|
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 04:05 cLutZ wrote:
Also it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with math and government finances.
Correct, a completely different set of policy considerations now apply.
|
On August 20 2015 03:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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.
The "New World" phrasing comes from how I describe, simply saying it isn't true might satisfy your personal perspective but it's simply disregarding history. No one who lived in North America for the thousands of years before Europeans showed up called it "The New World", but some white European Johnny come latelys come over and since white history is history (as far as North America is concerned) we stick with these newcomer's description instead of accepting the terms used by the people living here long before Europe even had countries.
The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New".
|
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.
Kwark, do you believe that the US should have an open door immigration policy like it did during the 19th century and into the early 20th century? Where basically the only thing stopping someone from emigrating to the US was the cost and risk of a boat voyage?
How do you see such a policy working in practice? Because xDaunt is simply pointing out the obvious, to me, which is that the US that had virtually unlimited immigration was a very different country in a very different world. And thus, policies might need revising in this changed environment. Some form of restriction on immigration now seems necessary. When the borders were open, the US was a largely unpopulated country with incredible potential and too little manpower to exploit that. That is simply not the case right now.
|
On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:47 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. The "New World" phrasing comes from how I describe, simply saying it isn't true might satisfy your personal perspective but it's simply disregarding history. No one who lived in North America for the thousands of years before Europeans showed up called it "The New World", but some white European Johnny come latelys come over and since white history is history (as far as North America is concerned) we stick with these newcomer's description instead of accepting the terms used by the people living here long before Europe even had countries. The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New".
Do you have some source that would show it was their whiteness that contributed to the phrasing? Of course no one who already lived there would call it "new." What do you think native Americans would have called Europe? This is so classic GreenHorizons. Moreover, the fact that once again you try to dive into my mind and tell ME why I did something is absurd.
This set of posts perfectly exemplifies the GH thinking process, as well its deeps flaws.
On August 20 2015 04:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:56 KwarK 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. Which is remarkably convenient for the people advocating that the ladder that brought them to the top be removed less other people follow them. Kwark, do you believe that the US should have an open door immigration policy like it did during the 19th century and into the early 20th century? Where basically the only thing stopping someone from emigrating to the US was the cost and risk of a boat voyage? How do you see such a policy working in practice? Because xDaunt is simply pointing out the obvious, to me, which is that the US that had virtually unlimited immigration was a very different country in a very different world. And thus, policies might need revising in this changed environment. Some form of restriction on immigration now seems necessary. When the borders were open, the US was a largely unpopulated country with incredible potential and too little manpower to exploit that. That is simply not the case right now.
It's not even that conditions have changed, today we have more immigrants with less time between "waves" then we have ever had, from what I recall reading. Before we'd have waves punctuated by periods of relatively low immigration. Today it's more like a river.
Good or not, point is, there are concerns and conditions that exist today that weren't around at the turn of the last century.
|
United States42802 Posts
The objections being raised against Mexicans today are echoes of the ones raised against Italians in the early 20th Century and Irish in the 19th Century. That they're lazy, criminal, culturally alien and so forth. All Catholic groups too notably. This is not a new 21st Century issue. This has been around as long as WASPs have felt threatened by the unknown. Those past groups worked out okay, enriching the American melting pot, the Mexicans are unlikely to bring about the end of America. Also America really is not overcrowded.
|
On August 20 2015 04:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:47 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. The "New World" phrasing comes from how I describe, simply saying it isn't true might satisfy your personal perspective but it's simply disregarding history. No one who lived in North America for the thousands of years before Europeans showed up called it "The New World", but some white European Johnny come latelys come over and since white history is history (as far as North America is concerned) we stick with these newcomer's description instead of accepting the terms used by the people living here long before Europe even had countries. The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New". Do you have some source that would show it was their whiteness that contributed to the phrasing? Of course no one who already lived their would call it "new." What do you think native Americans would have called Europe? This is so classic GreenHorizons. Moreover, the fact that once again you try to dive into my mind and tell ME why I did something is absurd. It's not even that conditions have changed, today we have more immigrants with less time between "waves" then we have ever had, from what I recall reading. Before we'd have waves punctuated by periods of relatively low immigration. Today it's more like a river. Point is, there are concerns and conditions that exist today that weren't around at the turn of the last century.
lol if you still can't see it I don't think I can explain it to you further.
