Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[rjs330]

I've heard this brought up before...but in practical terms, for Democrats, picking someone who's not as popular with the far-left isn't going to yield them any net losses.

Biden wasn't the far-left's first choice either, but they all still backed him over Trump.

It's like I said before, the exercise should be trying to get the people you don't have yet, not trying to impress the people who were already going to vote for you anyway.

There's absolutely 0 risk of Kamala not winning the deep blue states no matter who she picks as her running mate.

So why not roll the dice on someone who may be able to connect better with different types of people?

For the record, I think any of the people that were on "the short list" for VP were going to end up "upstaging" Harris to a certain degree in terms of charisma and coming across as sincere (Walz certainly comes across as more sincere that her when he's on stage)

I think they believe America is ready go far left and they wanted a team that could take us there. I don't think it was at all to appeal.to anyone specifically. They think they are going to win and get America to go all in for socialism.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think they believe America is ready go far left and they wanted a team that could take us there. I don't think it was at all to appeal.to anyone specifically. They think they are going to win and get America to go all in for socialism.

You are partly right, in my opinion. They do believe America wishes to move forward on social issues such as abortion, health care and equal rights for all Americans.

Where I disagree is that they are going 'all in' for socialism. I have heard Americans ' opinions about socialism and they have convinced me that they have a special interpretation that is not in accord with the rest of the world. From a European perspective Harris and Walz are centrist and progressive. They would fit in reasonably well with Germany's Christian Democratic Party, Macron's Renaissance Party and with the British Labour Party as led by Starmer.

And, yes, they believe they can win. American conservatives should believe that too.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If any party wants to use ethnic demographics to change the outcome of elections, what they need to do is identify some immigrant group and convince them that your party will do good things for them. I agree that one way to convince immigrant groups that your party is looking out for them is to speed up the glacially slow naturalization process. It might leave the party with some good will.

Projecting forward a generation or so would be really difficult. Groups have changed their party orientation in the past and will in the future, etc.

Right, but how quickly/often does that change?

While it's true that the Black vote in the US flipped from Republican to Democrat in the past, that was the result of the southern strategy, which was a pretty unique occurrence in US history.

As it currently stands these particular voting patterns (relating to this topic) are something that have been pretty steadfast for nearly 35 years now. If that's going to change, it's going to a slow change that's not going to move the needle for at least another 6-7 election cycles.

As I noted before, George W Bush campaign on in 2000 (and implemented policies after elected) that he named "Compassionate Conservatism" on the matter, with things like guest worker programs (that fast-tracked citizenship, as well as extended it to immediate family members of the guest workers) and policies aimed at giving citizenship to minors who'd been here for 3 years, but whose parents were undocumented. Even made proposals for extending federal prescription drug benefits and discounts to those children of the guest workers.

Per the stats I posted earlier, on that platform, he got 35% of the Latino vote in 2000

Trump's "MAGA" platform got 32% of the Latino vote in 2020.

I think we'd both agree that the tone and dialogue surrounding the subject were pretty far apart on the spectrum between the two republicans, yes?

If the "good as it gets for a republican" and "bad as it gets for a republican" (on the topic of immigration) scenarios only equate to a 3% difference in support numbers when the rubber meets the road, then I don't see how a "softer stance on borders" is going to move the needle in any meaningful way.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think they believe America is ready go far left and they wanted a team that could take us there. I don't think it was at all to appeal.to anyone specifically. They think they are going to win and get America to go all in for socialism.

I don't think it's an "all in for socialism". I always caution people against prematurely lobbing out the "s-word". The notion that a bunch of wealthy people who make a killing on the stock market want to move away from private ownership is a dubious proposition.

I think a more plausible explanation is that they're trying to artificially recreate (and expand upon) the coalition building that Obama did.

For those who remember, the "experts" in all their "political wisdom" referred to the Obama-coalition as a "game changer", and some went as far as saying "with these kinds of coalitions, the Democrats may never lose a presidential election again!"

The coalition consisted of racial minorities, LGBT, college educated, and young people.

...but then they lost.

