Point taken. I do not care to speculate as to the heights or depths of The Other Waldo Pepper’s aspirations.
All the Jews and Christians I know supported forcing the bakery to follow Colorado law. They didn’t seem to feel their positions were sneering at Judeo-Christian values.
Well, yes, there are many ways of screening such folks. And there is also the option of granting amnesty to all who are here, no screening needed. I don’t see any reason to trust you and yours to opt for the former instead of the latter.
But what I wrote was, technically, accurate; they are free to do it. You called me out for lying, and I of course await your apology.
Re-read what you wrote. Where have I, in this thread, made a false statement? I see yours; I don’t see any of mine.
Uh, no, I’m not. Why the heck would you think that? It’s entirely possible to say that, back then, this country had a policy that (a) wasn’t a mistake, and (b) let my ancestors in without breaking any laws – and to the add that we now have a policy that also isn’t a mistake and bars plenty of folks. What does one have to do with the other?
Personally, I think that’s madness. But I’ll note that, ah, “as far as I can tell,” that’s confirmation that you, personally, are one of the types who’d turn this country into some kind of third-world hellhole, since – well, who wouldn’t want a better life for themselves and their family? As long as here would be slightly less bad than whichever there they hail from, they could answer honestly and come on in until we finally sink to a level where that’s no longer possible!
I see how your stated “benchmark” would manage that. I don’t see how cracking down hard on illegals would; we could make things hellish for them without making things hellish for us. But your approach seems hellish for them, and for us.
Just a friendly reminder: being an illegal is worse. That’s why we, as a society, have made it “illegal” to do so – and why, if illegals aspired to be decent, they’d obey the law. In a way, it’s like being a felon: “felon” is a perfectly good noun, it of course has a plural form, and decent people have been known to use it accurately.
Nice change of goal posts. You have gone from “They will” to “They can”. Do you not see how dishonest that change is? Yeah, people can do lots of things, but you are insisting that they will.
Fair enough, you did say that they “would be free to” not that they would, so I apologize. I assume that means that you are utterly retracting your implication that they would? Otherwise, I read your implication quite clearly, and this is just you trying to move goalposts again by being dishonest in your discussion.
Here’s just one of many, "If they’re still the half that doesn’t understand “what borders are” or “why countries have borders”, ". You are making the claim that the majority of the left hold this position. This is either a stupid assumption on your part, or an intentional lie.
Your summaries of the positions of others are extremely poor. Whether that is because you are stupid or a liar is an open question for debate, but you are too consistent in your poor summaries for it to be entirely accidental, so I have to assume that there is some level of intent there. And that intent is not to foster an honest discussion, but to “score points” that mean nothing to anyone outside of your head.
And it is entirely possible that that policy is still a good idea. The first reasons we close our borders was specifically because we were racist and didn’t want chinese coming in.
I think that when you say “As far as I can tell”, what it means is that you don’t actually read what is written, but instead just make something up and respond to that. If you were trying to have an honest discussion, you could say something like “If I understood you correctly.”, or “did I understand you correctly when you said,”, instead, you make shit up and stand by it, no matter how ridiculous a position it puts you in.
And they can be given a try after they’ve been vetted. If it turns out that they aren’t working out, that their goal is not to improve their selves and their community, then they can go back.
Yeah, that doesn’t work all that well. You can play the Arpaio game, and harass citizens whose families have been here longer than your have. You can be all kinds of racist and make the lives hell for many many hispanics. The problem is, is that most of them will be US citizens, not undocumented immigrants. Now, you may not consider hispanics to be citizens that matter, but some of us do, and don’t really want to see life made hell for them.
Tell me, what methods are you going to use to “crack down on illegals” that has not already been tried and failed spectacularly while also violating the rights of many citizens?
Why would increasing our labor force and consumer base create a hell? Can you explain how that works? Right now, our economy is suffering from two things, lack of employees, and a lack of demand for products. The only way to solve this is through increasing the population. We are not increasing it fast enough to even replace everyone at the rate that “natives” are going.
Yeah, we already know that you are a shitty person, this post was unnecessary.
Ever since the OP, he’s been telling liberals what they really believe. Why not add Christians to the mix?
Well, some folks on your side are firmly in the “will” camp, and I’ve certainly said so. And I thought I was doing a pretty good job – as you noted – of putting in stuff to the effect of “as far as I can tell” and “would be free to”, and asking questions when I could’ve made statements – and that I’d gone out of my way to point out that, after folks screw up once, it’s possible they’d get it right instead of screwing up a second time, even if I see no reason to believe they would.
What’s dishonest? I believe some – too many – of the folks on your side have the wrong position on this issue; and while I’m not sure that your side would get it wrong, my implication is that “as far as I can tell,” they would. Your own benchmark, for example, leads me to believe that you’d get it wrong.
Well, correct me if I’m wrong: don’t the majority of the left want illegals to stay?
