As an american, unless you're descendant from native americans, your ancestors are immigrants... I don't think it's worth pointing out. Most anti-immigration americans obviously aren't native americans.
pulling up the ladder behind you isn't a new concept
In my ancestor's defense, they didn't get much choice on emmigrating here. It'd be truly poetic if they tried to forcefully deport me because they can no longer use me as free labor on the fields.
As Vincent Gallo put it recently re: federal debt:
> The USA can tolerate one of these two things. A system of no welfare, no social services, no socialized medicine, food or housing with open borders. OR. No open boarders and highly limited, highly controlled, assimilating immigration policy. We cannot have both. When the USA had unlimited immigration over 100 years ago, we did not have Government supporting immigrants with welfare, medical services, housing, food etc.
I don't agree with Mr. Gallo here - I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.
> I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.
The policy in my red state is to spend public funds to treat unliked immigrants as harshly as possible, deny social welfare to citizens in need and prioritize gov resources for admin loyalists. At least it is now that courts are sufficiently captured.
What does “no open borders” mean here? I’ve seen this term used but I don’t quite get it. Surely it can’t mean completely closing the borders? I.e. literally nobody can enter the country, ever.
Literally no tolerance? I always figured that like everything else, there’s a cost/benefit analysis to be done, and you try and tweak enforcement levels to the point where it gives decent results without costing the earth. No law is enforced with literally no tolerance in practice.
Ive always been ashamed of all the genocidal massacres and forced relocations we did to the native americans but its not in any way accurate to compare establishing a colony to immigration; they came here to create a new society not to live amongst the existing civilizations. The way they did so at the expense of the civilizations already living here is abhorrent and shameful but its also in no way comparable to illegal immigration.
To the extent that it is comparable we would be absolutely justified in regulating immigration because the implication would be that the same thing that we did to the native americans is going to happen to us.
Its also not in any way reasonable to use the sins of the distant ancestor to delegitimize the nation's right to self-determination. Even if i accept your premise that my ancestors are comparable to immigrants i myself am not.
If the argument is that the nation has no rights to control its own borders because that would constitute some sort of "generational hypocrisy" that would also mean we have an obligation to accommodate slavery and genocide because our ancestors committed and benefitted from both of those.
Japan now has Kimi Onoda as Minister in Charge of Foreign Nationals and Immigration, and she's an immigrant herself, but her stance on immigrants is pretty hardline.
These people aren't anti-immigrant because of issues with immigration. They're anti-immigrant because they're hateful.
Japan is truly impressive on taking an anti-immigration stance because they have numbers already that would be the dream of other countries pushing such perspectives. Off the top of my head there's 0.3% immigration.
It's truly saddening that such a stance can still work when it's likely the average citizen will not encounter an immigrant in their day to day life. a million immigrants is not threatening the jobs of 300m Japanese people.
In Japan, the popular sentiment on immigration tends to be grouped together with tourists and temporary foreign workers as a single category: foreigners. This is perhaps understandable but unfortunate, because tourists often are very visible and tend to make a bad impression, as most haven't studied the language or learned the numerous behaviour expectations. Bad experiences with tourists creates hostility towards immigrants, who are few and mostly do work hard to integrate and behave well.
> tourists often are very visible and tend to make a bad impression, as most haven't studied the language or learned the numerous behaviour expectations
Tourists are short-term visitors who are there exclusively to spend their money in Japan and leave it with its citizens. If the Japanese do not want that because the tourists don't come fully prepared for living in Japan, then you should just deny tourist entries to the country. It would be win-win for everyone, because there are plenty of other countries who would gladly take those tourists instead.
I'm sure the Sanseito party would be happy to add your proposal to their platform. I doubt the people who work in the tourism industry are voting for them anyway, and the people who benefit indirectly from tourism probably aren't aware enough of the dependency to care about it.
That is mostly correct; immigrants account for about 3% of a total 123mil population. Your point does stand, but we are quite visible in Japan -- especially in Tokyo.
You are correct that we do not threaten jobs either. A large majority of the foreign population is working low/unskilled jobs. Generally, the native population is not wanting those jobs.
Those undesirable jobs can also be highly visible. Maybe the most frequent place Japanese notice visible minority immigrants is at convenience stores. So maybe it makes the population feel overrepresented. I see RWers post frequently about convenience store workers at least.
