|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 14 2024 00:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:
There is a melting pot, you just have to jump in. It is more voluntary than it used to be (judgement reserved on the benefits/downsides of that).
It's just silly that people assume eveyone who crosses the border, and in whatever manner, is the same. The immigrant from India, or even the Mexican worker of 20 years ago is not a stand-ii for eveyone who crosses, especially given how things have gone the last few years. Given the sheer volume of illegal crossings or fake asylum seekers recently you got a lot of all sorts of people! Which is why thr border need to be controlled. Eh, there isn't a melting pot nor do I suspect there ever was one. An Italian immigrant and a Russian immigrant and an Irish immigrant didn't all come to NYC and suddenly they melted into some American identity. They just lived their lives. The "American identity" came when their children were born and were taught English with a New York accent, and went to fight for the US military in the first world war. The same as my aunt and uncle don't feel particularly American, but my cousins are Americans. And I won't ever consider myself Catalan or Spanish, but if I had kids they'd no doubt grow up Catalan, because that's just the kind of town I live in. It isn't any different really: we have an identity that will just never completely fit in. There's Catalan and Spanish cultural aspects that I genuinely love, but that doesn't make me "melted" :p
I wouldn't say it has to be instantaneous. I think the melting pot cliche is more or less accurate, and you can see thst in how these communities change over time. Now maybe that's true in other countries besides America, but again going by volume, it's more true here. At least to me in CA. I know multiple first generation Americans (people born Americans even when one/both parents were not citizens) and that kind of thing seems very real. I think whst you are describing is part of what I'm talking about.
On September 14 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:
There is a melting pot, you just have to jump in. It is more voluntary than it used to be (judgement reserved on the benefits/downsides of that).
It's just silly that people assume eveyone who crosses the border, and in whatever manner, is the same. The immigrant from India, or even the Mexican worker of 20 years ago is not a stand-ii for eveyone who crosses, especially given how things have gone the last few years. Given the sheer volume of illegal crossings or fake asylum seekers recently you got a lot of all sorts of people! Which is why thr border need to be controlled. You get all sorts of people when they're legal, too. That's kind of part-and-parcel with immigration in general. Controlling the border won't change that.
Come now, an open border encourages all sorts of malcontents, I don't know why we need pretend otherwise.
|
On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC?
Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?'
What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this?
|
On September 14 2024 01:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On September 13 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:
There is a melting pot, you just have to jump in. It is more voluntary than it used to be (judgement reserved on the benefits/downsides of that).
It's just silly that people assume eveyone who crosses the border, and in whatever manner, is the same. The immigrant from India, or even the Mexican worker of 20 years ago is not a stand-ii for eveyone who crosses, especially given how things have gone the last few years. Given the sheer volume of illegal crossings or fake asylum seekers recently you got a lot of all sorts of people! Which is why thr border need to be controlled. You get all sorts of people when they're legal, too. That's kind of part-and-parcel with immigration in general. Controlling the border won't change that. Come now, an open border encourages all sorts of malcontents, I don't know why we need pretend otherwise.
I'm more inclined to think people who need to go to the border will do so without taking a full appraisal of the state of our border policy, because they have other, more urgent things going on that necessitate them coming to the US in the first place. By contrast, I don't think most people coming to the border, legal or illegal, are opportunistic malcontents, as you put it. That's a Fox News talking point, and I don't buy it at face value.
|
On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this?
Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not.
|
On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not.
They don't, because eating cats and dogs wasn't a problem. As another point of reference, you could take the word of locals directly saying they think the immigrant population they've developed has been good for the local community and economy. No further JAQ-ing required.
|
Northern Ireland26034 Posts
On September 14 2024 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. They don't, because eating cats and dogs wasn't a problem. As another point of reference, you could take the word of locals directly saying they think the immigrant population they've developed has been good for the local community and economy. No further JAQ-ing required.
Provided that is the case, absolutely! Can’t argue against that lived experience
I do think BJ made a good point in that gentrification from internal populations and immigration from external ones are often treated very differently.
Obviously the Trump stuff is clown territory
|
On September 14 2024 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. They don't, because eating cats and dogs wasn't a problem. As another point of reference, you could take the word of locals directly saying they think the immigrant population they've developed has been good for the local community and economy. No further JAQ-ing required.
