Trump's apparent anti-immigration beliefs...

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Trump's apparent anti-immigration beliefs...

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:30 am

I was responding to something from another thread but thought this deserves its own thread. This topic is about why I actually agree to some of Trump's convictions on immigration even though I am left of center:
Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:14 am
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:43 pm
So don't you think its about time you abandoned, -and then got down on your knees and humbly apologised for -, the deadly stupidity your evil political doctrine ? I do.
As usual, you're projecting your crazy crap onto others. So convinced of the insanity in your head. Why don't you apologize for being such an ignorant hate-spewing asshole?
Lacewing

I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF. No one is stopping you. You either LOVE this country OR you LEAVE it. It was great see Trump make a point of emphasising that option to the contemptible, US-bashing, Al Quada apologist, Muslim Senator Ilhan Omar.

Socialists aren't welcome in America Lacewing, because it is a FREE nation. If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") why don't you just get on a plane (with a one way ticket) to sunny Venezuela or some other socialist shit-hole like Cuba. i'm sure the super- awesome , mystical, healing power of your love would be greatly appreciated in Caracas (don't forget to pack lots of your New Age crystals, and Runes, as well, sister the the cosmic energy they radiate will cure the city's economic woes in a flash !).

In short, If you love socialism, and you think it's kwell, your are not fit to live in the US, sweetheart; so why don't you "do the right thing" and piss off; the sooner the better!


Regards

Dachshund

(Der Uberweiner)
Trump's message was not about 'socialists'. [Trump swayed between sides on the political spectrum before his present position with the Republicans.] His communication style is against 'etiquette', something that I actually respect over the pretentiousness of the past's presumptions about how to behave as a politician. This era that has evolved regarding the Internet and communications no longer requires people to BE 'perfect'. Prior to this era, because we could not reasonably recognize famous people in ANY area without stereotyping them as holding some personality for life, once someone -- especially with respect to politics -- presented a poor image in their public etiquette, they were permanently presumed to BE what that particular perception painted them to be. Today this is not necessary but we have not yet adjusted to the fact that people are actually prone to error in what they say. As such, Trump represents the guy who says-it-like-it-is which by those holding this preference don't mean they LIKE what one has to say but that they approve of the person's relative honesty in light of the obvious errors in apparent reasoning. That is, he is one to believe that what one says at some particular time, T, as meaning that person is NOT DEFINED by their present statements necessarily, but to the present situation.

I happen to share this perspective even if I can disagree with one's particular opinions on the situation. That is, I appreciate one being relatively carefree in speaking without concern of fearing they'd be misinterpreted because people really DO change their minds according to conditions. However, this era is still new. The left are also doing this and why we get the 'Social Justice Warrior' who strictly advocates with obvious bias to anyone speaking against their specific arguments in counter to their own. In fact, Trump's success is ABOUT how the normally careful etiquette expected of the left has become absurdly beholden to act with strict volition about their advocacy with no exception to middle grounds. Thus we get the modern strict feminist approach that acts as though women were a distinct Nationality....and thus, the "Neo-femin-azis" as some have termed it.

As to his words, his intent is about International politics versus the Domestic. If those who have become 'citizens' of some country, the expectation is that if they like where they are for the major philosophy that that system represented, they would or should abandon the LOYALTY of the qualities of the very places they came from where those places were deemed 'abusive' enough for them to escape. As such, if you embrace some advocacy of the people escaping from those prior places AND do so with some presumption that those people have some INTRINSIC genetic quality of significant importance to you, then should you NOT want to focus your attention on trying to IMPROVE those places where you came rather than merely to get them all to relocate to a haven in a land you prefer to segregate into communities most uniquely OF those of only your kind?

Here is where I agree with him and what pisses me off about the irrationality of how others of my own preferred left-wing side are acting with disapproval. Why, if America is so great for its VOLITION to BE so admired, cannot those countries everyone is escaping from not FOCUS their interest on FIXING those other countries BY the apparent VOLITION (free will of the people) unless the 'free will' of the intrinsic qualities of people FROM those countries are such that they are not believers IN free will as relevant? Why, for instance, is no one not trying to look deeper into Mexico's reasons for NOT having the same success as the United States's ideals, especially when they are NEXT DOOR to such a favorable country?

