Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

 

[tom22406]

Found this map as to where they were being moved to.

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215860821987081633721.0004fd39453513c9dc418&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=38.993572,-95.405273&spn=29.283014,54.404297&t=m&source=embed&dg=feature

 

[jonessed]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

So it's just the people who try to do something about it? Like those protestors in Murrieta?

 

[The Commish]

Again putting words in my mouth. They're not going to see those rewards.

I know that I'll regret asking the obvious, but here it goes:

What about the Lynn situation is special that they will be prevented from seeing the "rewards" but everyone else will see the "rewards" or "net gain" if you will. It stands to reason that there has to be something special about Lynn that will prevent them from seeing the "rewards". Otherwise, you're left to explain how you come to the conclusion that if all the small municipalities will never see the "rewards" the country still has a "net gain" by having them here. Basic math is not in your favor with this sort of argument.

When I wrote that, IMO, the children would grow up to be a net benefit, what I meant was that they would grow up to be exemplary citizens, the best kind of Americans. My model for this is the Nisei, who despite incredible mistreatment became our most decorated soldiers of World War II. My argument is that it is in the best interests of country AS A WHOLE to take these children in, that they will grow up to be fine Americans, and therefore it's well worth the cost. But that cost has to be paid for by the nation, and not by any single community.

If you're asking me to come up with a formula in which a single community like Lynn is going to achieve a net benefit from taking in an overflow of parentless children- of course that's impossible. You're seeking tangible benefits, and I'm describing intangible benefits.

See...I knew better...unassailable indeed

 

[poopdawg]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

 

[timschochet]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

So it's just the people who try to do something about it? Like those protestors in Murrieta?

It depends on the message:

If you say, "Murrieta can't afford this!" no.

If you say, "Illegal immigrants have no right to be here," no.

If you say, "This is not our problem," no.

If you say, "Go home, wetbacks!" yes.

 

[timschochet]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

 

[jonessed]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

So it's just the people who try to do something about it? Like those protestors in Murrieta?

It depends on the message:If you say, "Murrieta can't afford this!" no.

If you say, "Illegal immigrants have no right to be here," no.

If you say, "This is not our problem," no.

If you say, "Go home, wetbacks!" yes.

You called them disgusting and racists for just trying to block the buses.

I don't know why I get into these discussions. You can't even keep track of your own hyperbole.

 

[timschochet]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

So it's just the people who try to do something about it? Like those protestors in Murrieta?

It depends on the message:If you say, "Murrieta can't afford this!" no.

If you say, "Illegal immigrants have no right to be here," no.

If you say, "This is not our problem," no.

If you say, "Go home, wetbacks!" yes.

You called them disgusting and racists for just trying to block the buses.

I don't know why I get into these discussions. You can't even keep track of your own hyperbole.

No. I called the ones who yelled stuff about wetbacks racists- IF it's true (I couldn't confirm it, and I wrote that at the time.)

I called all of the protests shameful, because they were out there protesting little children and scaring them. Yes I think that's shameful and disgusting. But without the racial slurs, it's not racist.

 

[Stinger Ray]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

It's amazing how often you group people together and make generalizations about them.

 

[Stinger Ray]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

So it's just the people who try to do something about it? Like those protestors in Murrieta?

It depends on the message:If you say, "Murrieta can't afford this!" no.

If you say, "Illegal immigrants have no right to be here," no.

If you say, "This is not our problem," no.

If you say, "Go home, wetbacks!" yes.

You called them disgusting and racists for just trying to block the buses.

I don't know why I get into these discussions. You can't even keep track of your own hyperbole.

No. I called the ones who yelled stuff about wetbacks racists- IF it's true (I couldn't confirm it, and I wrote that at the time.)I called all of the protests shameful, because they were out there protesting little children and scaring them. Yes I think that's shameful and disgusting. But without the racial slurs, it's not racist.

They weren't protesting little children. They were protesting immigration and the border surge.

 

[poopdawg]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

No, wrong again. You said this...

"If you put a wall on our southern border, and not on our northern border, how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated?"

 

[timschochet]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

No, wrong again. You said this..."If you put a wall on our southern border, and not on our northern border, how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated?"

It was a rhetorical argument. What I meant was that is how it WILL be regarded, especially by most Latinos IMO. You can disagree with me and not be racist.

 

[Sarnoff]

Again putting words in my mouth. They're not going to see those rewards.

