quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: mal: Do you really think Obama via the coast guard told the tankers to cease and desist for 24 hours before permitting the tankers to go back?
And the issue was safety for those on the tankers, you know, the sorts of workers who were on the oil rig when it blew up because safety was neglected.
I'm just as frustrated as you are about the border situation in Arizona, California, New Mexico, etc. I wager we have very different views on what should be done regarding those who are already here and want to come here. But we've already got a thread about the oil spill, could we perhaps try to maintain the semblance of organization by trying to keep like news stories with their most appropriate thread? TIA.
I do remember reading that several local sources were not being allowed to report/take pictures/ go near any remotely effected area. They had mentioned that the coast guard seemed to be working for BP. In fact i think that the article in the oil slick thread mentions this several times.
Either way it is well documented that Arizona has petitioned the Fed to help with the border situation and that the immigration laws are what they consider their last available move.
I think in both cases the lack of Federal response is what leads to these sort of problems.
Also
quote:As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
Technically there is no people that is "native" to the Americas. Everyone is an immigrant, some just immigrated before others.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As I've said, been there, done that. You're not asking for something new, but something old, that was tried and discarded.
This thread is as I recall an example of the older way of engaging with Lisa.
Also a good source of flashbacks... anyone remember Pelegius?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
Technically there is no people that is "native" to the Americas. Everyone is an immigrant, some just immigrated before others.
Love this canard. By that standard humans are not native to Eurasia or Australia either. So "technically" whatever that means, doesn't amount to very much. The point is not compelling in the least- I'm always embarrassed for the people who try and make it.
It's frustrating, really, that with just a little bit of knowledge you can construct for yourself, for the sake of whatever facile argument, a grand equivocation of the meaning of "native" cultures and "immigrant" ones.
A, number one, the native Americans did not "immigrate." They "migrated." In order to immigrate, you must have a country to go to. America was not a country 10,000 plus years ago, it was a land uninhabited by human beings (or not densely populated, the theories are numerous). Europeans also did not immigrate to America, for the same reasons, though what they did is not usually seen as "migration."
Two, the generations of people who descend from immigrants are not themselves immigrants. That would require them to seek new homes, not to stay in the ones they already have.
But all that technical stuff aside, which you nevertheless managed to get all wrong in your little canard, the nature of a native culture that has inhabited a land for millenia, and one that colonizes that land, or immigrates to that land after it has already been settled, is *not* the same. It is not necessary to make of them a false binary, and I think it is not necessary, at this juncture, to make a value judgment about them. But you do not honor them or improve your understanding of them by convincing yourself that they are all the same. Cultures are different. They develop differently. I don't believe what you've been taught is PC nonsense, I just think it's nonsense, which is an unfortunate side effect of PC culture. "We are all equal" does not mean "we are all the same," just as "there is no race," does not mean "we are all the same."
quote:Getting back on track, as for the Arizona immigration problems, I feel like this issue is a bit like the Gulf oil spill. Plug the leak first, then deal with the problem of illegal immigrants.
In my opinion, give them amnesty, provided they don't have a criminal record.
If you want to "plug the leak," giving illegal immigrants amnesty is not the way to do it. It will simply motivate more people to immigrate illegally, hoping they too could receive amnesty. Unless you mean only give amnesty to those who came before a certain date...? But that would be very difficult and costly to enforce. All in all, amnesty is counter-productive and pretty much the opposite of what we should be doing, if reducing illegal immigration is the goal.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Counter productive only towards the goal of reducing illegal immigration, perhaps. Not if we have other goals, as well.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:[Amensty would be] Counter productive only towards the goal of reducing illegal immigration, perhaps. Not if we have other goals, as well.
It's counter-productive if reducing illegal immigration is the main goal, or even one of the major goals. Giving amnesty would be such a huge blow to the goal of reducing illegal immigration that it can be said to be directly facilitative of the opposite goal of increasing illegal immigration:
There are some illuminating statistics here, among which
•A clear majority of people in Mexico, 56 percent, thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Just 17 percent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go illegally. The rest were unsure or thought it would make no difference. •Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, 65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally. •Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.
these stand out to me most as relevant to the present discussion.
I can't see how amnesty would be productive unless reducing illegal immigration wasn't one of the major goals at all. That is, if you had another goal that was significantly more important to you than reducing illegal immigration, such that you wouldn't mind sacrificing the reduction of illegal immigration entirely for the sake of this other goal, and that you think there aren't less destructive methods to achieve it besides amnesty. In that case, I would like to know what this other goal is.
In any case, though, I was replying to Lyrhawn, who stated that we should "plug the leak first, then deal with the problem [through amnesty]." In other words, "stop ongoing illegal immigration, then give amnesty to the illegal immigrants we already have." This specific set of actions is not possible, because dealing with the problem through amnesty would have the effect of removing the plug from the leak.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I can't see how amnesty would be productive unless reducing illegal immigration wasn't one of the major goals at all."
A more important goal to me than anything else is "doing right," by as many people as possible. Which means that, from where I'm coming from, whatever else we do about illegal immigration, a pathway amnesty is going to have to be a piece of the package. If we don't, we're saying "Yeah, we're pretty shitty people."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like a more or less realistic and non-neglectful approach to Mexico that incorporates both the complex issues of realistically impossible-to-completely-seal borders and the compounding issues of Mexico being unable to govern many of its provinces.
Like seriously we need an immigration policy designed to incorporate the reality that we can't stop the immigration, we can't close the borders, and due to the compounding issues with drug warfare, Mexico is more like a failed, lawless state than it has ever been.
What makes this issue especially funny in relation to American political spectrums is that one of the only really effective methods for controlling the border means effectively militarizing the border and utilizing a lot of eminent domain, but the Minutemen types who are the most rah-rah over Them Illegals are also extremely correlated with being fanatically averse to eminent domain. soooooo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A more important goal to me than anything else is "doing right," by as many people as possible. Which means that, from where I'm coming from, whatever else we do about illegal immigration, a pathway amnesty is going to have to be a piece of the package. If we don't, we're saying "Yeah, we're pretty shitty people."