I have no idea what “locals” you are referencing. OBlade, Acrofales, and myself have already provided sources indicated the town has received emergency funding from the state, resources for policing from the state and sources indicated the resources of the city are strained or overwhelmed. You’re citing someone unnamed locals that say everything is hunky dory without providing a link.
Seems like some people in this thread are willing to provide sources for their posts and others just want to dismiss them and talk about cat eating instead.
|
United States10235 Posts
On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not.
Your entire argument boils down to: there was some things that were bad related to mass migration into an area, ergo, it must be bad. Rather than, you know, looking at all the positives that it brings...
|
On September 14 2024 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 01:20 Introvert wrote:On September 14 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On September 13 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:
There is a melting pot, you just have to jump in. It is more voluntary than it used to be (judgement reserved on the benefits/downsides of that).
It's just silly that people assume eveyone who crosses the border, and in whatever manner, is the same. The immigrant from India, or even the Mexican worker of 20 years ago is not a stand-ii for eveyone who crosses, especially given how things have gone the last few years. Given the sheer volume of illegal crossings or fake asylum seekers recently you got a lot of all sorts of people! Which is why thr border need to be controlled. You get all sorts of people when they're legal, too. That's kind of part-and-parcel with immigration in general. Controlling the border won't change that. Come now, an open border encourages all sorts of malcontents, I don't know why we need pretend otherwise. I'm more inclined to think people who need to go to the border will do so without taking a full appraisal of the state of our border policy, because they have other, more urgent things going on that necessitate them coming to the US in the first place. By contrast, I don't think most people coming to the border, legal or illegal, are opportunistic malcontents, as you put it. That's a Fox News talking point, and I don't buy it at face value.
"Full appraisal." You know how word of mouth works, yes? There has been a problem at the border for years, word gets around. It's been less than fully secure for decades.
You do know that transporting people to the border is a business for human traffickers and cartels, yes? And it's been that way for years? Ans these same organizations also partake in criminal activity here. I'm saying the porous border makes it easier for people up to no good to cross. The number of getaways alone is staggering.
I just don't know why it's so hard to believe that criminals would take advantage of a bad border. I feel like we had this discussion last year or thr year before, although maybe we are making progress. Hopefully we can all acknowledge the situation at the border has been bad for Biden's entire presidency.
|
On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not.
My point is that the chain of information that resulted in "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" was a far cry from an NYC mayor saying there were issues with migration.
I'm not questioning the validity of Springfield's issues. I'm questioning how quickly we got to "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" and how that path is anything other than racist. Saying "What about the NYC mayor?" doesn't do anything because we didn't hear about this from Springfield's mayor. We didn't hear about this from a credible source, the news feed started with a facebook post and was picked up by some idiots, then made its way to a former president.
DPB (I think?) posted sources for 'eating pets' being a hoax even before the debate.
oBlade's source says the AG was critical of 'media' for not using all the sources available to them, and ends with a statement that the mayor said there were no credible reports.
If Republicans were interested in pointing to an immigration issue and not being racist about it, I'm sure they could have figured that out. Instead, they picked up a story about someone in Ohio eating some geese and turned it into many hatian migrants eating cats and dogs.
|
On September 14 2024 03:52 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. Your entire argument boils down to: there was some things that were bad related to mass migration into an area, ergo, it must be bad. Rather than, you know, looking at all the positives that it brings...
Your argument is the exact opposite: there are some good things related to the mass migration ergo it must be good. The main difference is I've actually provided links and sources detailing some of the struggles the town is facing whereas you've just sort of declared that "The town is fine. The town is better off" without providing any links/sources to the thread.
|
On September 14 2024 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. My point is that the chain of information that resulted in "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" was a far cry from an NYC mayor saying there were issues with migration. I'm not questioning the validity of Springfield's issues. I'm questioning how quickly we got to "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" and how that path is anything other than racist. Saying "What about the NYC mayor?" doesn't do anything because we didn't hear about this from Springfield's mayor. We didn't hear about this from a credible source, the news feed started with a facebook post and was picked up by some idiots, then made its way to a former president. DPB (I think?) posted sources for 'eating pets' being a hoax even before the debate. oBlade's source says the AG was critical of 'media' for not using all the sources available to them, and ends with a statement that the mayor said there were no credible reports. If Republicans were interested in pointing to an immigration issue and not being racist about it, I'm sure they could have figured that out. Instead, they picked up a story about someone in Ohio eating some geese and turned it into many hatian migrants eating cats and dogs.
