How Much Time/Effort Should be Spent Attempting to Find Compromise on Immigration?

I was actually talking with Doug earlier in the Immigration Systems, Security, & Enforcement thread about both of those things. A distrust of experts among some and an inability to engage in abstract thought among others. We need both BTW, expert opinion and some amount of abstract thought.

Mindlessly accepting everything that an expert tells you probably isn't a good idea, but if you're going to discount the experts then you really need to have a suitable contingency plan. Typically, if the current experts can't be trusted for some reason, one option is for people to become the experts themselves, but too often folks aren't willing to put in a fraction of the time/effort required for that, they simply choose to go with their gut instead, half-ass it, or replace the experts with uncredentialed individuals who appeal to emotion and or confirmation bias by simply telling folks what they want to hear. All of which can lead to some pretty poor decision-making.

That said, going back to the abstract thought angle, while its certainly important to understand things as they are, being able to understand them as we'd like them to be/as they could be is an important skill as well, as it will be difficult for one to achieve any sort of improvement in life if that improvement cannot be visualized. Problems arise however when people confuse one with the other. They take the world as it could be, and start to think that that's how it is, even when it isn't. One should always take extra care to start from a position of reality and fully understand their ideals as mere potential, accepting the fact that the current world may not reflect them.

Having a concrete idea of what one as an individual wants, coming up with a definitive compromise among peers, and retaining the ability to adjust either positions based on new information are not mutually exclusive traits. And I believe that the best way for one to come to understand at least some of the practical difficulties in implementing change to something like immigration is to actually attempt to come up with such a comprehensive solution.

Agreed. It is too often that people greatly oversimplify complex issues. And where the issues are somewhat complex, its really important that folks have a good understanding of the different aspects involved, and not simply try to come up with/push some magic bullet solution without thinking about all the implications and parts of the issue that solution doesn't cover... at least at a high level.

But understanding the full scope of the issue isn't enough. One also needs to consider what the different options are for handling each aspect, and spend some time coming to some conclusion on which of those options would be best. Like I mentioned before, folks don't need to go into every single detail about things or actually start writing up bills in the stead of the politicians... but they should be thinking about the issue a whole lot more than they seem to now. Its discouraging, when even after doing the work of clearly defining the different aspects and with help from the members, the options as well, I yet still can't convince members on this political forum to spend even 30 minutes to simply consider which of those options they prefer for each aspect. And this failure, on a political forum where one would think folks would be more engaged in such things. If folks aren't willing to fully consider the issue here, imagine how out of the loop the general public must be...

What can we do to convince our fellow citizens that this issue is something of which they should take a deeper interest in? A lot of people do seem to view the issue as important, but again, aren't willing to really learn about it, or spend time searching for compromise.

-Meta

 

Like I was telling AlphaOmega, I'm talking about both.

Basically any and all aspects of the immigration issue.
A comprehensive compromise bill should address all.
I.e. any and all items covered in the following threads:

What is the Most Important Immigration Category Needing to be Dealt With?
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Undocumented Immigrants & Visa Overstays)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigrants Wishing to Immigrate Legally)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigrants Who've Already Achieved Legal Status)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigration Systems, Security, & Enforcement)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Foreign Outreach/Other)

Obviously illegal immigration is illegal. That's why we call it illegal immigration.
The question is whether or not we should adjust things such as how illegal immigrants are dealt with,
how we go about preventing illegal immigration in the first place, and yes, also how we deal with legal immigrants.
And, given folks wont all agree on the answers, how much time we should spend trying to compromise with one another.

-Meta

 

Are you a Democrat? I assume not. After all, you seem to be implying that the current state of immigration is, all part of the Democrats' plan. But if not being a Democrat yourself, I'm not sure how you could say that. Just going off appearances alone, it seems to me that there are plenty of aspects about immigration which Democrats would like to see improved, including clarifying the status of Dreamers and how we handle asylum seekers to name just a few. Also, like any other political grouping, they, Democrats, are not a hive-mind; there are even some who seem to want improved border security measures put in place. And add to that, that even if you couldn't find common ground with most Democrats, there's still also the vast middle region of the political spectrum to consider compromising with.

But of course, its still true to say that nothing useful or beneficial will be done...that is, if no one bothers to actually try!

So given that, if a Democrat or some independent from the middle were to come to you in an attempt to initiate compromise, would you turn them down? And assuming you wouldn't, how long would you then spend trying to find an agreeable compromise position with them before giving up?

-Meta

 

Really? There's nothing at all wrong with the current immigration system?
There's nothing at all about it that you would like to see changed/improved?

I gave my own personal preferences for change in those links.
Well... for every one except for the last one (Foreign Outreach/Other), but I'll get to that one latter...

-Meta

 

Again, check the links I posted. The second post of each of these threads contains a full list of my preferences for change on each of the different subject sections in order, with my most preferred changes at the top of each list, as well as a short summary of why I feel the items listed at the top are the most important:
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Undocumented Immigrants & Visa Overstays)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigrants Wishing to Immigrate Legally)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigrants Who've Already Achieved Legal Status)
How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigration Systems, Security, & Enforcement)

And the seventh post in this thread contains a similarly sorted list of what I feel are the most important immigration categories needing to be dealt with:
What is the Most Important Immigration Category Needing to be Dealt With?

