Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Reply to topic
ElCodeMonkey
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:03 pm  Would Jesus Support Republican or Democratic Values More? Reply with quote

I would argue that the Democratic policies focus on the well-being of the poor and the oppressed. As such, I believe Jesus would be more in favor of Democratic values than that of the Republicans which focus more on guns and military while being entirely calloused to the plight of the poor and tend toward discrimination of others not like them.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:29 pm
Reply

Like this post
ElCodeMonkey wrote:

This is a rather interesting TED Talk about left vs right. The graph he shows might help add to the idea of which Jesus might prefer although we may still disagree Smile


YouTube


Good and interesting video. I think there's something to what he is saying. Not sure though, I agree on every point. For instance, when he suggests that our moral consciousness is "designed by evolution...thusly" . From a Theistic standpoint, I see morality as emenating from the Creator. Yes, moral consciousness may evolve (we all condemn slavery, nowadays, for example) but I view this as a Spiritual evolution, not simply as an adaptive biological or sociological one. I do believe there is a God at work in our moral (and I would say) our Spiritual leaders, though I think we may disagree as to who exactly those good leaders are. (no, I do not view Trump as a Spiritual or moral leader. Wink )

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 52: Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:42 am
Reply

Like this post
I was awaiting further response to the previous post (not just the video), but if you're done, we can be done. Both sides suck in the end, but I still feel like the right is too focused on guns, anti-immigration/refuge, and cutting support for the poor. Those 3 seem entirely opposite Jesus. Both sides suck at their implementation and they go too far, but one side actually cares for others while the other seems focused on self.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 53: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 50 by ElCodeMonkey]

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your post 50, ECM. Just a few thoughts and observations.

-I think the chart you cited is flawed in that it conflates legal and illegal immigration. Thus most of it's points consist of straw man arguments. Also, I challenge that (Bush?) statistic that all immigration only accounts for roughly 15% of the US population.

-I think institutional racism is a thing of the past. American laws certainly do not permit, nor do they promote racism.. Regarding the human heart? That takes time to catch up. I don't agree with the premise that racism finds a home in the political or the religous right.. Or that the right is racism's last refuge. We both agree that just because some loudmouths shout the accusation, does not make it true.

-Re abortion, the examples you cite are natural ends of pregnacy. And to cite that as a justification for the killing of human unborn babies is a stretch at the very least. A natural end vs the induced end by violent means. That is the difference.

If we are unsure when human life begins, why not err on the side of human life, instead of bowing at the altar of "it's my body" feminism? Again, it's not just the mother's body, but a separate individual who is at stake here, and again, abortion kills baby women as well, and minority baby women in large numbers.

-Regarding "LBTQIA" etc, rights, the parade mentality does not help the cause. Raising awarness, dispelling myths are certainly helpful for the cause of acceptance, but "in your face" tactics, and college kids sreaming ephithets (as in the silencing of Jordon Peterson video) at those who do not automatically accept the verbiage or agenda of sexual deviation CERTAINLY doesn't help the cause. The kids do those groups no favors by such tactics.

What does help is actually meeting non-radical gays, and seeing how they aren't much different from you or me.

For what it's worth, I would advise the LGBT community to be patient*, and to educate and persuade, as opposed to employing militant tactics, demanding quotas or special rights, etc. They are already protected by the law, so they sould also report real oppression and crimes against them.

*( they are going against millenia of "hetero-normative" cultural conditioning) Perhaps they are right, and they are on the right side of history and biology, but again, education not confrontation and name calling.)

Yes, I think they are probably right about their orientation not being a choice. But trasvestiism and transexualism, on the other hand, really seems to be a consious decision. And we who think it's "weird" are entitled to our opinions, aren't we? Or it it a crime now, to think un-PC things? Dangerous road to travel, if so.

Again, where does it end? How many deviant lifestyles are we expected to normalize now? How many genders on various forms and legal documents? What will biology classes teach now? Should people be sued if they guess wrong, and refer to another by the wrong pronoun?

And getting back to immigration. Where does that end? Not until there are far more imported Democrats? Or until we artificially re-engineer the demographic of the country?

