Trump is saving us from the teeming brown horde

[Rockfish1]

Apparently unhinged by Fox News reports about a horde of scary brown people headed this way, Trump says he'll send the most powerful military on Earth to defend us against them:

President Trump said on Tuesday that he planned to order the military to guard parts of the southern border until he can build a wall and tighten immigration restrictions, proposing a remarkable escalation of his efforts to crack down on migrants entering the country illegally.

Mr. Trump, who has been stewing publicly for days about what he characterizes as lax immigration laws and the potential for an influx of Central American migrants to stream into the United States, said he was consulting with Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, about resorting to military deployments.

. . . It was not immediately clear what Mr. Trump meant by the remarks, or what the rationale would be for deploying United States troops to patrol or even seal the border at a time when the numbers of people being apprehended crossing illegally are down to their lowest level since 1971.

. . . Mr. Trump’s comments on Tuesday came after he kicked off his third consecutive day of tweeting about America’s “weak” border laws and called on Congress to act on legislation to toughen immigration laws. The push comes as Mr. Trump has complained with increasing urgency about a large group of migrants from Honduras that has been traveling through Mexico.

The caravan has been a popular topic on Fox News — the president’s favorite news network — and his aides have argued that weak immigration policies are luring the migrants from Central America to the United States.

“The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our ‘Weak Laws’ Border, had better be stopped before it gets there,” he tweeted on Tuesday. “Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. Congress MUST ACT NOW!
​

Here are some photos of the bad hombres bearing down on us in such a frightening way that Trump thinks only the vaunted US military can protect us:

Now, before you start with me, yes I understand we have a border, and we're entitled to let in only those we choose to allow. That's fine. We don't have an open border, no matter how many times wingnuts claim we do. This will surely end badly for most of these people, and we can only do so much.

What's got me going is that Trump apparently believes (probably correctly) that this is just the sort of thing that will animate his base -- just as Fox has apparently concluded (probably correctly) that coverage of the dirty brown swarm will inflame its aging right-wing audience. And that the Fox & Friends crowd will be delighted to learn that the powerful US military might be enlisted to repel these insidious brown invaders.

No one seems to take any notice that these are desperate vulnerable families fleeing deadly violence of the sort that's unthinkable to us. Leaving behind what little they had, they've ventured a dangerous trek across Mexico -- where they'll be preyed upon along the way -- in the faint hope that someone will maybe give them a small chance at the sort of lives we take for granted. It's a Hail Mary pass by people who are out of options.

So yes, maybe we can't allow the 1,200 prospective immigration law violators into the country. But this is a tragedy. It busts me up to see these poor families with kids making such a hopeless play out of unspeakable desperation. Not a single thing about it makes me happy. And to get to my real point, not a single bit of it helps me to feel any empathy for the Trump-supporting assholes who get animated about this in the worst possible way.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The migration is no surprise. I blame Obama and Clinton.

 

[iu_a_att]

Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor
In the interests of stimulating a debate here let me suggest that there is a moral dilemma here as Hardin's essay points out. Hardin's deepest point is that we are better off creating boundaries and, thereby, incentives for those living within their boundaries to be good and responsible shepherds within their boundaries. Without boundaries we have a "tragedy of the commons" and nobody exercises care and we get global collapse. Now, there are certainly counterarguments and values on the other side as you point out.

 

[BCCHoosier]

The migration is no surprise. I blame Obama and Clinton.

Curious if you have any empathy for people less fortunate than you or do just prefer glib responses? I realize we can't take everyone, but you strike me as a guy born on 3rd base but thinks you hit a triple.

 

[Rockfish1]

Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor
In the interests of stimulating a debate here let me suggest that there is a moral dilemma here as Hardin's essay points out. Hardin's deepest point is that we are better off creating boundaries and, thereby, incentives for those living within their boundaries to be good and responsible shepherds within their boundaries. Without boundaries we have a "tragedy of the commons" and nobody exercises care and we get global collapse. Now, there are certainly counterarguments and values on the other side as you point out.

My point has less to do with the correct policy response to those fleeing violence in Honduras than the heartless reaction to their plight among those Trump is speaking to.

I likely wouldn't have heard about this but for Trump's unhinged reactions, but I'm not aroused in any of the ways that Trump's Fox-watching supporters will be. The real problem for us isn't what to do with the 1,200 bedraggled Hondurans trudging our way, but how we should respond to the heartless American assholes who will respond as Trump expects and intends.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Curious if you have any empathy for people less fortunate than you or do just prefer glib responses? I realize we can't take everyone, but you strike me as a guy born on 3rd base but thinks you hit a triple.