You just seem really fixated on the pet-eating thing whereas my question has to do with the broader discussion of how immigration is affecting the town of Springfield and people's denial of the problems they face.
If you want conclude that Springfield has had a large influx of Haitian immigrants, there are problems associated with said influx, and the problems aren't imagined just because they are black... and also Trump and others are morons then I'm happy to agree with that. It's obvious that most people in the thread seem to only want to agree with the last portion of that while sticking their head in the sand about everything else.
|
On September 14 2024 04:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. My point is that the chain of information that resulted in "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" was a far cry from an NYC mayor saying there were issues with migration. I'm not questioning the validity of Springfield's issues. I'm questioning how quickly we got to "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" and how that path is anything other than racist. Saying "What about the NYC mayor?" doesn't do anything because we didn't hear about this from Springfield's mayor. We didn't hear about this from a credible source, the news feed started with a facebook post and was picked up by some idiots, then made its way to a former president. DPB (I think?) posted sources for 'eating pets' being a hoax even before the debate. oBlade's source says the AG was critical of 'media' for not using all the sources available to them, and ends with a statement that the mayor said there were no credible reports. If Republicans were interested in pointing to an immigration issue and not being racist about it, I'm sure they could have figured that out. Instead, they picked up a story about someone in Ohio eating some geese and turned it into many hatian migrants eating cats and dogs. You just seem really fixated on the pet-eating thing whereas my question has to do with the broader discussion of how immigration is affecting the town of Springfield and people's denial of the problems they face. If you want conclude that Springfield has had a large influx of Haitian immigrants, there are problems associated with said influx, and the problems aren't imagined just because they are black... and also Trump and others are morons then I'm happy to agree with that. It's obvious that most people in the thread seem to only want to agree with the last portion of that while sticking their head in the sand about everything else. Because the entire reason your talking about this is because of Trumps comments about illegals eating pets.
|
United States10235 Posts
On September 14 2024 04:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 03:52 FlaShFTW wrote:On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. Your entire argument boils down to: there was some things that were bad related to mass migration into an area, ergo, it must be bad. Rather than, you know, looking at all the positives that it brings... Your argument is the exact opposite: there are some good things related to the mass migration ergo it must be good. The main difference is I've actually provided links and sources detailing some of the struggles the town is facing whereas you've just sort of declared that "The town is fine. The town is better off" without providing any links/sources to the thread.
Immigration has literally been studied to be a net benefit to society. Cheap labor fills in for a society which desires to propser with better jobs, hence why more blue collar work becomes scarce. Plus an aging population needs more people to fill in for them especially after a generation where there was a population boom because as that generation ages and we're not reproducing at the same rate, we need people to fill in.
|
On September 14 2024 00:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 00:11 Magic Powers wrote:
@oBlade
"The crime rate of legal immigrants should be 0%"
No, it shouldn't. Immigrants should have roughly the same crime rate as locals. That is the normal expectation and you should adjust your expectation towards that.
In your view immigrants can only be angels or demons, nothing in between. That is the racist playbook all around the globe, it never changes. My guess is that oBlade meant that morally/ideally speaking, the crime rate of everyone ought to be 0%, but I was unclear about that too, so I hope that oBlade clarifies that part.
That is also true, but wasn't my immediate point. In a matter of priorities, immigrants must be held to a higher standard. We can't live in a world where people get to move to the US or Mexico or Brazil and do whatever the fuck they want but move to China or Russia and have to be on their best behavior, we can't have people shopping for where they can have lawbreaking lifestyles the most comfortably while taking advantage of their host in the shrewdest and most fraudulent ways. No country should tolerate that. Crossing a border is not a right, it's a privilege, and a country has a responsibility to do whatever necessary to protect itself and its people. Especially as countries often don't fully allow their citizens to protect themselves, like the US allows on paper but also has de facto hurdles against in many key areas that we are talking about. A nation has no general obligation whatsoever to outsiders knocking on the door. You want to make your nest somewhere, the least you owe is not adding to their problems.
Immigration is not some act of god, like the rain, oh it's just happening, and some of the raindrops are rapists and murderers, nothing you can do about it, and for some reason the drug trafficking rain drops keep landing on this one country that's riddled with corruption, and not on this other country that has the death penalty for drug trafficking raindrops.
The naive among us want to live in an RNG world where everything is fair because everything is average. That's not justice. The rest of us recognize human agency.