I know that I'll regret asking the obvious, but here it goes:

What about the Lynn situation is special that they will be prevented from seeing the "rewards" but everyone else will see the "rewards" or "net gain" if you will. It stands to reason that there has to be something special about Lynn that will prevent them from seeing the "rewards". Otherwise, you're left to explain how you come to the conclusion that if all the small municipalities will never see the "rewards" the country still has a "net gain" by having them here. Basic math is not in your favor with this sort of argument.

When I wrote that, IMO, the children would grow up to be a net benefit, what I meant was that they would grow up to be exemplary citizens, the best kind of Americans. My model for this is the Nisei, who despite incredible mistreatment became our most decorated soldiers of World War II. My argument is that it is in the best interests of country AS A WHOLE to take these children in, that they will grow up to be fine Americans, and therefore it's well worth the cost. But that cost has to be paid for by the nation, and not by any single community.

If you're asking me to come up with a formula in which a single community like Lynn is going to achieve a net benefit from taking in an overflow of parentless children- of course that's impossible. You're seeking tangible benefits, and I'm describing intangible benefits.

See...I knew better...unassailable indeed

It's fun how Tim does not require himself to subscribe to logic. Just post the most words and he thinks he wins.

 

[Stinger Ray]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

No, wrong again. You said this..."If you put a wall on our southern border, and not on our northern border, how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated?"

It was a rhetorical argument. What I meant was that is how it WILL be regarded, especially by most Latinos IMO. You can disagree with me and not be racist.

 

[Sarnoff]

When I wrote that, IMO, the children would grow up to be a net benefit, what I meant was that they would grow up to be exemplary citizens, the best kind of Americans. My model for this is the Nisei, who despite incredible mistreatment became our most decorated soldiers of World War II.

Wait, these same children who will grow to become exemplary citizens, are the same ones you also said would also form a permanent underclass and turn into violent street gangs if they are not coddled every step of the way, right?

 

[timschochet]

When I wrote that, IMO, the children would grow up to be a net benefit, what I meant was that they would grow up to be exemplary citizens, the best kind of Americans. My model for this is the Nisei, who despite incredible mistreatment became our most decorated soldiers of World War II.

Wait, these same children who will grow to become exemplary citizens, are the same ones you also said would also form a permanent underclass and turn into violent street gangs if they are not coddled every step of the way, right?

If you don't allow them to attend public schools, yes. I don't regard public education as coddling, but apparently you do.

 

[Sarnoff]

When I wrote that, IMO, the children would grow up to be a net benefit, what I meant was that they would grow up to be exemplary citizens, the best kind of Americans. My model for this is the Nisei, who despite incredible mistreatment became our most decorated soldiers of World War II.

Wait, these same children who will grow to become exemplary citizens, are the same ones you also said would also form a permanent underclass and turn into violent street gangs if they are not coddled every step of the way, right?

If you don't allow them to attend public schools, yes. I don't regard public education as coddling, but apparently you do.

It was regarding all the efforts given them as a whole. Either way, I was unaware the Nisei got to go to standard public schools in the internment camps. If mistreating them so badly turned them into great citizens, then we should probably mistreat these illegals the same way.

 

[timschochet]

When I wrote that, IMO, the children would grow up to be a net benefit, what I meant was that they would grow up to be exemplary citizens, the best kind of Americans. My model for this is the Nisei, who despite incredible mistreatment became our most decorated soldiers of World War II.

Wait, these same children who will grow to become exemplary citizens, are the same ones you also said would also form a permanent underclass and turn into violent street gangs if they are not coddled every step of the way, right?

If you don't allow them to attend public schools, yes. I don't regard public education as coddling, but apparently you do.

It was regarding all the efforts given them as a whole. Either way, I was unaware the Nisei got to go to standard public schools in the internment camps. If mistreating them so badly turned them into great citizens, then we should probably mistreat these illegals the same way.

Yes, the Nisei did go to public schools, BEFORE the internment camps. (And actually the majority of Nisei soldiers were from Hawaii and were never sent to internment camps.) And yes, public education made a HUGE difference for the Nisei and their attitudes. There are several books I can recommend you on this subject, if you're interested.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

 

[mr roboto]

Sarnoff's views

 

[Sarnoff]

The porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

The Nisei is an insane example.

I don't understand any view that begins with not enforcing our own laws as the premise.

We need a viable means of restricting and controlling the influx of foreigners before we do anything else. The whole argument against that is simply insane because it essentially says that every border is defended and controlled except for the Mexican one.

I think Obama as usual has no idea what to do.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The porous border with Mexico also allows terrorists easy access into America. Since 9/11, how can we afford this? Surely it makes no sense to keep allowing these people in at an unprecedented rate, doesn’t it?