So now having seen what I think should be changed about our current immigration system, I ask, do you agree with me?
Would you yourself prioritize the changes in the same way that I did? And if not... if there are areas of disagreement, and you would prioritize things differently, would you yet be open to exploring potential compromise opportunities between the two of us and our disparate views? As surely, even if we disagree with each other on a few of the details, there must still be at least a few areas of overlap. So assuming the decision were just between us, would you be open to compromise? Or would you take a my way-or-the-highway stance?

-Meta

 

Short sighted? I think you may be misusing that phrase. Typically, short sighted refers to one who does not consider the future.
We were talking about 30 years in the past. Regarding the future, I certainly am giving plenty of consideration to that. I'm trying my darndest to get others to do the same. 30 years from now, do we want to be at this same impasse, facing the very same issues on immigration that we are now, that we have for the past 40-50 or how ever many years, or worse, facing some immigration-based catastrophe that arose because we were unable/unwilling to do anything about the persistent issues,... or do we want to come together in compromise, fix things now, and not have to worry about it as much 30 years out?

I do think the past should be considered too of course. Like I said, we need to take a look at where our predecessors failed and learn from their mistakes. But we should absolutely not use their failures as an excuse for us not to try. Not when there are plenty of options available to us that those predecessors likely never even considered. Again, start by making any new bill comprehensive/all-inclusive when it comes to immigration-based issues.

-Meta

 

I actually happen to want to see an end to the 2-party system myself...and for it to be replaced with a multi-party system comprised of more moderate groups as well as higher numbers of independents not affiliated with any party. But what you seem to be suggesting here is that the current state of immigration will lead to one-party-rule. And that that party wouldn't be a party you yourself favored. Given that, why do you seem to be against the idea of compromise? Are you so unwilling to compromise that you would rather just sit back and allow one-party-rule to take hold? I just don't see how that makes any sense.

You say that its "the progs" who don't want to compromise. But I'm asking you right here right now how willing you'd be to engage in compromise, and its coming across as though you're the one who doesn't want to compromise. So tell me, if a "prog", liberal, or even someone from the center of the political spectrum came to you and offered an opportunity for the both of you to try and find compromise, would you give compromise a try? Or would you turn them down? And if you were to try to attempt to compromise with someone, how long would try to find common ground before giving up?

-Meta

 

Are you implying that those who disagree with you will murder you if you try to compromise with them?
That's silly. You said you were going to go to the extreme, and you certainly did that, but what was the point?
Was the point just to illustrate that there are certain situations where compromise doesn't work?
If so, then fine, I accept that point, but how exactly does it apply to the immigration issue?
The vast majority of people are not threatening to murder one another over the immigration issue.

How is that an offer of compromise? Offering someone a mere two choices is not compromise.
Its the very my-way-or-the-highway type of thinking I was arguing against earlier.
If you think that that is what compromise is, its no wonder you reject it.
But true compromise involves give and take on both sides and does not involve threats of violence.
True compromise implies that everyone gets at least a little bit of what they want out of a deal even if not everything.

We are talking about a specific issue here. Immigration. And there is ample room for compromise on that subject for those who are willing to try.

-Meta

 

Yeah, that seems like a pretty good compromise to me too. But what can we do to get more of our fellow Americans to realize that exploring such compromise ideas is worth the effort? Currently, you, LM, Moon, SW, and myself are the only ones who've indicated a willingness to compromise in the poll. The other posters posting in this thread seem to be staunchly against the concept of compromise. 5 out of 15 total poll responses in favor of seeking compromise isn't really a promising stat. And there also seems to be a chunk of people who aren't at all interested in the topic to begin with. Any ideas on how we can more people to warm up to the idea of compromise?

-Meta

 

The current law is vague in some areas, and ineffective in others.
There are disagreements on how those inadequacies in the law should be handled.
That is why compromise on the issue is necessary.

-Meta

 

And we need to change that. Yes, many of the politicians in office now are uncompromising. But it is we the voters who put them there. It is we who keep them in office. We have control over things here, if we decide that we want politicians to compromise more, we can make it happen. Though of course you and I are just two individuals. What is required is that we not only support compromise and compromise candidates ourselves, but convince sufficient numbers of our fellow citizens to do the same as well.
Bottom line though is that the problem isn't going to just fix itself.

Again, we are the voters. We are the ones with control. We can decide ourselves that we are fed up with slogans. So why would we wait for anything, rather than acting ourselves? If enough of us were to start speaking out regarding the need for compromise, politicians in office now might start to take notice. And if that didn't work, we do always have the option of replacing politicians who refuse to compromise. But it will take a concerted effort. Every citizen ought to be ready and willing to do their part. Because again, the problem isn't going to fix itself. If anyone thinks that politicians are just going to up and start trying to compromise more if we simply wait for them.... spoiler alert! They wont...

-Meta

 

What is fairer than true compromise?

-Meta

 

Like I was telling Bridget, the current law is vague in some areas, and ineffective in others.
There are disagreements on how those inadequacies in the law should be handled.
That is why compromise on the issue is necessary.

-Meta