If it is NOT true that America's qualities are 'volitional' but merely due to LUCK, then by the perspective of those coming into this country is to presume the host country (the U.S.) is merely LUCKY, not just selectively virtuous due to some incredible insight into creating a system based upon 'freedom'. As such, if the U.S. is just merely a lucky fortunate place, then the appeal by those thinking this who come here, are presuming that their own homes are not failures due to their VOLITION, but due to mere BAD LUCK. This mentality means that the immigrants who favor encouraging others from their prior home are interpreting compassion of their own as though they are perfectly reasonable to escape NO MATTER what their prior country's ideals are.

So, in essence, if we keep permitting open immigration (and in fact encouraging it as my own country, Canada does), we are NOT helping solve the problems of the people who come from bad places but rather ENCOURAGING those places to both justify AND maintain the behaviors that contribute to the reasons people are fleeing them.

As to Trump appearing to target the four women of 'color' who favor immigration concerns, this is POLITICAL rhetoric and not something that speaks of Trump hating the immigrant. If it incidentally favors the extremists who by default share this view BUT out of hatred of others intrinsically, this is irrelevant. Why should anyone fear speaking freely about something they rationally believe simply because stupid people elsewhere may 'read into' this irrationally as meaning your opinion supports their own views?

This is the 'snowflake' mentality. If one person out of a whole school is allergic to peanuts, the snowflakes think it is up to ALL people to evade sending their children to school with peanut butter sandwiches. It arrogantly comes from spoiled arrogant people thinking that what luxury they have to FREELY select optional means to behave is shared among all the others. If your kid is allergic to peanuts, demand they go home for lunch rather than make the whole complement of the population be the ones to have to go home to have the freedom to eat peanut butter sandwiches. For most who DO give their kids peanut butter sandwiches in the first place, this alternative is more often FROM those who can't even afford the same luxury of those other kids who COULD afford to find alternatives freely.

So, while Trump's particular political preferences may not be mine in general, I disagree with presuming this represents some extreme anti-socialistic, Neo-Nazi belief he holds against the immigrant. You CAN have compassion FOR your neighbor's welfare even if you disagree with them moving in with you.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Trump, like a great many Americans, is not anti-immigration or anti-immigrant...

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:54 am

...he, like a great many Americans, is anti-illegal immigration, anti-illegal immigrant.

All Trump, and great many Americans, want is for folks to come to the front door and knock.

Also: we'd like it if folks who wanna come 'here' stopped actin' as though their desire to be 'here' some how obligates us to let 'em in.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Trump, like a great many Americans, is not anti-immigration or anti-immigrant...

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:36 am

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:54 am
...he, like a great many Americans, is anti-illegal immigration, anti-illegal immigrant.

All Trump, and great many Americans, want is for folks to come to the front door and knock.

Also: we'd like it if folks who wanna come 'here' stopped actin' as though their desire to be 'here' some how obligates us to let 'em in.
Yes, I agree. I thought of a good way to express this but can't even get this across to some 'friends' who deem any view in disagreement with them on these topics as pure evil. I only get as far as expressing that I disagree and then all of a sudden anything I say afterwards to express the logic gets shut out as though they are steaming angry (similar to the presumed haters they presume Trump adores). Here is my simplified argument:

Imagine you have a pair of twins who live next to each other in exactly similar sized homes. One has thought of a clever way to create a living for themselves upon the same initial resources of the other and has a wife and two kids who do well. The other has 'failed' in some critical way but independent of the reason the other succeeded, has a wife and 20 kids. Because of this, the failed twin has a family whose children are relatively suffering.

One day, the children of the suffering twin's household, come over to the better-off twin's house to play with the their cousins. As supper comes along, the better-off twin of course can't help but have compassion and offers them to have supper. Of course this is 'expected' and not out of the normal. But if this continued to happen to the point that the kids are demanding to move in, wouldn't it be reasonable for the one twin to go to his brother to address this issue with them?

Okay, so he does. But then he discovers that his brother doesn't care. In fact, on the days you allowed his kids to come over for supper, what fortune he had to support his own family is not burdened with feeding 22 kids and has made his own efforts of choices lost for the fact that his brother's bad choices. The kids may not know better. All his brother's kids see is how well off their cousin's next door are doing.

Meanwhile, the brother next door doesn't seem to be concerned. In fact, to his dismay, he discovers that while he has been taking on his brothers kids, his brother has been taking the advantage afforded him now to order in KFC and Chinese food, a privilege they couldn't afford before. Nor do they worry about whether their kids have opted to move out with the added claim that they are being abused. If he got accused of it in fact, it would just make him feel justified in letting his kids go move in with his better-off brother instead.

Further, since the brother who was failing now has an empty house, he and his wife can have the place to themselves more and she gets pregnant again. And the cycle continues.

