The Statue Of Liberty; for immigrants

I see what you say, it just doesn't mean anything to me.

 

- try 1840s

Try 1840s

 

Why did the first Europeans come here? For their own damn self interests, they didnt come here to help the Indians. Europe was becoming overpopulated so they began migrating to America, yes some in England were escaping religious persecution but that was mostly just protestants, the rest of the immigrants mostly came here for a job, SAME reason Mexicans are coming here, for a better life, why is it fine for white Europeans to come do this but when brown people try it all of the sudden they dont love America and are only here for selfish interests blah blah blah, its blatant racism I have absolutely no doubt about it.

 

Why would I try the 1840's? Asians could not naturalize and were treated worse then freemen (blacks) back then. The 1790 and 1870 INA's denied Asians the ability to Naturalize, the Burlingame Treaty 1868 also denied them. So what was so special in 1840 that you think granted Asians the ability to Naturalize?

 

I bet.

You're kind of making my point.. If the modern day americans are like the indians, and the modern day immigrants are like the europeans, why should we assume they're all good and want to be americans? As I've said, they're self-interested like anyone else. They're most likely not making that journey in order to make huge sacrifices to america and contribute and lalala the usa is great. And that's even more and especially true of those who do it the illegal way. I mean, do you honestly believe those people come to the usa because their primary goal is to contribute to the USA? I know you're a commie, but please let there be a reasonable limit to the naivite here.

 

Think of the situation in Dubhai for a second, if we help those people topple that dictator, rather than support the dictator the way we have been doing, those people rioting are not going to turn against us once they take power, they will be on our side. If we DONT help them and continue to support their dictator, than they have already said openly they will be hostile towards us, and rightfully so. Point being, if we tell immigrants to (*)(*)(*)(*) off we dont want them here than they are going to hold that against us and wont want to help, even if they come here illegally. If we DO help them, than surely they will repay us in kind, I have absolutely no doubt about that. The French for the most part were friendly with the Indians, so the Indians were friendly with them. The British however were not friendly towards them, so of course the Indians were not friendly back, its just the way the world works man. Its the Golden Rule, treat people how you would like to be treated. We should treat these people as human beings rather than "illegals", and they will treat us the same.

 

You really don't know how to make comparisons do you? Looks like you really don''t know much about history either.

 

If your point is moot to begin with, then it's not going to be less moot later on.

 

They are treated as illegals because they break the laws. And we tell them to (*)(*)(*)(*) off because they broke our laws. We're not talking about immigrants. We are talking about illegal immigrants. Breaking laws probably isn't a very big deal to you though. You perhaps don't even make an subconscious difference between legal and illegal immigrants. If this was about being friendly, the illegal immigrants started a potential relationship wonderfully graciously by breaking the law the first thing they do. That's really friendly towards your to-be host country. not.

 

Ah, so following that logic that you cant brake laws no matter what, slave rebellions were bad because they broke the law?

When did the party of freedom all of the sudden become the party of tyranny? Oh right, because they hide behind the flag and the cross and use freedom as tool for their propaganda.

View attachment 31652

 

Well, I am all for immigration....

But all of that was out in place before all of these safety nets were put in place.

Each immigrant that we naturalize that isn't working will cost quite a bit.

Just food for thought, things are much different from 1920. I don't think the two are directly comparable.

 

According that logic, we might as well throw away the entire law book as all laws are just oppressing metaphorical slaves.

I'm not american nor a republican. The GOP is the party of law and order, a classic conservative position. Laws are not tyranny, they are the safeguard against barbarity. Laws guarantee freedoms because they uphold order instead of chaos, and no practical freedom exists in chaos. Look at how you're now arguing against the rule of law. What are you, an anarchist?

 

Laws that go against human rights can be broken, in that sense I am indeed an Anarchist. Really, I am an internationalist and we believe in international human rights that are for all humans across the world it doesnt matter what the government says, you have the right to protest and if they fight you for it you have the right to fight back, those are human rights no matter if you are under a dictatorship or a democracy, they are international. Laws that go against international human rights should not be followed and they should actively be fought against.

 

I agree with that, that there are universal human rights. But who said there's a right to move where you want even if the country you're moving to doesn't want you there? To live in whatever country you want to, is not a universal human right. Nations are sovereign, and part of their sovereignity is that they have the right to determine who will be allowed into their country. Comparing this with slavery is just ridiculous.

 

Except we are the direct cause of this migration to our country, we created the drug war and exert our extremely powerful influence to all the nations around us, especially Mexico, and that influence includes our drug war. For a man of freedom, why are you against the free movement of human beings? Tyranny!!! I call Tyranny!!!

 

As I've said, I'm a practical man and as such I do not support freedom for the sake of it and especially not when it would be harmful. Total free movement of people is such an example. You cannot hold freedom to be categorically more important than everything else. That's irresposible, naive and simplistic. There are many things other than just freedom to take into consideration.

Yes, the drug war actually does lead to hell in mexico and latin america, and is probably fueling migration to the US. But the answer to that is to stop the drug war, and help latin america recover.

 

Ill keep that in mind next time you or someone else tries to say we shouldnt regulate carbon emissions

I agree here of course

 

Carbon emissions should of course be regulated. Seems we are in agreement. What went wrong?

 

Yeah Swedish right wingers are different than ours....Right wingers here are against just about any type of regulation, especially when it comes to energy.

 

If we are ALL slaves we have then achieved a condition close to income equality, as you desire.