And rather than seeing where perhaps they'd pushed things a little too far, they simply opted to start pandering (and hard) to each of the groups of their former coalition in hopes to improve turnout from those groups (that were excited about Obama, but weren't all that thrilled with Hilllary)

They weren't above trying to advocate for lowering the voting age to 16 -- which would potentially add 7 million more voters that would vote for them at high rates (because they knew "young people" was a reliable voting bloc for them in 2008)

 

[BCP1928]

Right, but how quickly/often does that change?

While it's true that the Black vote in the US flipped from Republican to Democrat in the past, that was the result of the southern strategy, which was a pretty unique occurrence in US history.

As it currently stands these particular voting patterns (relating to this topic) are something that have been pretty steadfast for nearly 35 years now. If that's going to change, it's going to a slow change that's not going to move the needle for at least another 6-7 election cycles.

As I noted before, George W Bush campaign on in 2000 (and implemented policies after elected) that he named "Compassionate Conservatism" on the matter, with things like guest worker programs (that fast-tracked citizenship, as well as extended it to immediate family members of the guest workers) and policies aimed at giving citizenship to minors who'd been here for 3 years, but whose parents were undocumented. Even made proposals for extending federal prescription drug benefits and discounts to those children of the guest workers.

Per the stats I posted earlier, on that platform, he got 35% of the Latino vote in 2000

Trump's "MAGA" platform got 32% of the Latino vote in 2020.

I think we'd both agree that the tone and dialogue surrounding the subject were pretty far apart on the spectrum between the two republicans, yes?

If the "good as it gets for a republican" and "bad as it gets for a republican" (on the topic of immigration) scenarios only equate to a 3% difference in support numbers when the rubber meets the road, then I don't see how a "softer stance on borders" is going to move the needle in any meaningful way.

Keeping in mind that the real issue is not "soft borders" but how many asylum seekers are to be let in.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right, but how quickly/often does that change?

While it's true that the Black vote in the US flipped from Republican to Democrat in the past, that was the result of the southern strategy, which was a pretty unique occurrence in US history.

Not really that unique. I'm sure there are examples a plenty if we go to regional alignments. Most aren't as dramatic as the flip of Black voters from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR & LBJ.

Union members were once strongly with the Democrats. That shifted in the era of Reagan (Reagan Democrats) with the dismantling of unions and the transition to more ideological / cultural politics. The Democrats were also once the primary party of immigrant groups. Many immigrant groups first flexed their political power through urban Democratic political "machines". Catholics were another group strongly associated with the Democratic party. They too partially parted ways, but this time because of polarization about abortion. (Though I believe Catholics are still more likely to be Democrats than Southern Baptists are.) These are in no small part because the Republican party was strong with the industrialist class and nativist "American Party" largely folded into it at formation.

As it currently stands these particular voting patterns (relating to this topic) are something that have been pretty steadfast for nearly 35 years now. If that's going to change, it's going to a slow change that's not going to move the needle for at least another 6-7 election cycles.

There is all kinds of movement of demographic groups from one party to the other in US history and ideological shifts with in the parties. We don't know what is going to happen in the coming decade or so. Change can be much faster the 6-7 election cycles (even if you mean 2-year Congressional cycles.)

As I noted before, George W Bush campaign on in 2000 (and implemented policies after elected) that he named "Compassionate Conservatism" on the matter, with things like guest worker programs (that fast-tracked citizenship, as well as extended it to immediate family members of the guest workers) and policies aimed at giving citizenship to minors who'd been here for 3 years, but whose parents were undocumented. Even made proposals for extending federal prescription drug benefits and discounts to those children of the guest workers.

Per the stats I posted earlier, on that platform, he got 35% of the Latino vote in 2000

Trump's "MAGA" platform got 32% of the Latino vote in 2020.

I think we'd both agree that the tone and dialogue surrounding the subject were pretty far apart on the spectrum between the two republicans, yes?

Of course, but as I noted above groups change and so do parties. Those Latino voters include many families that are now one generation older in the US and potentially more prosperous. Latinos have also become less Catholic and increasingly evangelical. The group as a whole is too amorphous to treat so simply.

If the "good as it gets for a republican" and "bad as it gets for a republican" (on the topic of immigration) scenarios only equate to a 3% difference in support numbers when the rubber meets the road, then I don't see how a "softer stance on borders" is going to move the needle in any meaningful way.