This is an interesting but vague statement. What do you mean by "doing right" by illegal immigrants, and why do you think amnesty is strictly necessary for this?
Also, isn't it possible that a path to amnesty, if it led to the illegal immigration problem escalating significantly and becoming uncontrollable, would be "doing wrong" by current American citizens? You don't need to address this though--it's simply speculation on my part, and rather meaningless until you give a definition of what you mean by doing right.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Technically there is no people that is "native" to the Americas. Everyone is an immigrant, some just immigrated before others.
Love this canard. By that standard humans are not native to Eurasia or Australia either.
a canard is something that is untrue, what i said was not untrue, it is well documented that there is no naturally evolved human species in the Americas. i also made no claims about Australia or Eurasia.
quote:So "technically" whatever that means, doesn't amount to very much. The point is not compelling in the least- I'm always embarrassed for the people who try and make it.
you're right it isn't technically a point, its a factual point.
quote:It's frustrating, really, that with just a little bit of knowledge you can construct for yourself, for the sake of whatever facile argument, a grand equivocation of the meaning of "native" cultures and "immigrant" ones.
Please show me this equivocation, or for that matter the facile arguement. As is i don't believe i'm making any arguement as far as i can see i just made a remark that was in jest to another remark that was in jest.
quote:A, number one, the native Americans did not "immigrate." They "migrated." In order to immigrate, you must have a country to go to. America was not a country 10,000 plus years ago, it was a land uninhabited by human beings (or not densely populated, the theories are numerous). Europeans also did not immigrate to America, for the same reasons, though what they did is not usually seen as "migration."
Spare me useless semantics. Migration and Imigration mean the same thing, the establishment of a country is irrelevant. I'm not sure that just saying that if one group can "migrate" to a region and then several hundred years later another, different group can migrate for what you admit are the same reasons makes the second group less migrant than the others.
quote:Two, the generations of people who descend from immigrants are not themselves immigrants. That would require them to seek new homes, not to stay in the ones they already have.
Indeed, the next generations of any migrant people are become by definition natives. But you seem to not want to accept such a wide definition referring simply to those who arrived first as teh only natives. No human belongs to the region of the US. I am not making any claims about who got here first. I am also not making any moral claims about whetehr or not the newcomers had any rights to the original people's lands.
quote:But all that technical stuff aside, which you nevertheless managed to get all wrong in your little canard, the nature of a native culture that has inhabited a land for millenia, and one that colonizes that land, or immigrates to that land after it has already been settled, is *not* the same.
There was nothing wrong nor inaccurate with what i said unless you want to maintain that the difference between moving to a country is significantly different from moving to a georaphical reagion. Even if this were so, using a synonym of a word that has almost the same meaning does not make what i said false or wrong.
Arguements over what constitutes a native is valid when a new ethnic group is introduced into an area. It is moot after a few generations though seeing as those offspring become native as they are born in that region. It is even less effective after hundreds of years of mixing and expansion.
quote:It is not necessary to make of them a false binary, and I think it is not necessary, at this juncture, to make a value judgment about them. But you do not honor them or improve your understanding of them by convincing yourself that they are all the same.
At this point i am assuming you are now talking about native cultures rather than native people. You can certainly make an arguement that a culture can be more native than a people because the culture's history doesnt change as the people do. I don't see where you get that i am equivocating multiple cultures though, as i have said nothing of the sort.
quote:Cultures are different. They develop differently. I don't believe what you've been taught is PC nonsense, I just think it's nonsense, which is an unfortunate side effect of PC culture. "We are all equal" does not mean "we are all the same," just as "there is no race," does not mean "we are all the same."
I don't see where i've suggested that cultures are the same or where people are the same. I dont see where what i have said is politically correct. It is actually quite the opposite. What i have said is also not "nonsense" it is a well defended historical and archeological fact that no people are native to this country in their origin.
Now all that being said: My comment was not ment to cause harm or to offend. It was a humorous remark on your comment about "people without native blood paying you rent or leaving"
i made the assumption your comment was a joke. If this is not the case then you might want to review your statement because not only would the vast majority of people in America have "Native American" blood in them, but they would be "native" via having thier family live here for several hundred years.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
A less charitable person might say that a country which doesn't mind when this happens to others kind of deserves this.
As far as I'm concerned, all you people without Native American blood are renting the land from me and my Native brothers and sisters. Pay up, or GTFO.
like ecthalion, i too felt this was said in jest but ive heard it before and its never been said in a joking manner. i find such a statement almost amusing.
i have no "native" blood in me that i know of so, assuming id gladly "GTFO", where do you suggest i go? scandinavia, england, ireland or france? im sure any one of these countries would welcome with open arms the prodigal children that jumped the pond centuries ago and are now returning dirt poor and without education. do you think there is still that vacant plot of land my ancestors left all those years ago?
the debate isnt about immigration from europe, over a century ago, to an america with open borders. its about illegal immigration from and by way of mexico. in a modern world such as this, such actions constitute trespassing and fraud. clearly the mexican people dont want "their" land back as it was when they were driven from it more than a hundred years ago. they want the opportunities of a thriving economy and, at the least, basic human rights as we, meaning humans, have defined them.
the individuals who have crossed illegally and those who desire to enter by any means possible need an understanding and accepting america. some argue this can be achieved through immigration reform. but no american citizen should feel it necessary to sit at the table of reform discussion and compromise until the border is secure. if such security is impossible, the US government is truly inept.
at the political level, talk of amnesty destroys any hope of a bipartisan solution to the problem of illegal immigration. amnesty flies in the face of the entire system of justice which we have in the US. nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice, three concepts which are essential to society and civilization as it is found in the US and other modern, developed nations. sadly, mexico is deeply lacking when it comes to ensuring any of the three.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:in a modern world such as this, such actions constitute trespassing and fraud.
