-
@crucial said in US Politics:
So everyone yet again gets caught up in side issues (whether countries are actually shitholes) and finger pointing at extreme comments by the outraged minority while totally missing the original point.
I'm determined not to fall into Trumps mode of working which is to say something (often not true) then wind up the outraged on both sides to divide further, entrench views and let them fight among themselves while he works through his own (slightly less outrageous) ideas. Classic distraction.
Surely the point here is not whether a person comes from a shithole but why that should enter into the criteria at all.
'MAGA'? Wasn't A's greatness founded on immigration of people searching for economic and religious freedoms? Would they have grown into the powerhouse they did by inviting only the aristocrats of europe along?
Surely one of the ideals of western democracy is not to judge based on race or origin. Racism is not just a skin colour thing, it is the pre-judgement of people based on their origins.
I know it isn't an official part of US decree but they have for years quoted part of their 'greatness' on the poem at the Statue of Liberty.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”By all means, check people out before letting them in, but don't pre-judge their potential based on their origin.
I don't think American immigration policy should be dictated by a poem on a statue built in 1886. A statue built when the US population was just over 50 million, when monarchs ruled Europe and when people arrived by boat.
All emotion aside it is surely an indisputable fact that the US will gain more and face fewer potential problems if it receives 10,000 migrants from Norway, Japan or South Korea than from Somalia, Djibouti, El Salvador or Haiti.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
So everyone yet again gets caught up in side issues (whether countries are actually shitholes) and finger pointing at extreme comments by the outraged minority while totally missing the original point.
I'm determined not to fall into Trumps mode of working which is to say something (often not true) then wind up the outraged on both sides to divide further, entrench views and let them fight among themselves while he works through his own (slightly less outrageous) ideas. Classic distraction.
Surely the point here is not whether a person comes from a shithole but why that should enter into the criteria at all.
'MAGA'? Wasn't A's greatness founded on immigration of people searching for economic and religious freedoms? Would they have grown into the powerhouse they did by inviting only the aristocrats of europe along?
Surely one of the ideals of western democracy is not to judge based on race or origin. Racism is not just a skin colour thing, it is the pre-judgement of people based on their origins.
I know it isn't an official part of US decree but they have for years quoted part of their 'greatness' on the poem at the Statue of Liberty.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”By all means, check people out before letting them in, but don't pre-judge their potential based on their origin.
I don't think American immigration policy should be dictated by a poem on a statue built in 1886. A statue built when the US population was just over 50 million, when monarchs ruled Europe and when people arrived by boat.
All emotion aside it is surely an indisputable fact that the US will gain more and face fewer potential problems if it receives 10,000 migrants from Norway, Japan or South Korea than from Somalia, Djibouti, El Salvador or Haiti.
Genuine question here as I'm interested in your response.
What if we all only did things that were to our advantage?
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
So everyone yet again gets caught up in side issues (whether countries are actually shitholes) and finger pointing at extreme comments by the outraged minority while totally missing the original point.
I'm determined not to fall into Trumps mode of working which is to say something (often not true) then wind up the outraged on both sides to divide further, entrench views and let them fight among themselves while he works through his own (slightly less outrageous) ideas. Classic distraction.
Surely the point here is not whether a person comes from a shithole but why that should enter into the criteria at all.
'MAGA'? Wasn't A's greatness founded on immigration of people searching for economic and religious freedoms? Would they have grown into the powerhouse they did by inviting only the aristocrats of europe along?
Surely one of the ideals of western democracy is not to judge based on race or origin. Racism is not just a skin colour thing, it is the pre-judgement of people based on their origins.
I know it isn't an official part of US decree but they have for years quoted part of their 'greatness' on the poem at the Statue of Liberty.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”By all means, check people out before letting them in, but don't pre-judge their potential based on their origin.
I don't think American immigration policy should be dictated by a poem on a statue built in 1886. A statue built when the US population was just over 50 million, when monarchs ruled Europe and when people arrived by boat.
All emotion aside it is surely an indisputable fact that the US will gain more and face fewer potential problems if it receives 10,000 migrants from Norway, Japan or South Korea than from Somalia, Djibouti, El Salvador or Haiti.
Genuine question here as I'm interested in your response.
What if we all only did things that were to our advantage?
Do you mean on a personal level or when governing a nation of more than 300 million people?
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
So everyone yet again gets caught up in side issues (whether countries are actually shitholes) and finger pointing at extreme comments by the outraged minority while totally missing the original point.
I'm determined not to fall into Trumps mode of working which is to say something (often not true) then wind up the outraged on both sides to divide further, entrench views and let them fight among themselves while he works through his own (slightly less outrageous) ideas. Classic distraction.
Surely the point here is not whether a person comes from a shithole but why that should enter into the criteria at all.I think it should. At some point you have to acknowledge that countries are the sum of their opportunities and the culture of its people. If a resource rich country keeps devolving into internal strife. If it can't leverage itself to a point of good governance. if superstitious tribes run around slaughtering each other then you have to have a greater hesitancy in bringing these people into your own country.
Because ultimately one has to ask, if your country is a shithole, surely its inhabitants are responsible? And if that is true, why aren't you included in that group? So you have to vet them thoroughly and the easiest way to do that is educational attainment.
The problem here is if you take the most educated out of a country, then all they've got left is the lazy, superstitious and self interested. So the cycle continues.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
So everyone yet again gets caught up in side issues (whether countries are actually shitholes) and finger pointing at extreme comments by the outraged minority while totally missing the original point.
I'm determined not to fall into Trumps mode of working which is to say something (often not true) then wind up the outraged on both sides to divide further, entrench views and let them fight among themselves while he works through his own (slightly less outrageous) ideas. Classic distraction.
Surely the point here is not whether a person comes from a shithole but why that should enter into the criteria at all.
'MAGA'? Wasn't A's greatness founded on immigration of people searching for economic and religious freedoms? Would they have grown into the powerhouse they did by inviting only the aristocrats of europe along?
Surely one of the ideals of western democracy is not to judge based on race or origin. Racism is not just a skin colour thing, it is the pre-judgement of people based on their origins.
I know it isn't an official part of US decree but they have for years quoted part of their 'greatness' on the poem at the Statue of Liberty.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”By all means, check people out before letting them in, but don't pre-judge their potential based on their origin.
I don't think American immigration policy should be dictated by a poem on a statue built in 1886. A statue built when the US population was just over 50 million, when monarchs ruled Europe and when people arrived by boat.
All emotion aside it is surely an indisputable fact that the US will gain more and face fewer potential problems if it receives 10,000 migrants from Norway, Japan or South Korea than from Somalia, Djibouti, El Salvador or Haiti.
Genuine question here as I'm interested in your response.
What if we all only did things that were to our advantage?
As @antipodean mentions, emigration from those countries is hurting them - big time. At an individual level I can totally understand the best/most educated people wanting to leave and make a life for themselves in the west. But if we're talking about what's best for those countries, then cutting immigration would be a good start. The next step would be cutting all foreign aid, as that destroys their economies and creates a breeding ground for corruption.
We seem to be moving away from "these countries need to develop a better quality of life for their people by fixing their problems" to "these countries are fucked, let's let all the "good" people immigrate to the west instead". That's fine on an individual level but it's absolutely not a long term solution, and it'd be great if we could go back to trying to help these countries actually improve, but through measures that would help them to help themselves (not aid!).
Anything that helps build their economies (local businesses etc.) and rids their government's of the rampant corruption would be a great start.
-
prejudice is pretty often just taking generalisations, which frequently have truth in them, and applying them to individuals.
statistically speaking, maori people in nz are far more likely to be criminals, and gay people are far more likely to have aids. does that mean individuals from those groups should be treated badly?
this is not complicated: immigration of an individual should be decided on their individual merits. that then kind of looks after itself, as people from shitholes don't have the same opportunities as people from non-shitholes - there's just not really any need to be a fluffybunny about it.
-
@reprobate Just because you have applied to migrate doesn't mean you're owed anything by the country you've applied to.
I also don't accept that applying a different standard to immigrants of very disparate countries is being a fluffybunny.
To go back to the shithole element; sooner or later the West needs to acknowledge whatever it's been doing is not working to resolve the structural issues within these countries. time to try something else.
