But that’s not what happened. All you had to do is to attack the actual claim made. Instead, you attacked one that was not made.
If you were of the opinion that no hospital has ever closed, or is likely to close, due to the extra burden of illegals, you were completely free to take that position. I made a claim that I thought we all could agree on, one that was unassailable. As it was being used to make a larger point, I wanted to avoid disagreement. What you did was to conflate the point I made in the post with points made by me and others in previous posts (the 84 hospitals closing). I thought that the criticism had merit, and because I did not take the time to resubstantiate the claim, I intentionally did NOT make it again.
But, for some reason you ingored that. You ingored what was actually written and created a strawman so you could torch it, and by association, the assumption made in my post. Surprisingly, I thought that it was one that even you would agree with: that hospitals have closed due to the added burden placed on them by illegals. And when that happens—whenever it happens, how ever often, 1 time or 84 times—there is a cost to the community. Or are you of the opinion that hospital closings, in general, are not felt by the community it had previously served?
So, all you had to due was focus your disagreement on what was actually written. If you doubted that hospital closings have ever had anything to do with the burden of illegals, you just had to say so and put the burden of substantiating the claim on me, as you have before. In my opinion it would have been kind of ridiculous in this case, but regardless, you did not do that. You attacked a claim that was not on the page.
You asked a rhetorical question that actually begged the question. I have seen no evidence that any hospital has closed due to being driven into financial ruin by illegal aliens. By asking how we would feel about that happening, you imply that it has happened or that is is likely to happen. I see no reason to go along with your unspoken premise simply to let you make a rhetorical point. By simply leaving out the original discussion, you are presenting the point as if it was a neutral fact, rather than a disputed point. You are now claiming that you should be allowed to use the point as though it had been accepted, simply because you have chosen to not post the disputed aspects of it.
If it bothers you to be called on it when you try to slip assumptions into the discussion, then refrain from that particular rhetorical device.
And when I did just that, pointing out that the rate of hospital failures in other parts of the country make the claims that illegals had anything to do with closings, you had a fit.
Maybe we should begin a list of things to which you enjoy pointing, claiming that “we all agree,” when there is, indeed, substantial disagreement:
Immigrants are failing/refusing to assimilate;
Immigrants of foreign cultures are liable to make excessive demands for accommodation;
Illegal aliens are likely to cause hospitals to close.
Any others?
If you continue to put forth arguments that you have tried in the past as though they had already been resolved in your favor, when, in fact, there is substantial opposition to your position, you are going to have people interrupt your polemic to challenge the assumptions. That is the nature of these discussions.
Why? We’ve had several such in American history – Irish in the 1840s, Germans in the same period, Jews in the 1880s-1900s. What was “undesirable” about any of those?
But allowing them to take advantage of the superior opportunity proximity provides them is not the same as giving them preference.
So what? When was there ever a wave of immigration to the U.S. that was planned, by our government or any other? Immigration just happens, usually because of conditions in other countries. The Irish came here to get away from the potato famine, the Jews came because the Tsar was leaning on them. Most immigrants came for the opportunity to earn more money than they could at home. It worked out all right, for them and for America.
The right, certainly – but why the obligation? Open borders is a valid option, a policy a sovereign state can choose without diminishing its sovereignty.
I think that anyone who claims that their main problem with illegal immigration is the fact that the immigrants are breaking a law should quit lying to themselves.
Well, while still disputed by people on both sides waving numbers around, that is clearly a solid position from which to argue. It is clear that we will not “all agree” with the premise, but it is rarely offered as a point that everyone is expected to agree to.
Which, as I said is fine. But you did not question the premise or assumption I stated. Go back and look at your post #307. Infact, here it is:
See? It argues that the number of 86 hospitals closing is probably too high. Look at your last line even, which sums up your objection. There not being 86 doesn’t mean there are zero. There may be zero. And if that is your position you could have simply made that point. You could have simply said something to the effect: “As I have stated in other threads in regards to your claim of 86 hospitals closing due to illegals, I have seen no reliable evidence to support that claim. In fact, I have seen no reliable evidence that even one hospital has closed for that reason. So, the assumption made in your latest statement is just that: an assumption. One which I do not grant for one minute. If you have eveidence to support this latest claim, show it”
But you didn’t do that. You spent time and effort (graph) showing why you thought tha 86 number was incorrect.
Cite? Please show me where it has been disputed that not even one hospital has closed due to the added strain put on it by illegals? I am unaware that has been on the table as a claim—disputed or not. The 86 hospitals, yes. One hospital? I don’t recall a discussion on that on that point.
Just because the 86 number may be incorrect or off or complete bullshit does not mean that your statement above is true. It doesn’t track logically. And you must see that, no? If you disagree, please explain, from a logical standpoint, how the evidence you provided to show that the 86 number is wrong means the 0 number is right.
I am well aware of that. Which is why I did NOT include the 86 number. In these discussions we all make some assumptions. I thought (and still do) that a hospital has closed, or is likely to close, due to the extra burden put on it by illegals was a fair one. If you disagreed, you simpy had to say so. But your attack included evidence against a claim I did NOT make.
Actually, by extrapolating from Cleveland data to the Southwest, I showed that there could be as many as 158 hospital failures in California or 288 failures in the Southwest without having any illiegal alien component.
In other words, I was dismissing any claim that illegals had anything to do with a hospital failure.
Barring evidence of hospital failures due to use by illegal aliens, I consider the rhetorical question
to be an improper rhetorical device based on a statement that begs the question.