Why must they?
quote:nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice
Obviously you don't mean this literally. Why, metaphorically, do you think the concept of amnesty is incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be.
1 a : err, sin b : to make an unwarranted or uninvited incursion 2 : to commit a trespass; especially : to enter unlawfully upon the land of another synonyms trespass, encroach, infringe, invade mean to make inroads upon the property, territory, or rights of another
"Trespassing is a legal term that can refer to a wide variety of offenses against a person or against property. Trespassing as it relates to real estate law means entering onto land without consent of the landowner. There are both criminal and civil TRESPASS laws. Criminal trespass law is enforced by police, sheriffs, or park rangers. Civil trespass requires that the landowner initiate a private enforcement action in court to collect any damages for which the trespasser may be responsible, regardless of whether a crime has been committed. Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted. A trespasser would probably not be prosecuted if the land was open, the trespasser's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property, and the trespasser left immediately on request."
(enotes is, according my understanding, a wiki of sorts which always leaves its accuracy and reliability questionable to a degree. but i find that in this instance, it very accurately and in lay terms, defines this term in a way specific to legal matters. anyone with knowledge of more accurate definitions for fraud or trespassing or any other word in question is welcome to provide a link to it.)
the border between the united states and mexico is clearly delineated. its ridiculous to assume that hopping the fence, getting smuggled through border checkpoints stuffed in a vehicle or otherwise subverting the security measures in place to counter illegal entry is the standard and lawful process for entering the US. illegal immigrants knowingly violate the laws of the US when they cross the border. they rarely seek out 'papers' from men in back rooms while under the impression that they are going through the proper legal channels. illegals enter through "intentional deception made for personal gain" and this act, by it nature, results in direct and indirect damage to the individual citizens of the united states; its an affront to the rights of property and to benefit directly from the labors of another, without their consent is nothing less than fraud.
illegals dont leave when they are asked to. they repeatedly violate immigration laws until they have successfully subverted the security measures. under false pretenses, they gain entry into and remain within the country. the same or similar actions in another situation could be prosecuted as fraud and the offender labeled, even in stronger terms, an impostor.
if its required, i can further pick apart the definition of each word and show how, by their very definitions, the actions of an illegal immigrant constitute trespassing and fraud.
id like to know where, among the laws of the united states of america, and including anywhere within the bill of rights, do you find wording wherein someone is granted the right or ability to illegally enter into my home, eat the food and use the resources ive attained through honest labor for the benefit for me, my family and those with whom i desire to share, all the while breaking the laws ive established to govern my house as i see fit?
where, among the laws of this great land, and it is great, is someone granted the right or ability to illegally enter into the united states and profit from the established economic prosperity, educational institutions and health/medical establishments?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice
Obviously you don't mean this literally. Why, metaphorically, do you think the concept of amnesty is incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
i dont believe ive spoken metaphorically or used any words or ideas figuratively. to intentionally misrepresent what ive said as such isnt very honest.
the idea of a criminal being pardoned of past infractions of and non-compliance to the laws established by the citizens of a country, while the offender was within that country, and without submitting to the established consequences and/or punishment or without making proper restitutions for his/her crime, is an affront to rights and justice the world over and the consequences of such a pardon are suffered by all free people. if one wants to live in a society with anything resembling rights and freedoms, one must accept law and consequence and integrate it into all forms of government and society. amnesty is an affront to the processes and institutions which the free world uses to ensure order, which is requisite to peace and prosperity. amnesty is a step in the other direction towards chaos. personally, I wont accept that.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: id like to know where, among the laws of the united states of america, and including anywhere within the bill of rights, do you find wording wherein someone is granted the right or ability to illegally enter into my home, eat the food and use the resources ive attained through honest labor for the benefit for me, my family and those with whom i desire to share, all the while breaking the laws ive established to govern my house as i see fit?
Insufferable pride and naivete are apparently rights you *do* guard jealously.
quote: the idea of a criminal being pardoned of past infractions of and non-compliance to the laws established by the citizens of a country, while the offender was within that country, and without submitting to the established consequences and/or punishment or without making proper restitutions for his/her crime, is an affront to rights and justice the world over and the consequences of such a pardon are suffered by all free people.
As long as we're in the business of reductio ad absurdium completus (nominative case Latin geeks?), it is illegal for women to own property or conduct business in some countries today. The free practice of religion is illegal in some countries today. Free speech is illegal in some countries today. Should we have sent Alexandr Solzhenitsyn back to Russia because he had perpetrated crimes there, and not paid full restitution for those crimes? Was his freedom an affront to free people? And was not the American Revolution an act of Treason? Was that an affront to rights and justice?
For all your bombastic rhetoric, I don't think you've given due consideration to what justice and freedom mean. It's a typical neo-con viewpoint these days, unfortunately, that one's rights and freedom and destiny are threatened by the uneven application and enforcement of laws which have no effect on him at all. That punishment of all offenses is to the good, while the pardoning of any offense is to the ill. How sad and small that view is.
A word you forgot to google, from the OED:
quote: amnesty |ˈamnistē| noun ( pl. -ties) an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses : an amnesty for political prisoners | the new law granted amnesty to those who illegally left the country.
verb ( -ties, -tied) [ trans. ] grant an official pardon to : the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness.’
That is, this Great Nation has the solemnity and the wisdom to forgive and to forget the offenses of those who have broken its laws, when it is seen that these are a class of people who have been unjustly marginalized.
Perhaps a few words you can look up next time: "clemency," "mercy," "humanity (adj)," "compassion."
Or to the contrary: "ruthlessness," "vindictiveness," "venom," "spite," "rancor," "envy," "covetousness."