It's absolutely crazy - yes, you are right, we take off our buckles, shoes, allow our cell phones to be searched, stand in line traveling in our own country - and meanwhile any terrorist could quite literally go through Central America to Texas, NM, AZ or CA unmolested at this point. Positively nutz.

 

[Al O'Pecia]

Do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Sarnofferings >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim's WhimsIt's not possible for me to put enough 'greater than' symbols.

 

[HellToupee]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Give us Barabas!

 

[RCon]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

While his views aren't exactly what I believe, his thoughts on the topic are a lot more rational than yours.

 

[Politician Spock]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Tim,

When you have nothing left to post other than a fallacy of relative privation... just give up. Please! Just ####### give up, for crying out loud.

 

[RCon]

This CNN article about the topic is interesting, and details the flaws in the system.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-unintended-consequences/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

It seems that the Central American "perception" of our policies is exactly correct. Send kids here, and they will, in fact, get taken in, housed, fed, and educated for years before being deported, if deportation ever happens at all. Even timschochet should be able to see that this creates a massive incentive for families to send their kids across the border, and that the number crossing over will continue to increase unless the US stops taking the children in.

 

[timschochet]

This CNN article about the topic is interesting, and details the flaws in the system.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-unintended-consequences/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

It seems that the Central American "perception" of our policies is exactly correct. Send kids here, and they will, in fact, get taken in, housed, fed, and educated for years before being deported, if deportation ever happens at all. Even timschochet should be able to see that this creates a massive incentive for families to send their kids across the border, and that the number crossing over will continue to increase unless the US stops taking the children in.

No I don't see that.

You're talking about somebody's children. I don't send my daughters away from me unless things are incredibly dire. And if things are that dire, then it doesn't matter to me what the law in the USA says or how it's enforced, I'm sending my kids anyhow, in the hopes that somehow they will get through.

The "incentive" is not on our end. The root of this problem lies not in any of our policies, or lack of them, but in Central America.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

Tim,

When you have nothing left to post other than a fallacy of relative privation... just give up. Please! Just ####### give up, for crying out loud.

I will never give up on this issue. Of all the political issues I am interested in, this one probably is the single most important to me, at least in terms of emotion. So I will never stop discussing it. You're welcome to put me on ignore.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

While his views aren't exactly what I believe, his thoughts on the topic are a lot more rational than yours.

You have been one of the most rational opponents (for me) on this issue in the forum. I take nearly everything you write seriously, and it strengthens my own convictions when I am able to come up, at least in my own mind, with counters to your finely tuned arguments. So it surprises me to see you write this.

Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist and in any event suggest an irrationality that is completely the opposite of the rational view that you have attempted to make.

 

[Joe T]

ugh

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Lynn MA overwhelmed with undocumented children

LYNN, Mass. (MyFoxBoston.com) -- Lynn is a municipality on the brink. Key department officials say a recent influx of illegal immigrant children and families in the city is stressing almost every service from trash collection to healthcare."We have been aware of the unaccompanied children issue for quite a while, and we were able to absorb a lot of these children early on," said Lynn Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy. "But now it's gotten to the point where the school system is overwhelmed, our health department is overwhelmed, the city's budget is being sustainably altered in order of accommodate all of these admissions in the school department."

The mayor also says the solution is to stem the flow of illegal unaccompanied minors coming into her city on a federal level, and provide federal assistance to ease budget constraints.

"The way this is going, Lynn looks like a microcosm of the United States, in that we have been filled to capacity and we can't take anymore without having the people who are already here suffer," she said.

[Tim]But you don't understand, they are a net positive and contribute more than they take! It's so because I really believe it! [/Tim]

who cares about the people that are already here....if they are complaining then they are just being selfish bigots

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote anything close to that.

The people of Lynn, and other cities who are taking these children in, have an absolute right to complain. Their resources are being drained. What I wanted involved a national effort.

this is more about how much can one economy handle...we have so many issues with our born and raised here that taking on every person from every corner of the world who needs help is impossible...back when people immigrated here this country wasnt as populated as it is now...what these other countries like mexico and Brazil need to do is fix themselves...change the government they have ...i know that i cant just move to some other country because i feel like it and just live there...id be deported in no time flat...and the biggest issue isnt the kids that are coming here ,its the criminals who get in and are absorbed into our society ....the very thing that made this country so great will be the very thing that destroys it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

While his views aren't exactly what I believe, his thoughts on the topic are a lot more rational than yours.