I'm sure others can add more to this thought experiment. But basically, while it is 'compassionate' to help others, if it is expected to merely be appropriate to take on the immediate debts of others without the need (or possible means) to repair the other, your 'compassionate' actions not only doesn't solve the problems but enhances the harms it does to your own.

To add to this, the children who enter your home when you are helping, may reasonably have the other kids of that home complain that they are not getting the fair respect for their cousins given they don't play with them, keep to themselves, and opt to defend their own brethren now AND to their actual parents FUTURE children with precedence. They interpret their two cousins of the parents who let them is as 'fortunate' and so any of their own failings should they exist are their own faults in light of the better parents they have.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Scott

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:16 am

You're argument is good, but the current situation is more like...

Sam does well. In his neighborhood, he's probably doin' better than almost everyone. Now, Sam, like any complex personality, has his flaws: he gets pushy from time to time, sticks his nose in where he shouldn't sometimes, but he's also generous, tries to stay on good terms with most of his neighbors, and is always willin' to lend a hand (or a few bucks) to folks who truly need it.

Time passes, the neighborhood ages & grows, and neighborhood kids -- partly cuz Sam remains generous but has become less discriminating -- get the idea they deserve Sam's largess. The days of 'please' & 'thanks' are gone. In ever increasing numbers, neighborhood kids gather on Sam's front lawn demandin' money, food, and -- eventually -- to be 'in' Sam's house.

At some point: Sam is gonna have to put a stop to all that nonsense, yeah? Or: is Sam just supposed to let all the neighborhood kids in?

-----

As for those 'friends' of yours: fuck 'em.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump's apparent anti-immigration beliefs...

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:39 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:30 am
I was responding to something from another thread but thought this deserves its own thread. This topic is about why I actually agree to some of Trump's convictions on immigration even though I am left of center:
Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:14 am

As usual, you're projecting your crazy crap onto others. So convinced of the insanity in your head. Why don't you apologize for being such an ignorant hate-spewing asshole?
Lacewing

I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF. No one is stopping you. You either LOVE this country OR you LEAVE it. It was great see Trump make a point of emphasising that option to the contemptible, US-bashing, Al Quada apologist, Muslim Senator Ilhan Omar.

Socialists aren't welcome in America Lacewing, because it is a FREE nation. If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") why don't you just get on a plane (with a one way ticket) to sunny Venezuela or some other socialist shit-hole like Cuba. i'm sure the super- awesome , mystical, healing power of your love would be greatly appreciated in Caracas (don't forget to pack lots of your New Age crystals, and Runes, as well, sister the the cosmic energy they radiate will cure the city's economic woes in a flash !).

In short, If you love socialism, and you think it's kwell, your are not fit to live in the US, sweetheart; so why don't you "do the right thing" and piss off; the sooner the better!


Regards

Dachshund

(Der Uberweiner)
Trump's message was not about 'socialists'. [Trump swayed between sides on the political spectrum before his present position with the Republicans.] His communication style is against 'etiquette', something that I actually respect over the pretentiousness of the past's presumptions about how to behave as a politician. This era that has evolved regarding the Internet and communications no longer requires people to BE 'perfect'. Prior to this era, because we could not reasonably recognize famous people in ANY area without stereotyping them as holding some personality for life, once someone -- especially with respect to politics -- presented a poor image in their public etiquette, they were permanently presumed to BE what that particular perception painted them to be. Today this is not necessary but we have not yet adjusted to the fact that people are actually prone to error in what they say. As such, Trump represents the guy who says-it-like-it-is which by those holding this preference don't mean they LIKE what one has to say but that they approve of the person's relative honesty in light of the obvious errors in apparent reasoning. That is, he is one to believe that what one says at some particular time, T, as meaning that person is NOT DEFINED by their present statements necessarily, but to the present situation.

I happen to share this perspective even if I can disagree with one's particular opinions on the situation. That is, I appreciate one being relatively carefree in speaking without concern of fearing they'd be misinterpreted because people really DO change their minds according to conditions. However, this era is still new. The left are also doing this and why we get the 'Social Justice Warrior' who strictly advocates with obvious bias to anyone speaking against their specific arguments in counter to their own. In fact, Trump's success is ABOUT how the normally careful etiquette expected of the left has become absurdly beholden to act with strict volition about their advocacy with no exception to middle grounds. Thus we get the modern strict feminist approach that acts as though women were a distinct Nationality....and thus, the "Neo-femin-azis" as some have termed it.