We still have descendants from those original people who live here. It's not and wasn't a new world for them, perhaps you can explain why their understanding isn't the prevalent one without depending on the idea that it was new to white people so it's accurate to call it "new"?
|
On August 20 2015 04:31 KwarK wrote:
The objections being raised against Mexicans today are echoes of the ones raised against Italians in the early 20th Century and Irish in the 19th Century. That they're lazy, criminal, culturally alien and do forth. All Catholic groups too notably. This is not a new 21st Century issue. This has been around as long as WASPs have felt threatened by the unknown. Thoee past groups worked out okay, enriching the American melting pot, the Mexicans are unlikely to bring about the end of America. Also America really is not overcrowded.
I have yet to see you make one argument as to why an open borders policy would actually be "good policy" for the US beyond just being an "equitable" policy.
|
On August 20 2015 03:17 Deathstar wrote:
Yeah the welfare state needs to get cut down hard. That's how I see it. We're not going to actually get rid of these illegals, even if we want to, but it looks like a good portion of "Americans" want an open border.
What you have in the US is not a welfare state in the slightest.
Also, the idea that "immigrants come to leech of our welfare money" is pretty much an urban legend to all my knowledge. They just want to live in a country that is less shit than the one they come from (can you really blame them for that?), and rather often end up working more for less money than the native citizens.
If you really want to do something against immigration, the humane and effective way to do that is to work on finding ways to make the countries they come from less shit. Stopping to destroy them would be a good starting point. A lot of the bad situations in mexico and latin american states can be pretty directly linked to US policy. The war on drugs is a big one here. CIA anti communist interventions in the past has also been pretty effective at making those places more shitty.
|
On August 20 2015 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:19 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:47 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. The "New World" phrasing comes from how I describe, simply saying it isn't true might satisfy your personal perspective but it's simply disregarding history. No one who lived in North America for the thousands of years before Europeans showed up called it "The New World", but some white European Johnny come latelys come over and since white history is history (as far as North America is concerned) we stick with these newcomer's description instead of accepting the terms used by the people living here long before Europe even had countries. The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New". Do you have some source that would show it was their whiteness that contributed to the phrasing? Of course no one who already lived their would call it "new." What do you think native Americans would have called Europe? This is so classic GreenHorizons. Moreover, the fact that once again you try to dive into my mind and tell ME why I did something is absurd. It's not even that conditions have changed, today we have more immigrants with less time between "waves" then we have ever had, from what I recall reading. Before we'd have waves punctuated by periods of relatively low immigration. Today it's more like a river. Point is, there are concerns and conditions that exist today that weren't around at the turn of the last century. lol if you still can't see it I don't think I can explain it to you further. We still have descendants from those original people who live here. It's not and wasn't a new world for them, perhaps you can explain why their understanding isn't the prevalent one without depending on the idea that it was new to white people so it's accurate to call it "new"?
Do we force Native Americans to call it the new world? Perhaps the fact they are the vast minority has something to do with why it is still called "new." Nevermind the fact that words and names like these don't change overnight. It's a useful phrase with a particular meaning. You have done jack all to prove it has anything to do with race, so I will assume you can't. Nor have you explained why your view should be the prevalent one. This nation has a western world heritage, and in Western Europe at the time, America was "new" the them. It's not hard to understand.
|
On August 20 2015 04:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:31 KwarK wrote:
The objections being raised against Mexicans today are echoes of the ones raised against Italians in the early 20th Century and Irish in the 19th Century. That they're lazy, criminal, culturally alien and do forth. All Catholic groups too notably. This is not a new 21st Century issue. This has been around as long as WASPs have felt threatened by the unknown. Thoee past groups worked out okay, enriching the American melting pot, the Mexicans are unlikely to bring about the end of America. Also America really is not overcrowded. I have yet to see you make one argument as to why an open borders policy would actually be "good policy" for the US beyond just being an "equitable" policy.