There is nothing glib about my comment. Obama and Clinton f*cked up in Honduras. That is a sincerely held position and I posted about it here at the time.* In fact I do have empathy. I have a history of providing volunteer professional services for the less fortunate in addition to considerable 501(c)(3) volunteer work. Each of us does what we can in this world. Some actually do, others yammer.

"but you strike me as a guy born on 3rd base but thinks you hit a triple." Really BCC? Do you think this is clever, apropos, or original?

*Do ya think any of these "dirty brown people" will be provided housing in Chappaqua? Georgetown?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My point has less to do with the correct policy response to those fleeing violence in Honduras than the heartless reaction to their plight among those Trump is speaking to.

I likely wouldn't have heard about this but for Trump's unhinged reactions, but I'm not aroused in any of the ways that Trump's Fox-watching supporters will be. The real problem for us isn't what to do with the 1,200 bedraggled Hondurans trudging our way, but how we should respond to the heartless American assholes who will respond as Trump expects and intends.

It is common to view other cultures through a lens that contrasts them against your own, highlighting how they are other. For much of the history of western scholarship, the East has been viewed as mystical and feminine, as opposed to the objective, masculine West. Whites studying Native Americans came up with the "noble savage," the man who reaches enlightenment through communion with nature, rather than through the advancement of knowledge and science.

For some reason, a large segment of our population has otherized migrant communities - particularly Hispanic ones - by contrasting them against self-sufficiency and respect for law that we are supposed to hold up as American ideals. So they become lazy criminals. It's nothing new, but it's quite ugly.

 

[iu_a_att]

My point has less to do with the correct policy response to those fleeing violence in Honduras than the heartless reaction to their plight among those Trump is speaking to.

I likely wouldn't have heard about this but for Trump's unhinged reactions, but I'm not aroused in any of the ways that Trump's Fox-watching supporters will be. The real problem for us isn't what to do with the 1,200 bedraggled Hondurans trudging our way, but how we should respond to the heartless American assholes who will respond as Trump expects and intends.

Well, it seems to me that one might begin by trying to address Hardin who writes:

The law zealously defends property rights, but only relatively recent property rights. Drawing a line after an arbitrary time has elapsed may be unjust, but the alternatives are worse.

We are all the descendants of thieves, and the world's resources are inequitably distributed. But we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit.

To be generous with one's own possessions is quite different from being generous with those of posterity. We should call this point to the attention of those who from a commendable love of justice and equality, would institute a system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank, or of unrestricted immigration. We must convince them if we wish to save at least some parts of the world from environmental ruin.

Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible. For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.​

Hardin is quite aware of the injustice of his position...he is quite aware of its awful indifference to the plight of those unlucky enough not to be in lifeboats...his position amounts to a good life for him and his...and thoughts and prayers for the unlucky ones not already in the lifeboats. Hardin suggests that those of us in the lifeboats will not relinquish our spot for someone else. He posits that we can't bring too many others in either. What does one say to those who imagine themselves practicing lifeboat ethics? I don't know what one can say to them..maybe it is wisest not to say anything to them at...but it is probably a good idea to watch one's back.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, it seems to me that one might begin by trying to address Hardin who writes:

The law zealously defends property rights, but only relatively recent property rights. Drawing a line after an arbitrary time has elapsed may be unjust, but the alternatives are worse.

We are all the descendants of thieves, and the world's resources are inequitably distributed. But we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit.

To be generous with one's own possessions is quite different from being generous with those of posterity. We should call this point to the attention of those who from a commendable love of justice and equality, would institute a system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank, or of unrestricted immigration. We must convince them if we wish to save at least some parts of the world from environmental ruin.

Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible. For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.​

Hardin is quite aware of the injustice of his position...he is quite aware of its awful indifference to the plight of those unlucky enough not to be in lifeboats...his position amounts to a good life for him and his...and thoughts and prayers for the unlucky ones not already in the lifeboats. Hardin suggests that those of us in the lifeboats will not relinquish our spot for someone else. He posits that we can't bring too many others in either. What does one say to those who imagine themselves practicing lifeboat ethics? I don't know what one can say to them..maybe it is wisest not to say anything to them at...but it is probably a good idea to watch one's back.