Yes, your chart may indicate that we are not over-run. Objectively that may even be true, though I very much doubt that 15% statistic. But go to a local Walmart, and it sure seems like we are being over-run. Mothers sreaming at their kids in foriegn langurages, English being drowned out by numbers and by volume. And no one asked us if this is what we wanted. We didn't vote on it. Or did we? Trump ran on the promise of the wall. The door to America wii,, if he has his way, now have a lock on it and it will be in good repair. Those who enter will have to knock, and politely ask (apply) for entrance. Not throw rocks at the door, and not at the wall, or at border patrol agents.

Do you really want rock throwers allowed in? Seems predictive to me, of future behavior.

Also, should the caravan and the applicants for asylum be screened for contagious disease? Or just waved right on in.

Yup, you may be right about Jesus on immigration. I will grant you that. But again, does the apocalyptic prophet Jesus always represent what is best for our country?

So I think yes, you have demonstrated that Jesus would probably side with Democrats on economic and immigration issues, the enviroment and gun control.. But I maintain my position that he would side with Republicans on social and cultural issues like traditional marraige and abortion.

I think we are close to wrapping this up. Depending your your response. Thank you Sean, for your thoughtfulness and civility.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 54: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:59 pm
Reply

Like this post
Elijah John wrote:
-I think the chart you cited is flawed in that it conflates legal and illegal immigration. Thus most of it's points consist of straw man arguments.

I can't imagine the legal status of an immigrant changing much of their behavior. It's simply a label. So I don't believe it's very straw-man statistics.

Elijah John wrote:
I think institutional racism is a thing of the past. American laws certainly do not permit, nor do they promote racism.i

I agree from a legal standpoint and a named institution standpoint. However, the past affects the present in that large groups were forced to gather together with no chance for success and now live in poverty. That poverty keeps them in poverty. It takes money to make money. So while all (or most of) the laws are now "fair", they're starting out from a much lower starting position. Adam explains this rather well.

YouTube



Elijah John wrote:
Re abortion, the examples you cite are natural ends of pregnacy. And to cite that as a justification for the killing of human unborn babies is a stretch at the very least. A natural end vs the induced end by violent means. That is the difference.

You are stating a naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't make it better. It is in no way different in outcome. The only difference is intention and the intention is to prevent suffering. Again, I challenge you to see it from the perspective of outcomes. The end result of abortion is no different than having used a condom. It is no different than a miscarriage. It is not "violent" to abort a pregnancy. Such language colors the truth unfairly. We're not talking about 10-month abortions.

Elijah John wrote:
If we are unsure when human life begins, why not err on the side of human life, instead of bowing at the altar of "it's my body" feminism?

I don't feel you're adequately grasping the harm to the mother. Have you had any kids yet? If not, having kids might help comprehend the extreme life difference and how terrible it would be if you're not ready or in a position to raise children. It is extremely challenging and life-altering. It's not just about "my body." And again, think from an outcomes perspective. The choice to abort is no different except in the intentional decision (much like wearing a condom) to prevent suffering for child and mother. Suffering is bad, death itself is not except in cases where it causes suffering.

Elijah John wrote:
What does help is actually meeting non-radical gays, and seeing how they aren't much different from you or me.

We absolutely agree on this point. Friendliness is better than rudeness. Not all parades are "in your face" however, and so long as they are friendly, it can be useful at least for the self-worth of the individuals who have been harmed all their lives and suffer in the closets of hateful people who do not understand. It's a scary thing for some and many lose parents and entire communities for something that is a mere unchosen trait of who they are.

Elijah John wrote:
But trasvestiism and transexualism, on the other hand, really seems to be a consious decision. And we who think it's "weird" are entitled to our opinions, aren't we? Or it it a crime now, to think un-PC things? Dangerous road to travel, if so.

You are absolutely free to think it's weird and it's absolutely a choice how one dresses. I think it's weird to cover your face in Tattoos but I let people choose it. In the end, this has nothing to do with morals or anything. People should be able to wear whatever they want. There are probably exceptions in there somewhere... Razz

Elijah John wrote:
Again, where does it end? How many deviant lifestyles are we expected to normalize now? How many genders on various forms and legal documents? What will biology classes teach now? Should people be sued if they guess wrong, and refer to another by the wrong pronoun?