As to his words, his intent is about International politics versus the Domestic. If those who have become 'citizens' of some country, the expectation is that if they like where they are for the major philosophy that that system represented, they would or should abandon the LOYALTY of the qualities of the very places they came from where those places were deemed 'abusive' enough for them to escape. As such, if you embrace some advocacy of the people escaping from those prior places AND do so with some presumption that those people have some INTRINSIC genetic quality of significant importance to you, then should you NOT want to focus your attention on trying to IMPROVE those places where you came rather than merely to get them all to relocate to a haven in a land you prefer to segregate into communities most uniquely OF those of only your kind?

Here is where I agree with him and what pisses me off about the irrationality of how others of my own preferred left-wing side are acting with disapproval. Why, if America is so great for its VOLITION to BE so admired, cannot those countries everyone is escaping from not FOCUS their interest on FIXING those other countries BY the apparent VOLITION (free will of the people) unless the 'free will' of the intrinsic qualities of people FROM those countries are such that they are not believers IN free will as relevant? Why, for instance, is no one not trying to look deeper into Mexico's reasons for NOT having the same success as the United States's ideals, especially when they are NEXT DOOR to such a favorable country?

If it is NOT true that America's qualities are 'volitional' but merely due to LUCK, then by the perspective of those coming into this country is to presume the host country (the U.S.) is merely LUCKY, not just selectively virtuous due to some incredible insight into creating a system based upon 'freedom'. As such, if the U.S. is just merely a lucky fortunate place, then the appeal by those thinking this who come here, are presuming that their own homes are not failures due to their VOLITION, but due to mere BAD LUCK. This mentality means that the immigrants who favor encouraging others from their prior home are interpreting compassion of their own as though they are perfectly reasonable to escape NO MATTER what their prior country's ideals are.

So, in essence, if we keep permitting open immigration (and in fact encouraging it as my own country, Canada does), we are NOT helping solve the problems of the people who come from bad places but rather ENCOURAGING those places to both justify AND maintain the behaviors that contribute to the reasons people are fleeing them.

As to Trump appearing to target the four women of 'color' who favor immigration concerns, this is POLITICAL rhetoric and not something that speaks of Trump hating the immigrant. If it incidentally favors the extremists who by default share this view BUT out of hatred of others intrinsically, this is irrelevant. Why should anyone fear speaking freely about something they rationally believe simply because stupid people elsewhere may 'read into' this irrationally as meaning your opinion supports their own views?

This is the 'snowflake' mentality. If one person out of a whole school is allergic to peanuts, the snowflakes think it is up to ALL people to evade sending their children to school with peanut butter sandwiches. It arrogantly comes from spoiled arrogant people thinking that what luxury they have to FREELY select optional means to behave is shared among all the others. If your kid is allergic to peanuts, demand they go home for lunch rather than make the whole complement of the population be the ones to have to go home to have the freedom to eat peanut butter sandwiches. For most who DO give their kids peanut butter sandwiches in the first place, this alternative is more often FROM those who can't even afford the same luxury of those other kids who COULD afford to find alternatives freely.

So, while Trump's particular political preferences may not be mine in general, I disagree with presuming this represents some extreme anti-socialistic, Neo-Nazi belief he holds against the immigrant. You CAN have compassion FOR your neighbor's welfare even if you disagree with them moving in with you.
Well said, although I don't see how voting 'left of centre' has anything to do with uncontrolled immigration. You can't reason with fantatics of any persuasion. You make some excellent points, but try telling any of them to someone like Sculptor. His only response will be 'FASCIST!', or 'RACIST!'
The trouble is that ACTUAL racists get in on the act and play right into the hands of the PCfruitcakes, ruining any chance of rational discourse.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Scott

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:12 am

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:16 am
You're argument is good, but the current situation is more like...

Sam does well. In his neighborhood, he's probably doin' better than almost everyone. Now, Sam, like any complex personality, has his flaws: he gets pushy from time to time, sticks his nose in where he shouldn't sometimes, but he's also generous, tries to stay on good terms with most of his neighbors, and is always willin' to lend a hand (or a few bucks) to folks who truly need it.

Time passes, the neighborhood ages & grows, and neighborhood kids -- partly cuz Sam remains generous but has become less discriminating -- get the idea they deserve Sam's largess. The days of 'please' & 'thanks' are gone. In ever increasing numbers, neighborhood kids gather on Sam's front lawn demandin' money, food, and -- eventually -- to be 'in' Sam's house.

