:

You have to prove that hate is the predominant motivation.  Just because there are policy changes or desire for policy changes does not point toward racial hatred as the motivating factor.  

Obviously the elephant in the room is Trump who fell back on racist cheerleading at every opportunity, and was motivated by Bannon, Miller and other bad faith actors. 

I definitely feel conservatives (as a people, not a party) can balance not hating an immigrant with not wanting them in their community. I don't feel hate is the motivating factor, but preserving some idealized version of the past which probably never existed in the first place. America is moving away from being a white Christian protestant led country and that's a big change. You can be afraid of that and still be a good person without hate. 

I feel Carlson crosses the line a lot into blatant race baiting, always prefaced by "I am not saying something racist and the left will claim I'm being racist, but here's white power talking points."

Both Carlson and conservatives (as a party, not as people) are in a tough spot because hate sells. Trump chose his talking points not because of his racism but because of what got a reaction. Lock her up got a reaction. Build the wall got a reaction. Muslim ban got a reaction. Media falls to our worst instincts, and bad politicians fall to our worst instincts.  

1 hour ago, Sand said:

We are moving into an automated society.  This will put pressure, in particular, on the lower end of the pay scale.  One could easily argue that restricting immigration is protecting the supply of labor at the low end and that advocating for unfettered immigration is devastating to the pay levels and quality of life for our economically challenged populace.  In fact, one could easily claim that restricting immigration is the exact opposite of hate for BIPOC, which are more heavily affected by pay scales at the lower end.

I have written in here for years about the imminent problem of automation displacing huge numbers of service workers, farm workers, etc.  Yet, according to you, any thoughts of restricting immigration is due to racial animus, not concern for the quality of life of our citizenry.  I find that repugnant, ill advised, and a convenient peanut butter spread over a complex issue.

Those are valid concerns, but I don't think the red team's solution makes any sense. Immigrants already do jobs most low class do not want. They will not come here if we don't have jobs for them.  

Certainly economic conditions in rural conservative areas have made things worse. Jobs went away, opiate crisis went unaddressed.

1 hour ago, Sand said:

It is often said that the red team thinks that the blue team are people with bad ideas and that the blue team thinks that the red ream are bad people.  Natch.  I continue to shake my head at these visceral, illogical, tribalistic pronouncements.

I think the red team are people with bad ideas. I worry leadership in the red team has found it works to sell hate because it increases turnout of people feuled by hate and doesn't hurt turnout from good people.  I hope I'm wrong.

[BladeRunner]

Just now, thriftyrocker said:

Obviously the elephant in the room is Trump who fell back on racist cheerleading at every opportunity, and was motivated by Bannon, Miller and other bad faith actors. 

I definitely feel conservatives (as a people, not a party) can balance not hating an immigrant with not wanting them in their community. I don't feel hate is the motivating factor, but preserving some idealized version of the past which probably never existed in the first place. America is moving away from being a white Christian protestant led country and that's a big change. You can be afraid of that and still be a good person without hate. 

I feel Carlson crosses the line a lot into blatant race baiting, always prefaced by "I am not saying something racist and the left will claim I'm being racist, but here's white power talking points."

Both Carlson and conservatives (as a party, not as people) are in a tough spot because hate sells. Trump chose his talking points not because of his racism but because of what got a reaction. Lock her up got a reaction. Build the wall got a reaction. Muslim ban got a reaction. Media falls to our worst instincts, and bad politicians fall to our worst instincts.  

Those are valid concerns, but I don't think the red team's solution makes any sense. Immigrants already do jobs most low class do not want. They will not come here if we don't have jobs for them.  

Certainly economic conditions in rural conservative areas have made things worse. Jobs went away, opiate crisis went unaddressed.

I think the red team are people with bad ideas. I worry leadership in the red team has found it works to sell hate because it increases turnout of people feuled by hate and doesn't hurt turnout from good people.  I hope I'm wrong.

Holy crap.  You're post is so racist.  Unbelievable. 

But, hey, it's the conservatives who are the racist ones.  Wow.

[dkp993]

37 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

38 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

And when Carlson says 'immigrants have plundered the US' he means strictly "illegal" immigrants?

Yep!

Now it’s you making that “massive assumption”. Logic would dictate that if he didn’t specifically speak to “legal” or “illegal” immigration when he calls out “immigrants” he’s speaking to both.  That may not have been his intent (I don’t speak to know what it was) but it’s a assumption if one tries infer it. 

Edited April 10 by dkp993

[BladeRunner]

Just now, dkp993 said:

Now it’s you making that “massive assumption”. Logic would dictate that if he didn’t specifically speak to “legal” or “illegal” immigration when he calls out immigrants” he’s speaking to both.  That may not have been his intent (I don’t speak to know what it was) but it’s a assumption if one tries infer it. 

Not really.  I'm not the guy who sees a racist boogeyman around every corner 24/7.  Race hustler's gonna' race hustle, I guess.

[thriftyrocker]

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Holy crap.  You're post is so racist.  Unbelievable. 

But, hey, it's the conservatives who are the racist ones.  Wow.

*Your

[ekbeats]

By the way, Tucker needs to stop using the word dirty when talking about immigrants.  He’s too smart to make such an unforced error.  And the fact he has made that reference on more than one occasion is concerning.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he has an “planned vacation” coming up this week.

Edited April 10 by ekbeats

[dkp993]

6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Not really.  I'm not the guy who sees a racist boogeyman around every corner 24/7.  Race hustler's gonna' race hustle, I guess.

Yes really.  You’re letting your bias lead to you to a conclusion just like others are.   Again I’m not making a judgment call on his intentions. I don’t know them or claim too. So I’m certainly not “race hustling”.  Just pointing out that bias are in full play here.  

Edited April 10 by dkp993

[dkp993]

1 minute ago, ekbeats said:

By the way, Tucker needs to stop using the word dirty when talking about immigrants.  He’s too smart to make such an unforced error.

Or it simply belays his true feelings?