Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YabanciGirl

Can't argue with the truth :)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I can definitely argue with that, because it is only part of the truth.

 

The man preaching in that video needs to go back across the Bering Strait to where his people were before THEY invaded the American continent.

 

The "native Americans" were not native to the American continent any more than the Europeans were.

 

The Europeans had superior technology. The people who happened to be on the American continent when the Europeans arrived had inferior technology. This situation has been repeated again and again since the first human figured out how to use a rock as a tool.

 

And everyone reading this post has had some distant relative affected in the same way. Somebody probably took the land, overcame the indigenous people, and you are probably a product of the conquerors, not the natives. So let's all get over it.

 

The problem now is that today's Americans, who by the way consist of numerous ethnic groups, including his, have created such a great society that everybody wants to come in and be a part of it. And unfortunately, many want to leech off of it.

 

The measure of how great a country is can be measured by the "gates test." If you were to open the gates, completely, for all countries, and then measure the number of people who would leave some countries and enter other countries, you would see how great those countries actually are. Because America is great, everybody wants to go there (it scores very high on the "gates test").

 

People seem to think that the USA is a great country because it was given to its citizens for free, in perfect condition. And Americans are like a society of rich kids living off of a trust fund. The Americans (regardless of ethnic origin), had to fight long and hard for everything they have. And not only did they fight for their own interests, but also for the interests of other nations.

 

The big question should NOT be about how the USA deals with illegal immigrants.

 

The big question should be about why these people, fleeing to the USA, cannot make their own country as great as the USA is.

 

Why does nobody ask this question? Why do we have such high standards for the USA and such low standards for other countries?

 

It is the usual politically-correct form of "soft bigotry."

 

The man in that video is nothing more than a politically-correct bigot. And so are we, whenever we use one measure for the USA, and another measure for other countries or societies.

 

The USA cannot accommodate the entire population of Mexico and South America.  Nor should it be expected to. Why does this make the USA the villain? Why do we not criticize and put pressure on the governments of the countries these people are fleeing from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The man preaching in that video needs to go back across the Bering Strait to where his people were before THEY invaded the American continent.

 

Dude, I gotta hand it to ya, you really know how to hit the nail on the head...

People settled into North America between 13,000 and 14,000 years ago.
No people were here before then so they did not "invade" anything. It wasn't like Alexander "the Great" ("Great" of course meaning a conqueror who raped, pillaged and plundered his way across half the known world).

Somebody probably took the land, overcame the indigenous people, and you are probably a product of the conquerors, not the natives. So let's all get over it.

Easy to say I suppose...

Of course whenever the US Congress debates the "Armenian Genocide" and wants to "send a stirring message to the Ottoman Empire",  we do not hear the same rousing cries for a resolution to condemn the North American Genocide, the Trail of Tears, the smallpox-infected blankets (early germ warfare), "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."

 

How many Americans really know that the Little Big Horn was a battle but called a massacre, and that Wounded Knee was a massacre but called a battle? There are many similar incidents.

 

I am not under any illusions about the character traits of the "noble savage" but I do think history should be known and taught as it happened, not some glorified version written by hagiographers.

The USA cannot accommodate the entire population of Mexico and South America.  Nor should it be expected to. Why does this make the USA the villain?

Mounted on a plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty are the words:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Hmmm,  sounds like an invitation to me... I dunno Dude, maybe I read it wrong?


The Americans (regardless of ethnic origin), had to fight long and hard for everything they have. And not only did they fight for their own interests, but also for the interests of other nations.

Yes, you are very correct Dude, a lot of people had to fight for the rights they allegedly already were granted by the US Constituton.

 

After the Constitution was written, white men who did not own land had to fight for the right to vote, they had to go to the streets and get beaten and killed and "had to fight long and hard" but they eventually "earned" the right, only when when politicians decided they needed their votes to get elected.

Of course Blacks were almost all slaves and could not vote, even freed slaves could not vote until after the 14th Amendment.

"Red people," indigenous people, Indians, native Americans, barbarians, whatever you want to call them, were not even recognised by the Congress as people, they therefore did not have much say about their legal rights. They were treated as sovereign (foreign) nations when treaties were signed but then the US government reneged on nearly all of them.

Chinese who were brought to North American and who literally built the transcontinental railroad were forbidden from immigration as were all "orientals," including Turks, until the 20th Century. They worked pretty hard I am sure but they did not fight much. Japanese immigrants were forbidden to own land or become citizens until 1952 when all Asians were allowed naturalization.

Women could not vote until 1920 and then only after they "had to fight long and hard" for many years. They were imprisoned, spit upon and beaten in the streets (by men of course), when they exercised their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest. Yup, they worked pretty hard.

