This is a loaded term. I keep hearing the likes of Cotton, Haley, Trump throwing this around. What is the national interest? Who defines the national interest? By golly, policy makers and politicians do. If the President changes in 2020, so changes the national interest. The implication that there is a clear, linear, precise definition of national interest is a false one. When it's abused in the context of immigration, I find it particularly appalling considering our nation's history. National interest is theatrical language for the uninformed.
National Interest
- Thread starter toastedbread
- Start date
Mostly I disagree with Cotton's approach toward immigration. To be more specific, I strongly disagree with him invoking national interest in his comments as if he is the authority and only his position is in the national interest. National interest is open to dispute and is not black and white. I rarely recall political figures using that terminology with such nonchalance.
Last edited:
I think you disagree with a potential law and/or policy, not a national interest. What is the specific national interest you don’t think is a national interest?
Last edited:
No, it's the other way around...
What exactly do they mean by "immigration in the national interest?" They are claiming authority on how that's defined, while in reality, it's a policy question open to wide interpretation.
E.g. https://lamarsmith.house.gov/media-...uces-immigration-in-the-national-interest-act
They argue that economic benefit to American workers is in the national interest. As a hypothetical, I argue that family reunification is in the national interest. Neither of us have a monopoly on national interest. To claim that there is only one possible interpretation of national interest should be met with scorn.
Do you not believe that protecting and improving the economy of the US is a national interest of the US?
Absolutely it is in the national interest, but many things are in the national interest. You are completely missing the point. There is no one truth about national interest. They imply that only their bill and their position on issues is the correct interpretation of "national interest". That's where I take issue.
No I’m not. You disagree that the proposal will support our national interest of protecting and improving the US economy. You just said you agreed that was a national interest, but you apparently disagree that the proposal will further that interest. You disagree with the proposed law/policy, not the national interest.
They are claiming that THEIR BILL and only THEIR BILL is the national interest and that they are the authority on "national interest". Their bill is explicitly called immigration in the national interest. "national interest of protecting and improving the US economy." That is not the only national interest. That is one of a basket of national interests as relates to immigration.
I'm done replying to you in this thread.
I’m merely pointing out that they say their bill will support that national interest, and I’d say they have a credible argument that it does. Your disagreement is clearly with the bill and not the national interest. You’ve already said you agree on the national interest in question.
No need to get snippy about it, it is just a discussion.
My disagreement is with how they define national interest as relates to immigration. Many disagree with their narrow definition. Suggesting that family migration is against the national interest is also debatable considering those are the family members of American citizens, aka Nationals. There are other arguments besides the one I'm highlighting.
“National interest” as an abstract idea cannot be defined. It’s like “justice” in terms of social justice, economic justice, or “ no justice no peace”. These are words used to bootstrap an otherwise vacuous argument. Your point reminds me of those who argue for a policy because “it’s the right thing to do” or because it will be on the “right side of history”.
National interest to mean anything must be given a specific context. What would you say is the national interest in a lottery immigration system?
Exactly. My whole issue is with those parroting national interest in order to give their arguments more authority. It's vacuous.
I'll give you an example of how absurd and open to interpretation national interest is... with the current travel ban in order to receive a waiver you must show that your immigration is in the national interest, but it's entirely open to interpretation of the consular officer whether you qualify! There are no guidelines.
That's quite simple actually... 50k visas is peanuts for a country of 300 million. It's a huge coup in terms of soft power (foreign policy). It shows that America is the land of opportunity in that even those born in the most unfortunate circumstances have the ability to receive a green card and rise to the top. It helps us attract merited immigrants. It's positive PR. At the moment, only a high school diploma is required. I would probably require a college diploma. One additional point, exposure to distant cultures for Americans and having access to foreign languages can only be a positive thing. I would suggest that we encourage more applicants from places like Bhutan, Swaziland, and other nationalities with little immigration to the US, and discourage applicants from India and China, etc. As far as having speakers of less widely spoken foreign languages, there is potential benefit to national security. Case in point, the war in Afghanistan and dari speakers.
Furthermore, there is a myth that we don't have enough "vetting". It's complete BS. the US runs the most extensive vetting of immigrants of any nation on Earth. I can tell you first hand from observing my wife that the immigration forms are time consuming and no joke. If the government is properly evaluating those forms and interviewing it's very unlikely that bad guys will fall through the cracks. (And we see how rare it is that immigrants commit terrorism) The truth is that someone looking to commit terror is either going to apply as a tourist, or more likely, commit a terrorist act closer to home.
In my view "national interest" includes selfish nationalistic motives and the realization that we live in a world with people and governments which also have self interests. We therefore have to think both nationalistically and globally. In our war against international terrorism, for example, we must cooperate with intelligence sources around the globe or the battle will be lost.
When I was in business my selfish goal of maximizing income and profit meant serving my clients. Happy clients were good for business. I couldn't think first about what was good for me. In the same vein, a global economy demands that we learn to serve clients across the globe.
Having said that, i realize when the term "national interest" is the topic our thoughts may tend to focus on national defense or national security. However, we should realize national security depends on a strong economy.
When I was in business my selfish goal of maximizing income and profit meant serving my clients. Happy clients were good for business. I couldn't think first about what was good for me. In the same vein, a global economy demands that we learn to serve clients across the globe.
Having said that, i realize when the term "national interest" is the topic our thoughts may tend to focus on national defense or national security. However, we should realize national security depends on a strong economy.
I thought our national interest would be:
1) Preventing immigrants from the shit hole countries such as Haiti and African nations
2) Winning the pissing match with North Korea
3) Blaming Obama & Clinton for all bad things and praise Trump for all good things.
I bet Lucy will agree with me.
1) Preventing immigrants from the shit hole countries such as Haiti and African nations
2) Winning the pissing match with North Korea
3) Blaming Obama & Clinton for all bad things and praise Trump for all good things.
I bet Lucy will agree with me.
Actually during the Cold War we tried to prove to the world that Capitalism/Democracy could provide for all its citizens as well or better than the promises of communism. Thus it was considered in our best interests to promote such social programs as Social Security. As a result both Democrats and Republicans in both houses supported generous increases in Social Security benefits during the Cold War along with instituting Medicare..