Because the next great minds can just as easily come from poverty in a foreign country as they can come from any first world nation.
And there are very few other countries where such a mind could live up to it's fullest potential. Any smart nation would take a million average or below minds for one great one. Hell people were against Einstein's immigration because of his "radical" ideas (and Jewish descent).
This nation has a western world heritage, and in Western Europe at the time, America was "new" the them.
So that's a no. I hope this at least makes it clear for those not too stubborn to see reason.
They just want to live in a country that is less shit than the one they come from (can you really blame them for that?)
You would think not as that's exactly why Europeans are here in the first place.
|
On August 20 2015 04:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:47 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. The "New World" phrasing comes from how I describe, simply saying it isn't true might satisfy your personal perspective but it's simply disregarding history. No one who lived in North America for the thousands of years before Europeans showed up called it "The New World", but some white European Johnny come latelys come over and since white history is history (as far as North America is concerned) we stick with these newcomer's description instead of accepting the terms used by the people living here long before Europe even had countries. The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New". Do you have some source that would show it was their whiteness that contributed to the phrasing? Of course no one who already lived there would call it "new." What do you think native Americans would have called Europe? This is so classic GreenHorizons. Moreover, the fact that once again you try to dive into my mind and tell ME why I did something is absurd. This set of posts perfectly exemplifies the GH thinking process, as well its deeps flaws. Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On August 20 2015 03:56 KwarK 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. Which is remarkably convenient for the people advocating that the ladder that brought them to the top be removed less other people follow them. Kwark, do you believe that the US should have an open door immigration policy like it did during the 19th century and into the early 20th century? Where basically the only thing stopping someone from emigrating to the US was the cost and risk of a boat voyage? How do you see such a policy working in practice? Because xDaunt is simply pointing out the obvious, to me, which is that the US that had virtually unlimited immigration was a very different country in a very different world. And thus, policies might need revising in this changed environment. Some form of restriction on immigration now seems necessary. When the borders were open, the US was a largely unpopulated country with incredible potential and too little manpower to exploit that. That is simply not the case right now. It's not even that conditions have changed, today we have more immigrants with less time between "waves" then we have ever had, from what I recall reading. Before we'd have waves punctuated by periods of relatively low immigration. Today it's more like a river. Good or not, point is, there are concerns and conditions that exist today that weren't around at the turn of the last century.
I'm going to try to introduce some perspective into the whole "New World" discussion through a thought experiment. Let's say you go on a vacation to Europe, and are really excited to get there. You decide you are going to call it New America. Europeans politely remind you that actually all these places already have names and it isn't really new. France, Spain, Italy, etc..
So you come back with some terrible diseases and a few armies, and wipe out 90% of the people currently living in Europe. Entire nations are wiped out, so that no one even remembers what they were called before. After a while the people come to be referred to as "Native New Americans" and no one remembers what the old countries used to be called.
In this context, maybe you can sort of understand why calling the Western Hemisphere the "New World" is sort of a touchy subject? I mean, if the European conquerors HADN'T been white supremacists they probably would have tried to preserve the existing cultures including the names of the various nations. Instead they just killed everyone and called it the New World.
|
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/08/18/ben-carson-phoenix-visit-rally/31955913/
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, speaking Tuesday before a Phoenix crowd larger than the one that turned out weeks ago to hear front-runner Donald Trump, touched on themes of healing the country, following God and bringing authenticity to the race for the White House.
Supposedly they originally expected less than 2,300 people and then they had to change venues to accommodate the higher audience count. I actually don't even remember anything notable about Mr. Carson from after the debate lol
|
On August 20 2015 04:51 JinDesu wrote:http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/08/18/ben-carson-phoenix-visit-rally/31955913/Show nested quote +Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, speaking Tuesday before a Phoenix crowd larger than the one that turned out weeks ago to hear front-runner Donald Trump, touched on themes of healing the country, following God and bringing authenticity to the race for the White House. Supposedly they originally expected less than 2,300 people and then they had to change venues to accommodate the higher audience count. I actually don't even remember anything notable about Mr. Carson from after the debate lol
Depends on which count you use for Trump, he says 15,000, the official count is closer to 5,000. Carson supporters were claiming 12,000 but the official count was closer to 6,000. There was someone who's official count was actually over 10,000 though...
|
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.