Thousands of union organisers and workers were beaten, machine-gunned, murdered, and jailed without benefit of due process because the owners of factories asked local governments to intervene with militia and police. Indeed, they "had to fight long and hard." Unions did not get the right to legally organise until the Wagner act of 1935, even though the AFL was formed in 1886. Eugene Debs, a labor organiser and Presidential candidate, was put into prison because he was against the entry of the US into World War One. He still got over a million votes.

So yes, you are correct, these people "had to fight long and hard"

 

Why do we not criticize and put pressure on the governments of the countries these people are fleeing from?

I dunno, a good question, have you asked your representative, your Senator, your President these questions? Some of them may be allies and the US would not want to step on the toes of an ally no matter how bad is their human rights record, would they? I dunno, just asking...

 

And, last but not least,

"The big question should be about why these people, fleeing to the USA, cannot make their own country as great as the USA is."

 

I believe you should ask those who fought and died in the Arab Spring, or Gezi Park, or the women in Saudi Arabia (a terroism exporter but a great US ally) who just want the right to drive a car, or any others who protest against oppressive regimes, why it is so difficult to "make their own country as great as the USA." 

 

I am sure they can give a pretty good answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some of this you are arguing against things I didn't say, so I won't go there.

 

 

Mounted on a plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty are the words:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Hmmm,  sounds like an invitation to me... I dunno Dude, maybe I read it wrong?

 

It's a part of a poem. On a plaque on a statue. Lot of countries have poems, on plaques, on statues which are not considered to be legally binding under all circumstances.

 

The rest of what you say is general knowledge, and doesn't explain why the US government doesn't have the right to create immigration laws and enforce them as its citizens see fit. It's just more bashing of the USA, with the same stuff you could find in practically any modern country's history.

 

 

Why do we not criticize and put pressure on the governments of the countries these people are fleeing from?

I dunno, a good question, have you asked your representative, your Senator, your President these questions? Some of them may be allies and the US would not want to step on the toes of an ally no matter how bad is their human rights record, would they? I dunno, just asking...

 

In this case, I'm asking you. For the sake of conversation in this forum. Why blame the USA because people are fleeing their countries and the US government is just trying to enforce it's immigration laws? Or in this case, NOT enforcing its immigration laws, and US citizens getting angry about it?

 

Why do you blame the USA first, without a thought to criticizing the governments these people are fleeing from? I saw no criticism in your reply regarding any of these other countries. Only heaps of criticism of the USA.

 

 

I believe you should ask those who fought and died in the Arab Spring, or Gezi Park, or the women in Saudi Arabia (a terroism exporter but a great US ally) who just want the right to drive a car, or any others who protest against oppressive regimes, why it is so difficult to "make their own country as great as the USA."

 

There. You criticize the USA again, as if even the problems driving people to the USA are also the fault of the USA. If the USA terminated diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, would they then mass-issue driver's licenses to all of the Saudi women? But let's get back to my original point.

 

When you enter Turkey, do you sneak in, or do you enter legally with a visa or residence permit?  I assume you enter according to Turkish law. Do you believe the Turkish government is evil for expecting this of you? When you're in the immigration line, do you shake your fist and scream at the immigration official, saying they have no right to enforce their immigration laws because the Turks were not the first human settlement in Asia Minor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely argue with that, because it is only part of the truth.

 

The man preaching in that video needs to go back across the Bering Strait to where his people were before THEY invaded the American continent.

 

The "native Americans" were not native to the American continent any more than the Europeans were.

 

The Europeans had superior technology. The people who happened to be on the American continent when the Europeans arrived had inferior technology. This situation has been repeated again and again since the first human figured out how to use a rock as a tool.

 

And everyone reading this post has had some distant relative affected in the same way. Somebody probably took the land, overcame the indigenous people, and you are probably a product of the conquerors, not the natives. So let's all get over it.

 

The problem now is that today's Americans, who by the way consist of numerous ethnic groups, including his, have created such a great society that everybody wants to come in and be a part of it. And unfortunately, many want to leech off of it.

 

The measure of how great a country is can be measured by the "gates test." If you were to open the gates, completely, for all countries, and then measure the number of people who would leave some countries and enter other countries, you would see how great those countries actually are. Because America is great, everybody wants to go there (it scores very high on the "gates test").

 

People seem to think that the USA is a great country because it was given to its citizens for free, in perfect condition. And Americans are like a society of rich kids living off of a trust fund. The Americans (regardless of ethnic origin), had to fight long and hard for everything they have. And not only did they fight for their own interests, but also for the interests of other nations.