Does the 0.3% figure include the massive US military presence? IDK if they count as "immigrants" under the strict definition of the term but most people would consider them immigrants and that might be where a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes from. I would be very surprised if the total amount of immigrants in Japan when including foreign armed services and their family members is a mere 3/10 of a percent.
They get blamed for a lot of crime; idk if that's true or not but it probably is, in part because American culture has less respect for authority, in part because American culture has more respect for individual liberties, and in part because any time you have a large enclave of foreigners (regardless of where they come from or which host nation they're in) they always end up committing more crime than the native population. They also get blamed for driving up prices in the real-estate market (this is definitely true, the US Navy owns 20% of Okinawa).
Blaming "immigrants" instead of specifically blaming the US military is also very convenient for both the US and Japanese government because both governments are largely in-favor of continuing the status quo so it's not surprising that politicians would obfuscate the source of the problem by blaming immigrants as a whole.
Rather than necessarily hateful (but not excluding that), whats happening here seems like brazen discursive manipulation for gain of political power at expense of a minority of the population.
Power in Japanese society is in large part built on calculating and self serving behaviour, without any real integral morals or values.. so politicians are seeing this stuff work overseas, and know they can get away with it too now.
Seems like Onoda's situation is that she was born in the United States to a white American father and a Japanese mother, and the father abandoned the family and the mother moved back to Japan when Onoda was extremely young. So she has almost entirely grown up in Japan but technically had US citizenship because of US birthright citizenship laws until she deliberately gave it up; and of course is visibly half-white. It wouldn't surprise me if part of her personal anti-immigration stance was grounded in anger and sadness about her non-Japanese father abandoning her and her mom.
Please provide evidence for Kimi Onoda being "hateful". She is 100% culturally Japanese, and even speaks English with an accent. This is different from immigrants who don't know the basic cultural norms of a country and have integration issues.
She had American citizenship until recently. She's overcompensating by larping as a native when she isn't. She was intentionally picked to be a token foreigner to lead the anti-immigration policy of the new administration, just like the US's regime can say "You can't call us far right! That Stephen Miller guy's Jewish!" They love their token minorities since it's an easy counterpoint that they think proves they're angels with good intentions, and unfortunately, half of any given country will completely believe a government that uses minorities for that purpose.
So what's your point? Should minorities be excluded from government? Are individual members of minority groups not entitled to their own opinions? And are "far right" jews really that big of an anomaly?
There is definitely a phenomenon of people sometimes supporting candidates on the basis that their ethnicity won't be used to criticize their policies but they're addressing a complaint that would be made otherwise. It also denies the agency of minorities by requiring them to be monolithic entities wherein all members agree with whatever you think their opinions should be. Would you really be satisfied if the entire trump administration was white Christian males over the age of 40?
One of the criticisms of the pro-life side of the abortion debate has always been that men are over-represented in the US federal government yet they're able to regulate an issue in which they are not directly effected. I don't know if you agree with this specific criticism or not but a lot of people do and I don't think it's fair to then complain about "tokenism" when somebody like Amy Coney Barrett who is immune to this argument gets appointed.
Bad people aren't limited to one race or anything. But far end politicians love propping up a minority on TV because then they can have an excuse whenever they're compared to historically bad political movements.
You're the only one bringing up white Christian males here, which kind of proves my point. You seem to think that for some reason I care if a politician is white or Christian. Extremist Islamic parties love propping up Christian minorities on TV and saying they'll defend them (they won't). Right wing western parties really, really love propping up a Jewish party member because they can say "we're not Nazis!!! All Nazis hated Jews and we love them!!!" Because the average person really thinks nazism was really only about killing Jewish people, when the reality was they only got around to that after several years of other awful stuff.
The LDP is propping up their 100% foreign born, foreign citizenship politician so they can say "see? We can't be anti-foreigner because the lady controlling this is a foreigner." The optics are transparent and it's even what they're astroturfing their message on social media as. Japanese politics are all about image. They don't pick a foreigner who illegally held dual citizenship to head anti-foreigner policies by accident.
We had Dilan Yeşilgöz here in NL, minister of justice and leader of the liberal party VVD (right wing). She's an immigrant, born in Ankara, of Kurdish ancestry. She lied about immigrant subsequent travelers (which she is herself!) being a huge issue, and the government fell because of this issue. Turns out it is 400 people per year. I don't know what it is. Self-hate? Rules for thee, not for me?
That's not true; I have seen many members in the Satmar community here in NYC that join pro palestinian protests, and are met with absolute love. They're spat on by the Israeli side at said protests. I think people here at least separate the two very well and it's not a s/Jews/Zionists/g at all.
This is the equivalent of "some of my best friends are Jews".
So the Satmar anti-Zionist Jews are ok? But the other Jews? Also met with love? Do you love the Jews that have opinions that differ than yours on this conflict? Why do Palestinian protests where I live (Canada) target Synagogues, Jewish owned businesses, Jewish neighborhoods?
Do Zionists control the US? The Media? Not Jews... nono. "Zionists".
I'm not necessarily talking about you specifically. But it is a fact that antisemites use this technique and this is being normalized. Why does it matter than you have a token Jewish person in your protest at all? Who cares if someone in your protest is a Satmar Jew or an Iranian Bhaii?
As a jew, I have never felt more targeted by anti-semitism than I have following israel's genocide of Palestinians. israel is making jews like me look bad by association, even though that association is false.
The worst part is, most of that antisemitism comes from zionists. Zealots making posts not unlike yours, frequently accuse me and my kind of being 'self-hating jews' for being insufficiently zionist. It really sucks.
As a side note, please stop repeatedly, unsuccessfully trying to conflate jews with zionists. We are not the same thing, and it is hurtful to hear you insult jews like that. It is somewhat akin to conflating all South Africans with apartheid supporters, or all Germans with nazis, except you are stereotyping based on religion, rather than national origin.
That conflation was made by antisemites first, many decades ago. That is simply historical fact, whether people know it or not. In that time and place antizionism was a barely concealed excuse for straight antisemitism; it didn't actually matter what their targets believed.
And yet, you are the one making the antisemitic conflation here and now. The fact that you're repeating the words of people you believe to be antisemetic should be a clue that the words you're repeating are antisemetic. Just because an antisemite says something doesn't mean you should agree and reshare their post.
So maybe don't? Next time you see an antisemite saying that, rather than parroting their talking points to others, you can tell them the same thing: zionists and jews aren't the same thing, and many jews are members of the global consensus in opposing the ongoing israeli genocide of Palestinians. Or don't, maybe it won't make a difference, and it's your choice.
In the meantime, please stop repeating hurtful antisemetic tropes by conflating us jews with zionists. We are not the same. Criticism of zionism and the israeli genocide of Palestinians is totally legitimate. Propagating antisemetic language is antisemetic. That means smarmy posts I've seen around saying things to the effect of, 'zionists... you mean jews??? [*wink wink*]'
Then why is it that self-proclaimed "anti-zionists" use the exact same talking point as those antisemites back then? It is difficult to ever unsee that what you call "the global consensus" was invented decades ago in the halls of the Kremlin.
I simply informed you of the historical precedent; why do you immediately include me in those you say are conflating the two?
If criticism of Israel sounded more like the criticism of America's War on Terror instead of a Kremlin anti-West propaganda manual, then maybe it would be worth thinking about.
Why are you still defending your antisemetic language? Repeating that you think your antisemetic language is ok if other antisemites said it first?
Just don't say it. I'm not even asking you for an apology for your hurtful, antisemetic words. Just recognize that your spreading of antisemitic tropes is bad, and please stop. Are you seriously so dead-set on repeating antisemetic tropes that you refuse to do even that?
I start talking about historical Kremlin propaganda campaigns, and you accuse me of antisemitic language. Interesting. Did you have anything to say on the actual points I raised?
I explicitly ignored the weird distraction about the kremlin or whatever, because the kremlin didn't force you to repeat antisemitic tropes. You chose to repeat antisemitic tropes, and still haven't even been able to acknowledge that your repetition of antisemitic tropes was bad.
Remember, the topic isn't bibi's fellow war criminals, it is antisemitism, with you, yes YOU, contributing to it. This is what I meant when I said that most antisemitism I've seen and felt as a jew lately, is coming from zionists.
So, back on topic: Do you have anything to say on the actual points I raised even earlier?:
> Despite all this Israel has largely re-established military deterrence in the Middle East and is on a path to normalize relations with countries like Saudi Arabia once Hamas is either forced to surrender or degraded enough that they lose their ability to govern Gaza.