I wasn't talking of making a softer stance at the border, but of more efficient naturalization. (I saw an item today that it more efficient today due to changes made by the Biden administration.)

There were also elections in between to look at. One of the phenomena of immigration is that newly established immigrant groups often oppose the immigration of new groups "below them" fearing it is their jobs (as the low men on the pole) that are at most risk from new workers who don't have any power at all. (Several months ago, I saw an anti-immigrant group smack talking recent "invaders". The men had Polish and Italian surnames. Just 100 years ago the same anti-immigrant groups would have been going after their newly arrived ancestors and those harassers of the Poles and Italians would have likely been Irish and Germans, whose ancestors in turn had been harassed in the mid 19th century. It's the chain of xenophobia.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Keeping in mind that the real issue is not "soft borders" but how many asylum seekers are to be let in.

I think it goes without saying that some people are taking advantage of the asylum system...which has also been something of a contentious issue in other countries as well over these past few years, which is why you see some far-right parties and populist candidates rising in up places that you wouldn't typically expect in Europe.

Although, the dynamics are a tad different between asylum seekers coming to the US vs. what's going on in Europe.


While nothing was ever codified, there were always certain "unwritten understandings" surrounding seeking asylum.

It was largely reserved for people escaping political, religious, or ethnic-related violence (not merely getting away from a bad economic situation)

And the "first safe country" principle used to be recognized vs. "keep going until you find the spot with the best benefits"


While getting away from a bad economic situation is certainly a valid reason to want to move from one country to another in traditional fashion, it's not an "asylum situation".

And even for valid asylum situations (like we saw with some refugees moving out of war torn regions in the middle east), passing through 5 other countries to get to Sweden because "Sweden's got better benefits" isn't a good pattern either.

A) It's opportunism
B) It's potentially exporting cultural aspects from one country, that may not be a good fit with the culture of the destination country. (or that may have even been the cause of the problems in the origin country in the first place)


If some of this stuff was flowing in the opposite direction, people would be able to identify the problem points with it pretty easily.

For instance, let's say the US spends another 30 years weakening gun laws even further, and mass shootings become so prevalent that they reach a level that's intolerable even for the most ardent right-wing gun owners, and they want to flee.

If they said "The violence has gotten so bad in the US, we're not safe there anymore...so we want to come to Iceland because Iceland has really good healthcare and safety net programs, but we want to bring our guns with us, and we're going to continue speaking English-only, because gun culture is a part of our heritage, and we don't want to learn Icelandic, and we're victims so you have to make us feel comfortable in our new home"

That would viewed as a somewhat absurd request, correct?


Or, if we kept voting for politicians that widened the wealth gap even further to the point where we have 8 Trillionaires, and 200 million people in the poor house, and a bunch wanted to start moving to Canada, and there was valid reason to believe that many of them wished to seek "economic asylum", and then gain citizenship there, and then likely vote for the exact same economic & social policies and politicians that created our problems in the first place, Canadians could have some valid concerns about that, yes?

 

[BCP1928]

I think it goes without saying that some people are taking advantage of the asylum system...which has also been something of a contentious issue in other countries as well over these past few years, which is why you see some far-right parties and populist candidates rising in up places that you wouldn't typically expect in Europe.

Although, the dynamics are a tad different between asylum seekers coming to the US vs. what's going on in Europe.


While nothing was ever codified, there were always certain "unwritten understandings" surrounding seeking asylum.

It was largely reserved for people escaping political, religious, or ethnic-related violence (not merely getting away from a bad economic situation)

And the "first safe country" principle used to be recognized vs. "keep going until you find the spot with the best benefits"


While getting away from a bad economic situation is certainly a valid reason to want to move from one country to another in traditional fashion, it's not an "asylum situation".

And even for valid asylum situations (like we saw with some refugees moving out of war torn regions in the middle east), passing through 5 other countries to get to Sweden because "Sweden's got better benefits" isn't a good pattern either.

A) It's opportunism
B) It's potentially exporting cultural aspects from one country, that may not be a good fit with the culture of the destination country. (or that may have even been the cause of the problems in the origin country in the first place)


If some of this stuff was flowing in the opposite direction, people would be able to identify the problem points with it pretty easily.

For instance, let's say the US spends another 30 years weakening gun laws even further, and mass shootings become so prevalent that they reach a level that's intolerable even for the most ardent right-wing gun owners, and they want to flee.

If they said "The violence has gotten so bad in the US, we're not safe there anymore...so we want to come to Iceland because Iceland has really good healthcare and safety net programs, but we want to bring our guns with us, and we're going to continue speaking English-only, because gun culture is a part of our heritage, and we don't want to learn Icelandic, and we're victims so you have to make us feel comfortable in our new home"

That would viewed as a somewhat absurd request, correct?


Or, if we kept voting for politicians that widened the wealth gap even further to the point where we have 8 Trillionaires, and 200 million people in the poor house, and a bunch wanted to start moving to Canada, and there was valid reason to believe that many of them wished to seek "economic asylum", and then gain citizenship there, and then likely vote for the exact same economic & social policies and politicians that created our problems in the first place, Canadians could have some valid concerns about that, yes?

Usually you strive to be fair-minded in your conservatism, and reasonably accurate with your facts. What happened?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Usually you strive to be fair-minded in your conservatism, and reasonably accurate with your facts. What happened?

How is what I've said not accurate or even handed?

I'm not all that conservative, for the record, I've voted for more Democrats in the past two decades than I have Republicans.


What I've outlined in the previous post was the differences between the motivations for the asylum-seeking in the US vs. the asylum-seeking going on in Europe, the challenges each presents, and the associated pitfalls.


Are you saying that a lot of the "asylum"-seeking to the US isn't economic opportunism under the guise of seeking asylum?

Here's a piece from the NY Times, certainly not a "right wing" publication

One Big Reason Migrants Are Coming in Droves: They Believe They Can Stay (Published 2024)

Seeking asylum has become the surest way for migrants to stay in the U.S. The underfunded immigration system can’t keep up, so cases languish for years.

www.nytimes.com

Across the ocean...
Are you denying that when people from very different cultures flee violence in their home country, but opt to land in a Westernized European country (for the more generous social benefits, not to assimilate), that that's not a contributor to some of the backlash effect (that's manifesting in the form of right-wing populist parties making big gains) that's popping up in European countries at the moment?

 

[LizaMarie]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/politics/tim-walz-harris-vice-president/index.html

Walz emerged from the most accelerated vice presidential search in modern history from a shortlist that included half a dozen Democrats, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. The vice president held in-person interviews with Walz, Shapiro and Kelly on Sunday.

While Harris and Walz did not enjoy much of a previous relationship, aides said Harris grew increasingly enthused by how Walz genuinely carried himself and found a warm chemistry with him during a final meeting Sunday at her residence at the Naval Observatory. Harris was impressed “by his authenticity,” a person close to the process told CNN.


Granted, none of us are in the DNC strategy meetings that go on behind closed doors, but I question whether or not this is the right move, strategically.

It seems like the areas where Harris is going to have the biggest uphill challenge is in purple state voters, rural voters, and among independent voters. Picking a running mate that's equally unpopular among those groups (or that a large number of people just haven't heard of) doesn't seem like the best move IMO.

Picking a guy who's popular in a very blue state (so blue, that they were literally the only one who didn't vote for Reagan, even California did that year)
View attachment 352902

...seems less advantageous that going with someone like Shapiro.

Although, I think the best choice would've been Andy Beshear

Poll: Beshear most popular Democrat governor again

With his re-election campaign finally behind him, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has reclaimed the title of the most popular Democratic governor in the United States.

www.lanereport.com

...who was voted one of the most popular Democratic governors in the country, and is able to carry a 60%+ approval rating in the red state of Kentucky (indicating at least some measure of being able to connect with rural conservative-leaning voters)

And this little bit certainly is worth noting:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article281207713.html

Is tied with Hawaii Gov. Josh Green as the most popular Democratic governor among voters who also supported former president Donald Trump in 2020, with 41% approving of his job performance Is the most popular Democratic governor among 2020 voters who backed President Joe Biden, with 93% approval


It seems like Andy Beshear would've checked all of the boxes a Democratic candidate looking to take on the GOP could've hoped for.
93% approval among Biden voters
41% approval among Trump voters (which is about as good as you're going to get for a Democratic governor among Trump voters)
60%+ favorability in a quite red state


Did Kamala bet on the wrong horse here? Or am I just missing something?

I have lived in Minnesota and have family there now. Most conservatives in Minnesota can't stand Tim Walz, but Minnesota is like many blue states, the urban blue areas which mostly vote Democrat outnumber the more sparsely populated rural areas which tend to vote conservative and are red, so their small number will likely not matter in a national election. I think she should have chosen Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear myself but most people outside of Minnesota don't really know much about Tim Walz so it may not matter anyway.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think it's an "all in for socialism". I always caution people against prematurely lobbing out the "s-word". The notion that a bunch of wealthy people who make a killing on the stock market want to move away from private ownership is a dubious proposition.

I think a more plausible explanation is that they're trying to artificially recreate (and expand upon) the coalition building that Obama did.

For those who remember, the "experts" in all their "political wisdom" referred to the Obama-coalition as a "game changer", and some went as far as saying "with these kinds of coalitions, the Democrats may never lose a presidential election again!"

The coalition consisted of racial minorities, LGBT, college educated, and young people.

...but then they lost.

And rather than seeing where perhaps they'd pushed things a little too far, they simply opted to start pandering (and hard) to each of the groups of their former coalition in hopes to improve turnout from those groups (that were excited about Obama, but weren't all that thrilled with Hilllary)

They weren't above trying to advocate for lowering the voting age to 16 -- which would potentially add 7 million more voters that would vote for them at high rates (because they knew "young people" was a reliable voting bloc for them in 2008)

Don't forget that Obsma was about fundamentally transforming America. The question was and still is, transform it to what?

You are correct they want to expand on what Obama started. And when you listen to the things Harris and Walz and done we get a pretty clear picture of what they want to transform it to. A socialist country.

Let's look at what the Democrats have wanted to do. They want to transform the Supreme Court. Packing the court, putting in term limits and a code of ethics. One of the the key elements of socialist nations has been to control the courts and justice system.

Then they wish to control information. In this day and age it's the internet and social media. Look what they did with Twitter before it was X. The Democrats worked with the social media to feed you what they wanted to feed you in order to sway you. They were able to track the things you searched and payed attention to and built a profile for you. Then then they fed you information in order to try and sway you. According to them it worked. Even now the big media places like Google control what you see when you search. Harris and Walz have done no interviews with anyone. Controlling the information. Look what they did with Biden. They hid the fact that he wasn't competent and pretended he was sharp as ever. Controlling information is a large part of a socialist government.

Controlling Free speech is another move. We saw a huge move that began with hate speech and then spread to terms like dis or misinformation. Even now in many social media platforms and things like you tube you gave to be very careful about what you say and how you say it or you will be deplatformed or have any income removed. Control over what you say and it goes along with the what you can hear or see.

Division. The Democrats operate on tge principle of division. Boiling people down to groups and then pitting them against each other. That's what DEI, CRT, homophobia, transphobia, rich vs poor, social justice etc. Is all about. It's a key component in the socialist play book.

Listen what Harris has said about equality of outcome. And they still want to lower the voting age. I could go on, but that's enough.

With our system of governance it makes it difficult as we have seen to create this socialist country they want. But make no mistake that it's what they want. And as far as the elite go and the money they make it won't matter. The elites always get their money.

 

[BCP1928]

How is what I've said not accurate or even handed?

I'm not all that conservative, for the record, I've voted for more Democrats in the past two decades than I have Republicans.


What I've outlined in the previous post was the differences between the motivations for the asylum-seeking in the US vs. the asylum-seeking going on in Europe, the challenges each presents, and the associated pitfalls.


Are you saying that a lot of the "asylum"-seeking to the US isn't economic opportunism under the guise of seeking asylum?

Here's a piece from the NY Times, certainly not a "right wing" publication

One Big Reason Migrants Are Coming in Droves: They Believe They Can Stay (Published 2024)

Seeking asylum has become the surest way for migrants to stay in the U.S. The underfunded immigration system can’t keep up, so cases languish for years.

www.nytimes.com

Across the ocean...
Are you denying that when people from very different cultures flee violence in their home country, but opt to land in a Westernized European country (for the more generous social benefits, not to assimilate), that that's not a contributor to some of the backlash effect (that's manifesting in the form of right-wing populist parties making big gains) that's popping up in European countries at the moment?

So why not fix it? Of course people try to get here to claim asylum who really are not eligible for it. That's why the claim rejection rate is running around 85%.

I think it goes without saying that some people are taking advantage of the asylum system...which has also been something of a contentious issue in other countries as well over these past few years, which is why you see some far-right parties and populist candidates rising in up places that you wouldn't typically expect in Europe.

Although, the dynamics are a tad different between asylum seekers coming to the US vs. what's going on in Europe.


While nothing was ever codified, there were always certain "unwritten understandings" surrounding seeking asylum.

It was largely reserved for people escaping political, religious, or ethnic-related violence (not merely getting away from a bad economic situation)

It still is.

And the "first safe country" principle used to be recognized vs. "keep going until you find the spot with the best benefits"

Keep going until you find a country that will grant asylum.

While getting away from a bad economic situation is certainly a valid reason to want to move from one country to another in traditional fashion, it's not an "asylum situation".

Correct. And nobody thinks so.

And even for valid asylum situations (like we saw with some refugees moving out of war torn regions in the middle east), passing through 5 other countries to get to Sweden because "Sweden's got better benefits" isn't a good pattern either.

A) It's opportunism
B) It's potentially exporting cultural aspects from one country, that may not be a good fit with the culture of the destination country. (or that may have even been the cause of the problems in the origin country in the first place)

Do you have any specific examples?

If some of this stuff was flowing in the opposite direction, people would be able to identify the problem points with it pretty easily.

For instance, let's say the US spends another 30 years weakening gun laws even further, and mass shootings become so prevalent that they reach a level that's intolerable even for the most ardent right-wing gun owners, and they want to flee.

If they said "The violence has gotten so bad in the US, we're not safe there anymore...so we want to come to Iceland because Iceland has really good healthcare and safety net programs, but we want to bring our guns with us, and we're going to continue speaking English-only, because gun culture is a part of our heritage, and we don't want to learn Icelandic, and we're victims so you have to make us feel comfortable in our new home"

That would viewed as a somewhat absurd request, correct?

It would, and no asylum seeker is making a request even remotely like that. As an example it is bigoted and disgusting. BTW, Iceland has an official language, but the US does not.

Or, if we kept voting for politicians that widened the wealth gap even further to the point where we have 8 Trillionaires, and 200 million people in the poor house, and a bunch wanted to start moving to Canada, and there was valid reason to believe that many of them wished to seek "economic asylum", and then gain citizenship there, and then likely vote for the exact same economic & social policies and politicians that created our problems in the first place, Canadians could have some valid concerns about that, yes?

As you know, there is no such thing as "economic asylum." This just another bigoted parody of what is really going on.

 

[Whyayeman]

And when you listen to the things Harris and Walz and done we get a pretty clear picture of what they want to transform it to. A socialist country.

Once again, 'socialist' is used in that special American way.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So why not fix it? Of course people try to get here to claim asylum who really are not eligible for it. That's why the claim rejection rate is running around 85%.

Fix it how? If people are filing asylum claims the moment they get caught because they know it'll be years and years before their case is heard (and they can stay while they wait), how does that get "fixed". And no, "Let's hire 30,000 additional judges at the expense of the taxpayers" isn't a realistic solution

Keep going until you find a country that will grant asylum.

But that's not what some refugees were doing. For instance, during the Syrian refugee crisis, there were countries that either bordered Syria, or that were culturally similar that were viable options (like Jordan and Lebanon). Yet nearly 1 million Syrians ended up in Germany, Sweden, Austria, and The Netherlands (ironically enough, countries that have had upticks in their right-wing populist parties over the past decade)

Do you have any specific examples?

Of people "selecting the place with the better benefits"? Yes

Per an NIH study that interviewed Syrian refugees and asked about their reasons for selecting the country that they did:
In response to the question of why the interviewee chose Germany, ... some 43% referred to the quality of the German education system, and one quarter of respondents reported reasons relating to the welfare system or economic situation.

It would, and no asylum seeker is making a request even remotely like that.

Not directly, but refusal to assimilate is tantamount to the same thing. It means you really didn't care that much about the actual culture of the country you were moving to, and just wanted the goodies and protection.

Sweden, in particular, has had a rough go of it in that regard. They received (I believe) the largest amount per capita of any European country. With refugees actually passing through other countries on the list to get to Sweden due to their originally welcoming message on it and quite generous accommodations.

Syrians in Sweden: Constructing Difference Regarding Gender and Family

Abstract. In this article, we look at the discourse used by the Swedish state in describing non-European migrants, among them Syrians, and how this has con

academic.oup.com

Per Oxford, some of those cultural clashes that emerged quickly had to do with Syrian parents being upset that Sweden wouldn't let them physically discipline their kids like they could back home. Syrian men in particular began circulating negative messages in the community about the Swedish government "expressing fear that the Swedes will incite their wives to rebel and divorce them", and "fear that women may obtain legal rights and economic opportunities that make them less dependent on their husbands".

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/

Per the head of the Swedish leader of the their Social Democrats party "Integration has failed"


And it's not surprising that it failed, if there was only desire for "good benefits", and no general interest in actually embracing western values, why would anyone suspect assimilation?

I understand that they were victims of a political turmoil through no fault of their own, but we shouldn't kid ourselves into the thinking that victims of political violence can't harbor some bad views that are incompatible. Was anyone surprised that a group of people who adhered to fundamentalist Islamic principles (and had no desire to change that aspect) didn't gel well in an egalitarian society that says children have rights, gays have rights, women are equal to men, and people don't have to walk on eggshells when criticizing religion?

We can take race/ethnicity completely off the table and focus just on cultural values...
Example: If Alabama Republicans were the victims of political violence one day.... If that ever did happen, would that lot be good fit for socially integrating well into a country that largely has a pro-government culture, with positive attitudes towards things like higher taxation for social welfare and gun control and LGBTQ rights? Or would sending 70,000 Alabama republicans into Belgium or Denmark probably be a powder keg waiting to happen?

As you know, there is no such thing as "economic asylum." This just another bigoted parody of what is really going on.

But it's not a bigoted parody. Per the NY Times article, people wanting to come here purely for economic perks, are filing asylum claims the moment they get caught because they know it means it'll be years and years before their case is ever heard, and even when it is (and likely would be rejected), they'd be at the bottom of the priority list for deportation.

 

[Adam56]

Most conspiracy theories have to sound at least somewhat sensible if they want to convince people to look deeper down their rabbit hole. The pragmatic talking points aren't the problem. And the context in which "Replacement Theory" is discussed is always racist - no sometimes there. It's always about some minority demographic group "replacing" the majority demographic group in society and how that's a Bad Thing. There's no context in which that isn't racist.

If you say it’s a good thing, is it racist? Because many democrats act as if it’s a good thing.

 

[Adam56]

One of the reasons that Replacement Theory seems racist is that it appears to regard all other racial groups as a unified block. In the real world, these groups don't even get along with each other all the time. It's a moot point, anyway. White people who believe in the Great Replacement are already in the minority and have been for some time. But nobody has told me why I should care if white people are no longer a majority.

White people are not a majority. Most people in the world are not white.

 

[BPPLEE]

Most conspiracy theories have to sound at least somewhat sensible if they want to convince people to look deeper down their rabbit hole. The pragmatic talking points aren't the problem. And the context in which "Replacement Theory" is discussed is always racist - no sometimes there. It's always about some minority demographic group "replacing" the majority demographic group in society and how that's a Bad Thing. There's no context in which that isn't racist.

Sure, but it is racist when you suggest that a group wants to replace white voters (as if being white makes people special somehow). It is xenophobic when you suggest that the only reason why foreigners are coming to the country is to perform a "soft takeover" of the government.

Replacement theory | Definition, Conspiracy Theory, Renaud Camus, & Facts | Britannica

Replacement theory, in the United States and certain other Western countries, a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that left-leaning domestic or international elites, on their own initiative or under the direction of Jewish co-conspirators, are attempting to replace white citizens with...

www.britannica.com

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

What is ‘great replacement theory’ and how does it fuel racist violence?

Investigators are still piecing together the motives of the mass shooter who killed 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, this weekend. But authorities aren't hesitating to call it a racially motivated attack.

www.pbs.org

It's not about racism. It's about flooding the country with people who will potentially vote for Democrats.
Their race has nothing to do with it