White supremacists are the biggest ideological threat to American lives, by far

Great Debates
261

In general, yes. But remember that is a poem. A quote. It is not a law. It is not a public policy voted by anyone or passed by congress. It is not part of the constitution or part of the bill of rights.

Its at most a general concept or principle BUT like all concepts, must also be balanced out thru reality.

We HAVE and continue to help millions do just that. But the US has come to a point we can NOT take any more. WE ARE FULL!

We can NOT TAKE ALL THE WORLDS POOR.

BTW, we will NOT eliminate world poverty thru immigration.

262

No we are NOT. That is a lie that you have been told.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ali-noorani-america-needs-immigrants-they-are-vital-to-our-success-and-prosperity

263

Is it wrong to set limits on how many you will take and for how long? Can you not have rules on where they will stay, what rules they will follow, and what government services they will be provided? Might you serve them better by helping them solve issues in their home countries?

264

How many illegals are in your hometown? How many more classrooms and teachers must your schools have for them?

I have no problem with good green card programs for temporary workers.

265

So no comment on the cite then?

Republicans don’t want immigrants because they believe they will vote Democratic once they become citizens and it will make it harder for them to win elections. That is the root of all of this. We are not overrun with “illegals”. They are not a burden. Immigrants benefit our country. This report was buried by the Trump administration because it showed all of this fear mongering to be lies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html

You are being lied to and manipulated to be angry and afraid of immigrants, not because they are a problem for America, but because the GOP fears they are a problem for electoral prospects. At least understand and be honest about what’s really going on here.

266

No, the GWB people may or may not have been racists, but they were mainly big business corporate profit above morals types. Trump has white supremacists calling shots and determining official US policy.

267

Let me ask you something… When folks take the time to do your research for you and provide you with factual information that is in direct contraction to what you think you know or have been told elsewhere, do you actually spend time and energy reading these new (to you) sources? Does it have any impact on you at all with respect to changing your opinion in light of the new evidence?

I ask because you return to these discussions time and again but never with any new insight or sign that you are willing to take in any information that contradicts your already established views. You don’t even engage, really; Just dump and run without so much as a courtesy of a thoughtful response. I’m curious as to what you get out of this.

268

This. All this. We’re nowhere near full. People who want to come here and make better lives for themselves are who we are.

269

Let’s see. The greatest ideological threat is not necessarily the greatest physical threat, so we can leave body counts out of the question. I believe the greatest ideological threat is religious fundamentalism. Christian, Muslim, Jewish? I don’t care what brand it is. It runs counter to logic, ignores demonstrated facts, and pushes a sociopolitical agenda that runs counter to our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh, and sometimes militant fundamentalists of all stripe kill for attention or to suppress or punish opposition. They really suck.:mad:

270

What part of that isn’t true of white supremacists?

271

…thank you for informing me that a poem is just a poem. I don’t know what I would have done if you weren’t here to inform me that a poem written over 100 years ago is not actually enshrined in law. I asked you if you agreed with the sentiment or not. It was a simple question. It appears that you do agree with the sentiment. Which makes your opinion all the more confusing.

Do people seeking out a better life in the “Land of the free” not happen in your reality? Does your reality preclude helping people that need help?

Full?

The United States has9 million people living abroad. If those 9 million decided to come home one day do you have enough room to fit them?

Can you quantify “full?” I can do that with a glass of water. If the glass is empty it “isn’t full.” If I pour water into it and the water over-flows, that glass “is full.” So if the United States is full, then what about the hundreds of kilometres of empty land across the borders that the President wants to build a wall on? There is nothing there right? How about instead of building a wall you built a massive housing complex instead?

I find your statement that the United States “is full” and that “you can’t take any more people” to be an extraordinary statement. You’ve got the land. America is the 10th richest country in the world. It has the resources.

So can you objectively demonstrate that the US can’t take any more people?

And if you can’t take any more people, why are you still taking more people? They are still coming in. But you aren’t throwing white Australians that have over-stayed into the detention camps: why is that exactly? We should set up detention camps set up in the middle of New York, where white Europeans are thrown into tiny cells that are standing room only and not given access to showers for weeks on end. America is full. Why are you not demanding this?

