[NY Times] Hillary Clinton (I paraphrase) hates immigrants!

either that or she is a racist . . . am I doing this right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/world/europe/hillary-clinton-migration-populism-europe.html

interesting how the online article title is different than that of the print version.

 

stick to the thread topic

 

that would be no fun though

 

I thought that was the whole point of the D&D

Spoiler

 

Clinton apparently has confused people on all sides of the issue:

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to The Guardian drew criticism and a dose of surprise from an array of scholars, pro-immigration advocates and pundits on both the left and right, some of whom were so perplexed by the comments that they wondered aloud whether Mrs. Clinton had perhaps misspoken. Mrs. Clinton, many said, has a long history of supporting refugees — a track record seemingly at odds with her recent remarks. Her immigration platform in the 2016 presidential election boasted that “we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them.”

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment on Thursday night.

“I was kind of shocked,” Eskinder Negash, the president and chief executive of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, said of Mrs. Clinton’s comments. “If she’s simply saying you need to cut down on refugees coming to Europe to ask for asylum because they have a well-founded fear of persecution, just to appease some right-wing political leaders, it’s just not the right thing to do.”​

 

well, there's stupid trolling, kind of done for its own sake and which I agree is mostly boring. and then there's "trolling" (you word), which is provocative in the good sense of the term, meaning 'to provoke'. Provocation is related to teaching, and particularly to effective teaching.

 

how do Clinton's appeals about the social "perils" of immigration differ from others' appeals about social perils of immigration? I take it this is why Clinton's remarks have people on both sides "confused," if that's the right word for it.

In the United States, President Trump has mobilized his base of supporters by focusing on what he calls the perils of immigration. He spoke frequently before the midterm elections about a caravan of immigrants traveling north toward the country’s southern border. Democrats agreed on a strategy of mostly ignoring that issue, but the party is divided on how best to grapple with immigration in general.​

 

and yet here you and I are, having a civil conversation on the topic for the first time ever

 

I would gently disagree that the "left" automatically is welcoming to strangers ("It's because the left can not separate itself from its own idealism. The left believes that the west should provide a home to persecuted people.") Phil Cafaro at Colorado State has notoriously argued for strict immigration laws out of a concern for the environment--and Cafaro is about as left as they come. see for example

https://www.researchgate.net/public...r_Reducing_Immigration_into_the_United_States

I think that's actually available but if it's paywalled I can try and get it to you if you'd like

 

no, he's definitely an outlier