Digital Masta wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 11:26 pm
So, I want to understand your reply in relation to mine. If I understand it, the great replacement theory is the same thing as a person saying that they have concerns about illegal immigration and want people that do immigrate to assimilate to the culture?
This was a failure on my part, I didn't flesh out my response very well and I got caught up in correcting the misconception that the foundational concept of "Replacement Theory" contained an antisemitic element; which it does not.
I didn't mean to imply anyone who takes a skeptical approach to immigration and the various changing demographics, on top of the broader implications that spring from that, is subscribing to thte theory.
If that alone was at the heart of the concept, I would have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is the incessant fearmongering and demagoguery perpetrated nightly by talking heads - such as Tucker Carlson - who do genuinely subscribe to the belief( or makes a convincing show of it) that powerful institutions and organizations are working diligently to reorient entire generational voting blocs, all for the singular purpose of consolidating power. And that these voting blocs, primarily 3rd world immigrants, would constitute an unassailable majority sometime in the near future, thereby granting the supposed party behind this subtle manipulation plenary power at the ballot box to remake this country into something utterly unrecognizable.
I do believe that the Democrats want more immigration for votes, you'd have to be an idiot not to concede that's not a factor, but the idea that that is their primary purpose rather than simply a bonus is a bridge too far to me. I can't get on board this nativist fear Carlson taps into, because quite frankly I see it for what it is; a fear tactic to mobilize traditional voting bases. I don't even think he believes it, but he knows spewing that bile is an effective tool to rile up an already disenfranchised-feeling demographic.
That said, ultimately the argument is moot.
If immigrants overwhelmingly voted the other way, this entire conversation would be inverted.
This big debate we're currently having about the existential threat this poses has nothing to do with "Who does the voting" But rather "Who they're voting for".
Anyone who suggests otherwise is being brazenly dishonest.
Digital Masta wrote:
This is literally every country on earth. I can tell you that if Japan suddenly decided to make it really easy for foreigners to vote and run for office there would be some very large concerns from the population. Doing so would mean a much larger wave of foreigners coming into Japan and that will undoubtedly cause issues with social cohesion and assimilation and overall governance.
I agree it would be quite shocking for the country of japan, but in my opinion not for the reasons you think. Japan (as you know better than I do) is one of the most ethnically homogenized countries in the world, with (from the stat i can recall) 93% being ethnically Japanese. Of course a country like that would be more deeply impacted by looser immigration policies (although incidentally, Abe was a lot more Liberal on that subject than his predecessors during his tenure, i'm obliged to point out..... ) and would probably be the country most pointed to when discussing the inherent "Dangers" (in a hypothetical scenario in which Japan loosened its borders even more) of the policy.
The U.S is not japan, the U.S is the gold standard for what a melting pot should be. No other country in recorded history has assimilated more immigrants. One of my biggest culture shocks coming here in fact, was experiencing the casual way in which Americans talk about their genetic lineage. Nobody did that in Ireland, you didn't inject politely into conversation that you were "Half italian, quarter Mexican - quarter swedish" like it was just a completely normal thing to say.
That was what made America Unique, and that is what will continue to make it extraordinary.