Open the U.S. border to intelligent independent-minded people with marketable skills, who respect and admire our Constitution, want to learn English and contribute to our well being. Reject those who want to cling to the beliefs that largely create the conditions that they wish to escape.
Excellent. I learned from this podcast discussion although I detected a lot of what I call "feel good liberal speak nonsense". Being a child of 'the Greatest Generation', I was raised with a lot of respect for patriotism, service to country and community, and all that goes with that. I sense that immigrants don't have those same values. Why would they. At our town's 4th of July parade I look around and see people like me, not my neighbors who are the tech immigrants that populate the Seattle. They do not have the same frame of reference that, well, Americans have. I try, they're nice people, & I know it's up to me to adjust to our changing society.
My opinion was stated however I want to emphasize I thought the same—this debate should have focused on either legal immigration reform or the Southern Border. They are vastly different issues. Fortunately, due to the actions of the Texas governor, the nation is experiencing the problem with the border so that should have been the topic of the debate.
I love the format. I get so tired of people making blanket statements which are not necessarily correct but are never challenged.
I generally love Nick Gillespie (I'm a Reason subscriber, and I also regularly listen to his interview podcast). And I'm... not the biggest fan of Ann Coulter.
But I had a difficult time with how much Nick kept interrupting Ann around the halfway mark. I wanted to hear what she had to say. With all respect to Bari, I think the moderation could have been better.
What was striking to me is that despite the variety of arguments, everyone was still basically arguing from an American perspective.
There's a separate question of whether "brain drain" is a significant concern. Could it be that the best and the brightest coming to the U.S. (or other Western countries to a much lesser extent) creates a self-perpetuating dynamic where the other countries are pushed further into poverty and disorder because of their lack of human capital? What are the effects on Mexico of allowing migrants from the rest of the world to enter across the American border, thus slamming Mexico with the consequences related to their crossing? And what is the overall effect of a globalized elite who lack a strong national identity when the world is still very much made up of nation states?
Gillespie was the most convincing. Coulter was too hawkish and racist, but I kind of just expect that from her at this point! That’s kind of Ann’s beat lol
Love the debates and hoping for one near me…but this one had a fundamental flaw: the proclamation should have been “shut down illegal immigration” rather than the blanket “should the US shut its borders” statement. Most rational Americans support legal immigration (maybe not Ann Coulter but I digress.) I’d have enjoyed a robust debate about how to improve our immigration system while also shutting the southern border. And hats off to Sohrab who carried the water for AC. Regardless..these are important issues and I applaud TFP for taking them on.
Surprise surprise, Cenk Uygur's entire argument is a straw man relying on cliched slogans and factual inaccuracies. He's also a bully with no etiquette and constantly interrupts his debate opponents in every setting--usually yelling, swearing, and insulting them as well. Merely interrupting is actually polite, for him. Why are legitimate media outlets still giving him a platform??
Bari - I was interested in this topic and tried to listen this morning but couldn't get past the introduction without having to turn it off. I don't know anyone in either party that is against immigration. I know many first generation Americans - they are almost without exception the most kind, the most generous, the most hard working, the most warm hearted, some of the best people I know. Every one of them makes this community better. And I am grateful and lucky to know them all. However, immigration is run by the US government - US immigration is not something that is managed by the cartels at an open border. When you conflate immigration with what is going on at the border you are being dishonest. To say that people rushing the border - to say that the increase in fentanyl deaths (to over a hundred thousand per year in this country now), national security threats and child trafficking is immigration, that is not fair. It reminds me of when you discuss how so much that is happening now began with word games and with lies. Last year I helped someone in their eighties apply for a passport. They were born in this country, they paid taxes their whole life, they never got so much as a speeding ticket. It took us weeks to collect documents and information needed for the application. We waited almost a month for an appointment and then had to make a second trip back because we were missing some necessary information - all so that a person in their eighties could spend 5 days in Mexico. When you conflate immigration with what is happening at the border, without distinguishing between the two, you are decreasing the amount of trust your readers have in the Free Press. You are being dishonest. And you have to know that.
In the end it all comes down to serf/slave labor. No union, no osha, no benefits, is a goldmine for big Ag and construction. As a physician I can’t hire illegal workers, but I beg of you politicians to let me hire foreign nurses to fill our labor shortage. The reason we haven’t passed a bill to make legal, purposeful immigration easier to do is the desire for low wage earners to fill jobs of donors. Even the proponents say that. Meanwhile we have college graduates, with actual jobs who can’t get their visas to stay. It’s so insane.
100% and I'm glad Saurabh made this point, which is typically overlooked in the national conversation. I really appreciated that he obviously prepared for the debate. Anne had some facts ready as well, though they seemed more like her general talking points (which doesn't make them wrong, it just doesn't seem like she took the debate that seriously, either). The other side used only straw men, generalizations, denials, and the word "literally", as expected.