We don't need to learn all names and varieties nor make everything "normal." We simply need to be aware there are differences. There are infinite breeds of dog and yet we still manage to survive teaching a generic concept. Obviously people should not be sued for word choice, but at the same time governments should attempt to be polite. For example, they should not have forms that ask if you're white or n****r. Where that line gets drawn, heck if I know, but it's not high on my priority list Razz.

Elijah John wrote:
Yes, your chart may indicate that we are not over-run. Objectively that may even be true, though I very much doubt that 15% statistic. But go to a local Walmart, and it sure seems like we are being over-run. Mothers sreaming at their kids in foriegn langurages, English being drowned out by numbers and by volume. And no one asked us if this is what we wanted. We didn't vote on it.

You are likely suffering from confirmation bias. It is very easy to ignore the multitude of the 85% "normal" Americans while zeroing in on the 15% speaking a different language. That said, this response really screams of an uncomfortableness. Why is it so bad to have people of different races, languages, and cultures among us? I find it fascinating and amazing. It sounds like there is some kind of latent fear there or something. Why is this unnerving rather than beautiful?

Elijah John wrote:
Do you really want rock throwers allowed in? Seems predictive to me, of future behavior.

I think we've beat to death the fact that we both prefer polite people. It kind of skirts the real issues to discuss how some are bad. It's not the majority in any case.

Elijah John wrote:
Yup, you may be right about Jesus on immigration. I will grant you that. But again, does the apocalyptic prophet Jesus always represent what is best for our country?

Personally, I think there's a big difference between how we should live our individual lives and how a country should be run. I don't think Jesus had governments in mind and taught solely for the individual. That said, as an individual, we need to weigh what is best for "people" and not just what is best "for our country." Of course, keeping our country in its prime might be a great way to help the most "people." So if a good argument can be made that "people" are helped more by not allowing immigration, then perhaps it's worth a consideration. I do not believe that is the case however. Perhaps we continue to allow immigration until we find that there actually is harm. As of now, it seems to be more beneficial than harmful overall. Eventually that might change, but why cut it short? Wait until we reach the line so we get the best of the benefits and the least of the pitfalls.

Elijah John wrote:
So I think yes, you have demonstrated that Jesus would probably side with Democrats on economic and immigration issues, the enviroment and gun control.. But I maintain my position that he would side with Republicans on social and cultural issues like traditional marraige and abortion.

It's hard for me to know just how much the Jesus of his day could see into the future. You may be right from his perspective of the time. I think what he truly stood for, however, would transcend even his own human understanding. He sided with "good" as opposed to "evil" and so "modern Jesus" siding with "good" would probably not be so focused on marriage choices and would likely see the nuance of abortion for I still believe the left has the better "good" in mind overall. In the end, even if we did allow for Jesus to be heavily right-wing on those two issues, are they truly good enough to sacrifice all of what is on the left since our current political climate requires sacrificing one side to vote for the other? Which items would be more important to Jesus?

Elijah John wrote:
I think we are close to wrapping this up. Depending your your response. Thank you Sean, for your thoughtfulness and civility.

I'll let you decide, I guess Smile. My free time is a bit less than what it was before, but I still enjoy discussing so long as we aren't going in circles. A few things seem a bit circular at this point so perhaps we are indeed nearing an end.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 55: Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
Yes, having immigrants among us is a good and beautiful thing. Being over-run, however is a different story. And the may be a matter of perception. But even if we are not yet over-run, if unfettered and illegal immigration continues, it won't be long before our country is unrecognizable and becomes a giant geographic version of the U.N.

Ever hear the expression "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"? That's the credo or a re-conquista movement, which believes Mexico (and other hispanic nations?) are entitled to the American Southwest. What they couldn't do or keep with force of arms, they are attempting to recapture with immigration.

OK, so diversity has it's beauty. But where do we draw the line? Just English and Spanish as national languages? What about the Hatian immigrants, the Asian Indians, the Chinese, Swedes, etc, etc, etc?

How many languages should we broadcast the news. Shouldn't the new, prospective voter be informed about the issues? In how many languages should we print ballots?