 

The big question should NOT be about how the USA deals with illegal immigrants.

 

The big question should be about why these people, fleeing to the USA, cannot make their own country as great as the USA is.

 

Why does nobody ask this question? Why do we have such high standards for the USA and such low standards for other countries?

 

It is the usual politically-correct form of "soft bigotry."

 

The man in that video is nothing more than a politically-correct bigot. And so are we, whenever we use one measure for the USA, and another measure for other countries or societies.

 

The USA cannot accommodate the entire population of Mexico and South America.  Nor should it be expected to. Why does this make the USA the villain? Why do we not criticize and put pressure on the governments of the countries these people are fleeing from?

 

America was once a great country, but I'll have to disagree with you that it still is! Here's why ...

 

America is one of the least free countries in the world. I don't think even most Americans believe that America is a free country anymore. That's a myth that is way outdated by now. But people still chant it to be cool, and the corporate media still propagates it.

America has the highest number of laws in the world. More laws = more restrictions and controls = LESS freedom. Simple logic. In contrast, Mexico has one of the fewest number of laws. Ask any Mexican immigrant, and they will tell you that Mexico is way freer than America. No other country has as many laws as America does.

Now, I know some of the laws are supposed to be there to protect people, but they've gone way into overkill. Other countries are able to maintain safety without so many laws. So why can't the US? Too much overcontrol is not a good thing. Many laws are there just to tax people and allow government to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, such as in the affairs of private families and businesses. Moreover, too much government control or state planning has never been good for economic growth, as history has shown.

The US has one of the highest costs of living in the world. Compared to the other 200 countries, the US is definitely in the top tier when it comes to expensive costs of living. Prices and costs are way too high and so is inflation. In the 20th century, the US dollar lost 95 percent of its value. In contrast, during the 1800's there was no inflation and the dollar was worth more at the end of the 1800's than at the beginning.

Higher cost of living means that one has to work more and be a slave to their job more, with LESS free time to do what they want. There's not even time for personal growth. What's the point of living when all you do is work to make a living? What's there to live for? It's pointless. You are just a slave hamster on a treadmill. Being a debt slave is not living freely.

As we all know, money can buy freedom, if one has enough of it. Thus, a higher cost of living means that people have LESS capability to "buy their freedom" since their money is worth less.

US social culture is way too politically correct, which greatly reduces your ability to speak freely and honestly. It's a restriction on free speech. From what I heard, back in the 1970's, there was no political correctness. People were free to be as honest as they wanted, so they could speak their mind freely and from the heart.

Even if someone has something negative to say, honesty is always better than suppression and repression. So America has become a lot LESS free since the 70's in terms of free speech and freedom to be yourself. In other countries where there is no political correctness, one feels a lot freer.

The overbearing political correctness in modern America, coupled with the high level of fear and paranoia in people, makes America a very socially unhealthy and repressed culture.

But political correctness is not there to help people though. It's there as a first stage in controlling the masses. You see, once you restrict free speech in the name of "cultural sensitivity", it then becomes easier to take away other freedoms and put in more control. To take away freedom, you do it in small steps, so that each subsequent step becomes easier for people to take. That's how the ruling party imposes their will when its unpopular, by doing it gradually in increments. They've always done it this way.

Americans are not taught to see such things. Instead, they are taught to celebrate their pseudo-freedoms on the 4th of July and believe that people in the military are "serving the country" and all that hogwash, etc.

America has the highest prison population in the world. Currently, there are 2 million people incarcerated in American prisons. 2 million! That's crazy. No other country has anywhere near that amount in prison. What kind of society would have that many people in prison? How can the alleged "freest country in the world" also have the biggest prison population as well?! That's a huge oxymoron that doesn't make sense! Obviously there is a chasm of difference between what America says and what it is.

Conclusion

So you see, the notion that "America is the land of the free" is baseless and unwarranted. It's just a religious myth that's repeated over and over again in US media, education and culture, until people assume it is true. It's a form of cult-like brainwashing on a national scale. And it's kind of creepy how effective it is, like something from the Twilight Zone. In reality, there is a huge chasm of difference between what America is and what is claims to be. And more and more people around the world, and even in America, are beginning to realize that.

For America to be the freest country, or one of the freest, every other country would have to be an extreme dictatorship like North Korea. However, most countries are nothing like that, but are in fact a lot freer than America in many ways, such as in the ways outlined above.

But America tries to trick people into thinking that all other foreign countries are like North Korea, the Middle East, or Nazi Germany. It's a classic false generalization comparison, the kind that advertisers typically use when they take the worst examples from their competitors and try to portray it as representative of their all competitors in general to try to make them look bad. It's a major fallacy and brainwashing tactic used in alot of hollywood movies and American media.