I think the problem here is that you are offering a economics response to what Rock is highlighting as an essentially sociological problem.

 

[iu_a_att]

I think the problem here is that you are offering a economics response to what Rock is highlighting as an essentially sociological problem.

I was only trying to build a bit of a foundation for some discussion of the competing moral claims in play here. I didn't think there was anything wrong exactly with Rock's take only that there is another side that is missing. I don't think we can really adequately respond to others without understanding their concerns.

 

[Rockfish1]

Well, it seems to me that one might begin by trying to address Hardin who writes:

The law zealously defends property rights, but only relatively recent property rights. Drawing a line after an arbitrary time has elapsed may be unjust, but the alternatives are worse.

We are all the descendants of thieves, and the world's resources are inequitably distributed. But we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit.

To be generous with one's own possessions is quite different from being generous with those of posterity. We should call this point to the attention of those who from a commendable love of justice and equality, would institute a system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank, or of unrestricted immigration. We must convince them if we wish to save at least some parts of the world from environmental ruin.

Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible. For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.​

Hardin is quite aware of the injustice of his position...he is quite aware of its awful indifference to the plight of those unlucky enough not to be in lifeboats...his position amounts to a good life for him and his...and thoughts and prayers for the unlucky ones not already in the lifeboats. Hardin suggests that those of us in the lifeboats will not relinquish our spot for someone else. He posits that we can't bring too many others in either. What does one say to those who imagine themselves practicing lifeboat ethics? I don't know what one can say to them..maybe it is wisest not to say anything to them at...but it is probably a good idea to watch one's back.

Trump thinks it's a great red meat issue to call our military out to protect us against a scary brown horde, and I think he's right about how his base will respond. And their response will have nothing to do with the enlightened philosophizing you propose to discuss instead.

I appreciate the kinds of concerns that Hardin writes about, and such concerns caused me to leave room for argument on the policy response. But I don't understand what your post has to do with anything I'm trying to talk about. Maybe you're politely suggesting we discuss something else?

_______________________________________________

After watching television, I wonder if your real point is here:

What does one say to those who imagine themselves practicing lifeboat ethics? I don't know what one can say to them..maybe it is wisest not to say anything to them at...but it is probably a good idea to watch one's back.
​

If so, I wonder why Trump's supporters have irrationally concluded that they must practice "lifeboat ethics" and why it's so particularly non-white people they want to keep out of the lifeboats. And yes, I not only wonder what to say to such people, but how I can feel empathy for such people.

 

[Noodle]

The migration is no surprise. I blame Obama and Clinton.

So what? Who gives a flying f$&$ about who may be to blame? Are these refugees on there way here to kick Obama’s and Clinton’s asses for messing up Honduras?

 

[Rockfish1]

I was only trying to build a bit of a foundation for some discussion of the competing moral claims in play here. I didn't think there was anything wrong exactly with Rock's take only that there is another side that is missing. I don't think we can really adequately respond to others without understanding their concerns.

Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, I think you misunderstand what the competing moral claims are. I don't even concede that Trump or his supporters are making (or even could make) the sort of assessment Hardin does -- if for no other reason than the sort of assessment Hardin makes requires the acknowledgement of competing moral claims, and nothing of that sophistication is actually occurring.

We aren't in a lifeboat, and we wouldn't need the military to keep these Hondurans out of it. So my question is what to do with Americans who imagine otherwise.

 

[iu_a_att]

_______________________________________________

After watching television, I wonder if your real point is here:

What does one say to those who imagine themselves practicing lifeboat ethics? I don't know what one can say to them..maybe it is wisest not to say anything to them at...but it is probably a good idea to watch one's back.
​

If so, I wonder why Trump's supporters have irrationally concluded that they must practice "lifeboat ethics" and why it's so particularly non-white people they want to keep out of the lifeboats. And yes, I not only wonder what to say to such people, but how I can feel empathy for such people.

Yes...this is getting towards my point. As to why they want to particularly keep out non-white people. Could it be that they fear a slippery slope and that by letting non-white people in today those same people will throw poor white people out of the boat tomorrow? As for empathy...perhaps that is easier if one believes they are people who are afraid because they feel themselves to be in a lifeboat situation? Or maybe one shouldn't have too much empathy for those who renounce it?

 

[iu_a_att]

Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, I think you misunderstand what the competing moral claims are. I don't even concede that Trump or his supporters are making (or even could make) the sort of assessment Hardin does -- if for no other reason than the sort of assessment Hardin makes requires the acknowledgement of competing moral claims, and nothing of that sophistication is actually occurring.

We aren't in a lifeboat, and we wouldn't need the military to keep these Hondurans out of it. So my question is what to do with Americans who imagine otherwise.

Well, I was trying to elevate the discussion...I don't think Trump could or would make the kind of argument that Hardin does. So I made Hardin's argument on their behalf...kind of a reverse strawman deal: let's see if we make the strongest possible argument on behalf of those with whom we disagree and see where it might lead.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes...this is getting towards my point. As to why they want to particularly keep out non-white people. Could it be that they fear a slippery slope and that by letting non-white people in today those same people will throw poor white people out of the boat tomorrow? As for empathy...perhaps that is easier if one believes they are people who are afraid because they feel themselves to be in a lifeboat situation? Or maybe one shouldn't have too much empathy for those who renounce it?

Honestly, I think it's just that some of these people don't like brown people very much. I really think that's about the extent of it.

 

[Lucy01]

Honestly, I think it's just that some of these people don't like brown people very much. I really think that's about the extent of it.

Nail meet hammer

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

What was the lefts rally cry for 8 years under BHO? Never let a crisis go to waste. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot huh?

 

[iu_a_att]

Honestly, I think it's just that some of these people don't like brown people very much. I really think that's about the extent of it.

Just to play the devil's advocate here. I wonder if it isn't brown people they don't like but rather liberals? The right was pretty much okay with the Cuban refugees who quickly became Republican stalwarts. But the immigrants who are here and who may be coming in...particularly the non-white ones...look quite poised to ultimately vote for liberals.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just to play the devil's advocate here. I wonder if it isn't brown people they don't like but rather liberals? The right was pretty much okay with the Cuban refugees who quickly became Republican stalwarts. But the immigrants who are here and who may be coming in...particularly the non-white ones...look quite poised to ultimately vote for liberals.

No, the GOP was fine with Cuban refugees. The Trumpian base overlaps, but is not coextensive with, the GOP writ large.

As several conservatives on this forum have argued, part of the Trumpian revolt is due to the GOP ignoring said base on these issues.

 

[toastedbread]

Just to play the devil's advocate here. I wonder if it isn't brown people they don't like but rather liberals? The right was pretty much okay with the Cuban refugees who quickly became Republican stalwarts. But the immigrants who are here and who may be coming in...particularly the non-white ones...look quite poised to ultimately vote for liberals.

It's actually ironic that they praised the Cuban "refugees", who consisted of rapists, murderers, and the mentally ill. Castro released the of flith of Cuba upon us. In contrast, hard working Latin Americans merely seeking a better life for their families are looked upon as roaches.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So what? Who gives a flying f$&$ about who may be to blame? Are these refugees on there way here to kick Obama’s and Clinton’s asses for messing up Honduras?

No. And I wouldn’t have mentioned it if this thread was about the plight of the migrants. The fish made it abundantly clear x 2 that he was posting about Trump, the base, and Fox News being mean to dirty brown people. I posted about Obama Clinton to provide context. And implicit in my post is the notable absence of concern for the dirty brown Hondurans as our president supported the corrupt and drug dealing head of state.

 

[76-1]

Apparently unhinged by Fox News reports about a horde of scary brown people headed this way, Trump says he'll send the most powerful military on Earth to defend us against them:

President Trump said on Tuesday that he planned to order the military to guard parts of the southern border until he can build a wall and tighten immigration restrictions, proposing a remarkable escalation of his efforts to crack down on migrants entering the country illegally.

Mr. Trump, who has been stewing publicly for days about what he characterizes as lax immigration laws and the potential for an influx of Central American migrants to stream into the United States, said he was consulting with Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, about resorting to military deployments.

. . . It was not immediately clear what Mr. Trump meant by the remarks, or what the rationale would be for deploying United States troops to patrol or even seal the border at a time when the numbers of people being apprehended crossing illegally are down to their lowest level since 1971.

. . . Mr. Trump’s comments on Tuesday came after he kicked off his third consecutive day of tweeting about America’s “weak” border laws and called on Congress to act on legislation to toughen immigration laws. The push comes as Mr. Trump has complained with increasing urgency about a large group of migrants from Honduras that has been traveling through Mexico.

