Hi, you’re definitely right about Obama and most other Democrats but they are not leftist (more like center-left, American liberals), and not operating on this revisionary sense of justice and fairness.
As of today I see the “left” position or justice position is to treat asylum seekers and illegal immigrants humanely.
That’s definitely a huge part of it, however my worry is that the realities of how they push these politics could have a bad effect of increasing right-wing hostility to legal immigration and preventing policymakers from compromising on comprehensive immigration reform. Let’s be clear—altruistic minded people want to treat them humanely too, we are comparing them to each other not comparing them to what America has actually been doing.
An “altruistic” position might be to pass a quick bill, no political strings attached, giving funding to CBP to just improve the conditions at the camps and expedite processing, leaving bigger decisions for later. The “justice” position could be to fight tooth and nail to abolish CBP/ICE instead. Which is better? Eh, I have some personal sympathies, but at the end of the day I don’t have the confidence to declare it.
An “altruistic” position might be to pass a quick bill, no political strings attached, giving funding to CBP to just improve the conditions at the camps and expedite processing, leaving bigger decisions for later. The “justice” position could be to fight tooth and nail to abolish CBP/ICE instead.
Thinking and talking about justice does not mean lack of pragmatics politics. One could point out the injustice of immigration law and still compromise.
Should we talk about altruism or talk about justice?
Since EA is not an electoral political movement, thinking in terms of justice makes more sense. This allows space to carefully think the world. Electoral politics are not good analogies for what EA should do.
Hi, you’re definitely right about Obama and most other Democrats but they are not leftist (more like center-left, American liberals), and not operating on this revisionary sense of justice and fairness.
I am thinking of people like:
https://sched.co/PKa6
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/D5jX3pcWAAEo8Iv_shadow-1024x689.jpg
etc.
That’s definitely a huge part of it, however my worry is that the realities of how they push these politics could have a bad effect of increasing right-wing hostility to legal immigration and preventing policymakers from compromising on comprehensive immigration reform. Let’s be clear—altruistic minded people want to treat them humanely too, we are comparing them to each other not comparing them to what America has actually been doing.
An “altruistic” position might be to pass a quick bill, no political strings attached, giving funding to CBP to just improve the conditions at the camps and expedite processing, leaving bigger decisions for later. The “justice” position could be to fight tooth and nail to abolish CBP/ICE instead. Which is better? Eh, I have some personal sympathies, but at the end of the day I don’t have the confidence to declare it.
Thinking and talking about justice does not mean lack of pragmatics politics. One could point out the injustice of immigration law and still compromise.
Since EA is not an electoral political movement, thinking in terms of justice makes more sense. This allows space to carefully think the world. Electoral politics are not good analogies for what EA should do.