Our immigration conversation is broken -- here's how to have a better one | Paul A. Kramer

How did the US immigration debate get to be so divisive? In this informative talk, historian and writer Paul A. Kramer shows how an "insider vs. outsider" framing has come to dominate the way people in the US talk about immigration -- and suggests a set of new questions that could reshape the conversation around whose life, rights and thriving matters.

[ThisisKyle]

They're not anti-immigrant they're anti-illegal immigrant

[FlashHazardous]

The debate isn't broken but his starting point is - not distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration and framing them as one is intellectually dishonest and part of why we we end up talking past one another on immigration. Beyond that, the rest of this TED talk is political and ideologically driven, with the usual colourful and emotive narrative you'd expect to hear on a campaign trail. The debate needs to take place, but we'll never reach a compromise so long as we mischaracterise and straw man each others starting positions.

[happyradish]

Immigration isn't even really the issue in a political landscape. I don't have an issue with immigrants at least, but there needs to be incentive for all immigration to be done legally. In a way that allows them to get in quickly, but reasonably. And above all, we need to know who's here. Enjoyed the talk.

[UnicyclDev]

He’s being very general and it’s not clear what he means by “immigrant” or “native”. Does he mean people who legally immigrate or illegally? Refugees? Is he talking about Europe, Asia, or Americas nativists? These are important nuances.

[Lunareon]

I found the question of responsibility especially important. How are our choices as a union, nation and individuals, responsible, directly or indirectly, for causing the conditions, which made immigrants/refugees leave their home? How are our legal immigration channels responsible for making people resort to illegal channels instead? How are our employment practices and work culture responsible for immigrants/refugees being unemployed and living on benefits? How is our own reluctance to interact with the immigrants/refugees responsible for their lack of integration? And lastly: how can we improve the aforementioned points?

[mrmike]

I knew a native American who had a bumper sticker on his truck that read (paraphrased) "So you've seen the new world. Now go home."

[SchoolfEnglish]

I like this video, and am sorry to see so many negative comments. As technologies develop and increase our abilities, so does the size of the space we regard as our own. A few hundred years it was a village, or a barony; it grew from there to being a dukedom, a bishopric or a even a principality; now it is most commonly the nation state. A few countries date back more than five hundred years, but many are much newer (Germany, Italy . . .), some have disappeared (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia . . .), others are struggling to be born or reborn (Scotland, Catalonia, Kosovo . . .). The big issues that face us - global warming, huge international corporations, international crime - are not manageable by nation states, and we need to move on to bigger groupings, and ultimately world-wide cooperation. We have already seen moves in this direction since the beginning of the last century. We need to stop thinking about them and us. There is only us. Thank you Paul, for your talk.

[doommaker]

Ah, yes, let's not do the "us vs them" debate. Now let me phrase the problem in a way that makes it good, compasionate guys vs bad, selfish other guys.

[TheMeanArena]

Illegal immigrants are not immigrants. Saved you a watch!

[lootnscoot]

14 minutes in before I was able to finally figure out he was talking bout illegal immigration. Why avoid saying it? IMHO it muddles your argument

[政斌-xk]

Fix your country before going to others, like me.

[Dagoth_brunn]

A small number of views and 100 comments, i already see where this is going

[OhNoBohNo]

Some thoughts:

I like this video a lot. I can see why people in the comments would be upset. I think the question really becomes about what we decide to do in terms of the 'right', legal way to immigrate. How can we make that fairer, more open, more encompassing for people in crisis situations, people who don't know/understand there IS a legal immigration system, etc. Less about the fear of being hunted, jailed, imprisoned. I wouldn't want that for native-born citizens, and I don't for immigrants, too.
- I don't think 'go home, stop invading our country' is a useful argument to stop people from coming or get anyone to go back. Many can't go home; just came to survive, not 'ruin American livelihood & culture'. I also don't feel its fair to instruct them to stay and 'work on fixing your country', because often these people are of significant disadvantage economically, politically, socially... It's not worth fault. But it's likely not their fault either.
- I see the argument of 'a country has a right to enforce its borders and rule of law.' Ok!- and it doesn't have to be open, but I'd like a more compassionate case-by-case analysis of entering the country than 'if they didn't enter through the proper channels it's illegal, and they should automatically leave.' I know there's a better, less cruel way than not giving them a chance to work towards legalization.
- I've seen Republican speakers agree to some of these things; there's a fairer compromise that works. But labeling it all as 'SJW leftist bs' doesn't move anything. It makes you feel better about an argument you don't agree with and you get 20 likes. Similarly, we should come from a place of understanding fear of the unknown, of stereotypes that have been spread about Central/South American people & immigrants; and understanding people concerned about their country, communities, & families. There's a place for compassionate conversation that lets people survive and have needs met.

[Netro]

"We were factual, so here is a bunch of untruths and red herrings." I don't think you understand why the debate is where it is.

[kenavila]

In the current debate of immigration policies it is essential to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration. I was hoping that the speaker would make that distinction but he never did. I don't know a single person (personally) that is not for immigration and integration done legally. Who does? If this presentation was under the pretense of legal immigration I would agree 100%. Except for the point that employers are terrorizing immigrants with the threat of turning them in to ICE....if they have papers and follow the laws then what have they to fear? It seems that the speaker is implying that the northern countries should not enforce any laws or requirements regarding immigration....that is foolish.

[HacknMate]

Yea, immigrants also build wealth but send it to their families in their country; not investing it in the country which gave them bread and freedom in the first place...

[MrChet]

California uses illegal immigration as a source of cheap labor. The state subsidies on leases fuels this practice even more.

[n.randall]

Here is one way to start it everyone will agree on
1st erect the wall
2nd remove Daca 1st
3rd remove them all.
Removal of all is the only way to go..
Have a conversation about that!!
Edit:: Bitchute is the chance for everyone to stop using ytube after dec. 10th. Thats the day ytube says they are dropping videos they see unfit to be on their platform. They say they have the right to reject any video although they also claim to be a public entity.

[remyllebeau]

Ask the Native Americans how immigration worked out for them.

[jkeboy]

lets hear from a meat packing plant employee from the 80's I'm about sick of these college professors telling me about disenfranchisement. no one in the US is against immigration we are against illegal immigration. Marshalltown IA.