The caravan has been a popular topic on Fox News — the president’s favorite news network — and his aides have argued that weak immigration policies are luring the migrants from Central America to the United States.

“The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our ‘Weak Laws’ Border, had better be stopped before it gets there,” he tweeted on Tuesday. “Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. Congress MUST ACT NOW!
​

Here are some photos of the bad hombres bearing down on us in such a frightening way that Trump thinks only the vaunted US military can protect us:

Now, before you start with me, yes I understand we have a border, and we're entitled to let in only those we choose to allow. That's fine. We don't have an open border, no matter how many times wingnuts claim we do. This will surely end badly for most of these people, and we can only do so much.

What's got me going is that Trump apparently believes (probably correctly) that this is just the sort of thing that will animate his base -- just as Fox has apparently concluded (probably correctly) that coverage of the dirty brown swarm will inflame its aging right-wing audience. And that the Fox & Friends crowd will be delighted to learn that the powerful US military might be enlisted to repel these insidious brown invaders.

No one seems to take any notice that these are desperate vulnerable families fleeing deadly violence of the sort that's unthinkable to us. Leaving behind what little they had, they've ventured a dangerous trek across Mexico -- where they'll be preyed upon along the way -- in the faint hope that someone will maybe give them a small chance at the sort of lives we take for granted. It's a Hail Mary pass by people who are out of options.

So yes, maybe we can't allow the 1,200 prospective immigration law violators into the country. But this is a tragedy. It busts me up to see these poor families with kids making such a hopeless play out of unspeakable desperation. Not a single thing about it makes me happy. And to get to my real point, not a single bit of it helps me to feel any empathy for the Trump-supporting assholes who get animated about this in the worst possible way.

It's a shame that a group that organized and motivated couldn't find a way to make their own country a better place to live... Maybe that's impossible; I don't pretend to know..., but when I see groups like this I always wonder...

 

[toastedbread]

It's a shame that a group that organized and motivated couldn't find a way to make their own country a better place to live... Maybe that's impossible; I don't pretend to know..., but when I see groups like this I always wonder...

You were lucky to be born in the USA. I refuse to look down upon anyone who happened to be born in the wrong place due to a roll of the dice. If I was born in Somalia, I would be fleeing.

 

[iu_a_att]

No, the GOP was fine with Cuban refugees. The Trumpian base overlaps, but is not coextensive with, the GOP writ large.

As several conservatives on this forum have argued, part of the Trumpian revolt is due to the GOP ignoring said base on these issues.

I do think at the root of all this is a lifeboat ethics though...it is the real root of identity politics. People are acting like they feel their very survival is in question.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I do think at the root of all this is a lifeboat ethics though...it is the real root of identity politics. People are acting like they feel their very survival is in question.

Lifeboat ethics explains why to limit the number of passengers. White resentment explains why to give potential passengers a melanin test. These are two different phenomena.

 

[76-1]

You were lucky to be born in the USA. I refuse to look down upon anyone who happened to be born in the wrong place due to a roll of the dice. If I was born in Somalia, I would be fleeing.

Not looking down..., just wondering... That many people could seemingly be a force for positive change... Of course they'd need to be armed to be able to protect themselves...

 

[IUBBALLAWOL]

Why did BHO send troops to the border? Was he defending us from “dirty brown people”?

 

[iu_a_att]

Lifeboat ethics explains why to limit the number of passengers. White resentment explains why to give potential passengers a melanin test. These are two different phenomena.

Lifeboat ethics is about coalitions--tribes. If you want to stay in the boat you gotta make common cause with some others on the boat to stay in. This all seems pretty primal stuff.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Lifeboat ethics is about coalitions--tribes. If you want to stay in the boat you gotta make common cause with some others on the boat to stay in. This all seems pretty primal stuff.

Hardin's logic isn't based on tribalism. Tribalism is certainly one way to put it into practice, but it's not a necessary element. There's something else behind that, in real life.

 

[RBB89]

It's a shame that a group that organized and motivated couldn't find a way to make their own country a better place to live... Maybe that's impossible; I don't pretend to know..., but when I see groups like this I always wonder...

Are you serious? Things are hardly that simple.

 

[iu_a_att]

Hardin's logic isn't based on tribalism. Tribalism is certainly one way to put it into practice, but it's not a necessary element. There's something else behind that, in real life.

