+++WOW+++Anti-Immigration Politicians and Media Personalities BTFO!

[nac386]

And her point, according to you, is...?

She makes it clear. It began with a man speaking in an "us vs them" tone regarding immigrants. Referring to them as "somebody else's babies" when talking about building a society. She took exception to that quote, since our current civilization was already built with "somebody else's babies" when they came here.

Many men from our greatest generation, the WW2 vets, were somebody else's babies, including my Sicilian grandfather.

Her point is simply to expose the hypocrisy of the men speaking down on immigrants as being an "other" even though we were all "others." That is her point, feel free to criticize that point.

Here is her quote:

"I think the first person I worked on was Steve King," Mendelsohn says of the Iowa congressman who in March 2017 said "you cannot rebuild civilization with somebody else's babies."

"I kept thinking, 'This is ridiculous," she told CNN. "How do these people think they have a leg to stand on, looking down on immigrants when so many American people have an immigration story in their history?"

 

[Rod1]

My point was that some on a certain side don't want to actually use phrases like "we need to do something about it" or "stricter immigration", because in an uber leftists world, that means you're talking about kicking them all out. There is no middle ground when 5 second sound bites are all anyone cares about.

Except this is not even close to being true, at least in Sherdog, which you used as an example.

The whole Dems want open borders only exists in the minds of right wingers.

How so? (Genuine question, not rhetorical)

Did you missed the whole government shutdown?

 

[Dalarna3]

She makes it clear. It began with a man speaking in an "us vs them" tone regarding immigrants. Referring to them as "somebody else's babies" when talking about building a society. She took exception to that quote, since our current civilization was already built with "somebody else's babies" when they came here.

Many men from our greatest generation, the WW2 vets, were somebody else's babies, including my Sicilian grandfather.

Her point is simply to expose the hypocrisy of the men speaking down on immigrants as being an "other" even though we were all "others." That is her point, feel free to criticize that point.

Here is her quote:

If there is no other, then there might as well be no us as in nation.

 

[The Diplomat]

Except this is not even close to being true, at least in Sherdog, which you used as an example.

The whole Dems want open borders only exists in the minds of right wingers.

Gov shutdown was both sides.

Did you missed the whole government shutdown?

I never said dems want open borders lol ive specifically used language saying they dont, just that they wont use certain terms for political reasons.

 

[nac386]

If there is no other, then there might as well be no us as in nation.

The "other" are the governments of nations whose values we oppose. For example, we oppose the values of North Korea. The North Korean government is an enemy of our values.

Legal immigrants are not our opposition. Immigrants are just people looking for better lives in a place with more opportunity. Legal immigrants are part of our foundation, not an "other."

Creating an "us vs them" attitude between our own citizens and immigrants from the countries that we already represent is absolutely ridiculous. My family is from Sicily, you really think you could convince me that current Sicilians are an "other" and we should be against them? Lol. I probably still have blood there.

 

[Rod1]

I never said dems want open borders lol ive specifically used language saying they dont, just that they wont use certain terms for political reasons.

I misunderstood your point still.

This will help us make our borders safer; will help us go after criminals and those that we don't want in this country; will help people get on the right side of the law and get out of the shadows.And keep in mind that this is something that we necessarily have to make choices about because we've got 11 million people here who we're not all going to deport. Many of them are our neighbors. Many of them are working in our communities. Many of their children are U.S. citizens. And as we saw with the executive action that I took for DREAMers, people who have come here as young children and are American by any other name except for their legal papers, who want to serve this country, oftentimes want to go into the military or start businesses or in other ways contribute -- I think the American people overwhelmingly recognize that to pretend like we are going to ship them off is unrealistic and not who we are.So I've also said throughout this process that the only way we're going to get a broken immigration system fully fixed is by Congress acting. And we know that there has been bipartisan support in the past with comprehensive immigration reform. I held off taking these executive actions until we had exhausted all possibilities of getting congressional action done. With a new Congress, my hope has been that they now get serious in solving the problem. Instead what we've had is a series of votes to kick out young people who have grown up here and everybody recognizes are part of our community, and threats to defund the Department of Homeland Security, which would make it even harder for us to protect our borders and to keep our people safe.So my strong advice right now to Congress is, if they are seriously concerned about immigration, about our borders, about being able to keep criminals out of this country, then what they should be doing is working together and working with the administration for a comprehensive immigration policy that allows us to continue to be both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And certainly they should start funding the Department of Homeland Security so that they can go forward with all the functions that Republicans say they want carried out, including strong border security functions.But with respect to the ruling, I disagree with it. I think the law is on our side and history is on our side. And we are going to *appeal it. For those who are now wondering whether or not they should apply, we are going to refer those questions to the Department of Homeland Security that has already begun the planning process. And we will be prepared to implement this fully as soon as the legal issues get resolved.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?324394-3/president-obama-national-security-immigration&desktop=

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

It's cool how the Trumpets loved pointing out Obama's Kenyan dad and calling him a foreign born muslim but are now somehow offended by the OP.

 

[Dalarna3]

The "other" are the governments of nations whose values we oppose. For example, we oppose the values of North Korea. The North Korean government is an enemy of our values.

Legal immigrants are not our opposition. Immigrants are just people looking for better lives in a place with more opportunity. Legal immigrants are part of our foundation, not an "other."

Creating an "us vs them" attitude between our own citizens and immigrants from the countries that we already represent is absolutely ridiculous. My family is from Sicily, you really think you could convince me that current Sicilians are an "other" and we should be against them? Lol. I probably still have blood there.

