I believe you’ve misunderstood the substance of my argument here if you think my ignorance is a factor in it.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you are ignorant of the role your ignorance is playing in that argument?
OK, clearly you understand nothing that was being said in the other thread, so it in no way contradicts what RickJay was saying.
Carry on as before.
We don’t allow ordinary legal immigration from Mexico. We haven’t for decades. If you’re an ordinary Mexican, a person like your ancestor or my ancestor, who wants to come to America in order to live and work here, you have no legal means to do so.
Do you think we, as a country, have a right to make that decision and enforce it?
Huhwhat?
You said you were talking about *legal *immigrants from Mexico. Nemo’s point is that there essentially haven’t been any in decades.
Dunno about that “not allowing Mexicans” part. For generations, we let them in to pick our grapes and melons and just sort of pretended not to. Edward R. Murrow did a documentary on that in 1960, called Harvest of Shame that shocked America’s conscience, sorta kinda. We got a bit upset, but didn’t do anything. And so it went.
There are a couple of strands of conversation going on here simultaneously, and I’m involved in both of them. In one of them I was asked by kambuckta “what would delight you?” and I gave a response related to our legal immigration system. That’s where I think you say “I was talking about legal immigrants”. In another strand of conversation, with you and BPC I’ve been discussing how we should handle illegal immigrants. I made an analogy to a bowl of skittles which represents the illegal immigration population. When BPC asked me if I wanted to “deport all immigrants” or just the brown ones. I want to deport the illegal ones, regardless of skin tone, and in post #152 I tried to make it clear that I was discussing our population of illegal immigrants. Does that resolve your confusion?
-
In which thread does the question “Do you think we, as a country, have a right to make that decision and enforce it?” make sense? In either one, I can’t see it as anything but an attempt to dodge the question by changing the subject.
-
Since you’ve acknowledged that I’m in the skittles subthread, feel free to respond to my post there at some point.
Dodge what question? It was a response to post #164 by Little Nemo, which didn’t include a question. He made a statement there.
You don’t have to be “in the skittles subthread” to ask me a question about something I said there, I was just trying to explain that some of my responses are to people talking about things like legal immigrants and our immigration laws and other responses are to people talking about illegal immigrants, and what I say / feel about one group is not necessarily the same as how I feel about the other group.
This question?
Where did the numbers come from? 150,000,000 and 20,000 specifically.
Regardless of your response to the above, I can answer the “what are you going to do, leave the country?” part now: No, I have no intention of leaving the country (outside of some vacations and the occasional business trip).
I’m responding to your implication that cutting or changing immigration would reduce crime. The infamous ‘skittles analogy’. Do you have a cite supporting this assertion?
If not, you’re making an assertion without evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What was my assertion? Like, could you quote it?
Here is yours:
I’ll ask again: do you have a cite for that?
Here is a nice article about it:
From that article:
Exactly. And it made no sense, which was why I went “Huhwhat?”
You were talking about legal immigration from Mexico, Little Nemo pointed out the absence of same over a period of decades, and your question was, in that context, out of left field, an apparent attempt to change the subject rather than deal with Nemo’s response.
[Nick Danger voice]Didn’t I already say this on the other side of the record?[/Nick Danger]
The numbers are somewhat guesswork. There are probably a bit fewer than 150M white males in the U.S. As manson1972’s link says, the evidence supports there being less violence by immigrants (either legal or illegal) than by persons born here, and my 20,000/150,000,000 was to indicate a slightly higher ratio of poisonous Skittles in the white American male Skittles bag than in the illegal immigrant bag.
If you’re scared of the illegal immigrants’ Skittles, my point was that white male American Skittles should have you running for the border.
You say you’re not, so I downrate accordingly your concern about the immigrant Skittles.
Anyway, to get back to the beginning, the whole notion of this this thread is a crock.
We have ~18,000 murders a year in this country. That’s ~50 per day.
Hewey apparently thinks the reason there wasn’t already a thread about this particular murder, this one out of 50, was the board’s liberal consensus. This on one of the biggest news days of the summer, hours after the conviction of one of Trump’s closest associates on multiple charges, and the multiple guilty pleas of another of his closest associates. It was all a liberal plot that on such a day, we didn’t go to the national equivalent of a police blotter, and pick this particular murder out of the pile to make a big deal of.
What a crock.
I assumed your meaning, but I hear you suggesting I’m in error. How about we save the guessing games, and you state what you’re asserting?
In fact I do, but since you seem to be saying I’m not clear on your assertion, I’d like to hear your assertion before you pull that football away. We might as well agree what we’re arguing about, don’t you think?
Just to reinforce: this is a complete straw man argument which you cannot support. You are claiming that it is the consensus of (the liberals of) this board that there should be no restriction on immigration and no enforcement of immigration laws. I challenge you to support your claim. Note that it’s going to take more than 2 or 3 quotes to do so, you have to somehow show that it is the majority view. Not sure how you could even do that.
Here is what I think most liberals support:
[ul]
[li]First and most important, immigration law reform so that enforcement is actually possible. [/li]
[li]Not wasting money on a giant wall that will be ineffective. If interdiction is necessary, make it smart not just big and showy. [/li]
[li]The government should follow the law for those seeking asylum.[/li]
[li]Those who have been in the country peacefully for a number of years should be given considerations above those who have just arrived or who are attempting to arrive illegally (definitions of terms to be worked out so they make sense). This should be part of immigration law reform.[/li]
[li]In order to reduce crime among immigrant communities, federal immigration officials should not expect local police to ask for legal resident papers while they are doing their jobs of protecting all residents (not just citizens) from crime. [/li]
[li]There should be an absolute end to ethnic profiling by any government official at any level. [/li]
[li]There should be an end to tricking peaceful if undocumented immigrants who are following accepted procedures for becoming legal, to show up somewhere and then get arrested.[/li]
[li]Brutality should not be the MO of any government agency; arrest should not be so vile as to also constitute punishment.[/li][/ul]
There are probably more, but these will do for a start.
That was over 120 years ago. That was then, this is now.
We are simply becoming too damn crowded to allow millions more in every year. Do we have to be as crowded as Japan before we finally say enough is enough?
There is plenty of room in these states.
So, overpopulation is the problem?
Japan has a population density of 334 people/km^2, the US is 33. We’ve still got room if that’s your concern.