Very interesting stuff! I will quickly live tweet this. The headline result is that @emilyekins and @AlexNowrasteh find similar results to Gallup's tracking poll, finding increasing support for immigration since about 2010. 1/n
This is mostly from Democrats, though note that despite increasing(ly loud) overt racism from the GOP, Republicans have not gotten more restrictionist over the past 20 years. @POTUS take note: embrace immigration! You have stable support from Democrats. 2/n
I'm here to tell you that "racist beliefs" and a "sincere interest in controlling the border" are, uh, not mutually exclusive. Turns out you can have a sincere racist interest in controlling the border! 3/n
You know what I'm just gonna trust the African Americans on this one over the white Americans who don't think it's racist. 🤷♂️ 4/n
Immigration expanders are more likely to know immigrants, more likely to live in dense areas, and are more likely to have higher education and higher incomes. But also more likely to be younger. I think there's a tension between being younger and having higher incomes? 5/n
A majority believe immigration is a human right! I did not expect anywhere close to a majority. But only a third want to eliminate all restrictions. Does this suggest we should be talking more about "freedom of movement" or "human right to migrate" instead of open borders? 6/n
I think "eliminate all restrictions" may just sound too strong. People may just want to ensure that the government can observe and manage the flow. 7/n
This is a libertarian framing. I'd love to see the oppositely primed question: "If more immigration meant greater economic growth and a larger tax base to support increased social spending, would you be more likely or less likely to favor increasing immigration?" 8/n
No commentary on this one. Just interesting stuff. 9/n
A majority supports simplifying legal immigration. Combine this with tweet 6 and consider this rhetoric: "We should support our government's capability to protect the human right to migrate by making legal immigration easier." We shouldn't be anti-government about this! 10/n
Interlude: Okay need to do some work. I'll pick this thread up later.
This is interesting because I think I'd answer "little control" because of the general observation that immigration restrictions tend to induce black market migration & alternative routes, and to halt cyclical migration. 11/n
cc @DataProgress for a survey with a question like this.
A majority of Republicans favor stripping children of their citizenship if their parents are illegal immigrants. 12/n
I'm scratching my head over the bimodality of this one. Why does the intruder/invader fraction go *up* moving from immigration moderates to immigration expanders?? 13/n
Okay so obviously Republicans are pretty gung-ho about deporting immigrants who say things they don't like (is this Cancel Culture?), but 42% of Democrats favoring deportation for immigrants who say Americans are racist is pretty distressing! 14/n
Interestingly, I agree with Republicans that voters should get a say in immigration policy. I just think that potential immigrants—as the most directly impacted parties—should number among the voters! 15/n
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, stream-of-conscious thread on liberalism, neoliberalism, politics, policy, and philosophy commencing here and going through the night. (There'll be long gaps and pauses) 🧵#NeoliberalShillBracket
Liberalism is values, practices, & institutions. Usual stuff: representative government, now w/ high suffrage democracy, tho that wasn't always the case. I think at this point liberalism requires democracy and without it—whatever may've been once true—it's not really liberalism.
Okay so rep. gov't and high suffrage democracy. Also markets; professional state bureaucracy, rule of law and a constitutional legal tradition; stable property rights and a welfare state. #NeoliberalShillBracket
If health and fitness, and professional development are middle-class striving, I guess I tend to see middle-class striving as a good thing, and something that doesn't *by necessity* have to be premised on exclusion and elitism.
The urge to better one's condition seems pretty valuable, alongside likely being a basic fact of human nature. Of course it occurs in a social context, which is riddled with various status hierarchies, many malign or toxic. We should fix the social context, not ditch aspiration.
Dreher is right about this. Gender & sexuality are both more fluid for more people than either conservative doctrine or the "born that way" school have supposed. Gender & sexuality are socially construed. *Of course* normalizing LGBTQ identities leads to more LGBTQ people.
It's remarkable that @roddreher thinks of himself as tolerant though. Characterizing a society with more LGBTQ people as "moral insanity", "Babylonian decadence", or the cause of "our dying civilization" is not tolerant. Maybe tolerance for him just means avoiding overt violence.
But it's neither tolerance nor pluralism to merely marginalize--look the other way *so long as* the queers keep hidden--but to drive a demonizing political backlash when LGBTQ folks have gained some cultural influence.
I think it's fair to be confused by all the definitions and vague boundaries of trans vs nonbinary vs genderfluid etc. The definitional overlap between trans and nonbinary arises precisely because we all want to avoid gender essentialism. 🧵
But to go from the regrettable-but-inevitable ambiguity of "transgender is an umbrella term" to "the medical establishment operates on kids to enforce gender conformity is a non-sequitur. It's also a conspiracy theory and basically a blood libel.
The image evoked here is a tomboy who gets gaslit by school counselors and activist doctors into believing she's really a boy and is then rushed into hormone therapy and surgery. This is just false.
Steady stream of these essays by "politically homeless" libertarians. This one by @ismurray. There is exactly one small-l liberal small-d democratic party and one antidemocratic white nationalist party in the US. I wish this choice weren't so difficult for libertarians. 🧵
The piece frets about regulating Big Tech, antitrust policy, and protectionism. Identity politics too, but I'll get to that. Look, I was a big @ewarren booster, but even I complain about her protectionism. But this is *inconsequential* compared to *preserving democracy*.
.@ismurray describes the basic political realignment and its global nature. This is basically correct, in my view.
Disappointing from @AmericanPurpose. There are no trans extremists. There are trans folks who want to live their lives. There is no "radical gender ideology" any more than there was ever a "homosexual agenda". It's a fabrication of the reactionary right to weaponize polarization.
The piece is full of lies and misrepresentation. For example, "trans women are women" does not mean trans women and cis women must be treated the same in all contexts and that's never been the claim. Not even all cis women are expected to be treated the same in all contexts!
We say trans women are women because absent some context where transness is specifically apposite, trans women are, well, women, and to insist on demarcating trans women as an intrinsically separate class is marginalizing. (Mutatis mutandis trans men.)