Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The author of the article from the National Review is one of the top people in an organization that is credibly accused of being white supremacists. National Review doesn't have a great history on racial issues either. I clicked on your link and it brought up a report with the title of "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought In by Refugees". That doesn't support your position at all.
Yeah...not going to get banned again for the hundredth time.parasaurolophus said:
Nailed it!You are arguing with yourself here.
In that report you can read on page 23 that the two populations compared were different. One had 81% between the ages of 18-64. The other had 63%.Insomniac said:
Oh no, they care about them every other november.Leroy Green said:
BS. If that’s how you feel Tim give them everything YOU have and leave the rest of us out of it. TYVM.
I don’t want to give them anything except the chance to be free and make their own way. If they need a little help in the beginning fine.
No.offense, but you don't have any threads about homeless Americanstimschochet said:
Leroy Green said:
I have. But homelessness is not an issue that conservative politicians rail against. Immigration is. These poor people are being villianized and used as scapegoats, particularly by our President. It’s despicable.
There’s no evidence of this whatsoever. Most pro- immigrant groups have also fought for ways to integrate them into our society. What you wrote, minus the silly cylon quote, is the opposite of the truth.Leroy Green said:
This is why there is such hard opposition on this issue. I'll take you at your word but there are many who don't feel this way. I'm personally all for helping with financial aid, doing things where we can. I realize we disagree whether each person is a net positive or negative economically. But from an economic view, even if you were proven correct on the next incremental person today being a net positive, there would come an economic break point where the next person would then be a negative. You just can't take tens of millions of people from around the globe and not break the economic system. Once that happens, how do you help anyone else? To me, we are better trying to help our people here at home, invest in foreign countries to try and help where we can. Then we are able to continue to provide help where needed on an ongoing basis and not put ourselves in financial peril as well. We can't bring everyone in the globe's standard of living up to ours. It just isn't possible. And given that, there will be endless supply of people looking to increase their standard of living wanting to come here. It's got nothing to do with race, but rather trying to be practical in what we can and can't do within economic reality both here and abroad.
You’re concerned about a problem which has not existed and never existed. There has always been plenty of room here. There’s not close to not being plenty of room, not even a little close. If we ever come close to not having enough room, come talk to me then, but it’s not going to be in our lifetimes or our children’s. And it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with these current migrants.
Thank you for being honest. But your last sentence is where people will push back hard.
You're using the term "room", I'm referring to economics. I disagree with your stance each of the current migrants we are discussing would be a net positive econmically. What I was pointing out though is that even if we assume your view was correct that they were a net positive, that economically there is a break even point where the next would not be and that the strain on our resources would be a negative. To say I'm concerned about a problem that doesn't exist is either not understanding what I'm saying or is a complete red herring. We are running a huge budget deficit every year. We may disagree on how best to deal with this, but the fact is that we are and we have to do something about it. So if you accept the premise that at some point the next migrant would be a net negative on our resources, then that is the problem. We can't just close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist and that accepting unlimited numbers of migrants would impact that in a negative way. It has nothing to do with whatever "room" might mean.
It's been going on for years, but the gang violence has increased significantly recently so there are more refugees now. The organizations that provide assistance and organize these caravans are based on donations, so whenever they have enough money to provide food and security for a caravan, they organize one.
Of course they will. But my last sentence was theoretical. It doesn’t exist, never has. I wrote it so that my position is clear, but people are pretending like bankruptcy is a real threat. It’s not.
I appreciate your response. We simply disagree.
This is where I think you're wrong. Having a position of rationally and civilly controlling immigration does not equal coddling racists.
I don’t think we’re discussing the same thing. I’m talking about turning back these destitute migrants currently seeking asylum. That’s very different from “rationally and civilly controlling immigration.” A wall on our southern border is also not a rational or civil response to this issue.
All good, and I feel passionately about it as well so I'm fine with discussing and disagreeing.
It is inflammatory. It’s not something that I enjoy writing. It is not meant as a personal attack.
We're talking about exactly the same thing. You can have absolutely have a civil and rational position of "I'm sorry but we are unable to allow you to enter the country". I personally think we should be much more open to refugees. But I hate seeing statements like yours that completely unfairly accuse people of coddling racists. It's hurtful to the conversation in my opinion.
I know you do. Honestly I don’t like it as well.
My sarcastic response to this would be to ask for a link.
This. I want these people helped but there is no way that you can accept them by moving here in masses. It will just be repeated with bigger numbers.
And as we all know a complete border wall of 3k miles is not possible. It took 15 years to get the 9/11 memorial and we wanted that.
When you refuse to denounce the racism and xenophobia on your team except as a reluctant recital of prepared remarks you are coddling them. When you call immigrants rapists and murderers you are coddling the racists. When you actively stoke fear of invasion at the southern border you are coddling them. Trump knows he has ghe racists and bigots on his side and absolutely refuses to denounce their behavior except when he's forced to. I usually agree with your posts, but this one completely ignores what's actually happening.
I think it would be reasonable to have a 2 year path/process to be a US legal citizen. The reason we don't are mostly political ie, then they get to vote.
I often make jokes about the use of George Soros, but it’s actually very frightening. That so many people seem to think there is a Jewish mastermind plotting to help bring about a secret agenda...it’s classic anti-semitism. Soros takes the role the Rothschilds used to have.
I hate to break this to you - but I would guess most people do not associate Soros with some Jewish movement. Liberal movement, yes. Jewish takeover, no.
Aren’t there something like 500k “illegal” immigrants a year? 4K is a drop in the bucket.