The biggest loss of freedom in America is not from the high number of laws or high cost of living. It is from not having the freedom to BE YOURSELF. But of course, it depends on what "yourself" is. Schools are a good example, there's a lot of bullying if you're different on some level, you cannot be yourself in America. Bullying is a mini epidemic there that's regulary swept under the carpet and not deal with firmly. Again another delusion.

The simplest definition of freedom is: "The ability to do what you want with minimal control and restrictions from outside agencies and people." So it depends on what you want to be "free" to do. For example, if you want to be a debt slave and work in a soulless corporation that treats you like a resource, then yeah I guess you are "free in America". Otherwise, you are not.

This is why America tends to define freedom as "freedom to work" which presupposes that everyone "lives to work" and is happy to be an economic resource (hence the term "human resource"). It's not true of course, since in Europe, people are said to "work to live, not live to work" and many people in America feel the same way.

 

Concerning your 'gates test', you are right dude, lots of foerigers would flood in, but migrating to the US is like geting hitched qickly. Once the honeymoon is over and the real relationship starts then the American dream is over.

We made tea:)

 

What kind? I like mine with milk, no sugar Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like mine with milk, sometimes without.......It would seem that this is all a debate about freedom.What is freedom? Is one persons freedom the same as another's? Is one persons freedom deserved more than another's? Who puts "the price" on freedom and makes one persons freedom therefore less attainable than another's? All humans are designed the same, all humans are built from just, honest and true bones, true bones which enable a person to be true.The ops title to this thread is " you can't argue with the truth", my ten year old son just pointed to the title and laughed, because who's truth is it, and WHY would you want to argue with a truth ( an opinion formed on a personal belief ) that is somebody else's?? What has it got to do with you??? The fact that you or whoever takes offence on somebody else's behalf, at somebody else's truth clearly illustrates the level of freedom that you are at. When somebody else's truth is a bother to you- then are you free? Have you attained your peace to be free?" 1: Def: the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants. 2: Def: the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved."How would you define your freedom? Yabancigirl puts forward a concise interpretation and an overwhelming collection of theories and ideas about what a persons freedom is in America, having never studied Americas history or lived there I don't know much specifically, about what she talks. The institutionalisation is general though, worldwide-but in differing measures and in varying circumstances - and in 2014 is commonplace knowledge. ( isn't it? )So what is freedom? It's DEFINATELY not discussing a video posted on Facebook! Ha!Funny really, because as I sit on deck this evening the marina is alive with 60 + children, mainly from Austria I believe, buzzing about and laughing and enjoying the sunshine, the setting, their lives. These children are here on a project," kids for freedom" they are brought by charity workers to enjoy a holiday aboard sailing yachts, a break away from their individual, tormented ( perhaps? ) lives. They are " under privileged" children from towns in Austria and I smile at the venture and enjoy the children's happiness around me.But where does one persons under privileged feelings begin? What makes a child or a person who is not "privileged" not free?It's merely an irony that this topic is discussing people's " rights" and " freedoms" and this is going on around me. I mean, these children might seem a lot more privileged than children of a similar age from Bulgaria or Serbia, but does a week out sailing make them or any child feel more free? Temporarily, yes, but the Bulgarian and the Serbian child will still be smiling at the end of the very same week, the Austrian child will have prettier memories and neither will know the others privileges or lack of them, the others freedom.Everybody begins life the same and each is offered a place in this world. Thankfully we are mostly still able to choose where in this world we would like to live, to be free- .Even more ironic is the boat which has just berthed next to us, it's name is Utopia!!!!!!!!!!( Utopia , a dream of perfect being!!!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I like my tea with milk, sometimes not.  I do love honey in my tea always.

 

I am an American, born, raised and still living here.  

 

I have friends from all walks of life. My parents aren't originally from America, they came here, by choice, from other countries - NONE of which border my country.  They met a couple of years later, and here I am. As an American, I have the right to agree with my government, and the right to disagree with them.  I also have the right to voice my displeasure and to sing their praises publicly should I desire to do either of those actions. I have the right to make things better for myself and those around me.  I am "free" to associate myself with people from varying religions, varying colors, with varying cultural backgrounds and I do so without judgement.

 

It is disheartening to me when I read some of this political posts on this forum where there are people so obviously upset with the USA that they consistently bash it, but I respect your right to do so.  Where reading some comments hurts my personal feelings, I choose not to comment (until now) because I LOVE Turkey as well, and I would love to believe that there are people in Turkey, regardless of where their country of origin is, that would embrace an American such as myself - flaws and all - without prejudging me because I am an American, from the land of the free.