Amnesty is an act of a government, and a people, that is enlightened enough to recognize the shortcomings of its system of laws, and dismiss a wrong that has been done. It is a blessed thing that we are able to do this. You don't really believe in America, in my estimation, if you find such an act intolerable.
quote: id like to know where, among the laws of the united states of america, and including anywhere within the bill of rights, do you find wording wherein someone is granted the right or ability to illegally enter into my home, eat the food and use the resources ive attained through honest labor for the benefit for me, my family and those with whom i desire to share, all the while breaking the laws ive established to govern my house as i see fit?
Why do you believe that illegal immigration is best compared to home invasion?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hey, what're you doing in my house?! Hey! HEY! Put down that dusting rag! You stop vaccuuming that floor right now!"
Likening illegal immigration in this country to home invasion has always, always been a very stupid stance to take. That's a pretty aggressive, blunt way of putting it, but I just get so tired of hearing it. Illegal immigrants cannot be said to have come uninvited. The most that can be said is that they have been sent a very mixed message: don't get caught, and work a low-paying job, and while you're doing it stay off the radar and you can keep the job.
That's not home invasion. It's not home invasion if the 'invader' has been invited.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fear we face is not that undocumented workers will cross our border and do jobs for cash. The fear is that once enough of them cross our borders they will take over.
The fear is not that the drug dealers will sneak into our neighborhood and sell us drugs. The fear is that once they get here they will take over.
The solution to both is in our hands. Stop hiring the workers and they will cease to come looking for jobs. Stop taking the drugs and the dealers will find other neighborhoods. The enforcement that works is not aimed at those we call criminals. The enforcement that works is aimed at the American citizen who gives them money to become that criminal.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... The fear is that once enough of them cross our borders they will take over.
We don't have to immigrate, legally or illegally *just* to take over. But perhaps I've said too much already Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
capaxinfiniti's take on the issue, juxtaposed with his response to the native american angle, kind of indicates that there's a pretty appropriate solution for the mexicans: just keep doing what they're doing, supplant the population, and make it their land. Then they can say something like "the debate isn't about something that happened centuries ago."
quote:amnesty flies in the face of the entire system of justice which we have in the US. nowhere does amnesty fit within our definitions of rights, law or justice
um, ok. So you DO mean this literally? This is not metaphorical on your part?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I think it's at least internally consistent that capax views possession by superior force (cultural, economic, military, etc) as valid, and also fears immigration. Cultural supremacists live and die by the knife after all- if your culture is not supreme, that means someone else's *has* to be. The repackaging of white supremacy in recent years takes the same sort of shape with a finer edge: "we don't hate other races, we love our own greater race." That demands that you view yourself as great, and the power of others as an affront to your greatness.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is true, a true cultural supremacist should welcome immigration as a chance to interact with, influence, and ultimately assimilate other cultures.
Only an insecure cultural supremacist should fear immigration.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: This is true, a true cultural supremacist should welcome immigration as a chance to interact with, influence, and ultimately assimilate other cultures.
Only an insecure cultural supremacist should fear immigration.
Yeah, more or less. Count most of us as insecure of course, and with reason. We should fear totally uncontrolled massive immigration because it can be destructive, but what we're talking about here is not that. I would love for someone to give me an actual valid historical example of migrant worker immigration that actually *was* ultimately destructive.
There are have plenty of examples of slavery and peonage being highly regressive and destructive to societies, but those are the importation and or exploitation of labor by a society. I think largely the only similar dangers we face with mass migration are the aspects of that migration that we have made to resemble slavery and peonage. It's a great historical lesson that slavery, inasmuch as it creates wealth, destroys economies and cultures- when has honest labor ever done that?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Insufferable pride and naivete are apparently rights you *do* guard jealously.
perhaps. it is my opinion that we should strive to avoid even the slightest reduction of rights. the value you place on each individual right is arbitrary; you can do as you wish and according to your worldview. but when possible, i prefer to view rights as a composite and therefore all rights should be guarded jealously. you believe me to be proud and naïve; I believe otherwise. regardless, such behavior is well within my rights. what you have stated represents nothing more than your inability or lack of desire to express your disagreement. you havent shown how ive acted in a proud or naïve way and until you do so your accusation is baseless.
…The free practice of religion is illegal in some countries today. Free speech is illegal in some countries today… And was not the American Revolution an act of Treason? Was that an affront to rights and justice?
first, i live in america. im not accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights. in addition, im not actively denying them rights while they reside in their own country. when possible, america should aid those less fortunate in securing their rights but, ironically, some of the efforts already undertaken to do so are condemned and the US is portrayed negatively as the villainous ‘police’ of the world. there are many perceived injustices in this world and i lack the means and desire to crusade about making the wrong, right and the crooked, straight. i prefer to be specific in direction and goal, resulting in my actions being more effective.
second, you’ve brought up an interesting example, mentioning the american revolution, as I don’t see how it pertains to the discussion in any way. that event, 300 years ago, isnt analogous to illegal immigration or amnesty for illegal immigrants. those who immigrated from europe and those who ultimate organized the colonies to revolution and founded a nation, i mention specifically the english, weren’t being granted basic rights as they pertain to government, justice under the laws of the land from which they came, nor the sovereignty which they felt they were due. those ‘native’ to what would later be labeled the north american continent had no visually established borders and the laws regarding entry, if they existed, werent known to those immigrating from europe.
do you believe it to be against rights and justice to demand rights and justice? do you think it treasonous to persue rights within ones own country? i say no on both accounts. in fact, in america, thought not totally guaranteed, it’s a legally protected right to demand rights.
you should take your case to the mexican government. in such a crusade, you analogy about the american revolution may be more appropriate.