At some point: Sam is gonna have to put a stop to all that nonsense, yeah? Or: is Sam just supposed to let all the neighborhood kids in?

-----

As for those 'friends' of yours: fuck 'em.
Why would people actually interpret themselves as 'deserving' in the way you present this though? I mean this CAN be an incidental feeling but not something that one would reflect upon themselves but rather an interpretation from those outside looking in?

I think that what I said (with likely better depth) can explain this effect without presuming the people as THINKING they are spoiled. The 'spoiled' is as equally due to one being treated bad than good. As an example, many of a minority who are FROM large roots of abuse handed down from generation to generation are 'spoiled' by NEGLECTFUL forms of abuse where their behaviors are not reflected as themselves as doing anything wrong because they have no background to expect otherwise.

In fact, the type of behavior you are saying is often due to BOTH your view as being biased to presume some 'right' of yours as defaulted to be rational against an opposing one whereby both are incorrect and equally 'spoiled.' I gave the example using a twin because this this shows the ideal of both beginning on EQUAL terms. The problem I presented shows that the parents here act as the government and who are at fault, not the kids. As such, the immigrant is NOT the problem [nor those complaining of them with frustration] but their country of origin's conditions that we presume IS justified as being "abusive". That is, I am arguing with respect to the potential assumption THAT the intentions of the immigrant is not at fault, nor the ones complaining against them. As such, it is NOT the fault of the immigrant but the way the 'parent' systems of the different places that are the problem.

So what Trump is doing is NOT out of disrespect to the immigrant but to the misunderstandings about where the real problem lies: the countries of origins. The insult Trump made is against the POLITICIANS who represent the presumed rationality of the 'parents' of the U.S., not who those representatives are claiming to argue for. When the victims are both the immigrant 'children' as well as your own 'children' (meaning the people as opposed to the government expected to serve them), the actions a politician may feel compelled to do that incidentally harms the immigrant is NOT necessarily out of disrespect of them personally, but to the opinions of those who think that some PRIORITY to favor them should supersede the actions that are necessary to save one's home conditions.

I gave the example to demonstrate that twin helping out his brother is sincerely compassionate but is at the expense of being both less compassionate for their own but naively presuming that the act of being compassionate for what SEEMS most obvious is actually counter productive to prevent the problem. The fault of actions that seem to harm the immigrants by Trump are NOT intended to harm them but to force the direction of resolution to be about fixing the home country's reason for the mass influx of population.

You are just like those extremists if you cannot logically recognize the problem doesn't lie directly with the immigrant. The complaint against Trump is that it FEEDS the kind of interpretation you just expressed. The fault is NOT of some arrogance OF the immigrant at their initial act of immigrating but the fault of the presumption of those interpreting that their compassion for them is rational.

A good example of this I like is about that guy who loved bears and thought of them as cute cuddly 'teddies'. While the compassion for them is sound as a whole, the way he attempted to interact with them unintentionally creates a risk for others by how the bears' interactions with him can mislead the bears into normalizing their approach to humans. Again, the fault is NOT about the bears, nor the compassion of the guy, but to the lack of intellectual insight into the depth of the overall effect. Would you say that the bears that might begin to freely wander close to humans as being intrinsically UNGRATEFUL towards the humans they end up harming when their original nature would have been to keep to their own territory despite its harsh environment? If I was a bear and learned that humans were welcoming beings, I'd move to the city to dwell upon the trash bins if it was easier to find food there.

[Thank you for the encouragement on the 'friend' thing. But while I am frustrated with those like that, I know this is as universal among us. And If I have to fuck them, well, I'll just make sure I remember to wear a condom! 8) ]

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Scott

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:25 am

"Why would people actually interpret themselves as 'deserving' in the way you present this though? I mean this CAN be an incidental feeling but not something that one would reflect upon themselves but rather an interpretation from those outside looking in?"

A great many of the folks storming the southern border demand entry (through action & word). If they were truly askin' for entry, then -- as I say -- they'd come to the front door & knock, not try to barrel through the front door without permission or sneak through the bathroom window.

As to 'why' these folks believe themselves entitled to entry: the U.S. has put out mixed messages for a while now; our reluctance to consistently enforce the laws on the books; our stasis in reforming our asylum/immigration laws; vocal & prominent Americans who adviocate for open borders & and general amnesty for illegal aliens; all these contribute to the sense of 'privilege' many of these people exhibit. And: let's not forget, in many of the countries these folks abandon, they're encouraged to go north to the U.S.

