The Great Skittles Non-troversy

By Kyle Becker – Re-Blogged From http://www.IJR.com

[There’s a Skittles comparison bruhaha going on. This video was from quite a few years ago. -Bob]

The video masterfully demonstrates the problem with massive immigration to the United States, and the more effective strategy of exporting freedom and democracy around the world to improve people’s quality of life. Gumballs, Skittles, there’s something about immigration controversy that lends itself to candy analogies.

CONTINUE READING –>

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “The Great Skittles Non-troversy

  1. What’s controversial here? To start with, Mars Incorporated was quite right – Skittles is candy, and refugees are people. The intention of the analogy is to turn people into objects, because objects are easier to fear. It’s impossible to be cruel to candy.

    The crude correlation between poisoned food and people goes back far – as far as the Nazis (who used the idea of Jews being poison mushrooms).

    We can have intelligent discussions about refugees, immigration and threats to safety, without pretending that refugees will automatically become killers. But if we lead with our emotions, we can’t make any sense at all.

    Statistically speaking, Americans are in far more danger from each other, than from immigrants. Crime rates drop when immigrants move into a neighborhood – whether they are legal or illegal. Furthermore, the mythical “illegal immigrant as terrorist” plans to risk his/her life and limb, and to break countless laws in the name of outrage and sowing fear. Illegal immigration would be just one small barrier for such a person to overcome.

    What we do, when we turn the outremer into a danger, is prevent our nation from benefiting from what immigrants bring to America – a benefit that every previous generation of American has used to good end.

    Perhaps this topic is too personal for me. My mother was “A Poisoned Mushroom” in Hungary – and was a concentration camp survivor as well. When she and her brother came to America, it was in poverty and illegally. But within a decade or so, my mother was working in a cutting-edge hematology lab at Columbia University, and her brother went on to found multiple businesses that employed hundreds of people. As I grew up, I had the joy and pleasure of knowing immigrants from all sorts of nations and backgrounds – who went on to productive American lives.

    I think we can address the legitimate fears we have, about within-American radicalization as well as the immigration of potential dangerous radicals, while still retaining our own humanity and respecting the humanity of those in need. Many of whom are trying to escape the same radicals that we despise.

    Like

    • Yes, my Grandpa escaped from the pogroms in Russia a hundred years ago. The difference between him and your mother versus, for example, refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, etc, is that the former wanted to assimilate into the local culture, while at least some of the latter don’t. Indeed, we DO see terror in the US from these groups, but especially throughout Europe, including rapes and other sexual harassment.

      Where the analogy comes in is that, unless we get to see up front (through proper vetting) who wants to come here, we’re playing with the lives of Americans. Without saying that any particular refugee is or is not worthy, my interest is, and should be, MY country. What analogy might you suggest?

      BTW, a question which has come up a number of times is, if they’re escaping persecution, then where are all the women & children and where are all the Christians who we know are being murdered? Why aren’t they among the refugees?

      Like

      • “…the former wanted to assimilate into the local culture, while at least some of the latter don’t.”

        I’m not sure of why, but it seems clear to me that you have decided that all such refugees and potential immigrants are completely different from (and far more dangerous than) historic immigrants or other forms of refugee. Or that enough of them are, that we can lump everyone together without fear of error.

        The facts don’t seem to suggest as much. The solid truth is that there are very few bad apples, that many of them are easily spotted, and that the people you are “lumping in” are in very great need, and are perfectly innocent. (And the bad apples won’t be stopped: if legal immigration is foreclosed, illegal immigration is a logical next step. Or simply using a tourist visa. A suicide bomber doesn’t plan to stay long…)

        SO: it comes down to making good decisions in the face of thoughtfully applied facts, or bad decisions based upon innuendo, fear and ignorance. All paths contain risks – it’s balancing them that is tricky. America has historically been massively strengthened by its immigrants. That is not a bad thing. I’m unclear why we should ignore the massive proven benefit of immigration and assimilation – over a fear that is being greatly exaggerated.

        Yes – there is a long history of America’s enemies attacking soft targets. To my historical knowledge, it goes back to at least WW-I. But racially profiling immigrants or citizens has been both rare, and widely held to be wrong.

        Like

  2. Yes, I agree more than you know! However,my concern over the potential harm which might be done by the few bad apples has me leaning more toward caution. I see little downside for the US (mostly missed opportunities), if we take a breather while considering options.

    Like

    • What would we do differently than we do now, after this “breather”? I understand current ICE policy is to take a long time, and is performed rigorously. Including reviewing and interviewing friends, family, references, social media history, scholastic history, etcetera.

      What sort of “improvement” would you expect to see introduced? (Never mind the lost opportunities, or the human suffering in the mean time.)

      Like

    • I’m unclear what you are asking. The deportation process is applied to people who come here illegally, perform criminal activity while they are here legally (but are not citizens), or who come here legally but overstay their visas. The citizenship process applies to people who have come here, legally or illegally, but apply for citizenship through a natural process.

      I suspect you are asking about two processes – one of which is the process by which non-resident aliens apply for citizenship (for which I believe the first step is to apply to enter the US) OR the process by which people seek asylum/protection. (Asylum has two paths – those who are not yet resident on US soil, and those that are.)