For all your bombastic rhetoric, I don't think you've given due consideration to what justice and freedom mean. It's a typical neo-con viewpoint these days, unfortunately, that one's rights and freedom and destiny are threatened by the uneven application and enforcement of laws which have no effect on him at all. That punishment of all offenses is to the good, while the pardoning of any offense is to the ill. How sad and small that view is.
ive given adequate consideration to the meanings of justice and freedom but it was made clear to me after my earlier posts that we have a different view of justice; a difference which cant be reconciled by merriam-webester or the OED.
its absurd how youve reduced, defined and summarized my ‘view’ given the limited knowledge you have regarding me and views. perhaps you’ve mistakenly deem all that ive stated to be all that I believe; my view is small because you say its small.
my view, regarding the issue a hand, is that the non-application and enforcement of laws threatens ones rights and freedoms (i don’t believe in destiny but that’s a different discussion). the punishment of an offense is to strive towards an ideal, a nation of order where its citizens can have confidence that their rights will be acknowledge and upheld and that justice will not fall to irrational emotions and dreams. unfortunately, youre guilty of holding the absurd view that ones actions can have zero effect on others. but such a fallacy isnt a product of your morals or political ideology; its found among all humans. the wise don’t entertain such fantasies.
quote: amnesty |ˈamnistē| noun ( pl. -ties) an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses : an amnesty for political prisoners | the new law granted amnesty to those who illegally left the country.
verb ( -ties, -tied) [ trans. ] grant an official pardon to : the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness.’
That is, this Great Nation has the solemnity and the wisdom to forgive and to forget the offenses of those who have broken its laws, when it is seen that these are a class of people who have been unjustly marginalized.
i agree. unjust marginalization is unjustified. but don’t fail to realize that even legal immigrants don’t have the same status as citizens within the country. living illegally in any country lends to marginalization because its a criminal act. in america we tend to not favor criminals. monitoring how and when an immigrant enters the country is essential to ensuring the immigrant isnt exploited or marginalized. if an immigrant came into the country legally, with the welcome sign above their head, and they still feel marginalized, thats a different issue and should be addressed accordingly.
your definition of amnesty is comprised within my definition of amnesty. youre either arguing semantics or youve intentionally misrepresented the definition to further your argument. its funny that you’ve used definitions from ‘your’ dictionary as opposed to the definitions which i provided, especially considering they are both from credible sources. were not referencing translations of the bible..
Perhaps a few words you can look up next time: "clemency," "mercy," "humanity (adj)," "compassion."
Or to the contrary: "ruthlessness," "vindictiveness," "venom," "spite," "rancor," "envy," "covetousness."
Amnesty is an act of a government, and a people, that is enlightened enough to recognize the shortcomings of its system of laws, and dismiss a wrong that has been done. It is a blessed thing that we are able to do this. You don't really believe in America, in my estimation, if you find such an act intolerable.
thanks for the homework but I know what those words mean. you’ve presented a very rich appeal to emotion in your arguments but your efforts wont distort the meaning of justice and order. nor have they convinced me that its not possible to have compassion for others and still strive for law and order. the america i believe in is one where a man is allowed to suffer the consequences of his own actions, whether they be desirable or undesirable.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Samp, I think it's at least internally consistent that capax views possession by superior force (cultural, economic, military, etc) as valid, and also fears immigration. Cultural supremacists live and die by the knife after all- if your culture is not supreme, that means someone else's *has* to be. The repackaging of white supremacy in recent years takes the same sort of shape with a finer edge: "we don't hate other races, we love our own greater race." That demands that you view yourself as great, and the power of others as an affront to your greatness.
are you insinuating that im a cultural supremacist? if so, what exactly do you believe my culture to be and how have i portrayed it as being superior?
and what you hold as great, even if shared by others, is subjective. to be great in your eyes isnt a highly desirous status in my opinion.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:first, i live in america. im not accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights.
Well, this is a load of crap.
I can't stand that sort of attitude, especially when the 'over there, not my problem' attitude is stated so baldly and falsely. You cannot possibly be unaware that the United States has taken, is taking, very real and potent action as we speak in the world at large that has a direct, serious impact on the actions of other people in other countries, and their rights whether having or lacking.
You vote for the officials who make these decisions. You are absolutely accountable, at least to some extent. We all are. Burden of living in a democracy that is not completely isolationist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Accountable to such an extent that it is laughable. Perhaps if America had an election system based on plural representation instead of single member district plurality, sure. However, it is not.
That and immigration is an issue, like it or not, as if "anyone" can become a citizen then what is the point of being a citizen in the first place. I have to chuckle a little as I was reading the federalist papers and in letter 2 by John Jay he described the fortunate situation that America has since we all had a common religious and ethnic background. Not that I'm anti-immigration or anything, simply find it interesting how thought has changed from then ( most of it for the better if you ask me ).
That and if we are accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights then what are we supposed to do to amend the situation. Now I have no moral qualms with taking action in other countries, and violating their sovereignty ( which is what taking any proactive measure really is). However, many people do and almost no one can agree on a single method for handling it all.
That and just to throw my two cents in on something that has irritated me for a long time. Due to the USA's odd position on citizenship I am a sort of quasi full citizen. I was born in the Netherlands and my father was stationed there with the military. So, I have a certificate of birth abroad, which is not the same as being a full born in the USA citizen. Trust me on this as everything that I have to fill out that has to pertain to my citizenship is different. However, anyone ( legally or illegally) born in the USA is a citizen. Now I am actually for that being law, however it irritates me that people born abroad to Americans have in some ways a second-class citizenship.
That and as I am marrying a German woman in July and I think that our immigration system is a total piece of junk and completely backwards. After our wedding I will probably have to wait half a year until she can join me in Minnesota. Complete rubbish if you ask me.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you’ve presented a very rich appeal to emotion in your arguments but your efforts wont distort the meaning of justice and order. nor have they convinced me that its not possible to have compassion for others and still strive for law and order."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
"Emotion will not alter my sense of justice and order!"
