At a gathering of photojournalists in California there was a presentation of photos and stories about immigrants from Afghanistan living in Sacramento. These folks typically got here because someone in their family had worked as an interpreter for the U.S. military or “were doctors, diplomats or engineers” somehow affiliated with our endless war. In other words at least one family member was fluent in English before arriving in California. Despite this advantage compared to many immigrants, the Sacramento Bee journalist told us that these 2,000 Afghans settled in Sacramento County are doing badly, consistent with the story saying “Professionals in their own country, they have been relegated to the American underclass, enduring poverty and crime.”
The audience vocally concluded from watching the slides and hearing the stories that our government needs to do a lot more for these folks (beyond the public housing, free unlimited health care, free cell phone, and food stamps to which they are already entitled). I pointed out that a Donald Trump supporter might conclude from the same story that we shouldn’t be accepting immigrants from Afghanistan if they can’t prosper here in the U.S. If they needed protection from their former neighbors, the Trump supporter would suggest that they be resettled in a culturally compatible country with a low cost of living (so as to reduce the burden on the American taxpayer).
This prompted a discussion amongst the 60 audience members as to whether anyone had a personal acquaintance with a Republican. For most of them it seems that the answer was “no” and therefore that they relied on conjecture and the press for what might motivate someone to resist Hillary Clinton (standard conclusion: voters who don’t support Hillary are stupid, sexist, and racist, in that order).
There was also a follow-up from a 2005 story regarding an Iraqi boy who came to Oakland for medical treatment. His entire family emigrated to the U.S. so now there are five kids, one of whom suffers from a permanent disability, and two adults being supported by the father’s paycheck as a truck driver plus any welfare (public housing, Obamacare, etc.) to which they are entitled. Only a racist would ask “How can we generate per-capita economic growth if we bring in foreigners who earn a below-median wage?” and therefore nobody raised the subject of whether this had been a wise investment of tax dollars.
Separately, a top German photographer whose specialty is scientific subjects was present as well. Although he says that immigration has rendered Germany unrecognizable even compared to a year or two ago, he supports the current government and Angela Merkel because “They really had no choice. A friend was sitting at his farm near the Austrian border and his son said ‘Dad, look at the woods.’ Out of the forest came a swarm of migrants who walked across the farm. After they were gone not a single sheep, chicken, or any other animal remained. It was like a locust swarm. Merkel recognizes that the only other option is to shoot people at the border and she is making the best of a bad situation.”
What did the future look like from this German’s perspective? “When I talk to scientists privately they say that the Earth can sustain about 2 billion people. We will soon have 10 billion so that means that either the human race goes extinct or about 8 billion people will die.” [Readers: Can he be right about the best estimates of a sustainable human population for the planet? China seems sustainable, if not a pleasant place to live for many of its citizens, and yet it supports 1.3 billion people on much less than half of the Earth’s land surface. Perhaps they are sucking ground water dry?]
Environmentalism was a popular theme for the photojournalists at this gathering and the environmentalists all agreed that the growth of human population was the primary reason that the environment is being trashed. Yet none of them (all Hillary supporters) raised a hand to ask “Why would we want to work to increase the U.S. population through immigration and guarantees to provide housing, food, and health care to however many children an immigrant family (or low-income native-born family) chooses to have?” (A lot of these folks had chosen not to have children or had been working so hard that the female partner’s fertility was inadvertently exhausted. So it seems that they are doing something truly altruistic in working to save the planet for the benefit of others’ children and grandchildren.)
I’m wondering if this is one reason why poll numbers have barely moved despite a lot of media coverage of the relative merits of various candidates. Americans with different political affiliations will look at the same story and come to opposite conclusions about what should be done. People complain about what the media does but perhaps it has almost no influence at all regarding the big issues (can still do a lot with stories centered on soundbites, e.g., Trump’s unfiltered comments on hypothetical women).
Full post, including comments 
