Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Stephen Miller vs. Jim Acosta: No Holds Barred
Despite CNN’s protests, there might be a reason White House staffers don’t call on Jim Acosta more often. On Wednesday, the aggrieved correspondent had an intense six-minute back-and-forth with Trump aide Stephen Miller on the administration’s immigration reform plan. It got … testy.
Throughout the exchange, Acosta seemed less a reporter than a Democratic candidate. Who do you think got the better of the debate: Miller or Acosta?
Published in Immigration, Politics
BTW, Twitter Moments is not amused by Stephen Miller’s disrespect of the Emma Lazarus Statue of Liberty poem. They do throw Trump supporters a bone by attributing to us the argument that the poem is “technically not law”. Twitter Moments doesn’t actually concede the point that the poem does not have the force of law. I think their legal scholars are still researching that point. But at least they honestly conveyed a pro-Trump argument.
I was trying to offer constructive criticism, rather than getting down into the gutter on the Trump supporters’ ridiculous and economically ignorant policy proposals, but since you raised the issue:
The long-term effect of restricting immigration will be similar to increasing the minimum wage. The cost of food, clothing, and other basic necessities will increase as wages increase, with the exception that some jobs will become economically unsustainable and will be replaced through automation. This will disproportionately harm the middle class from both ends.
To be clear, Miller’s bill is expressly being sold as a program to increase wages. That is smart politically because Trump can probably get the leadership of both parties behind the bill. But it is simply ignorant to think that inflating wages through economic policy won’t have a devastating impact on prices. After a brief uptick in employment, the concomitant price increases and long-term decline in employment will hurt most of Trump’s supporters.
It is always surprising to me that anti-immigration conservatives, who normally understand that the Government cannot effectively manage the country’s economy, think Government intervention in the context of the labor workforce will have the effect intended.
I don’t think any informed individual thinks this proposal will become law. It needs 60 votes, which we don’t have. It’s a political move. That’s still allowed, right?
What is the political move meant to achieve?
Hey, will you please take this whole comment (not just the part I snipped) and turn it into its own post?
Watching my friends back in Canada, praise the policy cause its basically the one we have been using for over 30 years (similar to one used to be used by Europe), and we all agree its imminently sensible and will most likely not be passed, because Americans are not.
And watching people try to argue against it here, I am inclined to agree. Replacing the current unlimited demand for low wage workers, and then arguing that it will negatively effect prices. Rubbish I say. Utter rubbish.
Thanks for the perspective.
What is Acosta doing here, I wonder? It’s clearly either intentional fake news or he is unaware how atypical the policy is in the world. It’s common sense — but CNN and Acosta simply are doing this quite intentionally and it is to the detriment of the country and that’s why we know the media is the disloyal opposition.
The media is quite deliberately carrying out the talking points of the hard left. Acosta’s question and the way he presents it is proof.
In the age of trump, its not winning that matters so much as giving the appearance of fighting.
The Statue of Liberty is “hard left” now?
Stop it, Fred. If you heard Acosta, you know what Larry’s talking about. If you didn’t, step away from this conversation and go inform yourself.
Yes, Fred, libertarianism and open borders is being savaged over on Oblomov’s post.
I don’t speak for the administration, but the immigration issue was a central plank of the Trump campaign. I believe even you said that this was a commonsense plan. Getting liberals to argue against a merit based immigration system makes Trump look reasonable and liberals look unreasonable. I think we can all agree that when liberals argue that, for example, new immigrants should be allowed to have welfare benefits conservatives are winning the debate.
Anyone who is against it should be called out to say why they are. What could they possibly say? Because it would hurt Democrat politicians who need the votes of immigrants? Because it will hurt businesses who want cheap labor? Because they want to keep wages low? That last one could mean keeping prices low but it still doesn’t sound good. It should be as easy as child’s play for Republicans to win on this with some skilled politicking but it will never happen.
You’re distorting the proposal. Besides making it harder for low skilled immigrants to get green cards, the plan would make it easier for high skilled immigrants to get green cards. Besides reducing government spending, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that that would improve labor productivity and create jobs through entrepreneurship.