"I believe that I have access to my emotions and they are compatible with justice and order!"
You have your head so far up it you can't see how many times you've contradicted yourself. Many, in case you were wondering. And yes, it is pride and naivete that allow you to do this and not to notice yourself doing it.
Tell me, why did you edit out my mention of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn? Because you couldn't figure out how it was ok for a convicted criminal defector who had broken society's laws to be free in America? Because you don't know who he is? Believe it or not, the point was important to my argument, and you don't win by pretending it isn't there- actually that's how you get nowhere.
"you havent shown how ive acted in a proud or naïve way and until you do so your accusation is baseless."
Typical of you to this point. Legalistic when it suits you, cavalier when it does not. My characterization of you is not baseless. I do not have to prove it, because it is not a matter of fact. The basis for me calling you prideful and naive is in what you wrote- and you, being prideful and naive, are not required to see it that way in order to make it so.
"are you insinuating that im a cultural supremacist? if so, what exactly do you believe my culture to be and how have i portrayed it as being superior?"
Yes you are a cultural supremacist. It doesn't particularly matter what your culture is- you don't have to be where you see the top of the pile in order to believe in cultural supremacy. You just have to believe in the pile, and you do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Accountable to such an extent that it is laughable. Perhaps if America had an election system based on plural representation instead of single member district plurality, sure. However, it is not.
When I said 'absolutely accountable' I meant that it is certain we as Americans have some accountability, not the first definition of the word, 'without exception; completely; wholly; entirely'.
Now, I confess my own bias in that claim, which is a bias that isn't surprising in an American, I think. After all, I think any serious person who looks at history and current events with an effort to be objective will realize, to say the least, that our government has done some bad things. If we as Americans were wholly accountable for those bad things, well, that would be a pretty heavy burden to bear, so in that sense it's not surprising I should mean absolutely as 'positively' not 'wholly and completely'.
Having clarified myself, Black Fox, do you still think the idea of individual voting-age American accountability for American government actions abroad is laughable? It seems like a given to me that we would have some accountability. We are the ones who give the power to and literally choose who will direct these international actions, after all. And we're happy enough, as Americans, to take some credit for the good things we have done, and justly so, such as helping defeat the Soviet Union and helping to win WWII.
quote: That and if we are accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights then what are we supposed to do to amend the situation. Now I have no moral qualms with taking action in other countries, and violating their sovereignty ( which is what taking any proactive measure really is). However, many people do and almost no one can agree on a single method for handling it all.
I don't think I said or suggested we are accountable for the actions of foreign people in foreign countries, beyond what our own government has done to influence those actions.
quote: Now I am actually for that being law, however it irritates me that people born abroad to Americans have in some ways a second-class citizenship.
I've always thought that shades of citizenship that don't come attached to specific actions, such as violent felony crimes, are a distinctly unAmerican kind of thing. Even if it amounts to an increase in paperwork. It's just a tricky, slippery notion that can even lead to being quite harmful in the long run.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We ought to revisit the born here citizen here policy. If the constitution itself can be considered a living and breathing document, why can't this one law be reconsidered. The government stopped giving away free land to attract populations a long time ago.
I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, if anyone else does, enlighten me. What other nations grant citizenship to people just for being born there?
posted
That anyone born here is a citizen is a vital part of our strength. Numerous other countries are dealing with extensive, systemic problems integrating immigrant populations that entered the country generations ago, while US immigrant populations integrate in a very short number of generations, in large part because of that simple rule.
And no, I don't think that fewer than 10,000 people a year coming here to assure their child has US citizenship is a problem. Heck, since people who can afford that sort of thing will tend to be wealthy, it isn't even subject to the typical criticisms surrounding children of immigrants.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, if anyone else does, enlighten me. What other nations grant citizenship to people just for being born there?
quote:States that observe jus soli include:
* Antigua and Barbuda[3] * Argentina[3] * Barbados[3] * Belize[3] * Bolivia[3] * Brazil[3] * Canada[3] * Chile[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) * Colombia[3] * Dominica[3] * Dominican Republic[3] * Ecuador[3] * El Salvador[3] * Fiji[5] * Grenada[3] * Guatemala[3] * Guyana[3] * Honduras[3] * Jamaica[3] * Lesotho[6] * Malaysia[3] * Mexico[3] * Nicaragua[3] * Pakistan[3] * Panama[3] * Paraguay[3] * Peru[3] * Saint Christopher and Nevis[3] * Saint Lucia[3] * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3] * Trinidad and Tobago[3] * United States[3] * Uruguay[3] * Venezuela[3]
quote:We ought to revisit the born here citizen here policy. If the constitution itself can be considered a living and breathing document, why can't this one law be reconsidered. The government stopped giving away free land to attract populations a long time ago.
Well, let's be clear, malanthrop. You don't want the Constitution to be considered a living, breathing document, or at least your politics as expressed here indicate almost the exact opposite position. So that's a sleazy, BS statement for you to make.
Second, by all means, let's reconsider it. With every passing year, support for the positions you hold erodes further and further. Which is actually why you don't want it to be considered a living, breathing document. Second, it's not a problem for the reasons fugu describes. That you think it's a problem highlights just how hollow and deceptive your claims about opposition to immigration on the basis of poverty and social problems really is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: I will agree with you that I think citizens, even American citizens, should feel a sense of accountability for what the nation does as far as foreign policy. However, I think that for Americans to be truly accountable for what our country does overseas would both require an altered form of represenation or at the very least a transparent foreign policy. Since most see a completely transparent foreign policy as being a national security risk it probably will never happen.
