Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,934
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
As for the second clause, "STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION", this is intentionally vague and dangerous rhetoric. It assumes of course, that there is a migrant invasion. There isn't, at least by any reasonable definition of "invasion". At best, that's a serious exaggeration, and its an exaggeration that puts innocent people at risk. For what I hope are obvious reasons, I oppose any use of militaristic language to refer to civilians, and this is obviously that. Just as "terrorist" is currently being used to justify the slaughter of a great many civilians overseas, it is setting us up for bloodshed to refer to American citizens or even guest workers and students as "invaders". It's all the more dangerous, because while I think most intelligent citizens ought to know that the term is rhetorical, it's obvious that a great many Americans don't, and truly believe that the number of attempted migrations into the country has risen because some enemy state actor is sending them with the intention of undermining the state. As long as this conspiracy theory is active and popular in the right wing media, using the term at all is tantamount to calling for a witch hunt. It's illegal to attack your "neighbor" unprovoked. But doesn't every citizen have a right, even a responsibilty, to repel foreign "invaders"? It also risks putting our political alliances and business partnerships in the "invading nations" in jeopardy. At a time when multiple other rising global superpowers are actively recruiting, trying to steal away our former alliances and subvert those nations' politics toward their own ends, treating our existing allies as though they were already our enemies is really fucking stupid.
The other problem is, of course, that abruptly ending all migration into the country is both an obvious practical impossibility, and an act that would collapse our economy in a matter of weeks if it were somehow accomplished. Once again, that cannot be what he means, but it is what he says. And not just says, but makes point number one in his 20 core statements. It's a dangerous thought to be setting at the veyr center of his domestic policy agenda. And as we will see, several of his other points flow from it. Such as:
The other problem is, of course, that abruptly ending all migration into the country is both an obvious practical impossibility, and an act that would collapse our economy in a matter of weeks if it were somehow accomplished. Once again, that cannot be what he means, but it is what he says. And not just says, but makes point number one in his 20 core statements. It's a dangerous thought to be setting at the veyr center of his domestic policy agenda. And as we will see, several of his other points flow from it. Such as:
Last edited:
