****hole Countries

[Techster]

Native Americans were having this discussion hundreds of years ago. "G!$ D@&$ people from sh!thole European countries just flooding our country, raping our lands of resources, bringing diseases, AND we have to save their butts from starvation in the dead of winter because they can't support themselves?!!!

Trump is just appropriating an immigration debate that's been around since our founding fathers took credit from the real founding fathers (and mothers).

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Native Americans were having this discussion hundreds of years ago. "G!$ D@&$ people from sh!thole European countries just flooding our country, raping our lands of resources, bringing diseases, AND we have to save their butts from starvation in the dead of winter because they can't support themselves?!!!

Trump is just appropriating an immigration debate that's been around since our founding fathers took credit from the real founding fathers (and mothers).

Several hundred years ago, those same Indians fought and moved out other tribes to expand their own territory. Several hundred years ago, borders were decided based on wars. We’re not talking about several hundred years ago. That’s hilarious.

 

[Techster]

Several hundred years ago, those same Indians fought and moved out other tribes to expand their own territory. Several hundred years ago, borders were decided based on wars. We’re not talking about several hundred years ago. That’s hilarious.

You missed the point, but continue on with your line of reasoning to justify a tired excuse.

My point is, it's cute for politicians today to talk about immigration and who we should and shouldn't let into the country. Unless you're Native American, there's a pretty solid (<< sarcasm) chance someone along our lineage took a boat ride over from somewhere (some by their will, others forced). Most of us are blessed to be here because we are charter members of the lucky sperm club.

This isn't me railing against a system. FTR, I believe it's not reasonable to let anyone in any country that wants to get in...that just isn't realistic. Like you, I believe in a system that awards entrance if you deserve it.

That said, my OP was just pointing out the irony of the discussion in the first place.

BTW...the "We're talking about several hundred years ago" line is in itself ironic

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Do we expand our borders here and there based on wars with Canada and Mexico? This is silly.

 

[Techster]

Do we expand our borders here and there based on wars with Canada and Mexico? This is silly.

You're right, it is silly...so I'm not sure why you're trying to turn it into a silly discussion that misses the point. You're trying to make it into a discussion that's has nothing to do with my point.

Let's talk about "several hundred years ago"...

"Several hundred years ago" someone along our lineage wanted a better life for themselves and their family so they uprooted and came here.

"Several hundred years ago" someone along our lineage either hopped on the boat and freely stepped foot on this soil without having to go through a million immigration hoops, or was let in because the existence of immigration hoops wasn't even a thought.

"Several hundred years ago" the immigration lottery that let someone in our lineage over here amounted to being able to afford a ticket on the ship bringing hundreds of other "immigrants' to this country.

That's my point. Most of us are here because we're lucky enough to have relatives from "several hundred" years ago who chose to come to a country that openly welcomed immigrants...that was built on the backs of immigrants. That's the irony I'm pointing out.

I get it...this isn't "several hundred years ago" anymore, and the world has changed....A LOT. This country needs immigration laws to protect what generations before us have built, and to protect our citizens.

But it doesn't mean the irony of how this country was founded, and how our representatives are now politicizing it isn't there.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You're right, it is silly...so I'm not sure why you're trying to turn it into a silly discussion that misses the point. You're trying to make it into a discussion that's has nothing to do with my point.

Let's talk about "several hundred years ago"...

"Several hundred years ago" someone along our lineage wanted a better life for themselves and their family so they uprooted and came here.

"Several hundred years ago" someone along our lineage either hopped on the boat and freely stepped foot on this soil without having to go through a million immigration hoops, or was let in because the existence of immigration hoops wasn't even a thought.

"Several hundred years ago" the immigration lottery that let someone in our lineage over here amounted to being able to afford a ticket on the ship bringing hundreds of other "immigrants' to this country.

That's my point. Most of us are here because we're lucky enough to have relatives from "several hundred" years ago who chose to come to a country that openly welcomed immigrants...that was built on the backs of immigrants. That's the irony I'm pointing out.

I get it...this isn't "several hundred years ago" anymore, and the world has changed....A LOT. This country needs immigration laws to protect what generations before us have built, and to protect our citizens.

But it doesn't mean the irony of how this country was founded, and how our representatives are now politicizing it isn't there.