Hardin doesn't say so but Hardin's logic is inevitably tribal. You live only if you can secure a place in a lifeboat. Let's suppose you, me and Rock are in a boat that comfortably only holds two. That situation quickly turns into two against one, the RockGoat tribe is born and att is at great risk of swimming and definitely get to do most of the rowing and fending off of those trying to climb in. By the way the SPLC calls Hardin a white nationalist.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Hardin doesn't say so but Hardin's logic is inevitably tribal. You live only if you can secure a place in a lifeboat. Let's suppose you, me and Rock are in a boat that comfortably only holds two. That situation quickly turns into two against one, the RockGoat tribe is born and att is at great risk of swimming and definitely get to do most of the rowing and fending off of those trying to climb in. By the way the SPLC calls Hardin a white nationalist.

You are confusing allegiances with tribes. Tribes are one way to form allegiances, but they are not the only one.

(And, for the record, ethnicity is only one of multiple ways to form tribes.)

 

[iu_a_att]

You are confusing allegiances with tribes. Tribes are one way to form allegiances, but they are not the only one.

(And, for the record, ethnicity is only one of multiple ways to form tribes.)

Here are the kinds of things Hardin says:

"Promoters of more diversity maintain that the more immigrants the better; and the greater the variety the richer America will become. Many of these promoters are ‘Europhobic' — fearful of, or revolted by, European civilization and values. They say we should stop taking in North Europeans, urging us instead to solicit the Filipinos, the Taiwanese and the Salvadorans… . Diversity is the opposite of unity, and unity is a prime requirement for national survival.”
—“How Diversity Should be Nurtured,” The Social Contract, 1991

“During the first part of the 20th century, immigration to the United States was biased to favor those who were most like the people who created this legal entity — the northern Europeans. … Then popular anthropology came along with its dogma that all cultures are equally good and valuable. To say otherwise was to be narrow-minded and prejudiced, to be guilty of the sin of ethnocentrism… . That which was foreign and strange, particularly if persecuted, became the ideal. Black became beautiful, and prolonged bilingual education replaced naturalization.”
—“Conspicuous Benevolence and the Population Bomb,” Chronicles, 1991

“The Ford Foundation (and other organizations financed by American money) have allotted many millions of dollars to nondemocratic Latino organizations that are determined to revise the political structure of the United States. … We have no reason to suppose that suicidal political organizations will never succeed in creating a chaotic NorteAmericano Central. The human species may not self-destruct; but what we like to call ‘human civilization’ may.”
—“The Persistence of the Species,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1999

“My position is that this idea of a multiethnic society is a disaster. That's what we've got in Central Europe, and in Central Africa. A multiethnic society is insanity. I think we should restrict immigration for that reason.”
—Interview with The Social Contract, 1997​

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here are the kinds of things Hardin says:

"Promoters of more diversity maintain that the more immigrants the better; and the greater the variety the richer America will become. Many of these promoters are ‘Europhobic' — fearful of, or revolted by, European civilization and values. They say we should stop taking in North Europeans, urging us instead to solicit the Filipinos, the Taiwanese and the Salvadorans… . Diversity is the opposite of unity, and unity is a prime requirement for national survival.”
—“How Diversity Should be Nurtured,” The Social Contract, 1991

“During the first part of the 20th century, immigration to the United States was biased to favor those who were most like the people who created this legal entity — the northern Europeans. … Then popular anthropology came along with its dogma that all cultures are equally good and valuable. To say otherwise was to be narrow-minded and prejudiced, to be guilty of the sin of ethnocentrism… . That which was foreign and strange, particularly if persecuted, became the ideal. Black became beautiful, and prolonged bilingual education replaced naturalization.”
—“Conspicuous Benevolence and the Population Bomb,” Chronicles, 1991

“The Ford Foundation (and other organizations financed by American money) have allotted many millions of dollars to nondemocratic Latino organizations that are determined to revise the political structure of the United States. … We have no reason to suppose that suicidal political organizations will never succeed in creating a chaotic NorteAmericano Central. The human species may not self-destruct; but what we like to call ‘human civilization’ may.”
—“The Persistence of the Species,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 1999

“My position is that this idea of a multiethnic society is a disaster. That's what we've got in Central Europe, and in Central Africa. A multiethnic society is insanity. I think we should restrict immigration for that reason.”
—Interview with The Social Contract, 1997​

Well, if those aren't taken out of context, then Hardin is an idiot.