 

I appreciate AcademyLin's post because it addresses the definition of freedom, rather than that of a country.  We aren't perfect, I will be the FIRST one to tell you that. But please, before judging another's country's imperfections, please stop and consider that we are all members of the same human race who are trying to make today a little better than yesterday.

 

This is this American's Turkey-loving $0.02 worth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In some of this you are arguing against things I didn't say, so I won't go there.

Dude, please, don't hold back, tell us what you really think. It would be nice if you did "go there" at least I would then have some idea of where "there" really is.

 

It's a part of a poem. On a plaque on a statue. Lot of countries have poems, on plaques, on statues which are not considered to be legally binding under all circumstances.

Where did I say it was "legally binding"? As academylin commented so well, the United States of America, the place where I was born and grew up, IS all about freedom, enshrined in the 1st ten amendments to the US Constitution, they are called the Bill of Rights, I am sure you have heard of them. It is unique, freedom of the individual is supposed to be of paramount importance. If you read it you may agree. The statue was given to us by the French as symbolic of their friendship, note the word symbolic. The Liberty Lady and the poem on the plaque are grand symbols, just as is the flag, of the freedom explicitly stated in that Constitution. The statue symbolizes what The United States of America is all about. I believe in the freedom guaranteed in the Constitution and embodied in the symbol of the Liberty.

 

(I hate this full-disclosure stuff but...)  I spent seven years in the US Army Special Forces wherein I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. I did NOT swear to lend a hand at keeping immigrants out or to support tin-pot regimes, famous for egregious human-rights violations against their own people (from which they wish to escape), and for which the United States government is famous; Saudi Arabia is just one of them (a longer list is below). I got out of the military because those were the things we were expected to do and I had to decide to either violate orders or my conscience, I chose my conscience.

 

The rest of what you say is general knowledge, and doesn't explain why the US government doesn't have the right to create immigration laws and enforce them as its citizens see fit.

The US government, which is supposed to be its people, but embodied in its representatives, can make any law they wish. That does not mean it is a good law. Slavery was the law of the land until the 14th Amendment. "Jim Crow Laws" disenfranchising Black voters in the Southern States of Dixie were the law until 1965. I mentioned a lot of other history in my previous posting which you claim is "general knowledge," all of those comments were about laws or policies of the US government and yet you chose to ignore them. I noted some of the historical events above because the ignorance of far too many US citizens about their country, its history and its laws could fill massive libraries. So please, which part is "general knowledge"?

 

It's just more bashing of the USA, with the same stuff you could find in practically any modern country's history.

And that is the crux of the issue, the United States of America is unique (or at least it was before 9/11) in what is supposed to be enshrined and legally binding in its Constitution. (The Patriot Act changed that.) I could not find where I was "bashing" the US, I was writing about the things you say are "general knowledge."

 

 

In this case, I'm asking you. For the sake of conversation in this forum. Why blame the USA because people are fleeing their countries and the US government is just trying to enforce it's immigration laws? Or in this case, NOT enforcing its immigration laws, and US citizens getting angry about it?

I dunno, I am just guessing, BUT, if all those proud red, white, and blue American patriots (aka employers) who want really cheap, benefit-free labor, would stop employing the people who pick or pack the food you eat, would stop hiring the illegals who wash dishes in restaurants where you eat, who stopped hiring the illegal "nannies" to be the parents they cannot or will not be, and stopped hiring illegals for the millions of other such jobs;  if all those people would say "No Green Card, no job", the immigration might start to slow down. Watcha think Dude? Does that make sense? As an aside, but relevant, most Mexican people, according to a friend who lives there, believe the USA has a drug problem and that Mexico is just filling the need. No need, no drugs, no need, no jobs waiting for those "huddled masses."

 

Why do you blame the USA first, without a thought to criticizing the governments these people are fleeing from? I saw no criticism in your reply regarding any of these other countries. Only heaps of criticism of the USA.

Of course what I wrote above this was "have you asked your representative, your Senator, your President these questions? Some of them may be allies and the US would not want to step on the toes of an ally no matter how bad is their human rights record, would they?"

Please point out the "heaps of criticism"  andt where I "blame the USA first." Congress makes the laws, citizens are supposed to make sure they make good laws and follow the "will of the people" do they not? If you agree, then it would seem I gave you an appropriate answer. It is the Congress and the President who are supposed to criticize and do something about the countries where horrible things are happening to their people. Of course, their choices seem to be selective as I note in more detail below.