Also, it would be interesting to compare the cost of building a wall, vs. the cost in social services that new immigrants require. And the cost to the economy and American taxpayers in terms of depressed wages, social services, education, competition for jobs, etc, etc.

Rachel Bovard on Fox today said that the Wall would cost less than 5 % of the cost to taxpayers that illiegal immigration related problems would incur.

Again, how can such a strain not have adverse effects on the economy and the American poor?

Economist Milton Friedman said someting to the effect of "we cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time".

If there are incentives for illegal immigrents to come, and nothing really hindering them, where does it stop? Again, how does unfettered immigration help the American poor? Shouldn't we take care of our own, first?

Also, it should be noted that Hillary, Chuck Schumer, AND Barack Obama once advocated for strict controls of immigration and actually used the terms "illegal immigrants" as opposed to "undocumented migrants". They actually viewed illegal immigration as a problem. Hillary Clinton actually advocated for a "barrier". Now, according to their rhetoric, Trump is the problem.

And there are health and national security concerns that are being ignored or dismissed by advocates of open borders. Obama even mocked our very valid concerns. "There afraid of a little ole caravan" he said as he chuckled. Not good.
It's not just this caravan. If this one is allowed, (like past caravans have been) it won't stop here. Where will it stop?

Also the mayor and residents of Tijuana are not too happy with the camped out Honduran and Guatemalan migrants in their city and the problems they are causing. I would ask the people who shout "racism" , are these Mexicans, fellow hispanics racist too? Are they "white supremacists" too? Or "white nationalists" as many on the left scream when people question the wisdom of unfettered immigration.


Last edited by Elijah John on Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:21 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 54 by ElCodeMonkey]

If you deny that illegal immigration hurts American poor, let me ask you this. How does illegal immigration help the American poor, say in Appalachia? And how does unfettered legal immigration, wide open borders, visa lottery system, birthright citizenship, birth tourism, chain migration, etc, etc, help poor people in eastern Kentucky, West Virginia or Pennsylvania?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 57: Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:26 am
Reply

Like this post
Elijah John wrote:

Yes, having immigrants among us is a good and beautiful thing. Being over-run, however is a different story. ... it won't be long before our country is unrecognizable and becomes a giant geographic version of the U.N.

Why is this terrible? The whole point of the US was to be a "melting pot". Becoming one, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I, for one, enjoy the idea of a country completely mixed with all types of people. It helps to eradicate racism and false premises.

Elijah John wrote:
What they couldn't do or keep with force of arms, they are attempting to recapture with immigration.

No, the immigrants are after one thing: prosperity in their own and their family's lives. To act as if they are attempting some greater conquest is unfounded.

Elijah John wrote:
OK, so diversity has it's beauty. But where do we draw the line? Just English and Spanish as national languages? What about the Hatian immigrants, the Asian Indians, the Chinese, Swedes, etc, etc, etc?

The more the merrier. If there is no "majority" and with enough blending, racism disappears. We begin to see that even though these people look different or speak different languages, they are people none the less just like us. We learn they are indeed just like us and do not warrant hate by looks and language alone.

Elijah John wrote:
How many languages should we broadcast the news. Shouldn't the new, prospective voter be informed about the issues? In how many languages should we print ballots?

Just English works for me. We started with English, we are mostly English-speaking, and it's crazy to consider translating to every language that ever crosses our borders for all things. So if people want to participate in things that require English, they can learn English. Otherwise, supply and demand economy will somehow figure it out. Translation services will be made available. And, in fact, most things are easily translatable now with Google anyway. No big deal.

Elijah John wrote:
Also, it would be interesting to compare the cost of building a wall, vs. the cost in social services that new immigrants require. And the cost to the economy and American taxpayers in terms of depressed wages, social services, education, competition for jobs, etc, etc.

You continue to assume that migrants are a detriment, but in reality they do more good than harm. They create more business which creates more jobs, they bring ingenuity, they commit less crime than native Americans, and they pay taxes which helps the poor whether immigrants or natives.

Elijah John wrote:
Rachel Bovard on Fox today said that the Wall would cost less than 5 % of the cost to taxpayers that illiegal immigration related problems would incur.