On September 14 2024 00:32 Sadist wrote:
Oblade please provide a source on the Venezuelan gang thing being true. I dont find it anywhere. All i see are mentions of it being a hoax and the apartments being in disrepair.
For the "thing" being "true" I just request not to be held to the standard of proving exactly what you heard it to be because I don't know what that is. It may be worse than you heard, it may be nowhere near as bad as you heard.
The claim that they had taken over the city I take with a grain of salt, and don't really see the evidence for. But another issue I saw was talking heads conflating the fact that they hadn't, for lack of better words, taken over the city, as meaning it was therefore a nothingburger and there was never any issue. I don't understand how that happened because when it came to me the original claim was never that they had taken over the whole city, but it's possible that claim was floating out there too.
My understanding is there were a couple locations, including Fitzimons Place and Aspen Grove, in the order I heard about them. The city used public power to evict the residents and force a sale, due to both dilapidation and crime. The former's residents got evicted and (rightly) complained they were the victims - either of the owner or gangs extorting them or both. It's not hard to see why dilapidation and crime go together.
https://nypost.com/2024/09/08/us-news/aurora-apartment-complex-taken-over-by-tren-de-aragua-must-sell/
After clearing the buildings that were seen as hotbeds of crime, about 10+ were arrested as well.
https://www.denver7.com/news/front-range/aurora/aurora-police-identify-10-documented-tren-de-aragua-members-in-the-city-9-have-been-arrested
It's not necessarily memory holed but it faded from the news cycle. I think the city dropped the ball, let the residents down, moved in the wrong order by not keeping them safer earlier.
|
On September 14 2024 04:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 14 2024 01:20 Introvert wrote:On September 14 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On September 13 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:
There is a melting pot, you just have to jump in. It is more voluntary than it used to be (judgement reserved on the benefits/downsides of that).
It's just silly that people assume eveyone who crosses the border, and in whatever manner, is the same. The immigrant from India, or even the Mexican worker of 20 years ago is not a stand-ii for eveyone who crosses, especially given how things have gone the last few years. Given the sheer volume of illegal crossings or fake asylum seekers recently you got a lot of all sorts of people! Which is why thr border need to be controlled. You get all sorts of people when they're legal, too. That's kind of part-and-parcel with immigration in general. Controlling the border won't change that. Come now, an open border encourages all sorts of malcontents, I don't know why we need pretend otherwise. I'm more inclined to think people who need to go to the border will do so without taking a full appraisal of the state of our border policy, because they have other, more urgent things going on that necessitate them coming to the US in the first place. By contrast, I don't think most people coming to the border, legal or illegal, are opportunistic malcontents, as you put it. That's a Fox News talking point, and I don't buy it at face value. "Full appraisal." You know how word of mouth works, yes? There has been a problem at the border for years, word gets around. It's been less than fully secure for decades. You do know that transporting people to the border is a business for human traffickers and cartels, yes? And it's been that way for years? Ans these same organizations also partake in criminal activity here. I'm saying the porous border makes it easier for people up to no good to cross. The number of getaways alone is staggering. I just don't know why it's so hard to believe that criminals would take advantage of a bad border. I feel like we had this discussion last year or thr year before, although maybe we are making progress. Hopefully we can all acknowledge the situation at the border has been bad for Biden's entire presidency.
Of course we know you are right because there were news stories indicating the migrants waiting to get in the US were celebrating Biden's victory at hopes of a change in US policy
"This is not only a Biden victory. We migrants also won, and we are very happy," Hidalgo told BuzzFeed News. “Seeing Trump once again sit on his throne would have been fatal for us."
Jose Lopez, a 45-year-old asylum-seeker from Nicaragua, had been keeping a watchful eye on the election results. He was part of a group of people who stayed up on election night.
Lopez, who has been in Matamoros for more than a year, said people shouted and cried. Others, he said, prayed when the race was called on Saturday. Lopez, like other immigrants BuzzFeed News spoke to, referred to Biden's victory as "our victory."
"We thanked God because he heard our cries," Lopez said
Gabriel, a 35-year-old immigrant also sent back to Mexico with his family, said he hopes Biden keeps his promise to end the Remain in Mexico policy. The Honduran national, who declined to use his full name for security concerns, said immigrants throughout the city were celebrating, not just at the camp.
"A new hope has opened up for us after waiting for so long in Mexico," Gabriel said. "This could change our lives."