Oh, well, then: If I Understood You Correctly, you said you’d let anyone in who wanted a better life for themselves and their family. If I Understood You Correctly, then anyone from a place that’s even slightly worse than this country could come on in.
If I Understood You Correctly, that seems like a recipe for disaster.
Where the heck are you getting “you may not consider hispanics to be citizens” from? I can assure you, the fact that I despise illegals no matter their ancestry has no bearing on whether I can pass an is-this-guy-a-citizen test.
What would one have to do with the other?
If – as you said – we let in anyone who wants a better life here than they have there, for any and every value of “there,” then by definition folks would qualify as long as we’re slightly less hellish than anywhere else; and that would only stop when we’re no less hellish than anywhere else. Strikes me as shitty.
Once again: there are people doing something so shitty that we, as a society, have made it illegal. And if one of them is standing next to someone who points that out, well, then, If I Understood You Correctly, you (a) have a problem with the one who’s breaking no law, and (b) would apply your “benchmark” to the other.
My implication is, you should rethink things.
You wanna call lots of kids, and lots of adults who are guilty of prioritizing not dying or their families not starving over border laws, by a slur, that’s your business, but lots of us will think that you’re a shitty person for slurring people who basically did what anyone who cared about their families in desperate situations would do.
Like I said to the other guy, though: why is it – do you think – that our society has said what they’ve done is illegal, and that what I’m doing isn’t?
Because they are accused of breaking the law. Do you call anyone accused of any crime an illegal? If not, why do you call these folks, including children and truly desperate people who made the choice between death or crossing a border, by a word that they see as a very insulting slur?
Go ahead and call me an illegal. I drove 75mph in a 65 zone today. And I will again tomorrow.
Not anyone accused of breaking the law, no. But if you ask me about everyone who is guilty of murder – well, I refer to them as “murderers”: the hard part is figuring out who happens to be one; but we can, and I of course do, still refer to that group as such. I think I referred to felons upthread; I am, as it happens, in the habit of referring to felons as “felons”. And so on.
Well, again, I do routinely use words that seem just as unobjectionable – or, for that matter, just as objectionable – as “illegals”. I use the word “rapists” to refer to, as it were, rapists; I use the word “litterers” to refer to litterers. I use the word “arsonists” to refer to arsonists. Possibly all of them find that insulting? Possibly they all find it very insulting? It’s just my way, is all: striving for mere accuracy.
But you’re not using the word for convicted felons. You’re using it for millions who haven’t been convicted of any crime. Including children.
Why?
And, if you’re caught doing that, I’d like the existing law to be applied to you in full force: I’d like for that to happen today, and tomorrow, and each time it comes to the attention of the authorities. Is that as objectionable as my choice of words?
Because I use the phrase “convicted felons” for convicted felons. Why would I use the phrase “an illegal” to refer to a convicted felon? If I already have one perfectly good phrase for referring to convicted felons, I have little need for a second one that’s just as good; and, from experience, using “an illegal” wouldn’t be just as good a way to refer to convicted felons in general, since it would instead just invite confusion.
(You get that, right? If I mention that I know a guy who is “an illegal” – and I’m referring to a guy who was born here, and who has always been an American citizen, and who committed a felony and then got convicted for doing so – folks will of course think that I’m referring to something else entirely; but if I mention that I know a guy who is a “convicted felon”, no such mix-up is likely to ensue.)
But why are you calling people “illegal” when they haven’t been convicted of doing anything illegal?
Well, look, there are people who are rapists, even though they haven’t actually been convicted of rape – and I hereby refer to such people, in general, as “rapists”. At that, if anyone in particular wants to helpfully mention that he (a) is a rapist, but (b) hasn’t been convicted of rape – well, I’d have little problem calling him a “rapist”.
Am I alone on this? I can, and do, refer to “perjurers” as a group, wih the intent of including folks who haven’t been convicted of it; and if I have excellent reason to believe that a given individual – who hasn’t actually been convicted of it, you understand, but there’s evidence of it and he’s admitted it – is a perjurer, why, then, I’d have little reason not to say that I believe he’s “a perjurer”.
I’ve done so many times in the past. Should I not do so in the future?
For children and desperate people and lots of other thoroughly decent folks? Yes, you shouldn’t call them slurs like “illegal”. Just like you shouldn’t call them wetbacks. Or spics. And if you do, some of us might think you’re a shitty person for doing so.
Are those folks going to back away from that “shitty person” conclusion if I push for the exact same policies while swapping in a different term? If so, then their opinions don’t sound especially valuable; if not, I see little point in bothering. But, for the sake of argument: what term would you recommend I use instead?
I don’t know about others, but I’ll think of you as more decent and less shitty if you don’t call people slurs. As for what term, how about undocumented immigrants? That’s what they call themselves when referring to immigration status, in my understanding.