Simply: Sam (the U.S.) has self-generated a good chunk of the problem (by way of commies in office and commies in the public sphere) with equally sizable chunks bein' created by foreign govs encouraging illegal immigration.

#

"I gave the example using a twin because this this shows the ideal of both beginning on EQUAL terms. "

And in my example, Sam (America) is the most well off in the neighborhood (Earth) cuz that simply is the caee. There's none of the artificial equality you posit in my example or in the real world.

#

"The problem I presented shows that the parents here act as the government and who are at fault, not the kids."

I agree, but didn't address that in my version, Sam's (our) problem 'is' the kids (the illegal aliens and the wannabes). Sure, Sam has to talk to the parents (the governments) of the nations where all the immigrants come from, but that takes time and the kids (aliens demanding entry) on on the front lawn (at the border) now.

#

"As such, the immigrant is NOT the problem"

You're wrong. From the U.S. perspective, the illegal immigrant 'is' the problem, here & now.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Scott

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:36 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:25 am
"Why would people actually interpret themselves as 'deserving' in the way you present this though? I mean this CAN be an incidental feeling but not something that one would reflect upon themselves but rather an interpretation from those outside looking in?"

A great many of the folks storming the southern border demand entry (through action & word). If they were truly askin' for entry, then -- as I say -- they'd come to the front door & knock, not try to barrel through the front door without permission or sneak through the bathroom window.

As to 'why' these folks believe themselves entitled to entry: the U.S. has put out mixed messages for a while now; our reluctance to consistently enforce the laws on the books; our stasis in reforming our asylum/immigration laws; vocal & prominent Americans who adviocate for open borders & and general amnesty for illegal aliens; all these contribute to the sense of 'privilege' many of these people exhibit. And: let's not forget, in many of the countries these folks abandon, they're encouraged to go north to the U.S.

Simply: Sam (the U.S.) has self-generated a good chunk of the problem (by way of commies in office and commies in the public sphere) with equally sizable chunks bein' created by foreign govs encouraging illegal immigration.

#

"I gave the example using a twin because this this shows the ideal of both beginning on EQUAL terms. "

And in my example, Sam (America) is the most well off in the neighborhood (Earth) cuz that simply is the caee. There's none of the artificial equality you posit in my example or in the real world.

#

"The problem I presented shows that the parents here act as the government and who are at fault, not the kids."

I agree, but didn't address that in my version, Sam's (our) problem 'is' the kids (the illegal aliens and the wannabes). Sure, Sam has to talk to the parents (the governments) of the nations where all the immigrants come from, but that takes time and the kids (aliens demanding entry) on on the front lawn (at the border) now.

#

"As such, the immigrant is NOT the problem"

You're wrong. From the U.S. perspective, the illegal immigrant 'is' the problem, here & now.
The language needs to be reworded to reflect the INTENTIONAL meaning of the problem: immigration, NOT the immigrant. We cannot be sure to trust neither the positive NOR negative intentions of the people themselves just as a matter for assuming one's innocence up front. What we DO know is that some belief in complete acceptance of the immigrant is a problem about perspective here. Trump's position could be clarified to respect the CONDITION of immigration concerns rather than the STATE of the being of any particular immigrants.

You are not helping to counter challenge the poor thinking involved by the average American voting audience if you interpret the state of minds of the immigrants as though they have a conspiracy of mind. The kids in my example are like the average non-government population AND the immigrants who have various degrees of validity with respect to the reasons involved. As such, IF you are NOT an actual supremacist-thinker, or don't want others to even presume you do, you need to speak TO THEIR concerns: the particular immigrants presumed innocent. If you classify ALL or MOST immigrants as having devious intention or 'spoiled' in a view about who DESERVES what, you need to reflect that back: What gives the right of anyone to assert they DESERVE to prevent others free passage on an Earth we are all 'owned from'?

Why does it matter that the minds of immigrants SHOULD think in ways similar to the means of how THE American 'free market' ideal successfully operates: via belief in intentional use of 'free speech' to include deception tactics [such as we permit in advertising and sales],...or the idea that it is 'not a lie' to merely leave out relevant information in order to "capitalize" on the ignorance of others? Beliefs in the economic means to compete Darwinian style are strong ideals of "America" that you favor most specifically being conservative. So to question the immigrant's SELFISH motives as being insincere to the American way would NOT be "American" should they have QUIT, turned around with their tails beneath their legs, and ACCEPT their 'home' country's dictates?