Some people just can't comprehend that the migrants are not ignorant unsavvy people. Remember when they argued that the migrants that took advantage of free bus rides to sanctuary cities were being trafficked against their will? The idea that these people are smart and have agency over their own lives is a foreign concept to some.
|
On September 14 2024 04:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 04:27 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. My point is that the chain of information that resulted in "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" was a far cry from an NYC mayor saying there were issues with migration. I'm not questioning the validity of Springfield's issues. I'm questioning how quickly we got to "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" and how that path is anything other than racist. Saying "What about the NYC mayor?" doesn't do anything because we didn't hear about this from Springfield's mayor. We didn't hear about this from a credible source, the news feed started with a facebook post and was picked up by some idiots, then made its way to a former president. DPB (I think?) posted sources for 'eating pets' being a hoax even before the debate. oBlade's source says the AG was critical of 'media' for not using all the sources available to them, and ends with a statement that the mayor said there were no credible reports. If Republicans were interested in pointing to an immigration issue and not being racist about it, I'm sure they could have figured that out. Instead, they picked up a story about someone in Ohio eating some geese and turned it into many hatian migrants eating cats and dogs. You just seem really fixated on the pet-eating thing whereas my question has to do with the broader discussion of how immigration is affecting the town of Springfield and people's denial of the problems they face. If you want conclude that Springfield has had a large influx of Haitian immigrants, there are problems associated with said influx, and the problems aren't imagined just because they are black... and also Trump and others are morons then I'm happy to agree with that. It's obvious that most people in the thread seem to only want to agree with the last portion of that while sticking their head in the sand about everything else. Because the entire reason your talking about this is because of Trumps comments about illegals eating pets.
The entire reason we're talking about this is because you and Serm offered the ridiculous hot take that the population of Springfield has been unchanged and I couldn't let that go. Then it just spiraled from there.
|
On September 14 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 04:35 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2024 04:27 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. My point is that the chain of information that resulted in "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" was a far cry from an NYC mayor saying there were issues with migration. I'm not questioning the validity of Springfield's issues. I'm questioning how quickly we got to "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" and how that path is anything other than racist. Saying "What about the NYC mayor?" doesn't do anything because we didn't hear about this from Springfield's mayor. We didn't hear about this from a credible source, the news feed started with a facebook post and was picked up by some idiots, then made its way to a former president. DPB (I think?) posted sources for 'eating pets' being a hoax even before the debate. oBlade's source says the AG was critical of 'media' for not using all the sources available to them, and ends with a statement that the mayor said there were no credible reports. If Republicans were interested in pointing to an immigration issue and not being racist about it, I'm sure they could have figured that out. Instead, they picked up a story about someone in Ohio eating some geese and turned it into many hatian migrants eating cats and dogs. You just seem really fixated on the pet-eating thing whereas my question has to do with the broader discussion of how immigration is affecting the town of Springfield and people's denial of the problems they face. If you want conclude that Springfield has had a large influx of Haitian immigrants, there are problems associated with said influx, and the problems aren't imagined just because they are black... and also Trump and others are morons then I'm happy to agree with that. It's obvious that most people in the thread seem to only want to agree with the last portion of that while sticking their head in the sand about everything else. Because the entire reason your talking about this is because of Trumps comments about illegals eating pets. The entire reason we're talking about this is because you and Serm offered the ridiculous hot take that the population of Springfield has been unchanged and I couldn't let that go. Then it just spiraled from there. So we can read the future and totally didn't know you were going to bring up illegals from Springfield?
Wow, I should use this magical power to earn some money.
|
On September 14 2024 04:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 00:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 14 2024 00:11 Magic Powers wrote:
@oBlade
"The crime rate of legal immigrants should be 0%"
No, it shouldn't. Immigrants should have roughly the same crime rate as locals. That is the normal expectation and you should adjust your expectation towards that.
In your view immigrants can only be angels or demons, nothing in between. That is the racist playbook all around the globe, it never changes. My guess is that oBlade meant that morally/ideally speaking, the crime rate of everyone ought to be 0%, but I was unclear about that too, so I hope that oBlade clarifies that part. That is also true, but wasn't my immediate point. In a matter of priorities, immigrants must be held to a higher standard. [et al.]