Citizens in the Gulf feel very differently on a large number of issues than their leaders.
> Citizens in the Gulf feel very differently on a large number of issues than their leaders.
Yeah, this is a common pattern, in general most Muslim counties have leadership which is far more moderate than their populations overall, with Iran being a notable exception.
I've lived in the US since around 9/11; there was lots of discussion around the responses to Iraq, and Afghanistan. It went on to Yemen, and Libya. There was always criticism and utter disappointment with Obama in many circles over this. Many US soldiers came forward and condemned the Iraq war.
Also, the people who voted for Hamas over 20 years ago? Considering how young the population is, I doubt many were alive then. Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats back then. It's very dangerous rhetoric to say collateral damage should not be limited. Did the babies and the many women who were slaughtered in endless bombing campaigns vote for Hamas to deserve their very end? This rhetoric is exactly why the world has turned their back on Israel. In the US, huge majority of under 35s do not support the state, for example.
I'm not Indian, nor Pakistani, nor from South Asia.
I just wanted to clarify some points...
* It was Pakistan that shot 3 to 5 Indian jets. Pakistan says three Rafale jets, a MiG-29, and an Su-30, along with one Heron drone. NY Times confirms at least 3. This was a huge win for Pakistan by all military expert accounts. This was all using Chinese technology.
* Trump said today that it was India that went to the US to solve the situation. CNN also reported this.
To me, it was a huge win for China and Pakistan. A US official has also confirmed that, stating they stood by to see what China had.
India isn't innocent either; they meddle a lot with Balochistani separatist groups in Pakistan. This is no hidden secret. These terrorists have killed Chinese engineers.
There has been a lot of false information out there, particularly from Indian media (many accounts said a pilot was also captured, and other cities such as Karachi were hit). It was very alarming to see such blatantly wrong accounts by mainstream Indian media.
> was Pakistan that shot 3 to 5 Indian jets. Pakistan says three Rafale jets, a MiG-29, and an Su-30, along with one Heron drone. NY Times confirms at least 3. This was a huge win for Pakistan by all military expert accounts. This was all using Chinese technology.
Can not comment anything on this as it is not confirmed or denied from Indian side.It is only said that no pilot has been lost.
> Trump said today that it was India that went to the US to solve the situation. CNN also reported this.
You can see Trump's change of wording on the recent tweets as well as India clearly denying role of Trump as mediator.India said the discussions took place directly between the two neighbours-in-conflict.
> India isn't innocent either; they meddle a lot with Balochistani separatist groups in Pakistan. This is no hidden secret. These terrorists have killed Chinese engineers.
Is there any proof for this?I have not seen any.From what I have heard, they are supported by Afgans.Still no proof.
> There has been a lot of false information out there, particularly from Indian media (many accounts said a pilot was also captured, and other cities such as Karachi were hit).It was very alarming to see such blatantly wrong accounts by mainstream Indian media.
Yes, the examples given are fake news,peddled by Indian media.They do not care anything besides high TRP.
Allen Carr helped me - rather his book. Cold Turkey. No withdrawal symptoms, urges - nothing. It just made smoking seem so illogical (basically we smoke to feel "normal" again, as we are trying to fix nicotine withdrawal). The book did not use health scare tactics, hypnosis, or any of that. I highly recommend his book to anyone who wants to quit.
Couldn't find the book, do you have an ISBN or link for it? Would love to gift it to someone I know who loves to read but equally loves to smoke and would like to stop.
You do realize that western policies to this day have emboldened the mullahs in power? These sanctions just increase their control, and US govt obviously knows it. So much border trade occurs in spite of the actions, and mullahs garner more control. Nuclear deal was another case.
Excellent article on a very logical language. However this part:
> No other language will make you work as hard to avoid speaking formally to pairs of women
Arabs actually don't speak this formal way and may look at you strange if you do (they may not even understand in countries like Libya or Egypt); most of the colloquial dialects skip most of these rules, and don't deal the difference between "those two females ran" vs "those two males ran" vs "those males ran", etc.
But author summarizes it:
> The second is that spoken Arabic has diverged substantially from the written language, so you can study it formally for years and not be able to understand a television commercial
I don't know much about him but aren't his grand parents Belarusians who came over to the US?
reply