I am all for keeping immigrants from migrating when it is all or most of the World's interests to curb this in principle; I am not okay with presuming they are 'greedy' when the concept of 'greed' itself is MORE about seeking the quick and easy way to apparent success to which the World knows the U.S. stands for. If others are to believe that the motives are the significant argument AGAINST immigration, this rationally suggests to the audience that the means those arguing this against the immigrant IS about some likely unsound hatred against others.

You want to SPEAK and be UNDERSTOOD by the other side, you need to SPEAK from THEIR PERSPECTIVE with the same respect you expect in kind. To rationally encourage others to favor means to discourage illegal immigration in the ways Trump is doing, you have to clearly argue FOR the reason against immigration is a GLOBAL ISSUE. Doesn't this make sense?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Scott

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:16 am

"The language needs to be reworded to reflect the INTENTIONAL meaning of the problem: immigration, NOT the immigrant."

No, my language is clear as is: the problem is the illegal immigrant, first and foremost.

#

"We cannot be sure to trust neither the positive NOR negative intentions of the people themselves just as a matter for assuming one's innocence up front."

If I stumble into the can at 3am to take a piss and discover a guy crawlin' in through my bathroom window, I'm on pretty solid ground assumin' he's up to no good, even if I don't know his exact reasons for breakin' & enterin'. This person may have heard that old Henry just loves it when folks drop in uninvited through the bathroom window, but his hearin' it don't make it so.

You wanna visit me? Knock on the front door and wait till I answer.

Ain't substantially different when truckloads of illegals trundle across the border at 3am, or rush the border in broad daylight. They may have the idea from muliple sources (some benign, some not so benign) that America's arms are open and pockets deep, but it don't make it so.

You want sanctuary or a better life or a twinkie? Present yourself and 'ask'.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Scott

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:04 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:16 am
"The language needs to be reworded to reflect the INTENTIONAL meaning of the problem: immigration, NOT the immigrant."

No, my language is clear as is: the problem is the illegal immigrant, first and foremost.
Okay. This is already agreed to by all, though. What the people who support immigrants have beyond personal interests of the particular peoples are to the presumption that these people are already 'victims' escaping from bad places. Why is there no concerted effort by those like yourself to point out the where the problems IN those other countries arise? If you want to merely assert the immigrant is just 'illegal', you have to look at whether they are also 'illegal' to live in their own countries by how those systems are set up. Also, since the U.S. gains best BY enticing other countries to BE anti-democratic and most particular pro-American regardless of their differences, this leaves those without a 'legal' existence anywhere on Earth.

I'm for enticing them to help change their homelands. But what is purposely ignored is how the U.S. plays a role in keeping those countries DOWN because that is how 'capitalism' operates. While the U.S. may have a constitution that serves its members, it uses (or permits) its businesses to EXPLOIT the economic advantages of those countries and leaving the people's politics as their own. In other words, the very OUTSIDERS of those countries (as immigrants are) are like those burglars you mention. Only your example ignores that the Americans (and other 'friends' or countries of the same modus operandi) break in WITH the power of their own security to get in and out quick with the goods and leaves the robbed families to seek consolation on their own. In other words, since the outsiders prop up dictators or encourage other countries to remain socially dysfunctional, those whose homes are robbed have no means to get their things taken back. So....
"We cannot be sure to trust neither the positive NOR negative intentions of the people themselves just as a matter for assuming one's innocence up front."

If I stumble into the can at 3am to take a piss and discover a guy crawlin' in through my bathroom window, I'm on pretty solid ground assumin' he's up to no good, even if I don't know his exact reasons for breakin' & enterin'. This person may have heard that old Henry just loves it when folks drop in uninvited through the bathroom window, but his hearin' it don't make it so.

You wanna visit me? Knock on the front door and wait till I answer.

Ain't substantially different when truckloads of illegals trundle across the border at 3am, or rush the border in broad daylight. They may have the idea from muliple sources (some benign, some not so benign) that America's arms are open and pockets deep, but it don't make it so.

You want sanctuary or a better life or a twinkie? Present yourself and 'ask'.
This example you give is not good enough. The world as a whole is 'owned' up and where there exists those who are born without are forced to 'float' wherever they are. The only POTENTIAL power they have is to procreate and hope that their greater populations can have a better chance to survive. [This is Darwinian, by the way, similar to the Capitalist ideal but represent those who lose most by taking advantage (opportunistic exploitation, that is)]

And as I pointed out above, if the break-and-enter example you give is sound, it has to recognize that if these people WERE intentional thieves, they wouldn't be planning on stealing and still stick around. The Capitalist way is to take the ADVANTAGES of others by leaving the sucker with the DISADVANTAGES. Where laws may protect those of your own, if you are speaking of other countries people, it is even much easier to exploit as they can't use laws of their own country (of which they are unwelcome anyways) to get the justice against the perpetrators.

mickthinks
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Trump's apparent anti-immigration beliefs...