Particularly when we're about to face an Industrial Revolution upheaval .
-
An unskilled immigrant who was granted American citizenship on chain migration (read: nepotism) of a lottery winner tried to blow up the NYC subway a few weeks back. The United States doesn’t need losers like that, especially since there are MILLIONS of eminently qualified and skilled people from around the world applying for citizenship who’ll actually contribute to American society rather than desecrate it. If an employer can hire the workers that best suit THEIR needs and requirements, why shouldn’t a nation follow the same logic & reasoning? Citizenship should be based on merit, and not on lucky-chance lottos and family nepotism.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
statistically speaking, maori people in nz are far more likely to be criminals, and gay people are far more likely to have aids. does that mean individuals from those groups should be treated badly?
If what you say is true, and if hypothetically two Maoris wanted to emigrate to the United States, and one of those Maoris was a doctor with NO criminal record and the other was a dole-bludger with repeated criminal offenses, don’t you think it only reasonable that the United States should be allowed to determine which one they want in their nation and not decide the outcome based on a coin-flip? Or is that now considered unfair and “racist”...?
-
-
-
If Manning gets selected itll prove the democrats learned nothing in 2016
-
@salacious-crumb said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
statistically speaking, maori people in nz are far more likely to be criminals, and gay people are far more likely to have aids. does that mean individuals from those groups should be treated badly?
If what you say is true, and if hypothetically two Maoris wanted to emigrate to the United States, and one of those Maoris was a doctor with NO criminal record and the other was a dole-bludger with repeated criminal offenses, don’t you think it only reasonable that the United States should be allowed to determine which one they want in their nation and not decide the outcome based on a coin-flip? Or is that now considered unfair and “racist”...?
this is what i said: "this is not complicated: immigration of an individual should be decided on their individual merits. "
so yeah, we agree, i guess. -
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@reprobate Just because you have applied to migrate doesn't mean you're owed anything by the country you've applied to.
I also don't accept that applying a different standard to immigrants of very disparate countries is being a fluffybunny.
To go back to the shithole element; sooner or later the West needs to acknowledge whatever it's been doing is not working to resolve the structural issues within these countries. time to try something else.
Particularly when we're about to face an Industrial Revolution upheaval .
agreed, nobody is owed anything - except, in my opinion, fair treatment.
it kind of is being a fluffybunny though: it is textbook prejudice. if someone, god knows how, can make it through a war-torn shithole, and still meet required standards of education, english, character, medical, background checks etc etc - so as to fulfill non-racist immigration requirements - then they should be allowed in.
my point is simply that making the non-racist criteria strict eliminates the vast majority from shitholes anyway. so why be racist?
i'm with you on the west proving thoroughly shithouse at fixing shitholes.
-
Has it become the soundbite of choice from the left when discussing immigration in 2018 to cite an old poem on an old statue as if it means anything at all?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
Has it become the soundbite of choice from the left when discussing immigration in 2018 to cite an old poem on an old statue as if it means anything at all?
Here we go again with the snide denigration of someone else's post by referring to it as a 'soundbite' and 'from the left' as if that makes it less worthy. (and before claiming that wasn't directed at my post please show the other examples in the thread that refer to the SoL)
I thought I had explained why I referenced the SoL and The New Colossus but I can do so again.
It is not that I see an old poem as the ground base of immigration policy. It never was and never will be.
The SoL is an icon of the US and upheld culturally as a symbol of freedom and democracy. The things that the USA aspires to and holds forth as part of their way of life. 'The land of the free' and all that.
The New Colossus is taught throughout schools as part of this fabric of society and surely when discussing MAGA you need to include what makes up the feeling that A was great in the first place.To me it flags that everyone is free to apply to enter irrespective of their country of origin. Note that I say 'apply'. Of course there is the right to turn them down if they personally are a no hoper or a bad person, or even if you decide that the country is full at the moment and immigration isn't required.
Start pre-judging people simply based on where they were born and that concept of freedom has been held up to be fake.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
Has it become the soundbite of choice from the left when discussing immigration in 2018 to cite an old poem on an old statue as if it means anything at all?