Open the U.S. border to intelligent independent-minded people with marketable skills, who respect and admire our Constitution, want to learn English and contribute to our well being. Reject those who want to cling to the beliefs that largely create the conditions that they wish to escape.
Bari, please publish a transcript. I don't time to watch this but would happily read it. Thanks,.
Excellent. I learned from this podcast discussion although I detected a lot of what I call "feel good liberal speak nonsense". Being a child of 'the Greatest Generation', I was raised with a lot of respect for patriotism, service to country and community, and all that goes with that. I sense that immigrants don't have those same values. Why would they. At our town's 4th of July parade I look around and see people like me, not my neighbors who are the tech immigrants that populate the Seattle. They do not have the same frame of reference that, well, Americans have. I try, they're nice people, & I know it's up to me to adjust to our changing society.
Where is the video?
My opinion was stated however I want to emphasize I thought the same—this debate should have focused on either legal immigration reform or the Southern Border. They are vastly different issues. Fortunately, due to the actions of the Texas governor, the nation is experiencing the problem with the border so that should have been the topic of the debate.
I love the format. I get so tired of people making blanket statements which are not necessarily correct but are never challenged.
I generally love Nick Gillespie (I'm a Reason subscriber, and I also regularly listen to his interview podcast). And I'm... not the biggest fan of Ann Coulter.
But I had a difficult time with how much Nick kept interrupting Ann around the halfway mark. I wanted to hear what she had to say. With all respect to Bari, I think the moderation could have been better.
What was striking to me is that despite the variety of arguments, everyone was still basically arguing from an American perspective.
There's a separate question of whether "brain drain" is a significant concern. Could it be that the best and the brightest coming to the U.S. (or other Western countries to a much lesser extent) creates a self-perpetuating dynamic where the other countries are pushed further into poverty and disorder because of their lack of human capital? What are the effects on Mexico of allowing migrants from the rest of the world to enter across the American border, thus slamming Mexico with the consequences related to their crossing? And what is the overall effect of a globalized elite who lack a strong national identity when the world is still very much made up of nation states?
Gillespie was the most convincing. Coulter was too hawkish and racist, but I kind of just expect that from her at this point! That’s kind of Ann’s beat lol
Love the debates and hoping for one near me…but this one had a fundamental flaw: the proclamation should have been “shut down illegal immigration” rather than the blanket “should the US shut its borders” statement. Most rational Americans support legal immigration (maybe not Ann Coulter but I digress.) I’d have enjoyed a robust debate about how to improve our immigration system while also shutting the southern border. And hats off to Sohrab who carried the water for AC. Regardless..these are important issues and I applaud TFP for taking them on.
Surprise surprise, Cenk Uygur's entire argument is a straw man relying on cliched slogans and factual inaccuracies. He's also a bully with no etiquette and constantly interrupts his debate opponents in every setting--usually yelling, swearing, and insulting them as well. Merely interrupting is actually polite, for him. Why are legitimate media outlets still giving him a platform??
Bari - I was interested in this topic and tried to listen this morning but couldn't get past the introduction without having to turn it off. I don't know anyone in either party that is against immigration. I know many first generation Americans - they are almost without exception the most kind, the most generous, the most hard working, the most warm hearted, some of the best people I know. Every one of them makes this community better. And I am grateful and lucky to know them all. However, immigration is run by the US government - US immigration is not something that is managed by the cartels at an open border. When you conflate immigration with what is going on at the border you are being dishonest. To say that people rushing the border - to say that the increase in fentanyl deaths (to over a hundred thousand per year in this country now), national security threats and child trafficking is immigration, that is not fair. It reminds me of when you discuss how so much that is happening now began with word games and with lies. Last year I helped someone in their eighties apply for a passport. They were born in this country, they paid taxes their whole life, they never got so much as a speeding ticket. It took us weeks to collect documents and information needed for the application. We waited almost a month for an appointment and then had to make a second trip back because we were missing some necessary information - all so that a person in their eighties could spend 5 days in Mexico. When you conflate immigration with what is happening at the border, without distinguishing between the two, you are decreasing the amount of trust your readers have in the Free Press. You are being dishonest. And you have to know that.
In the end it all comes down to serf/slave labor. No union, no osha, no benefits, is a goldmine for big Ag and construction. As a physician I can’t hire illegal workers, but I beg of you politicians to let me hire foreign nurses to fill our labor shortage. The reason we haven’t passed a bill to make legal, purposeful immigration easier to do is the desire for low wage earners to fill jobs of donors. Even the proponents say that. Meanwhile we have college graduates, with actual jobs who can’t get their visas to stay. It’s so insane.
100% and I'm glad Saurabh made this point, which is typically overlooked in the national conversation. I really appreciated that he obviously prepared for the debate. Anne had some facts ready as well, though they seemed more like her general talking points (which doesn't make them wrong, it just doesn't seem like she took the debate that seriously, either). The other side used only straw men, generalizations, denials, and the word "literally", as expected.