And I would never for a second trust Fox "News" with anything. They are near as right-wing non-news nonsense as you can get. So much so it's not even worth responding to them. Try for something in the middle instead:


Elijah John wrote:
Again, how can such a strain not have adverse effects on the economy and the American poor?

In the same way natives don't. They're still people, after all. You simply have the impression that all they do is go on welfare which is not accurate or fair. In fact, I might even daresay it's a bit... how do you put it when you lump all people of particular groups into one unfair category...? Smile

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 58: Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:05 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 57 by ElCodeMonkey]

You ignored Milton Friedman's statement regarding the welfare state and open borders. How the two are not compatible, nor is the combination sustainable. Can you assail Friedman's logic, or invalidate it? Is Freidman a right wing radical?

We have a huge amount of hispanic immigrants in the Northeast. Why do you suppose they flock here. The climate? Do you deny the generous social safety net has anything to do with it?

And you never answered why shouldn't we take care of our own, before opening our arms to the rest of the world?

Also the re-conquista movement. What do you think of the statement "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"? And their sense of entitlement to the American southwest?

And I never said "all immigrants" or even "all illegal immigrants". No strawmen please.

Regarding your chart. I would say that CNN is now radical left. It used to be only left-leaning. Agree that Fox is right of center, but I don't see it as radical right. MSNBC? Radical left. I suspect bias in your chart, here. How can you guarantee it's neutrality? I doubt anyone can. And to disregard Fox news out of hand is a bit dismissive, don't you think? Do they get anything right? If you cannot answer in the affirmative, I think you reveal your own bias.

I'm glad we both see the unifying effect of English. Else, the nation has nothing really cohesive to make us one people. It would be Balkanized.

"They're just people". Yes of course they are. So are the rest of the world. If everyone who wanted to came to the US to live, what do you think would happen to our country?

And I challenge your contention that illegal immigrants contribute more than they cost. Have you factored in medical care, asylum processing and legal costs, unemployment compensation, housing, food stamps, education, emergency room occupancy, etc, etc?

And I challenge your contention that illegal immigrants commit less crime (proportionally) than do US citizens.

And even if they do, don't we have far more than enough crime in the US without compounding it by the illegal immigrant criminal element?

Does a father have responsibility to his own family first?

Likewise, doesn't a president have responsibility to his own country first?

If you disregard the latter, say hello to a second term for President Trump.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 59: Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:34 pm
Reply

Like this post
Elijah John wrote:
You ignored Milton Friedman's statement regarding the welfare state and open borders. How the two are not compatible, nor is the combination sustainable.

I didn't ignore the statement--it was tied into the argument that immigrants pay into taxes more than they take from them and do more good than harm. Thus they are a net benefit rather than a net cost. So I disagree with the statement.

Elijah John wrote:
We have a huge amount of hispanic immigrants in the Northeast. Why do you suppose they flock here. The climate? Do you deny the generous social safety net has anything to do with it?

I very explicitly stated why they come here. To pursue success--not for the safety net of welfare.

Elijah John wrote:
And you never answered why shouldn't we take care of our own, before opening our arms to the rest of the world?

I have mentioned that this is likely a good idea, but it is never so easily cut and dry. Some things can be done in parallel. But again, I think immigration is a net good for us and therefore it is indeed taking care of our own in the process.

Elijah John wrote:
Also the re-conquista movement. What do you think of the statement "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"? And their sense of entitlement to the American southwest?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Elijah John wrote:
And I never said "all immigrants" or even "all illegal immigrants". No strawmen please.

No, you don't say "all immigrants" but your responses and language seem to be permeated with this idea that immigrants "in general" are a terrible burden and only come to take from us without giving back. This is wrong, unfair, and seemingly racially charged as I derive from your statements that seem to fear the influx of "the other". This is not a strawman and I don't intend for it to be an attack, accusation, or judgement on you, this is simply what I am perceiving from your arguments. You continue to posit that all this immigration is terrible and harmful but you have absolutely no data to back it up so where is it coming from? You act as if it's "unfettered" and "obviously" all bad if we "forever" let it occur, but these are all simply fear-driven statements. No data. Where is this fear coming from? Probably from Fox News, I imagine. If immigration, overall, contributes to our economy, then it is good, not bad. I presented data for how immigrants are good. You don't like the data and provide none to show it is overall bad. There is little left I can do then. I am trying to operate on facts (data) rather than feelings of fear which is all Fox News has to offer.