Just because it is convenient doesn't make it wrong. That is poor logic, and by that argument you can't change any policy ever because people in the future will be affected differently than people in the past.
I think GH makes a decent point: either the Constitution is malleable and open to interpretation or it is not. You can't argue for the ultimate sanctity of gun rights and then claim birthright citizenship isn't convenient any longer. Fortunately for me I think gun rights and birthright citizenship are both antiquated, so yay. The Constitution is over 200 years old and the world and country has changed much since it, and the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, were written.
Going all the way into the early 1900's, it was difficult to emigrate to the United States. If you were European or Asian, you had to pack up or sell everything you own and pay for a fare across the ocean with no guarantee of success or even survival. For the Mexican/US border, that didn't even really exist for a long time, and those were the least populated areas of the United States anyways, so have at it. None of this holds true anymore, so I don't understand why we should be bound by the same immigration policies. Without a physical (wall) or artificial (policy) barrier, we will just have constant immigration from Mexico until Mexicans don't feel like emigrating will improve their position. Given the state of Mexico currently, I don't want to know what the U.S. will look like if it gets to that point.
And to be clear, I don't think immigration would be the cause of said U.S. decline, just that there would be no reason for it to cease until the standard of living here is as bad as it currently is in Mexico, which may never happen. Also, the idea of building a functional wall that is 2,000 miles long that Mexico will pay for is patently ridiculous and not even worth discussing. But immigration policy can make a real difference.
|
United States42802 Posts
On August 20 2015 04:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:31 KwarK wrote:
The objections being raised against Mexicans today are echoes of the ones raised against Italians in the early 20th Century and Irish in the 19th Century. That they're lazy, criminal, culturally alien and do forth. All Catholic groups too notably. This is not a new 21st Century issue. This has been around as long as WASPs have felt threatened by the unknown. Thoee past groups worked out okay, enriching the American melting pot, the Mexicans are unlikely to bring about the end of America. Also America really is not overcrowded. I have yet to see you make one argument as to why an open borders policy would actually be "good policy" for the US beyond just being an "equitable" policy.
Good policy is a subjective definition. If you define "good policy" as increasing the wealth of current American citizens then ending slavery was certainly very bad policy, the American citizens previously got to own other people and benefit from the labour of those slaves. Ending it in the name of making things more "equitable" was certainly bad policy. But there has been a school of thought that dates from the foundation of the United States and continues to this day that freedom and justice have value, even if they get in the way of "fuck you, I got mine".
Irish American immigration certainly had its issues, from the monstrousity you call St. Patrick's Day to the birth, life and presidency of G.W. Bush. But without them you also wouldn't have had JFK. Or Reagan for those on the Republican side. We've already got a Cinco de Mayo monstrousity, ending immigration now won't undo that, so I'd argue it'd be good policy to wait for the Mexican JFK.
So, two strands of this. Firstly, good policy can be defined as policy that conforms to the stated aims and beliefs of the United States. Allowing immigration certainly meets this first criteria and history has very much favoured America making the "equitable" policy decision over trying to maximise the short term wealth of its current citizens. Secondly, it's good policy because it has a long history of being a successful policy that makes America the great nation it is today. We've been here before, this debate has happened before and very few people would, after seeing how it turned out, still argue your side.