Hey, guess what?

Nobody is asking the United States to TAKE ALL THE WORLDS POOR.

The current US administration has decided that it will only accept 15,000 of the world’s poor this year. America, one of the richest, most powerful nations in the world, that has 38 military bases in 15 countries, that has invaded and plundered countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, that has covertly toppled leaders in Iran, will only take 15,000 refugees.

That’s pathetic. Its the action of a parasite. Me and Octopus are on separate sides of the political debate but he/she is absolutely right here: America can afford to accept more than 15,000 people. It can definitely accept the figure set by the Obama administration (of 100,000) as they had been doing that regularly before. I would like to think that you could accept more than that. Its not only the compassionate thing to do, but as the country that is directly caused for many of the bad things that have happened in the world, the responsible one.

A strawman. A great big fat strawman.

Nope.

What on earth does this mean?

Who is suggesting otherwise?

Nope. The New Zealand economy is tiny. Our influence on a global scale is insignificant. We do significantly invest in our Pacific neighbours, both logistically and financially. We provide Peacekeepers around the world. We do our part on the world stage. We definitely could do more.

But we would serve a genuine asylum seeker *better *by granting them asylum. Because we are not going to solve the issues in their home country overnight. But if we send the asylum seeker home overnight there is a good chance they will end up dead.

And if you really think “helping them solve issues in their home countries” is the solution, can I suggest you tell the Trump administration that cutting aid to countries that need helpsolving their issues is are really fucking stupid thing to do?

272

An incredible new article goes into great detail in documenting (among other things) the terrible toll, in human suffering and human life, taken by white supremacism in America:

It also posits, with a very well supported argument, IMO, that no group has done more for the cause of freedom in America than black Americans.

273

In my mind, the only questions of immigrants that we should ask (and make pretty sure of), “Are you going to be a burden of the financial type on the US of A?” “Are you going to follow all the laws of the US of A?”

If the answer to those are no and yes, we could let a lot more in. The problem is that most of those answers won’t be no and yes for a good chunk of those wanting to migrate.

274

I see it as a math problem, and in my understanding the math overwhelmingly favors a permissive and “liberal” immigration policy.

For example, let’s say X is the overall economic benefit wrought by all beneficial (from an economic perspective – i.e. industrious folks who generate far more financial activity than the social benefits they consume) migrants, and Y is the overall economic drain (including criminal activity) wrought by all non-beneficial migrants. But those aren’t the only factors. There’s also Z, the cost of administrating the border and trying to sort out which migrants fall into which category.

In my undestanding of the relevant statistics, the more restrictive the immigration system is, the overall benefit to the country goes down, as a combination of reduction in X and increase in Z greatly overwhelms any savings by reduction in Y.

275

Are you saying that a good chunk of them will say that they won’t follow our laws?

276

Plenty of people who are likely to need temporary financial assistance are also likely to be of long-term financial benefit.

277

It’s the notion of scarcity, which is the fear-based world that informs the way conservatives, particularly nativists, think. I’m sometimes amazed at how conservatives can bloviate about the free market’s creative forces on one hand and then talk about scarcity on the other.

278

You cherry pick some facts and then get mad when I dont accept them?

And yes we ARE full. Just look at all the pictures of homeless around the country and the massive traffic jams especially in California and then tell me why we need to bring in a million more. Not to mention all or most of our state and national parks have waiting lists and traffic jams. Why? Because again, we are full.

No - dont cherry pick some article. Just look at those videos and tell me why we need to bring in a million more people?

279

The article mentions nothing about overcrowding and homelessness. Yes, immigration has tended to be good but our system is coming close to a breaking point where new immigrants will overwhelm our ability to provide and this will cause big problems.

Just look at videos of all the homeless and the overcrowding in California and tell me why we need a million more.

280

I didnt realize you were from New Zealand.

What gives you the right to tell me how I should vote and feel as an American?

What gives you the right to quote the Statue of liberty?

You dont live here. You dont see our overcrowded roads, parks, and schools.

PS. I suspect if we were not already taking in millions across our southern border we might have room to take in more than 15,000 refugees.