If Americans are accountable for the government's actions that influence other countries then in the end we end up being accountable for most everything. Being a rather large nation our choices have impacts that ripple across the globe. I certainly think that as citizens we are accountable for keeping certain bag governments in power, but I don't know if you can drop the blame on Americans for many actions they aren't even aware of, due to it being classified etc.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh: I will agree with you that I think citizens, even American citizens, should feel a sense of accountability for what the nation does as far as foreign policy. However, I think that for Americans to be truly accountable for what our country does overseas would both require an altered form of represenation or at the very least a transparent foreign policy. Since most see a completely transparent foreign policy as being a national security risk it probably will never happen.
I think in many cases, it would be a very small degree of accountability, maybe even infinitesimal. It's just, for me, the starting point is that we have some accountability, even if it's tiny. We choose who makes these decisions, after all. If they lie and do something outrageously reprehensible, something we would never have agreed to, even then, I think, there is some tiny sliver of accountability. We should have picked better. It's a grave, serious business, after all, voting.
quote: If Americans are accountable for the government's actions that influence other countries then in the end we end up being accountable for most everything. Being a rather large nation our choices have impacts that ripple across the globe. I certainly think that as citizens we are accountable for keeping certain bag governments in power, but I don't know if you can drop the blame on Americans for many actions they aren't even aware of, due to it being classified etc.
Here's where language gets tricky. I am not talking about 'dropping the blame' on Americans for things we didn't know about, or even for things we could have known about. What I am saying, though, is that we have some varying, uncertain amount of accountability, that's all. Particularly because we're happy to claim that accountability when things go right, aren't we? How can we have things both ways?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly agree with you that if we want to claim the good then we need to claim the bad as well. History is a double edged sword that way.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Emotion will not alter my sense of justice and order!
I believe that I have access to my emotions and they are compatible with justice and order!
this is your interpretation of what i said based on you opinions. i never said this.
You have your head so far up it you can't see how many times you've contradicted yourself. Many, in case you were wondering. And yes, it is pride and naivete that allow you to do this and not to notice yourself doing it.
Tell me, why did you edit out my mention of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn? Because you couldn't figure out how it was ok for a convicted criminal defector who had broken society's laws to be free in America? Because you don't know who he is? Believe it or not, the point was important to my argument, and you don't win by pretending it isn't there- actually that's how you get nowhere.
the reason i didnt address the case of solzhenitsyn is that it doesnt pertain to the points i was discussing; it doesnt pertain to amnesty. he was found guilt of crimes in his country, imprisoned, exonerated, further harassed by the KGB and ultimately deported from his own country. he didnt jump over a fence to get to america and we didnt forgive him of the crimes he allegedly committed in his home country. he was eventually able return to russia and had his soviet citizenship returned.
personally, if we were to analyze his history, i think solzhenitsyns experiences would better support my arguments. but i dont wish to further discuss this with you.
"you havent shown how ive acted in a proud or naïve way and until you do so your accusation is baseless."
Typical of you to this point. Legalistic when it suits you, cavalier when it does not. My characterization of you is not baseless. I do not have to prove it, because it is not a matter of fact. The basis for me calling you prideful and naive is in what you wrote- and you, being prideful and naive, are not required to see it that way in order to make it so.
are facts not the easiest to prove? indeed we call them facts because they are proven. your accusations are only a matter of opinion.
"are you insinuating that im a cultural supremacist? if so, what exactly do you believe my culture to be and how have i portrayed it as being superior?"
Yes you are a cultural supremacist. It doesn't particularly matter what your culture is- you don't have to be where you see the top of the pile in order to believe in cultural supremacy. You just have to believe in the pile, and you do.
what this paragraph amounts to is: 'i havent seen your car but green cars are ugly and your car is ugly. therefore it must be green'
its clear you dont know my culture and, therefore, you cant define it. you dont know what my culture is but you dont like it and you cant show me how, allegedly, i believe it to be superior to all others. still, you assure me that i surely do believe it to be so. i cant argue with your imagination.
posted
now, I know that hatrack's quote tag system is archaic and terrible and annoying to use but this is just ridiculous
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: The title of this thread is not even sort of true. It's a flat out lie.
Now, I know lisa's flat out wrong and will retreat from rather than retract these things, but when does it become a lie?Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: The title of this thread is not even sort of true. It's a flat out lie.
Now, I know lisa's flat out wrong and will retreat from rather than retract these things, but when does it become a lie?
When the statement she made was completely an unambiguously untrue and Lisa's statement was. She can't claim that it was a simple mistake. Even the link she posted didn't say Obama ceded US territory to a foreign nation. I don't know how much more clear this can be. She flat out lied.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The title of this thread was the original title of the article she linked. While it was definitely an example of bombastic and ill-thought lack of consideration, it wasn't a lie. She just copy/pasted a headline from a blog post and assumed it was true because it confirmed her biases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:first, i live in america. im not accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights.
I can't stand that sort of attitude, especially when the 'over there, not my problem' attitude is stated so baldly and falsely. You cannot possibly be unaware that the United States has taken, is taking, very real and potent action as we speak in the world at large that has a direct, serious impact on the actions of other people in other countries, and their rights whether having or lacking.