Here we go again with the snide denigration of someone else's post by referring to it as a 'soundbite' and 'from the left' as if that makes it less worthy. (and before claiming that wasn't directed at my post please show the other examples in the thread that refer to the SoL)
I thought I had explained why I referenced the SoL and The New Colossus but I can do so again.
It is not that I see an old poem as the ground base of immigration policy. It never was and never will be.
The SoL is an icon of the US and upheld culturally as a symbol of freedom and democracy. The things that the USA aspires to and holds forth as part of their way of life. 'The land of the free' and all that.
The New Colossus is taught throughout schools as part of this fabric of society and surely when discussing MAGA you need to include what makes up the feeling that A was great in the first place.To me it flags that everyone is free to apply to enter irrespective of their country of origin. Note that I say 'apply'. Of course there is the right to turn them down if they personally are a no hoper or a bad person, or even if you decide that the country is full at the moment and immigration isn't required.
Start pre-judging people simply based on where they were born and that concept of freedom has been held up to be fake.
I was referring to the sheer volume of lefties making use of that quote. From Nancy Pelosi to Seth Meyers to James Comey to many others. All equally vacuous. It is as if they think quoting a poem makes the point they make carry more gravitas. Even if they don't actually understand the poem they quote.
And that is before you even get to the point to discuss how the hell a poem on a statue has any any modern day relevance to immigration. It doesn't. Not one bit.
Countries in Africa are shtholes. Haiti is a shithole .. literally as well.
South Africa is a shithole... why? Because it keeps voting in corrupt govts that are running the country into the ground. I have a friend who travels to Africa for work alot.. he loves it. Loves the shitholes. Good people can come form shitholes.. but they are shitholes none the less. And simply cannot be trusted to hold accurate records.
Trump simply acknowledged realty. Those countries are shitoles and the US gets a disproportionately high amount of immigrants from shitholes. They should not. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
Has it become the soundbite of choice from the left when discussing immigration in 2018 to cite an old poem on an old statue as if it means anything at all?
Here we go again with the snide denigration of someone else's post by referring to it as a 'soundbite' and 'from the left' as if that makes it less worthy. (and before claiming that wasn't directed at my post please show the other examples in the thread that refer to the SoL)
I thought I had explained why I referenced the SoL and The New Colossus but I can do so again.
It is not that I see an old poem as the ground base of immigration policy. It never was and never will be.
The SoL is an icon of the US and upheld culturally as a symbol of freedom and democracy. The things that the USA aspires to and holds forth as part of their way of life. 'The land of the free' and all that.
The New Colossus is taught throughout schools as part of this fabric of society and surely when discussing MAGA you need to include what makes up the feeling that A was great in the first place.To me it flags that everyone is free to apply to enter irrespective of their country of origin. Note that I say 'apply'. Of course there is the right to turn them down if they personally are a no hoper or a bad person, or even if you decide that the country is full at the moment and immigration isn't required.
Start pre-judging people simply based on where they were born and that concept of freedom has been held up to be fake.
I was referring to the sheer volume of lefties making use of that quote. From Nancy Pelosi to Seth Meyers to James Comey to many others. All equally vacuous. It is as if they think quoting a poem makes the point they make carry more gravitas. Even if they don't actually understand the poem they quote.
And that is before you even get to the point to discuss how the hell a poem on a statue has any any modern day relevance to immigration. It doesn't. Not one bit.
Countries in Africa are shtholes. Haiti is a shithole .. literally as well.
South Africa is a shithole... why? Because it keeps voting in corrupt govts that are running the country into the ground. I have a friend who travels to Africa for work alot.. he loves it. Loves the shitholes. Good people can come form shitholes.. but they are shitholes none the less. And simply cannot be trusted to hold accurate records.
Trump simply acknowledged realty. Those countries are shitoles and the US gets a disproportionately high amount of immigrants from shitholes. They should not.Yup, that's where the "judge every individual on their own merits" falls down a bit - it's bloody difficult to do background checks when accurate records are not being kept.
Then there's the refugee/economic migrant issue as well, which Germany is grappling with right now after letting so many completely un-vetted people in to the detriment of their citizens.
There's a lot of people on the left (not on here) that are making even discussing these issues nearly impossible, which is madness.
US Politics