Since we are now engaged in explaining how other posters are to respond, I will point out that you could have simply noted that you had not mentioned “eighty-some” hospitals closing, and then provided a list of examples where it has occurred. Instead, you are trying to avoid the issue by attacking my presentation while hoping that your original begged question gets by.
Let me rephrase. In my opinion it is more desireable to have immigration be more diverse. One large group is unfair to all the others it necessarily excludes for entry from outside the group. And the one large group is a large shot of that one culture into our society. Of course, if you do not prefer to maintain the thrust of our culture the way it currently is, you will disagree. Fine.
You have a point here. It is not the same. And in the natural state of affairs it is logical that more people from places where it is easier to get here, would come here.
OTOH, from a practical standpoint, It is quite similar. Analogy: If we eliminated all financial aid for college, don’t you think that would create a de facto preference for the rich to attend college over anyone else? Now that would not be the same as having an actual policy that stated a preference for the rich to attend college, but the effect would be the same, wouldn’t it?
I’ll have to think about this more.
As I just said above, if you do not prefer to maintain the thrust of our culture the way it currently is, you will be fine with people not assimilating. I prefer to maintain it. Obviously, YMMV. Also, IF (for tomndebbs benefit) they don’t assimiliate we wind up losing things that unite us. We also end up having to make accomodations for thiings like language that cost us money and continue to seperate us.
Number one, they came here legally. Number two, whatever our immigration at whatever time in history, it takes into account the state of the union at that time, therefore, it is planned (as to the number of immigrants allowed). And wasn’t immigration during the waves you mentioned allowed on a country by country basis?
:dubious: How? You’ll have to explain this logical prestidigitation to me. How does disproving the 86 number—even if you show that ALL that went into the research coming up with it is complete bullshit—work to dismiss a claim that even one hospital has closed (never mind is likely to close) due to the burden of illegals?
After you have shown that the 86 number is wrong, by what logic do you conclude that the actual claim I made is wrong and that the only correct number is 0?
Again, you had every right to say you doubted it and ask for substantiation. You did not do that. Instead you went through the trouble of disproving a point I did not make, somehow hoping that it would also work to discredit the point I did make. I’m still waiting to see how you thought disproviing one disproves the other.
I could have. And perhaps I should have, if only to avoid having to go through this with you now. But it seems to me, as the logical flaw was offered up by you, that it fell to you to correct it before anyone should be expected to move on. While I am surprised when posters mistake with whom a responsibility lies during a discussion, I thought that a moderator, particulalry you, would have done the correct thing and straightened out the confusion caused by your post before expecting substantiation, which at the point of your initial post I thought unnecessary.
Immigration was open to all, but citizenship was limited to “free white” people until 1870, when blacks were permitted. In 1872, Chinese were explicitly prohibited from both citizenship and further immigration. The courts wrestled with “white” and Caucasion (for citizenship) through the end of the 19th century, with conflicting results.
In 1891, people with contagious diseases and bad morals were excluded.
In 1901, people with “bad” political opinions were excluded.
In 1921, the first quotas based on nationality were established, ending the first period of immigration to the country.
The point was not that the correct number is zero. The point was that barring evidence we have no reason to believe that any hospitals closed because of illegal immigrants, so asking how we would feel about having such an event is baseless rhetoric bordering on fear mongering.
Uh, it’s the same thing. If your position is that you do not accept, barring evidence, that ANY hospitals have closed due to the burden placed on them by illegals, then you are saying that number is zero.
You are missing a key element, however. Had there been evidence presented, there would have been no issue (unless the evidence was bad). However, your statement assumed that such a situation had existed. I simply showed that, barring evidence, there is no reason to make any such assumption. It is not a declaration that it has not happened; it is a declaration that it is not a valid discussion point until it has been shown to have happened.
Okay. So the problem was there was no evidence presented. I made what I thought was a logical assumption, like all of us do every day. If you agree with my assumption we just continue on. If you don’t, what do you do? You stop me and say, “Whoa, I don’t think that is the case. Can you so me some evidence? Otherwise I’ll have to discount your whole point.” And then either I supply the evidence or cede the point. Very simple, right?
But when you saw the claim you objected to you didn’t do that. You instead went to the trouble of disproving a point made in another thread. You thought that somehow this went to disprove the claim I did make. It doesn’t. I’ve asked you to connect the logical dots on how disproving one disproved the other. You still haven’t done that.
No, you simply showed the problem with the 86 number, that THAT claim/assumption should never have been made. And that claim was not in my post.
Okay, that was you intent. But why bring the 86 number into the discussion at all? What possible bearing does that have on my claim. I made what I thought is a logical assumption, one having nothing to do with the 86 hospitals: that given the fact that hospitals have closed for financial reasons, and that illegals put an additional financial burden on hospitals, that some hospitals have closed (or will likely close) due to these extra burdens.
Do you accept those two premises without evidence? I assume you probably do. The same way I assumed you would accept my earlier assumption. But, hey I can be wrong and you might ask for support. That would be perfectly logical and fair.
What would not be logical and fair is if instead of asking for evidence here you decide to create a post that disproves something else other than the claims made her. That is what you did before. So, please draw the logical dots that connect the 86 number to your last sentence.
Look at this way. You have no proof that illegal aliens are responsible for hospital closures. Saying that they are failed hospitals because of them is essentially a lie.
Funny, I seem to recall the moderator saying that hurling epithets was supposed to be avioded. I guess it is OK for one side to do it as long as you are on his side.