Are you accusing politicians of being cynical? I’m shocked…shocked! Energizing the base is necessary to win elections.
Once again my brilliance was truncated by the being logged in bug.
The terrible little poem on the plaque, might just be the first case Orwellian Artistic Adaption, Like the “Fearless Girl” statue on wall street changing the meaning of the charging bull.
The Statue of Liberty was never meant to be about the Immigration of People, but rather the Migration of ideals. The statue faces Europe, to enlighten the path of Europeans, not to come to America, but rather to bring American Ideas to them. you know the ones – Liberty, Justice, Opportunity – pursuit of happiness. To take root in Europe with the leadership of the American Example.
Its the Quintessential Monument to American Exceptionalism, and therefore the liberals must recast it, into a immigration siren. A femme fatale.
Thats what I think the Statue of Liberty means.
I have heard a number of discussions about Acosta’s behavior over the last few days. This morning while listening to The Editors podcast, it stuck me that Acosta was playing to an audience that he believes thinks of him as a hero because he, as white guy, stands up for them like a true hero. This audience is all in Acosta’s imagination and is a part of that bubble like ego that seems to drive his constant need to be seen and noticed. I suspect that his major complaint against Trump is not based on any political ideology, but, rather, the fact that Trump takes so much attention away from Acosta.
But that’s the thing: what makes America is the value we place on liberty, justice, and opportunity. That’s why I favor immigration. I want people to come here so they can have liberty, justice, and opportunity. I want people to be free.
That’s why the Statue of Liberty, which stands for those things, is symbolically tied to immigration and immigrants.
“Where’s the fetus going to gestate, you gonna keep it in a box?!”
Seems like we can make everybody happy: only allow in poor, tired, huddling people yearning to breath free who can also speak English.
There must be millions, English is spoken in more countries than any other language.
When it comes to immigration law, the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty has no bearing, and is being used only as a cynical emotional appeal.
I too want everyone to enjoy these freedoms, but at home. How much better would the world be, IF such freedoms where common, rather than rare? I want a France for the French, a Germany for Germans – give it 30 years, both countries will be gone.
Wow. I’m glad you cleared that up for us.
Look, one can make an emotional appeal without it being cynical. Persuasion is a double edged sword, reason and emotion.
I had to look that one up.
Fold
During all of this trans-talk, I can never get that priceless scene from The Life of Brian out of my head: “But why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?”
(Hmm . . . this should probably be in another thread. Sorry!)
You mean you want a small proportion of the worlds poor to be free. If you really wanted people to be free you would need to advocate for an American empire where we impose free enterprise, freedom of speech, etc. on all those many nations unable to arrange it for themselves.
I dont think anyone is rationally supporting the idea that these values should be imposed on the world, but rather that they be exported to the world to be embraced by the multitudes.
So I agree with you completely here, and I’m not a fan of this proposal. But I still think Acosta’s Statue of Liberty question was fundamentally dishonest.
Having prefaced the question with “American tradition when it comes to immigration,” that includes both our romanticized ideas about our immigrant roots as represented by the Statue of Liberty and our past century of restrictive immigration laws. The Statue of Liberty doesn’t say anything about banning all Asians, but we did that until 1952 (and effectively, really, until 1965). It doesn’t say anything about literacy tests, but those were implemented in 1917. It doesn’t say anything about allowing people in based on a six-part preference system prioritizing family connections and job skills, but that’s been a part of visa allocation in one way or another since the creation of National Origins Quotas in the 1920s. It’s a dishonest question.
Now, that said, this response (cut for space):
…is awful. It’s an attempt at dissembling. We have never required immigrants to speak English before they get here, and divorcing the Statue from immigration is laughably obtuse.
But what’s being discussed here is not exporting freedom to the world, it’s importing people to the U.S.
Fred wants people to come here so they can be free, but the whole world can’t immigrate to the U.S. — we don’t have room or welfare state enough to hold them. There have to be limits placed somewhere, don’t they? Assuming you agree that some limits are necessary, then the rational debate should be about what those limits should be. In such a discussion, emotional appeals are beside the point unless you find yourself debating someone who wants zero immigration. I’ve not seen anyone arguing for that in this thread.