Having totally open borders is a legitimate public policy and a defensible one. I’m not disagreeing with you and saying that that position is silly. It’s actually the libertarian position from a political party standpoint. What I’m saying is when we have 20 trillion of debt, compared to zero back then, when we have tens and tens and tens of millions of people on public assistance, when we had zero back then, when we have tens and tens of millions of people who essentially haven’t seen a raise in a decade because there’s too much labor here – what do you do? Do you just say whatever these people can live in poverty and not make enough money to live a decent life, our American brothers and sisters, or do you set a more appropriate immigration cap for a while? I don’t think that that is an unreasonable public policy position either. What I think is silly are red herring arguments and telling me that I’m silly. I hope I haven’t come off as sounding like I’m saying that you’re silly. I’m saying it’s silly to say that I’m silly. Which now that I read what I’ve written is kind of silly.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Having totally open borders is a legitimate public policy and a defensible one. I’m not disagreeing with you and saying that that position is silly. It’s actually the libertarian position from a political party standpoint. What I’m saying is when we have 20 trillion of debt, compared to zero back then, when we have tens and tens and tens of millions of people on public assistance, when we had zero back then, when we have tens and tens of millions of people who essentially haven’t seen a raise in a decade because there’s too much labor here – what do you do? Do you just say whatever these people can live in poverty and not make enough money to live a decent life, our American brothers and sisters, or do you set a more appropriate immigration cap for a while? I don’t think that that is an unreasonable public policy position either. What I think is silly are red herring arguments and telling me that I’m silly. I hope I haven’t come off as sounding like I’m saying that you’re silly. I’m saying it’s silly to say that I’m silly. Which now that I read what I’ve written is kind of silly.

I’ve been using voice to text while traveling, and a lot of my posts have been inartful. I apologize for that. I think you are being a totally rational person. The point that I’m doing a terrible job of making is hopefully a little more clear in my last response. 200 years ago when someone immigrated from Mexico or Ireland or whatever, and they got 50 acres of farmland up the road from my farmland, it literally did not impact me at all from a public policy perspective. Now there are trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in public assistance programs and an entire massive interconnected labor market. So I’m just saying it’s not so easy to compare to back then and not a fair exercise. Our country was not rich back then, people had to 100% make their own way. Most of the immigrants that come here today still continue to have the right motivations in mind, But not all do. And we can’t afford to have Billions come here, which is how many that would if they could.

 

[Techster]

Having totally open borders is a legitimate public policy in a defensible one. I’m not disagreeing with you and saying that that position is silly. It’s actually the libertarian position from a political party standpoint. What I’m saying is when we have 20 trillion of debt, compared to zero back then, when we have tens and tens and tens of millions of people in public assistance, when we had zero back then, when we have tens and tens of millions of people who essentially haven’t seen a raise in a decade because there’s too much labor here – what do you do? Do you just say whatever these people can live in poverty and not make enough money to live a decent life, our American brothers and sisters, or do you set a more appropriate immigration For a while? I don’t think that that is an unreasonable public policy position either. What I think is silly there’s red herring arguments and telling me that I’m silly. I hope I haven’t come off as sounding like I’m saying that you’re silly. I’m saying it’s silly to say that I’m silly. Which now that I read what I’ve written is kind of silly.

LOL. We're probably both being silly.

That's why I tend to stay away from politics on GTSwarm. Sarcasm is usually lost on the internet, and my views on most topics are usually tinged in sarcasm...so...

 

[Deleted member 2897]

LOL. We're probably both being silly.

That's why I tend to stay away from politics on GTSwarm. Sarcasm is usually lost on the internet, and my views on most topics are usually tinged in sarcasm...so...

On the bright side, we have a post with the word ****hole in the title that has 7 pages of comments now.

 

[AE 87]

No, and that is a pretty silly assumptive question and I think you know it. I am for a merit based system whose cap is based on the current state of the economy. For example, if wages and working in middle class are depressed and have been for several years, I would lower the cap. If we had a worker shortage and the economy was booming, I would raise the cap. You know, common sense.

I was responding to @ATL1

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I was responding to @ATL1

Then I take it all back:

.esnes nommoc ,wonk uoY .pac eht esiar dluow I ,gnimoob saw ymonoce eht dna egatrohs rekrow a dah ew fI .pac eht rewol dluow I ,sraey lareves rof neeb evah dna desserped era ssalc elddim ni gnikrow dna segaw fi ,elpmaxe roF .ymonoce eht fo etats tnerruc eht no desab si pac esohw metsys desab tirem a rof ma I .ti wonk uoy kniht I dna noitseuq evitpmussa yllis ytterp a si taht dna ,oN

 

[MWBATL]

Trump is just appropriating an immigration debate that's been around since our founding fathers took credit from the real founding fathers (and mothers).

The real, real, real founding fathers and mothers were all black and came from Africa. It is why I fail to understand racial animus. Caucasians are, after all, just the albinos of the species.

 

[wishbone]

Geez. Immigration is a process. Sorry, no free pass for cutting in line.