You have been one of the most rational opponents (for me) on this issue in the forum. I take nearly everything you write seriously, and it strengthens my own convictions when I am able to come up, at least in my own mind, with counters to your finely tuned arguments. So it surprises me to see you write this. Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist and in any event suggest an irrationality that is completely the opposite of the rational view that you have attempted to make.

Rich wasn't saying Sarnoff is rational. He is saying you are more irrational than Sarnoff.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who disagree with me on this subject (and that appears to be just about everybody here): do you really want Sarnoff to be representing you on this issue? Are his views the ones you truly subscribe to?

While his views aren't exactly what I believe, his thoughts on the topic are a lot more rational than yours.

You have been one of the most rational opponents (for me) on this issue in the forum. I take nearly everything you write seriously, and it strengthens my own convictions when I am able to come up, at least in my own mind, with counters to your finely tuned arguments. So it surprises me to see you write this. Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist and in any event suggest an irrationality that is completely the opposite of the rational view that you have attempted to make.

Rich wasn't saying Sarnoff is rational. He is saying you are more irrational than Sarnoff.

Oh well in that case...

 

[timschochet]

Lynn MA overwhelmed with undocumented children

LYNN, Mass. (MyFoxBoston.com) -- Lynn is a municipality on the brink. Key department officials say a recent influx of illegal immigrant children and families in the city is stressing almost every service from trash collection to healthcare."We have been aware of the unaccompanied children issue for quite a while, and we were able to absorb a lot of these children early on," said Lynn Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy. "But now it's gotten to the point where the school system is overwhelmed, our health department is overwhelmed, the city's budget is being sustainably altered in order of accommodate all of these admissions in the school department."

The mayor also says the solution is to stem the flow of illegal unaccompanied minors coming into her city on a federal level, and provide federal assistance to ease budget constraints.

"The way this is going, Lynn looks like a microcosm of the United States, in that we have been filled to capacity and we can't take anymore without having the people who are already here suffer," she said.

[Tim]But you don't understand, they are a net positive and contribute more than they take! It's so because I really believe it! [/Tim]

who cares about the people that are already here....if they are complaining then they are just being selfish bigots

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote anything close to that.

The people of Lynn, and other cities who are taking these children in, have an absolute right to complain. Their resources are being drained. What I wanted involved a national effort.

this is more about how much can one economy handle...we have so many issues with our born and raised here that taking on every person from every corner of the world who needs help is impossible...back when people immigrated here this country wasnt as populated as it is now...what these other countries like mexico and Brazil need to do is fix themselves...change the government they have ...i know that i cant just move to some other country because i feel like it and just live there...id be deported in no time flat...and the biggest issue isnt the kids that are coming here ,its the criminals who get in and are absorbed into our society ....the very thing that made this country so great will be the very thing that destroys it.

While I disagree strongly with most of what you wrote, the bolded is no doubt true.

 

[tom22406]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-obama-republicans-face-broad-disapproval-over-handling-of-migrant-crisis/2014/07/14/3c2a1bcc-0b8e-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds widespread public disapproval of the way President Obama and Republicans in Congress are handling the influx of unaccompanied foreign children at the southern border as the two sides engage in a fierce debate over how to stem the crisis.

Nearly 6 out of 10 Americans are not happy with Obama’s performance in dealing with the tens of thousands of minors who have arrived from Central America in recent months, overwhelming Border Patrol stations. All told, 58 percent disapprove of his management on the issue, including 54 percent of Latinos.

The findings represent a political blow for a president who called immigration reform a top second-term priority when he was reelected two years ago with 71 percent support from Latino voters.

 

[timschochet]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

 

[johnnycakes]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

C'mon, tim... criminals and terrorists need to eat, too!

 

[Sarnoff]

Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist

See, I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. How could I be, when my own family came here from another country not so long ago? I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

 

[RCon]

This CNN article about the topic is interesting, and details the flaws in the system.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/politics/immigration-unintended-consequences/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

It seems that the Central American "perception" of our policies is exactly correct. Send kids here, and they will, in fact, get taken in, housed, fed, and educated for years before being deported, if deportation ever happens at all. Even timschochet should be able to see that this creates a massive incentive for families to send their kids across the border, and that the number crossing over will continue to increase unless the US stops taking the children in.

No I don't see that.

You're talking about somebody's children. I don't send my daughters away from me unless things are incredibly dire. And if things are that dire, then it doesn't matter to me what the law in the USA says or how it's enforced, I'm sending my kids anyhow, in the hopes that somehow they will get through.

The "incentive" is not on our end. The root of this problem lies not in any of our policies, or lack of them, but in Central America.

You really do have a blind spot on this topic, don't you? It's either that or a faulty logic processor (I'd believe this, BTW).