 

 

There. You criticize the USA again, as if even the problems driving people to the USA are also the fault of the USA. If the USA terminated diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, would they then mass-issue driver's licenses to all of the Saudi women?

What I wrote was "I believe you should ask those who fought and died in the Arab Spring, or Gezi Park, or the women in Saudi Arabia (a terroism exporter but a great US ally) who just want the right to drive a car, or any others who protest against oppressive regimes, why it is so difficult to "make their own country as great as the USA." 

My dear Dude, if the United States government decides to put pressure on an ally and does so with the vengeance it has the capability to produce, that ally is going to listen, at least a little bit. You wrote about "general knowledge" earlier, then I must presume you know about all the "regime changes" the USA has been involved in starting with the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 up to Iraq in 2003. They include, but are not limited to, the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American war, the 1953 coup which overthrew a legally elected government in Iran and put the Shah back on his gilded throne (direct line to the 1979 Embassy overthrow), 1954 Guatemala to support the "government" of United Fruit Company, the CIA-led overthrow of Allende in Chile in 1973, money-laundering using the Iran-Contra deal, and others too numerous to mention here. Go ahead, look them up, I can wait.

 

I am a disappointed idealist and I believe that the United States of America stands for freedom and liberty enshrined in its Constitution and that the USA is supposed to be the "good guys." Somewhere along the line, the USA stopped trying to be the "good guys" and that makes me sad. Posted Image

 

But let's get back to my original point.

Yes, what was it please? I made an honest attempt to address the things you mentioned in your OP,  and you now accuse me of USA bashing. So your point? Posted Image

Mr Jim Wright is the author of a blog called Stonekettle Station and I read his blog comments because they usually get to the heart of the matter about issues in the United States. I do not always agree with him but I seldom disagree with his main points. He is a deep thinker, not one of the witless lunatics like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin who have no ability to think at all. Mr Wright is also a "retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer." He is not some left-wing, foaming-at-the-mouth radical, nor is he a right-wing raving, gun-toting lunatic.

Coincidentally when I looked at his blog this morning, I found his latest commentary deals with immigration. The article is called Mother of Exiles

At the start of his article he quotes the entire poem by Emma Lazarus which is on the Statue of Liberty if anyone cares to read it all. He also says, and I quote

"Well, give me your tired and poor yearning to be free just so long as they’re from Ireland or Scotland or Germany. The Netherlands? Italy? We’ll take them. England’s okay too. Maybe Poland and Greece.  Even the stinky French. Why, we’ll even take the Russians. Sure what the heck, welcome to America! Come on in."

"Brown Spanish speaking children from where now? Central America? Whoa, not so fast."

"Hey, there’s a reason why the Statue of Liberty holds her lamp above New York Harbor and not the Texas border. Just saying."

Mr Wright thinks deep and critically and he, like me, is an unabashed patriot who believes that the Constitution of the US is a document symbolic for which the USA stands and not something that should be shredded by the Patriot Act.

He discusses this issue in another article called Essential Liberty in a Post-911 World

"In our blind fear and mindless panic and red-eyed rage, we passed laws that unleashed forces and removed certain constitutional safeguards without regard for the inevitable consequences."

If you like or dislike Mr Wright's comments, please let him know, he welcomes reasoned and thought-out disagreements, I am sure he would like to hear yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some excellent comments here. But my point has been lost. My point is this:

 

The USA has a right to enact its own immigration laws and enforce them, just like any other country. These laws should be respected, by everyone, just as we as aliens, living in Turkey (or whatever country we live in), should respect the laws of the country we live in.

 

That's my point.  Does anybody here disagree with that? If not, would you tell me why?

 

Please, don't reply with another list of past sins the US has committed or a list of what's wrong with the US today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Dude, when you decide to live in a foreign country you have to respect that country's system. Recently the Netherlands has been facing groups that want to impose Sharia Laws, I think they should go where has such a system and live there, not try to enter into another country and change things. .then again that's what the Colonials and missionaries did lol. Posted Image

 

When I went to Iran the flight attendants didn't let me off until my head and neck were properly covered. I abided and let them cover me, (I made quite the desert-rose so it was cool Posted Image ) When we go to other countries we have to abide by the laws etc so I agree with you, immigrants should do the same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww lol Posted Image  ... but you know when posed with a question, the answer can go either way; positive Posted Image or negative Posted Image

 

Next time you ask for an opinion, if the answer is negative, whould you rather I lie to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not! You seem to be a lady who says exactly what she thinks. I admire that trait. Even on those occasions when I disagree with what is being said!