      It’s complicated. But my original point is that the process of application for citizenship is difficult in the extreme, and a great deal of checking takes place. The process of becoming a resident alien (legally here, but not a citizen) is also quite challenging. The process of visiting is quite simple.

      It’s that last step that I think most of our “extra cautious extreme vetting” people are missing. If I were an evil-actor coming to the US to do harm – I’d get a simple six month visa, and try to do damage before the fifth month was over…

      Making student or visitor visas harder to get would have a very adverse impact on our economy.

      [In my answer I’m ignoring the entire “guest worker” and H1B procedures, because I don’t know much about them.]

      Like

    • Non sequitur, I think.

      We were discussing systems, their set up, and how they work. Every system can error.

      The value of that counter-example is not that the entire system is broken, or that we need to allow fear to overcome (Trump?) rational decision-making.

      The value of that counter-example is that we can learn from it, and make the existing system proof against similar mistakes.

      Like

  3. From what I can see, the system as it currently works is to all entry to any and all, the mostly good people but also the bad apples. Back in 2010 when I ran for Congress, I tried to address the then current immigrants, suggesting a test: If they had supported themselves without Welfare & Food Stamps, and if they had not gotten into trouble with police, then they should be allowed to stay with payment of a fine (or public service) as the penalty for being here illegally. Welfare, Food Stamps, & Arrests would call for deportation.

    But now we come to the current open border situation. I agree that we should let a lot of people immigrate – it helps the US. However, until we can develop a way to vet them (all of them), I’d like to not rush to admit people, some of whom want to destroy us.

    Like

    • I may be a bit more familiar with the process than you are. Only through reading.

      Very few of the “improvements” that people suggest, are improvements. Most of the good ideas are already implemented.

      That’s not to say that the process cannot be improved. It’s just that so many people, in ignorance and fear, assume that the process is a lot more faulty and laissez-faire than it truly is.

      The US does not have open borders, as anyone who travels can attest. OK, that’s not fair: major ports, airports, and land-roadways/bridges are heavily regulated. The Northern land border is reasonably open (physically). But there seems to be little complaint about that. The Southern land border is heavily patrolled and guarded. For some reason, that’s the one people complain about.

      I suspect a great deal of that faux concern is racial. I can’t count the times I’ve said “my mother was an illegal immigrant”, and people wave it off. She was Euro-White, as am I.

      Like

  4. The southern border may be heavily patrolled and guarded, but I’ve seen videos of people just walking across unrestrained. And while I doubt that many crossings are by people who want to blow us up (from central & south American countries), if the border really is open, I don’t know how many non-hispanics who do want to blow us up are coming across. And, I don’t like paying to bring in (eg) Syrian refugees (mostly muslim) without vetting. I think there’s a good chance that Sharia and the Constitution are incompatible, so why should I risk losing what I’ve got?

    Like

    • You have “seen a video”… So: how often does it happen? How often do they fail?

      By whatever standard you might want to measure, that border is tightly patrolled. Border Security staffing has greatly increased over the last few years, sensors, towers, drones and walls have been deployed.

      Is it impenetrable? No. It’s not water or air tight.

      Syrian refugees undergo substantial vetting. Don’t believe me: look into it. Their backgrounds are heavily checked. http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/12/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works
      (Heritage is a conservative think tank – no wishy-washy people there.)

      Sharia law is as compatible with US Law as Judaic Law, Catholic Canon Law, and other religious doctrine. As long as one keeps Constitutional principles in mind for the establishment of religion.

      One of my concerns about American politics (Hello, Mike Pence, I’m looking at you too) is that a strong part of the Republican Party wants to elevate religious law and doctrine OVER the people of the United States and the US Constitution. These Far Righteous are dangerous to our basic founding principles.

      If we can continue to maintain basic Constitutional Principles of Freedom of Religion, and elevate US Law over doctrinal religious squabbles, it doesn’t matter which doctrinal religious squabbling you happen to personally prefer.

      Like

  5. Yes, I’m with you on wanting to keep religion out of politics (beyond just right vs wrong).

    Thanks for the Heritage link. However, they say only 2000 Syrian refugee referrals from the UN have been accepted, but that doesn’t square with Obama’s boast that he already has let in 10,000 Syrian refugees.

    As for the border security, I understand that the number of illegal immigrants in the US is over 12 million (obviously not all under Obama), so I expect it will take more than small changes to staunch the flow.

    Like

    • There is no telling when the article was written – but it seems to conform to what I know about current policy. (I found other recently dated articles – but I felt as if one from Heritage would be easier for you to credit. Search if you want to see more.)

      The “12 million” estimated illegal immigrants may not be related to border security. A person with a B-1 or B2 tourist visa, or who comes here form a visa-waiver country, is LEGAL for 90 days. Many of them are quite welcome as tourists or businessmen. Such a person becomes an illegal immigrant on the 91st day (barring extensions). I believe, for example, that the 9/11 attackers all entered the US legally, and did not overstay their visas.

      The US Southern Border security (or lack) isn’t going to address your concerns. Neither are legal immigration or visitors. Applicants for permanent resident status or citizenship status aren’t the concern. Your fear is not groundless – it is merely both exaggerated, and misapplied.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s