Elijah John wrote:
Regarding your chart. I would say that CNN is now radical left. It used to be only left-leaning. Agree that Fox is right of center, but I don't see it as radical right. MSNBC? Radical left. I suspect bias in your chart, here. How can you guarantee it's neutrality? I doubt anyone can. And to disregard Fox news out of hand is a bit dismissive, don't you think? Do they get anything right? If you cannot answer in the affirmative, I think you reveal your own bias.

Actual news has standards for reporting. There is a science behind reporting. There is a methodology that makes it actual reporting rather than opinions. Fox news does not do any of this. It is purely opinions and they are often taken way out of context. People who have strong opinions about something are very likely to believe facts are "skewed" if they see how the facts actually prove them wrong. If a fact, all by itself, looks like a slant, then it is a mere interpretation of the person reading it. For example, when the facts show that abortion single-handedly dropped the rate of crime like a boulder in the ocean and a news report states this, it is easy for you to believe it is a slant. It is not a slant, however, it is just a fact. Fox News will "interpret" this to "mean" that the statement is saying "Let's kill all the babies to decrease crime!" Such a statement would[i] be a slant, but that is not the statement that was made. I won't say that Fox "gets everything wrong" but that does not mean it is worth watching. Even the Bible gets some things right, but that doesn't mean it's worth continual study. We'd be far better off simply selecting better sources to begin with. The chart can't possibly be perfect, but it is a far better starting point than you or I could likely muster. It is now on revision 4 as many people continue to weigh in. Things like Fox News have not exactly moved their position in any of the revisions.

Elijah John wrote:
"They're just people". Yes of course they are. So are the rest of the world. If [i]everyone who wanted to came to the US to live, what do you think would happen to our country?

I think it might very well prosper. The races and origins of people do not dictate our success. The character of the individuals does.

Elijah John wrote:
And I challenge your contention that illegal immigrants contribute more than they cost. Have you factored in medical care, asylum processing and legal costs, unemployment compensation, housing, food stamps, education, emergency room occupancy, etc, etc?

And I challenge your contention that illegal immigrants commit less crime (proportionally) than do US citizens.

I showed you the data. So you can challenge it all you want, but it would work better to challenge with data.

Elijah John wrote:
And even if they do, don't we have far more than enough crime in the US without compounding it by the illegal immigrant criminal element?

More people always means more crime as a percentage. So if anything, you're simply against population increase. Immigration isn't the only way we increase population, but it is indeed "safer" than increasing it with our own people, apparently. Even without data though, think of it this way. Would you fear being locked up in a Russian prison moreso than here in the states? I would. So if I travel to Russia, I'll be on my absolute best behavior. No speeding, no rolling stops, yelling at no one, no instigation, kindness all the way. Same with [most] immigrants. They don't want to be locked up in a foreign country's prison either. And if they are undocumented, all the more reason to not do something that will get them caught. Thus, immigrants commit less crime just as the data showed. Obviously not "all" immigrants are good or "all" bad. This is why we use data to analyze the overall.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 60: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 59 by ElCodeMonkey]

Please refrain from characterizing my motives as being driven by fear of "the other" or racism. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, then this debate is over. Not only that, negative speculating on another's motives is against the rules of this site.

Just because a person opposes unfettered immigration and wide open borders, does NOT make them "racist" or "xenophobic" nor does it mean they "fear the other". Yes, we have compassion, but compassion for the American citizen, first. (regardless of race, this is not a racial issue.)

Do you think that all the illegal immigrants have jobs lined up for them as they enter the US? If not, do they then they go on public assistance? That would cost the taxpayer money that could otherwise go to US citizens in need.

Do you think all the illegal immigrants are being properly screened for contagious disease?

Or histories of crime or perhaps terrorist ties?

Do you dismiss these very valid concerns as "fear of the other"?

I hope you're right about the positive impact that illegal immigration will have on the US, but I doubt it. Look what's happening in Europe. Especially Germany, the UK, Norway, and France.

Time will tell, and will vindicate either your position or mine. Let's just see how all this plays out.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version