|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that.
I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity.
|
On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience.
Immigration law doesn't discriminate on race, nor would excluding newborns. It would discriminate on nationality (in this case the parents' nationality), which in the case of national law makes sense.
To me it makes sense that Jus Sole should only apply to legal immigrants, though. It doesn't make sense for me that Jus Sole applies for people who are on holiday, or crossed the border without the proper papers.
That said, such a change should be part of a wholescale reform of the immigration law, and not cherrypicked out of Trump's program. Seen in the whole context of Trump's program it is insane and will never work. It won't achieve what he (claims to) want, and will only lead to even worse situations. Just look at Europe and stay far away from the stuff tried there. Trump is actually looking to apply quite a few of the restrictions that were tried and failed miserably elsewhere.
|
it was all new for them, so they started calling it the new world, end of story.
That doesn't make it painfully obvious?
I'm not talking about white supremacy as in robes and pillowcases, I'm talking about the (inadvertent) white supremacy displayed in the quote.
It was new to white people, they called it new, end of story (who cares if people had been living there building communities for thousands of years, I mean they were non-white).
It comes from the same Euro-white-centric view of the world that claims Columbus "discovered" America. No! There were people with distinct cultures and histories predating European countries by thousands of years already there.
But because white Europeans saw themselves as superior they cast aside that "savage" culture and claimed the land "New" and theirs.
Why the rest of the US still has a "Columbus day" and why it's still commonly known as "The New World" is a longer story and takes more unpacking.
But if I came over to your house and claimed I discovered this new house and it was mine now it would probably help one understand why it's so ridiculous.
I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity.
Take down the Statue of Liberty first, then we can talk about refusing refugees and people escaping crippling governments.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On August 19 2015 22:58 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2015 16:40 Falling wrote:
Hey Wegandi, please keep the TL boards clear of the labelling SJW nonsense. I have rarely seen it used but as an insulting epithet to those the labeller holds in contempt. As such, it has no place in our political discourse or any where else on TL. SJW isn't an insulting epithet. It's an accurate term, which SJWs like Plansix wear proudly.
A pejorative usually seems an accurate term when you hold an opposing side in contempt. One could equally argue 'Paulbot' 'libtard' is simply an accurate term, but in all three cases it is an insult given to another, and rarely worn voluntarily, except to be ironic. There is no room for that on TL.
|
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee delivered a confused and garbled press conference in Jerusalem during a brief campaign stop, which included a controversial fundraising visit to a settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories.
At times taking positions to the right of Israel’s government, the former governor of Arkansas at one stage described Russia as the “Soviet Union” – when referring to its plans to supply Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles – before correcting himself.
He also seemed to suggest that the West Bank bordered one of Israel’s enemies, as opposed to Jordan, which has long enjoyed a peace treaty with Israel.
As Huckabee left the press conference, he also said he was unsure if he would be the first US president to abandon a commitment to a two-state solution, despite having no policy he could articulate on the future of Palestinians.
The press conference followed meetings with senior Israeli figures, including prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and followed his visit to the settlement of Shilo on the occupied West Bank where he held a private fundraiser with wealthy American settlers.
Source
|
On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity.
Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite.
|
On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite.
America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply.
|
On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply.
Yeah we never hear that about the Constitution right? Only fools argue the 2nd amendment (or the 1st for that matter) is sacrosanct...
|
On August 20 2015 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply. Yeah we never hear that about the Constitution right? Only fools argue the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct...
What's the matter with you? You have trouble focusing on an issue? We're talking about immigration here. The laws are malleable.
|
On August 20 2015 03:37 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply. Yeah we never hear that about the Constitution right? Only fools argue the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct... What's the matter with you? You have trouble focusing on an issue? We're talking about immigration here. The laws are malleable.
The law we are talking about is contained in the same document. He made a stupid statement, I'm just pointing out one reason as to why it's stupid (as far as birthright). If we're just talking about immigration laws now then fine, advocate for tearing down the statue of liberty and then once it's down that discussion makes sense.
But so long as we have the equivalent of a giant neon sign asking for people Xdaunt is fine with excluding from our nation, it just sounds stupid.
|
Fire managers overwhelmed by huge wildfires blazing across the west are looking for help wherever they can find it and have called in 200 active-duty military troops to fight the flames.
It’s the first time since 2006 that the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise has mobilized soldiers for fire-suppression.
National guard troops set controlled burns outside Chelan to use up fuel as helicopters dropped water. More than 1,000 people worked to protect homes from the lightning-sparked blazes that began there last week, have burned more than 170 square miles and have destroyed an estimated 75 buildings.
“Nationally, the system is pretty tapped,” said Rob Allen, the deputy incident commander for the fires around the Cascade Mountain resort town of Chelan. “Everything is being used right now, so competition for resources is fierce.”
The active-duty troops are all coming from the 17th field artillery brigade at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma and will be sent to a fire north of Republic, a town in central Washington, about 30 miles south of the Canadian border.
Fire managers at the center are able to enlist military help when there are not enough civilian firefighting teams, thanks to a 1975 agreement between the Defense, Interior and Agriculture departments.
