Charlie Kirk was killed by someone because he had an apathy for gun violence in education which, inevitably, then happened to him. In a way, the death of Charlie Kirk is an almost perfect encapsulation of his own beliefs.
If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
How is this a strawman? To quote Charlie Kirk, "I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational”
Maybe you should better understand the beliefs of people you willfully support? Is it not a bit embarrassing for you that strangers understand your proponents better than you yourself?
Regardless, there's something me and Charlie can agree on. His death was worth it.
You're really struggling with nuance. Yes, he judges the 2nd amendment dangers an acceptable tradeoff. That's a reasonable belief. He doesn't conceptualize school shootings et al as "freak accidents". That would be a ridiculous belief; it's a strawman. Neither is his death a freak accident. It's purposeful malignance.
Furthermore, I'm not a Charlie Kirk supporter. I don't agree with him on many or most things. I find many of his beliefs odious. The difference between me and you, is I don't think his death was worth it. It reflects a sickness in our society. A sickness that you are embracing. This Iowa university program seems directionally good, opposed to this sickness, and it was a shame that they are planning on making it mandatory.
Oh I don't embrace the sickness at all, I'm just pointing out that Charlie Kirk most definitely did embrace the sickness. He said it himself, many times and in many different ways.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. Well.. you should have taken it up with him, past tense. Nothing that can be done now.
Also consider that these "new people" are assets to our economy. They're tax payers, many are highly educated, and their presence over the last hundred years is the exact reason you have the privilege of being in a wealthy country. Seriously, how do people think the US became what it is?
Will sending these people away improve our economy? Because I doubt it. I mean, we've been doing mass deportations right?
Well... has the economy improved for you? Has your life gotten better after we dumped a few tens of billions into ICE? Because I'm still waiting.
When will that chicken come home to roost, do you think? I'd like to know so I can make a note of it and inevitably tell you "I told you so" when that day rolls around.
Maybe it'll be around the same time we get those tax refund checks from all the money DOGE saved.
"They're tax payers, many are highly educated," yes they have more purchasing power the day they arrive than I do after 4 generations.
That's not right and toxic for social cohesion. Your immigrant class should not be wealthier or have superior earning power to the native population. That's like a sociological time bomb.
The evidence for the need of immigration reform was always weak and, frankly, basically non-existent.
What happened was white people saw brown people coming in and got uncomfortable. That's it. The rest was just "fill in the blank" reasoning. Something something medicare, something something housing... eh yeah that's good enough we need immigration reform!
But that's been happening in the US for many generations now. That's just how the US works; we get a lot of immigrants and they become US citizens. If not them, then their kids. Yeah, welcome to America.
Sweden is a white hegemony, the US is not and has never been. It's not a fair comparison when the US has literally always been composed of immigrants.
If you want a white hegemony, move to goddamn Sweden and leave us alone. That's not the US and to suggest otherwise is anti-American and ahistorical. If you clearly hate what this country stands for, then please do yourself and everyone else a favor and leave. Jesus Christ.
The implication for Trump and his constituency is that this only applies to brown people. White people are, naturally, not immigrants, even when they are. That's why 100% of the examples Trump would use would be of brown people.
Okay but this has not been the case in the US and everyone knows that. We can try to make things up to rationalize why this being done.
Or, we can be honest, and acknowledge these actors have proven themselves to be irrational. What is happening is that an end-goal is desired, and then the trump administration is working backwards to make it happen.
The "only" is doing A LOT of heavy lifting. Also, you're being a bit dishonest here, because this does not only apply to H1B visa holders.
Also, are those people not the exact demographic that so-called "anti illegal" Republicans should want? They're highly educated and desirable, not welfare queens right?
I will repeat my point. You have been lied to. The Republicans do not give even a single shit about what is legal and what is not. What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it. Any other interpretation is just not reasonable at this point, with the evidence we have been given.
> What they desire is less brown people, and then they work backwards to justify it.
Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.
I am from India. Indians themselves have preferences for the kind of people they'd like to allow to immigrate to India. Bangladeshi muslims are not desired, whereas Tibetans are welcome. Intra-regional migration is a problem within India itself, with certain populations being seen as less desirable in certain areas.
Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?
We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.
> If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability
Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
> that a normal person, or a group of normal people
> Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.
I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?
Nobody said it is their fault. But it is their responsibility.
United States immigration policy is supposed to benefit the United States. It doesn't need to be fair.
The US can bomb a country if it's in US interests, and then deny immigrants from that country if that immigration is not in US interests. It really is that simple.
I never said that they can't bomb a country or deny immigrants. They certainly can and are. I also never said that it needs to be fair.
I'm saying its ridiculous to be mad when people are trying to immigrate to your country for a better life and you're tell them to go back to their country & fix it when you're the one(or your close friends are) actively making it worse on purpose. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in this.
I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.
> Which is a perfectly fine thing by the way. I can't see anything wrong with it. If the Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, that is entirely their prerogative. It's their country, after all.
Which Americans? Whose country is it that "their" is referring to here?
I'm from India too. It's disingenuous to say things like "Bangladeshi Muslims are not desired" and not mention the massive backlash the Citizenship Amendment Act received. It's almost as if people recognize arbitrary discrimination is the opposite of just.
Attitudes like yours - justifying entitlement without holding its corruption accountable - is why people have to leave their home countries: their own insufferable countrymen.
Nobody would care about this if it didn't affect H1B. The confusion is whether h1b is a temporary visa or some kind of stepping stone. According to the immigration act of 1990 and US law it's a temporary visa and subject to this rule.
For example O-1 is not affected because O-1 is not considered a temporary visa in US law.
O-1 also has no cap. The USA can take in unlimited O-1 immigrants.
If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.