You vote for the officials who make these decisions. You are absolutely accountable, at least to some extent. We all are. Burden of living in a democracy that is not completely isolationist.
the points youve made are valid but some clarification on my part is, perhaps, in order:
we are accountable first for our own actions and to the people who are most directly affected by them. a large portion of our days, by necessity, are consumed by actions essential to living. but there is an amount of time in everyday, due to the luxuries of the society in which we live, which a free society declares us accountable for. i dont think there is disagreement upon these points specifically, but this so-called 'free time' and accountability for it is a separate discussion.
i never meant to imply that im not accountable for the actions of my country in another nation. every citizen of voting age is accountable for those actions to a degree, however minute, for one can use the processes of government to enact change, to varying degrees, in ones country as well as other countries (black fox, I believe, spoke more to this point) and i don’t dispute that. the point i was making is that americans arent accountable for the actions of the citizens of another country as we dont elect their officials or write their laws. thats why i said that im not 'accountable for the actions of people in other countries or their lack of rights'. if i had the ability to protect their rights i would, regardless of duty or obligation.
i dont ascribe to the view of 'over there, not my problem'. to hold such a view, especially in light of the current discussion, would be absurd; problems in mexico create problems in the US. thats the nature of the world we live in. i think the majority of americans lost all illusion of isolationism after pearl harbor and during the cold war as well as during american economic recessions, which clearly affect the rest of the world.
now with regard, once again, to illegal immigration:
its clear that once the problem is acknowledge we must strive to agree upon a solution. in the case of illegal immigration, i think the country is struggling to agree as to what the real problem is.
one of the issues, i feel, is that the american people are unsure as to the exact number of illegals coming into the country. this makes them less inclined to allow even legal migration and can be the cause of stronger legal and illegal immigration laws. another issue is that americans are worried that their taxes will unjustly go toward paying the health care and educational burden of those whove entered illegally into the country. yet another issue in the minds of americans is the increase and percieved increase in crime due to illegal immigration. these concerns are realistic and justified; whether and to what degree such worries actually exist is debatable, but they play a role in the choices of americans nonetheless. another issue is that employers can exploit illegal workers because the employer knows the illegal has no legal course of action which would preserve his self-interests; if he went to the authorities, claiming his rights had been violated, the employer might be punished but he would surely be deported.
faced with these issues, its best for both parties involved, the US and those immigrating to it, if immigrants come in through the proper legal channels. when america knows the true burden of immigration, as opposed to best guesses and assumptions, and, in relation to the benefit, perceives it as a smaller burden than it appears, it will be more likely to accept a larger burden. when the option of hiring illegal workers is no longer available, employers we be obligated to hire those of legal status and treat them according to the rights granted them by the government. when we know how and when an immigrant comes across the border, as a country we can ensure that the immigrant has the opportunity to attain the life he desires and we will have the ability govern the country according to the concepts of law and order already established as well as to know if an immigrant is abusing his privilege of living in the country.
its my opinion that once a better system is in the works, the american people will accept more immigrants and those immigrating will have a better quality of life. this doesnt have to be a bipartisan issue and the arizona law can be seen as a direct result of an insecure border. if a secure border was accomplished, i believe partisan reform discussion would begin immediately. of course the problem of illegal immigrants already in the country would be a formidable hurdle that must soon be addressed but there is much need of any progress in the right direction. federal shoulder-shruggin and foot-dragging due to mid-term elections wont solve the problem. neither will labeling fellow citizens ‘fearmongers’, ‘supremacists’ or ‘racists’. and the latter surely doesn’t foster compassion, the alleged motivation behind letting others into our country to enjoy its liberties and wealth.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: now, I know that hatrack's quote tag system is archaic and terrible and annoying to use but this is just ridiculous
i think it facilitates reading and is a much easier way of responding to multiple points in a response. the bold, regular pattern is established initially, upon quoting what is being addressed and a simple [QB] tag is suffient to differentiate the quote or argument from the writers response.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: the point i was making is that americans arent accountable for the actions of the citizens of another country as we dont elect their officials or write their laws.
Here's where I think, again, that language is tricky: accountability is not a binary state. There are shades.
quote:its clear that once the problem is acknowledge we must strive to agree upon a solution. in the case of illegal immigration, i think the country is struggling to agree as to what the real problem is.
We're struggling to agree what the real problem is, but almost exactly like the 'war on drugs', the real problem is really quite simple: there are lots and lots of American citizens and businesses who are willing and able to employ cheap illegal immigrant labor. The causes of that problem are many, and the solutions are difficult, but that's the real problem. One cannot responsibly look at situation like this and gear their efforts towards the responding side of the problem.
quote:another issue is that americans are worried that their taxes will unjustly go toward paying the health care and educational burden of those whove entered illegally into the country.
Such Americans ought to realize, then, that illegal immigration presents enormous, undeniable economic benefits - to some more than others - as well. You cite health care concerns, and I'll reply small businesses with much lower labor costs.
quote:yet another issue in the minds of americans is the increase and percieved increase in crime due to illegal immigration.
quote:another issue is that employers can exploit illegal workers because the employer knows the illegal has no legal course of action which would preserve his self-interests; if he went to the authorities, claiming his rights had been violated, the employer might be punished but he would surely be deported.
Are you seriously suggesting that the current uproar over illegal immigration is founded partially over concern for the welfare of the immigrants themselves, capax?
quote:if a secure border was accomplished, i believe partisan reform discussion would begin immediately.
That's one heckuva belief. But anyone, who pays for the secure border to be accomplished? Republicans would love to pay for that, I'm sure. Maybe we can cut money to education to defend us against the dangerously violent illegal...wait, no, crime rates are down in border states.
quote:neither will labeling fellow citizens ‘fearmongers’, ‘supremacists’ or ‘racists’. and the latter surely doesn’t foster compassion, the alleged motivation behind letting others into our country to enjoy its liberties and wealth.
Again, you speak as though illegal immigration were somehow a burden on our nation and its economy. They aren't skulking across the border and onto a construction site, then putting a gun to the foreman's head saying, "Gimme a job, gringo!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:i think it facilitates reading and is a much easier way of responding to multiple points in a response.
Yeah, no. You are using the QB tag as a bold tag where just using quote tags is both easier and more comprehensible.
Not gonna lie, your post is a mess dude!
i could but the difference wouldnt be significant.
quote:i dont see how this arrangment:
person 1
person 2
person 1
person 2
quote:makes my post less comprehensible or more difficult to read.
quote: more or less messy aside, using a new instance of [QUOTE] is redundant.
my style requires fewer mouse clicks, takes less keystrokes and takes up less space on the computer screen which means less scrolling.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