You having loyalty to a group of foreigners is a perfect example of how civic culture is downstream from group association. I’m sure you’re aware that Italy was an Axis power during W.W. II. Civic culture changes, but the people do not. I know of plenty of Mexican-Americans who’re stoaked about America turning more hispanic (obviously hugely through illegal immigration). Group loyalty, not civic.

 

[Rational Poster]

I don't like anti immigration just as much as pro mass immigration. Even more, I don't like leftist cunts who conflate anti immigration with people who want a vetting process and careful more managed immigration policy.

And I think you guys are retarded for thinking that international travelers and immigrants post 9/11 aren't getting vetted already.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

Poor Homer

 

[nac386]

You having loyalty to a group of foreigners is a perfect example of how civic culture is downstream from group association. I know of plenty of Mexican-Americans who’re stoaked about America turning more hispanic (obviously hugely through illegal immigration). Group loyalty, not civic.

It's not loyalty to a group of foreigners. It's simply being aware that they are not our enemy in any way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think most people are very aware of the difference between being completely against immigration and simply being for a more controlled proces.

I think a big part of the confusion is the inflammatory language used. For example you just called an imagined group of people "cunts" in your first post.

Being for a more-controlled process is basically a universally held position in American politics, though.

If both sides are honest about the discussion, the discussion is about fear of whites being a minority vs. fear of economic stagnation.

 

[nac386]

Being for a more-controlled process is basically a universally held position in American politics, though.

I know. That is something I've been saying in thread after thread. It really seems like people like to accuse political parties of holding beliefs that nobody in the party actually promotes.

People keep talking about democrats opening floodgates and pushing for open borders, and I keep wondering where anybody got that idea.

 

[Rational Poster]

I think we need to set a high priority for Japanese and Korean girls aged 18-35

 

[Deleted member 457759]

If you mean this simply to oppose unlawful entry, then okay.

I also mean mass unfettered immigration that rapidly changes the demographics of a country and undermines it's cultural base, no matter what country that may be.

If you mean this in regard to refugee placement, then just LOL. Trump sang that tune without the slightest clue about the reality of the topic: that refugee vetting in the US is incredibly, almost wastefullly comprehensive and enduring.

My comment wasn't exclusively directed at America. And although what you say may be true, you're talking about "legal" immigration, which I don't see a problem with in America. But I'm not an expert on that. Most of my research has been done on the last 20 years of illegal immigration from Mexico, which Lou Dobbs was screaming about on CNN more than a decade ago before he was muzzled long before Trump was politically relevant.

 

[Trotsky]

I also mean mass unfettered immigration that rapidly changes the demographics of a country and undermines it's cultural base, no matter what country that may be.



My comment wasn't exclusively directed at America. And although what you say may be true, you're talking about "legal" immigration, which I don't see a problem with in America. But I'm not an expert on that. Most of my research has been done on the last 20 years of illegal immigration from Mexico, which Lou Dobbs was screaming about on CNN more than a decade ago before he was muzzled long before Trump was politically relevant.

I mean, if you're a legal ideologue who just really cares about the sanctity of American laws, then I get it. And if you're a white nationalist or person afraid of only being a plurality, as opposed to majority, in your country, I guess I get that to.

But, when speaking of more tangible collective concerns like crime and the economy, undocumented immigration from Mexico was never a huge deal, and it's certainly far less a big deal now than it was circa 2007.

I just don't think spending tax dollars and political capital on immigration is defensible from a purely pragmatic perspective.

 

[HomerThompson]

I know. That is something I've been saying in thread after thread. It really seems like people like to accuse political parties of holding beliefs that nobody in the party actually promotes.

People keep talking about democrats opening floodgates and pushing for open borders, and I keep wondering where anybody got that idea.

Plus a clown car full of other various assholes, soulless opportunists, and legit racists.

 

[nac386]

Plus a clown car full of other various assholes, soulless opportunists, and legit racists.

I think you are absolutely correct in saying that a LOT of the talking points that "conservative" posters use actually come directly from hacks and liars, not from any actual democratic politician.

I put conservative in quotes because I think that term has become mostly meaningless, and it's unfair to put some of these people in the same category with actual conservatives.

 

[HomerThompson]

I think you are absolutely correct in saying that a LOT of the talking points that "conservative" posters use actually come directly from hacks and liars, not from any actual democratic politician.

I put conservative in quotes because I think that term has become mostly meaningless, and it's unfair to put some of these people in the same category with actual conservatives.

Oh, absolutely. Also, r/TheDonald and all the other places like that need to be considered. All of the Alt-Rightosphere. It's all disingenuous talking points, and out right lies.

Obviously, Fox News should get the largest share of the blame. They've been crafting a fictional reality for their viewers for 20 years now. The impacts are being realized with this new breed of dumber, and more hostile reactionaries. Look no further than this message board to see what I'm talking about.

 

[Rational Poster]

You having loyalty to a group of foreigners is a perfect example of how civic culture is downstream from group association. I’m sure you’re aware that Italy was an Axis power during W.W. II. Civic culture changes, but the people do not. I know of plenty of Mexican-Americans who’re stoaked about America turning more hispanic (obviously hugely through illegal immigration). Group loyalty, not civic.

This isn't true.

36 million Mexicans live here legally, 5 million or fewer live here illegally.

The huge majority came here legally.