The help can be crucial in particularly active years like this one. In the last two weeks alone, more than 1,500 square miles have burned in the Lower 48 states, center spokesman Ken Frederick said.
Source
|
On August 20 2015 03:37 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply. Yeah we never hear that about the Constitution right? Only fools argue the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct... What's the matter with you? You have trouble focusing on an issue? We're talking about immigration here. The laws are malleable.
You must be new around here. GreenHorizons slams straw man arguments like junkies slam heroin.
|
On August 20 2015 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:37 Deathstar wrote:On August 20 2015 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply. Yeah we never hear that about the Constitution right? Only fools argue the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct... What's the matter with you? You have trouble focusing on an issue? We're talking about immigration here. The laws are malleable. You must be new around here. GreenHorizons slams straw man arguments like junkies slam heroin.
Xdaunt and others just like to label everything that exposes the shallowness of their posts as "Strawmen"
|
On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +it was all new for them, so they started calling it the new world, end of story. That doesn't make it painfully obvious? I'm not talking about white supremacy as in robes and pillowcases, I'm talking about the (inadvertent) white supremacy displayed in the quote. It was new to white people, they called it new, end of story (who cares if people had been living there building communities for thousands of years, I mean they were non-white). It comes from the same Euro-white-centric view of the world that claims Columbus "discovered" America. No! There were people with distinct cultures and histories predating European countries by thousands of years already there. But because white Europeans saw themselves as superior they cast aside that "savage" culture and claimed the land "New" and theirs. Why the rest of the US still has a "Columbus day" and why it's still commonly known as "The New World" is a longer story and takes more unpacking. But if I came over to your house and claimed I discovered this new house and it was mine now it would probably help one understand why it's so ridiculous. Show nested quote +I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Take down the Statue of Liberty first, then we can talk about refusing refugees and people escaping crippling governments.
Actually I was just tired and made a silly mistake. I intended to quote from the article, but then again "New World" isn't the type of phrase that needs explaining. It has nothing to do with any of the BS you are going on about.
And the purpose of immigration is ultimately about what is good for the citizens, which is why preferring certian groups (like English speakers) makes sense. Immigration after the 1960s means we have to reevaluate some things.
Moreover, most citizens are to the right of politicians on this issue, not that it matters.
That's my piece. No white supremacy undertones anywhere in "new world".
|
Guys everyone knows the Statue of Liberty is a giant welcome sign to every disenfranchised citizen of planet Earth. Personally I like to think of the Statue of Liberty as a giant Oprah. "You get citizenship, and you get citizenship and you get citizenship!" And so on and so forth. It's beautiful, really.
|
United States44440 Posts
On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply.
Which is remarkably convenient for the people advocating that the ladder that brought them to the top be removed less other people follow them.
|
On August 20 2015 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:37 Deathstar wrote:On August 20 2015 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply. Yeah we never hear that about the Constitution right? Only fools argue the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct... What's the matter with you? You have trouble focusing on an issue? We're talking about immigration here. The laws are malleable. The law we are talking about is contained in the same document. He made a stupid statement, I'm just pointing out one reason as to why it's stupid (as far as birthright). If we're just talking about immigration laws now then fine, advocate for tearing down the statue of liberty and then once it's down that discussion makes sense. But so long as we have the equivalent of a giant neon sign asking for people Xdaunt is fine with excluding from our nation, it just sounds stupid.
So, your argument is we should base our national policy around a national monument? Should France also be Eiffel Tower focused in its policy considerations? Does Egypt base its policy around the riddles of the Sphinx? Why not pick Mount Rushmore as our policy monument?
|
On August 20 2015 03:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:On August 20 2015 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 03:02 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:53 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2015 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 02:44 KwarK wrote:
A birth within the United States is a birth within the United States. The newborns of current citizens have achieved nothing more worthy in their few seconds of existence than the newborns of non citizens and the idea of discriminating between newborns based upon the race of their parents is an anathema to me.
Also, as one of the few people in this topic who has legally immigrated into the United States, the process is literally Hitler. It already discriminates very strongly in favour of people with money, fluency in English, education and experience. What sane immigration system wouldn't very strongly favor these people? One that held it to be self evident that all men are created equal? ....which is why Americans are a bunch of communists. Oh, wait.... I'm basically allowed into America because I have rich parents and come from England. Oh, and I'm young enough and smart enough to find and understand the lengthy guides to how to navigate the paperwork without an immigration lawyer. The vast majority of Americans descend from people who would not be able to immigrate today. A lot of them wouldn't be able to immigrate today had they not been born here. I see a problem with that. I have no problem with generally taking only the best, brightest, and wealthiest. The USA doesn't exist to be a charity. Which is funny and sad considering your country is basically founded on the exact opposite. America is a very different place than it was 200 -- or even 100 -- years ago. Only a fool would argue that the same policy considerations apply. Which is remarkably convenient for the people advocating that the ladder that brought them to the top be removed less other people follow them.
Call it "remarkably convenient" all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true. The time when the US needed to rapidly expand its population to populate its vast territory is long over.
|
Also it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with math and government finances.
|
Why can't they build their own ladder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