 

[iu_a_att]

Well, if those aren't taken out of context, then Hardin is an idiot.

Wouldn't call the fellow an idiot. Just a really great illustration of how the logic of lifeboat ethics leads essentially to tribalism. I think we often incorrectly reduce the lifeboat ethic anxiety to something like "economic anxiety". Lifeboat anxiety is existential.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wouldn't call the fellow an idiot. Just a really great illustration of how the logic of lifeboat ethics leads essentially to tribalism. I think we often incorrectly reduce the lifeboat ethic anxiety to something like "economic anxiety". Lifeboat anxiety is existential.

Then you are too kind.

 

[iu_a_att]

Then you are too kind.

We all have our flaws. To return to Rocks OP it seems to me that Trump, the GOP, the evangelicals and the NRA are all absolutely committed now to persuading the base that we are in a zero sum/lifeboat ethics kind of world. Those decrying identity politics should look in the mirror.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Apparently unhinged by Fox News reports about a horde of scary brown people headed this way, Trump says he'll send the most powerful military on Earth to defend us against them:

President Trump said on Tuesday that he planned to order the military to guard parts of the southern border until he can build a wall and tighten immigration restrictions, proposing a remarkable escalation of his efforts to crack down on migrants entering the country illegally.

Mr. Trump, who has been stewing publicly for days about what he characterizes as lax immigration laws and the potential for an influx of Central American migrants to stream into the United States, said he was consulting with Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, about resorting to military deployments.

. . . It was not immediately clear what Mr. Trump meant by the remarks, or what the rationale would be for deploying United States troops to patrol or even seal the border at a time when the numbers of people being apprehended crossing illegally are down to their lowest level since 1971.

. . . Mr. Trump’s comments on Tuesday came after he kicked off his third consecutive day of tweeting about America’s “weak” border laws and called on Congress to act on legislation to toughen immigration laws. The push comes as Mr. Trump has complained with increasing urgency about a large group of migrants from Honduras that has been traveling through Mexico.

The caravan has been a popular topic on Fox News — the president’s favorite news network — and his aides have argued that weak immigration policies are luring the migrants from Central America to the United States.

“The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming across Mexico and heading to our ‘Weak Laws’ Border, had better be stopped before it gets there,” he tweeted on Tuesday. “Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. Congress MUST ACT NOW!
​

Here are some photos of the bad hombres bearing down on us in such a frightening way that Trump thinks only the vaunted US military can protect us:

Now, before you start with me, yes I understand we have a border, and we're entitled to let in only those we choose to allow. That's fine. We don't have an open border, no matter how many times wingnuts claim we do. This will surely end badly for most of these people, and we can only do so much.

What's got me going is that Trump apparently believes (probably correctly) that this is just the sort of thing that will animate his base -- just as Fox has apparently concluded (probably correctly) that coverage of the dirty brown swarm will inflame its aging right-wing audience. And that the Fox & Friends crowd will be delighted to learn that the powerful US military might be enlisted to repel these insidious brown invaders.

No one seems to take any notice that these are desperate vulnerable families fleeing deadly violence of the sort that's unthinkable to us. Leaving behind what little they had, they've ventured a dangerous trek across Mexico -- where they'll be preyed upon along the way -- in the faint hope that someone will maybe give them a small chance at the sort of lives we take for granted. It's a Hail Mary pass by people who are out of options.

So yes, maybe we can't allow the 1,200 prospective immigration law violators into the country. But this is a tragedy. It busts me up to see these poor families with kids making such a hopeless play out of unspeakable desperation. Not a single thing about it makes me happy. And to get to my real point, not a single bit of it helps me to feel any empathy for the Trump-supporting assholes who get animated about this in the worst possible way.

I'm sure this doesn't fit Trump's preferred narrative but "United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified by international and federal law" (wiki), thus asylum seekers are not illegals.

Just throwing that out there because it might fit a lot of the people you're describing who trying to come here and thus "lifeboat ethics" seem to be irrelevant.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm sure this doesn't fit Trump's preferred narrative but "United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified by international and federal law" (wiki), thus asylum seekers are not illegals.

Just throwing that out there because it might fit a lot of the people you're describing who trying to come here and thus "lifeboat ethics" seem to be irrelevant.

If we're going to get all technical about it, not all "refugees" are "asylum seekers." Many of them are, but those terms are not synonymous.