Post by mickthinks » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:15 pm

I'm just going to leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8QxCD6ir8

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trump's apparent anti-immigration beliefs...

Post by Sculptor » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:52 pm

Or to take a more realistic viewpoint...

Lou Reed - "Dirty Boulevard" - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpxJdlcd45U

Pedro lives out of the Wilshire Hotel
he looks out a window without glass
The walls are made of cardboard, newspapers on his feet
his father beats him 'cause he's too tired to beg
He's got 9 brothers and sisters
they're brought up on their knees
it's hard to run when a coat hanger beats you on the thighs
Pedro dreams of being older and killing the old man
but that's a slim chance he's going to the boulevard
He's going to end up, on the dirty boulevard
he's going out, to the dirty boulevard
He's going down, to the dirty boulevard
This room cost 2, 000 dollars a month
you can believe it man it's true
somewhere a landlord's laughing till he wets his pants
No one here dreams of being a doctor or a lawyer or anything
they dream of dealing on the dirty boulevard
Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
that's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
and get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard
Get to end up, on the dirty boulevard
going out, to the dirty boulevard
He's going down, on the dirty boulevard
going out
Outside it's a bright night
there's an opera at Lincoln Center
movie stars arrive by limousine
The klieg lights shoot up over the skyline of Manhattan
but the lights are out on the Mean Streets
A small kid stands by the Lincoln Tunnel
he's selling plastic roses for a buck
The traffic's backed up to 39th street
the TV whores are calling the cops out for a suck
And back at the Wilshire, Pedro sits there dreaming
he's found a book on magic in a garbage can
He looks at the pictures and stares at the cracked ceiling
"At the count of 3" he says, "I hope I can disappear"
And fly fly away, from this dirty boulevard
I want to fly, from dirty boulevard
I want to fly, from dirty boulevard
I want to fly-fly-fly-fly, from dirty boulevard
I want to fly away
I want to fly
Fly, fly away
I want to fly
Fly-fly away (Fly a-)
fly-fly-fly (-way, ooohhh...)
Fly-fly away (I want to fly-fly away)
fly away (I want to fly, wow-woh, no, fly away)

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Scott

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:55 pm

"Why is there no concerted effort by those like yourself to point out the where the problems IN those other countries arise?"

You can't have both ways: when the U.S. sticks its nose into other nations' affairs, it's bein' 'imperalistic'; when -- as I prefer -- the U.S. keeps to itself & attends to its own woes, it's bein' 'isolationist'.

#

"If you want to merely assert the immigrant is just 'illegal', you have to look at whether they are also 'illegal' to live in their own countries by how those systems are set up."

No, I don't.

#

"I'm for enticing them to help change their homelands."

I'm for leavin' other nations, the people of other nations, alone to determine what they want.

#

"But what is purposely ignored is how the U.S. plays a role in keeping those countries DOWN because that is how 'capitalism' operates."

No, the U.S. does indeed, regretably, monkey 'round with other nations, but that ain't capitalism: that's power-mongerin'.

#

"While the U.S. may have a constitution that serves its members, it uses (or permits) its businesses to EXPLOIT the economic advantages of those countries and leaving the people's politics as their own."

No, whatever explotation happens, happens cuz the govs of these other nations (which is to say, 'the people' of these other nations) allow it. If America is Satan, then other nations are willingly sellin' their souls for a buck fifty.

#

"The only POTENTIAL power they have is to procreate"

Wow, how little faith you have in folks. Me: I think they have loads of power. Unfortunately, they've been well-taught on how not to use it. I see the same thing happenin' 'here': generations of Americans domesticated into believin' they have no say & no power & that all good things come from a centralized 'authority'.

#

"And as I pointed out above, if the break-and-enter example you give is sound, it has to recognize that if these people WERE intentional thieves, they wouldn't be planning on stealing and still stick around."

C'mon, guy, my example, your example, both only go so far without breakin'. Both examples are only to point in the direction of what either of us think the problem is, neither example should be taken as a clear explanation 'of' the problem.

#

"The Capitalist way is to take the ADVANTAGES of others by leaving the sucker with the DISADVANTAGES."

That may be the way of the state capitalist (sometimes), but has nuthin' to do with the free enterprise I favor.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests