We Are Not a Nation of Immigrants

[Atheist 2020]

No, we are certainly not a nation of immigrants. We were never set up as such a thing. Anyone espousing this platitude is either misinformed or a liar.

My sister is really into family history, and she found three people on the Mayflower and one signed the Mayflower compact. My last name is from Scotland, and it is a old name. In fact, it comes from a Viking name. World immigrants comes without the consent of the government or a more open immigrants with the consent of the government.

 

[ultmd]

I traced the dialog back to the original comment. You misrepresented and/or ignored that:

Stop, right there. Don't try to interpret my remarks based upon what you think I meant. If you have a question, ask me directly for clarification. Otherwise, quote me. But no one cares what you think I might be thinking.

a) his comment was not an argument, it was parenthetical to his challenge that if we have a right to decide, then let's decide. Instead, someone chose to quibble about whether or not there are some people who don't believe we have a right to decide - which is a dodge from the main point - asking a poster to take a stand on who should, or should not, be allowed entry.

Nonsense. There was nothing parenthetical about those remarks. His assertion (i.e. that "we don't have the right to tell anyone 'no'") was a completely unsupported right wing talking-point. Clearly, he doesn't know any better. But I challenged him to give me some examples of people/Democrats in positions of power or influence who have expressed that point of view about immigration. He couldn't do that, because he knew (as do you) that he was just talking out of his hind-quarters, and got caught. But that's the kind of lie that right wing ideologues (who embibe conservative (fake) news sources) repeatedly spew...and always without any ability to back it up.

b) by the way, the quibble was over his noting that "the argument from some is that we don't have the right to tell anyone no". Its a stupidly wrong quibble by you: some is not "everyone", or "most everyone", it is an uncertain number of individuals who feel that way - folks you might run into (e.g. I live in the East Bay of SF area) as well as more formal thinkers about "rights". Moreover, should you still wish to dodge his proposition with more quibbling, add a modifier to "...from some is that we don't the right to tell most anyone no" and you no longer need dance around his original challenge.

There is no "quibble". You're trying too hard, here. There was (and remains) a simple challenge for him (or you) to back up his words with examples. He (like you) obviously understands that he can't. Thus, the dissembling remarks that have followed. I'm not interested in what you think I should ask. I made no mention of "some", "everyone" or anything else. My challenge is quite simple, and both he and you are welcome to take it up. Either present evidence of ANYONE in a position of power or influence who has stated (or even suggested) that "we don't have the right to tell anyone 'no'" about immigration....or hush up about this. The bottom line here is that NO ONE in the Democratic Party is advocating or promoting the notion that "we don't have the right to tell anyone 'no'" about immigration. No one. Not even the handfull of Democrats who have raised the issue of abolishing ICE hold the mythical "open borders" policy/views that right wingers like to pretend. That's a baseless right wing talking point, and you (and he) both know it.

Finally, he should have added that there are some who'd prefer to quibble in avoid defining their actual feelings (or views) because they'd like not to confront its failure. Something like your last paragraph, where you declare your intent to dodge his challenge.

Your passive agressive nature is showing through. But let's be clear...we (you and I) can discuss and debate any aspect of immigration policy (or any other policy) that you wish to pursue. You won't fare well, but that's ok because you probably won't realize that, either.

Shame on you.

:roll: Bless your heart. both of you. Now, stop running from my original challenge. Present some of these people who think that "we don't have the right to tell anyone 'no'". If you cannot....and you know you cannot....then we'll both understand that, going forward.

In addition, if you (or he, or both of you) are finally ready to discuss your immigration policy ideas, please begin..and be prepared to back up your opinions with objective facts, links, etc. Anything else is a waste of time.

 

[maxparrish]

Stop, right there. Don't try to interpret my remarks based upon what you think I meant. If you have a question, ask me directly for clarification. Otherwise, quote me. But no one cares what you think I might be thinking.

Nonsense. There was nothing parenthetical about those remarks. His assertion (i.e. that "we don't have the right to tell anyone 'no'") was a completely unsupported right wing talking-point. Clearly, he doesn't know any better. ...

Rest assured, the questions of if you "think" or what you meant is of no interest to me. But it is indisputable that what you wrote "misrepresented and/or ignored" the meaning and/or context of what Hawkeye had said.

The disagreement started in post 5, when Hawkeye challenged a poster "So lets converse and decide (who to let in). Without threats please. Or name calling." The poster delayed "deciding", asking to know who "we" are to decide, if not us. He answered "the argument from some is that we don't have the right to tell anyone no".

That was clearly parenthetical point of information to the his request for the two of them to dialog and decide who we should let in. So you decided to crash the exchange and ignore the context of the prior dialog, and make an issue out of a subordinate point.

But I challenged him to give me some examples of people/Democrats in positions of power or influence who have expressed that point of view about immigration. He couldn't do that, because he knew (as do you) that he was just talking out of his hind-quarters, and got caught. But that's the kind of lie that right wing ideologues (who embibe conservative (fake) news sources) repeatedly spew...and always without any ability to back it up.

Actually you first accused him of making a "silly strawman" and then demanded quotes from people of power or influence, hopefully democrats, who make that argument.

Of course, it is obvious that you were posturing with the "silly strawman" as well as toting net full of red herrings. He said nothing about the type of people who hold to this belief, he merely said "some people" do. You chose to attack ghost, making demands for proof of a criteria he never advanced. The only "brain fart" that was self-evident was authored by you (Post 157).

There is no "quibble". You're trying too hard, here. There was (and remains) a simple challenge for him (or you) to back up his words with examples. He (like you) obviously understands that he can't.

I already demonstrated it to be a quibble. And he can, and did give an example. So can I. Anyone who converses with Berkley professionals or students is aware of that "some" do believe in a right of free travel and occupation across international borders, one that supersedes democratic will.

You can challenge all you like, nobody has to reply to your objection to a ghost. "Some" does not mean they have to be "in a position of power or influence", in order to be a true statement it can be any of the world's 7 billion people or 320,000,000 Americans.

Not even the handful of Democrats who have raised the issue of abolishing ICE hold the mythical "open borders" policy/views that right wingers like to pretend. That's a baseless right wing talking point, and you (and he) both know it.

That is a different issue; however, on open borders I don't think ICE abolishers are necessary lying to us but I'll bet they are lying to themselves.

Your passive agressive nature is showing through. But let's be clear...we (you and I) can discuss and debate any aspect of immigration policy (or any other policy) that you wish to pursue. You won't fare well, but that's ok because you probably won't realize that, either.

:roll: Bless your heart. both of you. Now, stop running from my original challenge. Present some of these people who think that "we don't have the right to tell anyone 'no'". If you cannot....and you know you cannot....then we'll both understand that, going forward.

In addition, if you (or he, or both of you) are finally ready to discuss your immigration policy ideas, please begin..and be prepared to back up your opinions with objective facts, links, etc. Anything else is a waste of time.

It always amuses when a pop psychologist lectures on being passive-aggressive, and then snarks about his victims cluelessness and sarcastically tells him "Bless your heart." Need we point out why?

PS - I'd be more than happy to know what kind of illegal and/or legal immigration you support and why you support it. However, chances are you are poorly equipped for a scholarly dispute so putting you out of our misery shouldn't take long.

None the less, it can't start till after the OU-Texas game.

 

[maxparrish]

In addition, if you (or he, or both of you) are finally ready to discuss your immigration policy ideas, please begin..and be prepared to back up your opinions with objective facts, links, etc. Anything else is a waste of time.

Game over. I'll start:

Immigration into the US since 1965 has been detrimental to the well being of the heritage population. It has lowered wages for some workers, increased crime, increased pollution, increased housing costs, increased environmental cost, increased the rate of poverty above what it would have been, and needlessly cost the taxpayer.

There should be a moratorium on all immigration, until such time as all illegals are deported and the total admitted yearly are less than 500,000. All chain migration should be ended, as well as many other special programs (such as the immigration lottery). The ONLY legal basis for permeant residency should be merit based and dependent on IQ, education, skills, and ability.

And, by the way, not only should we have a wall - but also a security zone as robust as that of Israel. Intentional illegals who are caught should be arrested and prosecuted as felons, and then shipped to border labor camps to help build the wall and security zone. After two years of outdoor labor, they are then branded and deported to their country of origin.

How about you?