|
On August 20 2015 05:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 04:31 KwarK wrote:
The objections being raised against Mexicans today are echoes of the ones raised against Italians in the early 20th Century and Irish in the 19th Century. That they're lazy, criminal, culturally alien and do forth. All Catholic groups too notably. This is not a new 21st Century issue. This has been around as long as WASPs have felt threatened by the unknown. Thoee past groups worked out okay, enriching the American melting pot, the Mexicans are unlikely to bring about the end of America. Also America really is not overcrowded. I have yet to see you make one argument as to why an open borders policy would actually be "good policy" for the US beyond just being an "equitable" policy. Good policy is a subjective definition. If you define "good policy" as increasing the wealth of current American citizens then ending slavery was certainly very bad policy, the American citizens previously got to own other people and benefit from the labour of those slaves. Ending it in the name of making things more "equitable" was certainly bad policy. But there has been a school of thought that dates from the foundation of the United States and continues to this day that freedom and justice have value, even if they get in the way of "fuck you, I got mine". Irish American immigration certainly had its issues, from the monstrousity you call St. Patrick's Day to the birth, life and presidency of G.W. Bush. But without them you also wouldn't have had JFK. Or Reagan for those on the Republican side. We've already got a Cinco de Mayo monstrousity, ending immigration now won't undo that, so I'd argue it'd be good policy to wait for the Mexican JFK. So, two strands of this. Firstly, good policy can be defined as policy that conforms to the stated aims and beliefs of the United States. Allowing immigration certainly meets this first criteria and history has very much favoured America making the "equitable" policy decision over trying to maximise the short term wealth of its current citizens. Secondly, it's good policy because it has a long history of being a successful policy that makes America the great nation it is today. We've been here before, this debate has happened before and very few people would, after seeing how it turned out, still argue your side.
You still haven't given any good reasons for letting everyone in as opposed to a measured approach.
Are you actually saying that the US can financially absorb the burden of anyone and everyone who comes here?
Are you saying that there should be no selection whatsoever?
|
On August 20 2015 04:56 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 03:56 KwarK 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. Which is remarkably convenient for the people advocating that the ladder that brought them to the top be removed less other people follow them. I think GH makes a decent point: either the Constitution is malleable and open to interpretation or it is not. You can't argue for the ultimate sanctity of gun rights and then claim birthright citizenship isn't convenient any longer. Fortunately for me I think gun rights and birthright citizenship are both antiquated, so yay. The Constitution is over 200 years old and the world and country has changed much since it, and the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, were written.
No, it's not a decent point. It's a logical fallacy. Whether something is a good policy is not the same as whether it is the law constitutionally (or statutorily).
|
If there was something about US land that made it inherently better, I would see a point on allowing people to freely move there. Actually, people just want to benefit from the hard work which made it a nice country. And they are going to bring some of the culture that made theirs worse, which will have to be wrestled out of them at the expense of society. For how much criticism the US get for being the world's police, it's amusing to see people expecting them to be the world's walk-in babysitter.
|
On August 20 2015 05:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2015 04:31 KwarK wrote:
The objections being raised against Mexicans today are echoes of the ones raised against Italians in the early 20th Century and Irish in the 19th Century. That they're lazy, criminal, culturally alien and do forth. All Catholic groups too notably. This is not a new 21st Century issue. This has been around as long as WASPs have felt threatened by the unknown. Thoee past groups worked out okay, enriching the American melting pot, the Mexicans are unlikely to bring about the end of America. Also America really is not overcrowded. I have yet to see you make one argument as to why an open borders policy would actually be "good policy" for the US beyond just being an "equitable" policy. Good policy is a subjective definition. If you define "good policy" as increasing the wealth of current American citizens then ending slavery was certainly very bad policy, the American citizens previously got to own other people and benefit from the labour of those slaves. Ending it in the name of making things more "equitable" was certainly bad policy. But there has been a school of thought that dates from the foundation of the United States and continues to this day that freedom and justice have value, even if they get in the way of "fuck you, I got mine". Irish American immigration certainly had its issues, from the monstrousity you call St. Patrick's Day to the birth, life and presidency of G.W. Bush. But without them you also wouldn't have had JFK. Or Reagan for those on the Republican side. We've already got a Cinco de Mayo monstrousity, ending immigration now won't undo that, so I'd argue it'd be good policy to wait for the Mexican JFK. So, two strands of this. Firstly, good policy can be defined as policy that conforms to the stated aims and beliefs of the United States. Allowing immigration certainly meets this first criteria and history has very much favoured America making the "equitable" policy decision over trying to maximise the short term wealth of its current citizens. Secondly, it's good policy because it has a long history of being a successful policy that makes America the great nation it is today. We've been here before, this debate has happened before and very few people would, after seeing how it turned out, still argue your side.