 

I was just hoping to get some kind of baseline we could agree on before I reply to anything else. I'd like to see what Hobbit and some of the others say regarding my main point before I reply to some of the other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA has a right to enact its own immigration laws and enforce them, just like any other country. These laws should be respected, by everyone, just as we as aliens, living in Turkey (or whatever country we live in), should respect the laws of the country we live in.True dat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

YabanciGirl has a lot going for her that is true.  Posted Image

 

Dude, it seems you have mellowed a lot since your initial outburst of nattering negativism about the video which YabanciGirl posted. Posted Image
All is forgiven I suppose, perhaps you had a bad night, maybe someone even peed on your rug after dunking your head in a toilet? I doubt I would like that.

Or, perhaps you had a bit of a "fender-bender" because you dropped a joint between your legs while driving?

Maybe you put away too many white russians while writing an emotional response and it clouded your thoughts?

When you wrote that the historical items I posted were of "general knowledge" perhaps it is because you were literally living history of the early 60's scene, such as authoring the Port Huron Statement?

All is well I suppose, The Dude Abides, advice we could all learn from...

 

Dude, did you read Mr. Jim Wright's commentary on the immigration issue titled Mother of Exiles? If not, please take a careful read if it, I think, dunno, not sure, but I think it comments accurately about what the real immigration issues are in the United States of America, then, please do come back and ask your questions.

 

Dude, since your post #11 and again #16 is different from your comments and criticisms in #2, enlighten me please, what sort of "baseline," about what issue, do you want us to agree upon? (I may have had one too many white russians and have difficulty understanding) Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hobbit,

 

The USA has a right to enact its own immigration laws and enforce them, just like any other country. These laws should be respected, by everyone, just as we as aliens, living in Turkey (or whatever country we live in), should respect the laws of the country we live in.

 

That's my point.  Do you disagree with that? If not, would you tell me why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Dude, more white russians last night? Please, take a careful reading of your previous posts.  Posted Image 

 

Your original post #2 in reply to YabanciGirl was, "The big question should NOT be about how the USA deals with illegal immigrants. The big question should be about why these people, fleeing to the USA, cannot make their own country as great as the USA is." Those words seemed to be your point.

Nowhere in post #2 do you state as you do in post # 11 "my point has been lost. My point is this: The USA has a right to enact its own immigration laws and enforce them, just like any other country."  You seem to be the only one who has lost the point.  Posted Image

So it appears to me, I dunno, just guessing, that you you got educated a bit more than was comfortable about your comments in #2 and now you are telling us that you have a different "point" and want to change the focus of the OP.  Before you drink any more white russians, please make up your mind. Posted Image

 

The Dude writes: The USA has a right to enact its own immigration laws and enforce them...

Dude, it is an absurd comment, yeh, OK, it is true that any government body which is tasked with making laws can make any laws they want, whether it be the Nazi Reichstag, a Saudi King, a UK Parliament, or a US Congress. Does that make you happy? Is that what you would like to hear? I said earlier there are good laws and bad ones. No decent person should respect an obviously bad law such as some of the immigration laws of the past.  Posted Image

The US Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit Jewish children fleeing the Nazis. The French and also the British refused Jewish immigrants. The Nazis passed legal, court-supported immigration laws expelling German citizens who happened to be Jews from Germany (before they started the Final Solution), and, of course, their immigration laws banned Jews coming in also . Those were legal laws passed by their respective government law-making bodies.

Of course "your point" has little to do with the current issues of immigration.  The issue in the United States is that the "U.S. House Republican leadership decided not to bring an immigration reform bill to the House floor, putting the brakes on any near-term solutions." when it seems that Americans are crying out for some sort of immigration reform. The cowardly Congress copiously capitulated. Posted Image

 

I have made my points, clearly I believe, in response to every comment you made and have attempted to educate myself and other TC readers about the debates about immigration reform (actually polarization would be a better word than debate).  Posted Image 

 

Dude, you have obviously not read Mr Jim Wright's column, Mother of Exiles to which I linked earlier.

 

For a good overview of the issues and a reasoned and focused study and commentary on these issues pertaining to immigration in the United States see: In Focus: The Immigration Debate

KEY POINTS:
In the immigration debate, free marketers square off against cultural conservatives on the right side of the political spectrum; while on the left, civil rights and ethnic advocacy groups oppose environmentalists and job protectionists.

Until 1994 the debate over immigration focused on what the INS calls illegal aliens, particularly those slipping across the Mexican border, even though a larger number of undocumented residents arrived legally and overstayed their visas.

Immigrants, documented and undocumented, are also the targets of populist backlashes like California's Proposition 187, which bars undocumented immigrants from basic social services.

PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT U.S. POLICY:
Stricter border controls have proved unable to stem illegal immigration flows, leading instead to rising human rights abuses and victimization of border-crossers.

Immigration clearly contributes to a downward pressure on wage levels and to decreased job availability in certain economic sectors.

Many refugees fleeing repressive governments and violent political situations find themselves rejected by Washington.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS:
First on the list of reform should be the current definition of family unification a policy that leads to chain immigration and should be restricted to spouses and children followed closely by a drastic reduction in job skills-based immigration.

In humanitarian admissions, national preferences should be eliminated to admit everyone who can demonstrate that they are victims of individual persecution.

Labor advocates and policymakers should give serious consideration to the national worker identification card. Backed by rigorous enforcement of labor laws, such cards would deflate the political pressure for militarizing the Mexican border.

A NEW IMMIGRATION POLICY SHOULD DO THE FOLLOWING:
Stress ethical and humanitarian objectives by giving priority to refugees fleeing from persecution.

Streamline and restructure provisional work programs that open the U.S. to temporary workers who take jobs that U.S. residents don't want, while guaranteeing the basic rights of these workers to organize and receive worker benefits such as unemployment compensation.

Protect the most vulnerable economic sectors from an influx of low-wage competition.

Lower legal immigration flows to sustainable levels.

Protect the basic human rights of all U.S. residents, legal or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read Jim Wright's column. I would like to comment on it. But I would first like to establish what we agree on, before we explore what we disagree on.

 

So should I take your reply as a yes, or a no? Again, I am referring to this:

 

 

Hobbit,

 

The USA has a right to enact its own immigration laws and enforce them, just like any other country. These laws should be respected, by everyone, just as we as aliens, living in Turkey (or whatever country we live in), should respect the laws of the country we live in.

 

That's my point.  Do you disagree with that? If not, would you tell me why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE THE DUDE # 2 The big question should NOT be about how the USA deals with illegal immigrants.The big question should be about why these people, fleeing to the USA, cannot make their own country as great as the USA is.( still don't know how to lift a quote! Soz )I think the point the hobbit is trying to make is that your initial point was differen, the one in answer two, directly after the OPS commentt??!Don't mean to get embroiled in this, just thought I'd mention...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

But I would first like to establish what we agree on, before we explore what we disagree on.

 

So should I take your reply as a yes, or a no? Again, I am referring to this:

Dude, more white russians? Up late last nght were you? Seriously? I answered your question in my previous post, if you read it you would know.

 

I have "explored" the USA immigration issue previously in great detail, if you have something to say about it, then perhaps you could respond to my comments.  As academylin said, you changed your "point."

 

What the Tea Party doofuses, who are a gaggle of Christian Fundamentalists masquerading as Libertarians, want is to build a very high wall from the Pacific Ocean on the southern California border all the way to Brownsville, Texas at the southern tip of the state. Then they want to put together a large flotilla of Coast Guard ships all along the Pacific Ocean up to Canada and the Atlantic to Canada and issue orders to kill any living thing which tries to get over the wall or float through the flotila. Of course then there is the pesky issue of those damned Canadians aiding in border crossings and eventually another wall will have to be built. They also want to throw out all the undocumented (aka "illegal") immigrants. They also want a national ID card which goes against any pretense of freedom and liberty. If you support these lunatics, then you and I have nothing else to disucss and you are definitely not "The Dude" (aka Leibowski).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever, Hobbit.
 

It sounds like you think immigration laws of any country should be obeyed only because of the threat of punishment if one disobeys them, not because they are worthy of respect as the will of the citizens of that country. If that's what you are saying, I disagree.

 

I entered Turkey legally, and I live here legally. I try to be a good guest, like at somebody's house, entering through the front door after knocking and being invited in instead of climbing through a back window without my host's permission. To behave that way seems reasonable to me. To expect others to do the same also seems reasonable to me.

 

I think you and Jim Wright use a faulty premise which compares apples to oranges.

 

The premise first says that the circumstances in existence when European immigrants legally entered the USA in the 19th and early 20th century are the same as the circumstances which exist on the US southern border today. They are not the same.

 

Second, the premise doesn't differentiate between today's immigrants who enter the US legally, and those who enter the US illegally. There should be a differentiation between these two groups of people.

 

Jim Wright claims that immigrants (lumping both legal and illegal immigrants together) are being treated differently by the US government according to their skin color. But Wright provides no evidence to support that claim.

 

Hobbit, do you have any information showing that illegal immigrants are systematically treated differently, according to their skin color, by the US government?

 

Or for that matter, do you have any information showing that legal immigrants are systematically treated differently, according to their skin color, by the US government?

 

Let's compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...