A policy practice on our side of taking in these children, and housing and educating them, will necessarily create more of an incentive to send children here than there would be without said policy practice. It's really not debatable. Whether that incentive outweighs everything else is dependent on conditions in Central America and lots of other things. Whether that incentive is greater or lesser, all other things being equal, has nothing to do with Central America.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

How would you know? How about outlining your utopian "system" that can weed those people out while letting everyone else in who wants to come here. Also detail how our infrastructure will be able to handle this huge influx of immigration.

 

[matttyl]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

No, wrong again. You said this..."If you put a wall on our southern border, and not on our northern border, how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated?"

It was a rhetorical argument. What I meant was that is how it WILL be regarded, especially by most Latinos IMO. You can disagree with me and not be racist.

You said "how can anyone." I'm anyone, and I'm not Latino. I have to agree with poopdawg that what you said before was pretty stupid.

 

[timschochet]

Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist

See, I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. How could I be, when my own family came here from another country not so long ago? I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Earlier in this thread you wrote, as part of a description of Huntington Park (a city in Los Angeles county which is largely Hispanic), "You can drive for miles and not see a single sign in English."

First off that's a lie. Second, it has nothing to do with the topic of illegal immigrants. Third, when you write comments like that, it suggests hostility and racism, at least IMO. I don't find anything racist about what you just wrote above.

 

[timschochet]

jonessed, please do not group me with those people who regard all objections to illegal immigration as bigoted. That is true among some, it is not true of me.

Says the guy that tells us that a border fence is downright racist....

No, what I wrote is that, IMO, a border fence will lead to anger and racist attitudes on both sides. And that, among some people (not all) there is a racist element in the desire to build this fence on our southern border alone.

No, wrong again. You said this..."If you put a wall on our southern border, and not on our northern border, how can anyone NOT regard that as racially motivated?"

It was a rhetorical argument. What I meant was that is how it WILL be regarded, especially by most Latinos IMO. You can disagree with me and not be racist.

You said "how can anyone." I'm anyone, and I'm not Latino. I have to agree with poopdawg that what you said before was pretty stupid.

I explained what I meant. I apologize if you took it the wrong way; that was not my intent.

 

[Sarnoff]

Sarnoff has made a number of comments that display a hostility to illegal immigrants, and to Latinos in general, that are borderline racist

See, I knew it. It’s a typical liberal thing to label your opponents’ arguments as racist. The fact is, I’m not anti-immigrant. How could I be, when my own family came here from another country not so long ago? I believe that immigrants form the strength of our nation. And I’m not racist, either. I have several Latino friends, and I consider them to be my equals. Most of them are as concerned over this issue as I am. But what you don’t get is there is a difference between legal immigrants and those that come here illegally. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ve broken the law by your very presence. That’s wrong. And before we go any farther discussing this issue, we need to all realize how wrong it is. And this is at the very heart of my objection. Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

Earlier in this thread you wrote, as part of a description of Huntington Park (a city in Los Angeles county which is largely Hispanic), "You can drive for miles and not see a single sign in English."

First off that's a lie. Second, it has nothing to do with the topic of illegal immigrants. Third, when you write comments like that, it suggests hostility and racism, at least IMO. I don't find anything racist about what you just wrote above.

What I was getting at when I spoke of not seeing a sign in English in a city like Huntington Park- it was not racist at all, but instead a concern over the failure of these people to assimilate and the assault on our culture.

 

[tom22406]

Just gonna take a wild guess here and say Tim is for open borders,am I close?

Close. Not completely open. I wouldn't allow convicted felons, terrorists, suspected terrorists, or public health risks to enter. Everyone else, come right in!

So you still would have border patrol and a fence up to stop these people from getting in or just throw up a sign that says please wait here(felon,terrorist,health threat)and we will be right with you?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Earlier in this thread you wrote, as part of a description of Huntington Park (a city in Los Angeles county which is largely Hispanic), "You can drive for miles and not see a single sign in English."

First off that's a lie. Second, it has nothing to do with the topic of illegal immigrants. Third, when you write comments like that, it suggests hostility and racism, at least IMO. I don't find anything racist about what you just wrote above.

Well, at least with regards to the bolded, you're 100% completely wrong. As a person of partial Chinese descent, I would take no offense to someone saying that when you go to Chinatown you don't see signs in English. While somewhat wrong, as there are some signs in both, it's largely true and not offensive. You find it offensive because you're LOOKING for racism. And that's on you. He's making an observation. Right or wrong, it's simple as that, and not racist.