These are all great points. They are however, not in a vacuum. If we have that kind of policy, we have to also have the kind of heartless domestic policy that is comfortable with the proverbial "dying in the streets". Particularly with South/Central American immigrants, we are having an issue incorporating them into the systems we currently have. Its not only 1st Generation immigrants that have low relative incomes. We see that persisting to 2nd and 3rd generations for them as well.
Look, Europeans are freaking out over a half million people that managed to make it across the Mediterranean like the guys from "Escape from Alcatraz" because the modern state cannot deal with a non-homogeneous society.
|
On August 20 2015 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +This nation has a western world heritage, and in Western Europe at the time, America was "new" the them. So that's a no. I hope this at least makes it clear for those not too stubborn to see reason.
If "reason" is code for " don't have any proof besides my own, race obsessed mind," then the answer is indeed "no."
On August 20 2015 04:49 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2015 04:19 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 20 2015 03:47 Introvert wrote:On August 20 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. The "New World" phrasing comes from how I describe, simply saying it isn't true might satisfy your personal perspective but it's simply disregarding history. No one who lived in North America for the thousands of years before Europeans showed up called it "The New World", but some white European Johnny come latelys come over and since white history is history (as far as North America is concerned) we stick with these newcomer's description instead of accepting the terms used by the people living here long before Europe even had countries. The underlying narrative being that things aren't "real" until beheld by white eyes, anything seen by millions of people but not white people can therefor be accurately labeled as "New". Do you have some source that would show it was their whiteness that contributed to the phrasing? Of course no one who already lived there would call it "new." What do you think native Americans would have called Europe? This is so classic GreenHorizons. Moreover, the fact that once again you try to dive into my mind and tell ME why I did something is absurd. This set of posts perfectly exemplifies the GH thinking process, as well its deeps flaws. On August 20 2015 04:10 Acrofales wrote:On August 20 2015 03:56 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. Kwark, do you believe that the US should have an open door immigration policy like it did during the 19th century and into the early 20th century? Where basically the only thing stopping someone from emigrating to the US was the cost and risk of a boat voyage? How do you see such a policy working in practice? Because xDaunt is simply pointing out the obvious, to me, which is that the US that had virtually unlimited immigration was a very different country in a very different world. And thus, policies might need revising in this changed environment. Some form of restriction on immigration now seems necessary. When the borders were open, the US was a largely unpopulated country with incredible potential and too little manpower to exploit that. That is simply not the case right now. It's not even that conditions have changed, today we have more immigrants with less time between "waves" then we have ever had, from what I recall reading. Before we'd have waves punctuated by periods of relatively low immigration. Today it's more like a river. Good or not, point is, there are concerns and conditions that exist today that weren't around at the turn of the last century. I'm going to try to introduce some perspective into the whole "New World" discussion through a thought experiment. Let's say you go on a vacation to Europe, and are really excited to get there. You decide you are going to call it New America. Europeans politely remind you that actually all these places already have names and it isn't really new. France, Spain, Italy, etc.. So you come back with some terrible diseases and a few armies, and wipe out 90% of the people currently living in Europe. Entire nations are wiped out, so that no one even remembers what they were called before. After a while the people come to be referred to as "Native New Americans" and no one remembers what the old countries used to be called. In this context, maybe you can sort of understand why calling the Western Hemisphere the "New World" is sort of a touchy subject? I mean, if the European conquerors HADN'T been white supremacists they probably would have tried to preserve the existing cultures including the names of the various nations. Instead they just killed everyone and called it the New World.
Well, ignoring the glaring difference between America and your thought experiment, I wouldn't expect it to be a touchy subject for people who have no reason to make it one. I don't know if Native Americans at the time would be so insulted. They had their own nations and tribes, I'm not sure they even had a word for the entire continent (in any of their various languages).
Also, as a side note, they are called "Native Americans" not "Native New Americans" which is an admission right at the start that they were here first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1575
521
325
EPT