I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with your belief that immigrants need to be held to a higher standard, but I'm fine with granting that because immigrants have lower crime rates anyway. They're already meeting higher standards.
|
On September 14 2024 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 04:35 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2024 04:27 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 14 2024 03:14 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2024 02:17 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2024 15:13 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 13 2024 14:37 BlackJack wrote:
Funny, because this is far from the first time I’ve brought up immigration in this thread. Most of the previous times it’s in reference to NYC and the pill of regret they are having to swallow from inviting migrants into their city and creating a crisis. Their mayor, Eric Adams, has gone on record saying the migrant crisis is destroying the city.
Yet all the times I’ve talked about that in this thread nobody claimed NYC was not actually receiving a significant amount of immigrants because of data they’ve sourced from the 2020 census. Nobody questioned whether their resources for policing, housing, schooling were being strained due to the migrant crisis. Nobody questioned the mayors motivations in using extreme language like “this is destroying our city.”
But suddenly it happens in bumfuck Ohio and it’s all either “they haven’t had that many migrants come in but even if they did it’s not a big deal. They are only disgruntled cause they don’t like black people.”
Amazing how that works. Not really, because the "They're eating cats" came from random facebook, which was then picked up and repeated by republican talking heads. The mayor and sheriff of bumfuck Ohio both indicated that it wasn't an actual issue that was actually happening, and was fabricated. That's what makes the republicans look like they're disgruntled racists. They were so excited that black people were finally doing something abhorrent that they forgot to fact-check that it was actually happening, first. They just assumed it was actually happening because OF COURSE IT WOULD. Hopefully that explains the difference between those for you. So if Trump and other Republicans said immigrants in NYC were eating cats would that then mean that people in this thread would argue a) NYC actually didn't receive a large influx of immigrants because their population has remained steady b) There aren't any significant problems with the (non-existent) large influx and c) NYC Mayor Eric Adam's is retroactively made a racist for his comments that migrants are destroying NYC? Are you asking me 'if a different thing happened, would people other than you argue differently?' What does that question do other than highlight the extreme levels of whataboutism you're throwing at this? Just trying to make sense of your point. My question was why were people denying that Springfield received a large influx of Haitian migrants and there are problems related to that that have nothing to do with race. Your response is essentially because Trump and others said people are eating cats. I just don’t see how Trumps statements changes reality on the ground for whether Springfield Ohio is dealing with legitimate problems or not. My point is that the chain of information that resulted in "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" was a far cry from an NYC mayor saying there were issues with migration. I'm not questioning the validity of Springfield's issues. I'm questioning how quickly we got to "haitian migrants are eating people's pets" and how that path is anything other than racist. Saying "What about the NYC mayor?" doesn't do anything because we didn't hear about this from Springfield's mayor. We didn't hear about this from a credible source, the news feed started with a facebook post and was picked up by some idiots, then made its way to a former president. DPB (I think?) posted sources for 'eating pets' being a hoax even before the debate. oBlade's source says the AG was critical of 'media' for not using all the sources available to them, and ends with a statement that the mayor said there were no credible reports. If Republicans were interested in pointing to an immigration issue and not being racist about it, I'm sure they could have figured that out. Instead, they picked up a story about someone in Ohio eating some geese and turned it into many hatian migrants eating cats and dogs. You just seem really fixated on the pet-eating thing whereas my question has to do with the broader discussion of how immigration is affecting the town of Springfield and people's denial of the problems they face. If you want conclude that Springfield has had a large influx of Haitian immigrants, there are problems associated with said influx, and the problems aren't imagined just because they are black... and also Trump and others are morons then I'm happy to agree with that. It's obvious that most people in the thread seem to only want to agree with the last portion of that while sticking their head in the sand about everything else. Because the entire reason your talking about this is because of Trumps comments about illegals eating pets. The entire reason we're talking about this is because you and Serm offered the ridiculous hot take that the population of Springfield has been unchanged and I couldn't let that go. Then it just spiraled from there. So we can read the future and totally didn't know you were going to bring up illegals from Springfield? Wow, I should use this magical power to earn some money.
What are you talking about? Go back and read the thread. I was in the middle of a conversation about inflation and then Serm went off a pet-eating tangent.
On September 13 2024 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
Its really werid to try and "um actually" greedflation not being a real thing and a campaign prop when you have one of the candidates screaming that black people are eating dogs and cats. A bunch of the scaremongering about legal immigrants coming into Springfield is about the increased strain on public resources and housing when the population of the town hasn't increased that significantly
Sermokala brought the topic up, the topic is now being discussed, and somehow I am to blame? Give me a break
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
