Anti-immigrant rhetoric

[anotherneil]

Yeah, but in this debate it is not a given that even what you perceive to be the correct answer solves anything as in the end, it is not just facts.

Further since you understand debate you know that any question about the world is based on assumptions that end up in a worldview of in part values. So sometimes an answer is different that what you demand, because of another set of values.
And I am not even going to consider cognitive relativism for what truth really is as relevant for this debate. But values still are.

So for your example there is a 3rd option. The car is build to change color, that is expensive but possible. So the notion of the car being green or not is not that simple, because the assumption is that the car wasn't built to change color.
So yes, I can also be skeptical.

So if you want to ask me the question and you can get one of at least 3 answers.

As a witness, you state the facts, not speculation, assumptions, or world views; such a fact provided by witnesses about the color of a car would be provided in the past tense: it was green. If it was only green when a witness saw it, then they should only state that it was green. If it had an alternating pattern of changing between green and yellow every second, then the obligation on the part of the witness to state that it was alternating between green and yellow every second. If the witness saw nothing but a green car, then it's not their obligation or business to say anything other than that it was green. It's the investigator's responsibility to determine if it's a plain ordinary paint coating of green, something that can change color, or something that looks like different colors from different angles or different lighting conditions. These are actually things that can and do occur, and investigators and lawyers are well aware of them.

The question at issue was whether there was more than one case, civil or criminal. The correct way to answer this question is with a yes or no. In some cases the person being asked can say that they don't know, but in this case I was asking someone who portrayed themselves as in the know about the issue.

 

[Tomef]

Do you have a source for this?

Yes, the idea arose out of Operation Streamline, an umbrella approach intended to deter immigration to the US from Central America. This is from the official statement of the DHS when first considering family separations:

“The journey north is a dangerous one with too many situations where children — brought by parents, relatives or smugglers — are often exploited abused or may even lose their lives. With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey.”

Trump's comment on this was:

“When people come up, they have to know they can’t get in, otherwise it’s never going to stop,”

Tom Homan's offered this:

“Most parents don’t want to be separated, I’d be lying to you if I didn’t think that would have an effect.”

The crap about it being intended to stop child trafficking emerged later (the policy itself was implemented before actually being announced as official policy) in the usual way to convince the gullible and ignorant.

There are several detailed breakdowns I can link to, but I imagine you would't read them.

I suspect that what it actually states is something to the effect that parents are adviced not to try to cross the US border with their children without proper documentation.

Suspect based on what?

 

[anotherneil]

Yeah, you might get an answer for that or you might have to look it up. Do you want me to do it for you?

Do whatever you please.

 

[anotherneil]

Yes, the idea arose out of Operation Streamline, an umbrella approach intended to deter immigration to the US from Central America. This is from the official statement of the DHS when first considering family separations:

“The journey north is a dangerous one with too many situations where children — brought by parents, relatives or smugglers — are often exploited abused or may even lose their lives. With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey.”

Trump's comment on this was:

“When people come up, they have to know they can’t get in, otherwise it’s never going to stop,”

Tom Homan's offered this:

“Most parents don’t want to be separated, I’d be lying to you if I didn’t think that would have an effect.”

The crap about it being intended to stop child trafficking emerged later (the policy itself was implemented before actually being announced as official policy) in the usual way to convince the gullible and ignorant.

There are several detailed breakdowns I can link to, but I imagine you would't read them.

By sources I mean references, as in hyperlinks, titles of documents, titles of books, titles of documentaries, etc.

Suspect based on what?

Based on being plausible and making sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do whatever you please.

"What’s the difference between legal and undocumented immigrants?
Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted."

What’s the difference between legal and undocumented immigrants? | DSHS

Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their...

www.dshs.wa.gov

 

[Tomef]

Well I'm skeptical of your sources, particularly because, as I said before - why are they referred to as "undocumented immigrants" if they actually have documentation?

What specifically are you referring to?

As in many other scenarios, customs officials use interviews, story verification and other methods to determine the truth or otherwise of someone's claims. As in the govt document I sent you a link to earlier, groups claiming to be families are separated into family units - those verified to some agent's satisfaction - and false family units - those not.

Again, you are trying to weasel out of dealing with the realities of the situation on some imagined technicality.

 

[Tomef]

Based on being plausible and making sense.

Plausible according to what? Making sense to who?

Your vague feelings and tropes absorbed from the TV are not reliable measures of reality.

 

[Tomef]

By sources I mean references, as in hyperlinks, titles of documents, titles of books, titles of documentaries, etc.


Based on being plausible and making sense.

You can use this as a starting point, and check the points made very easily by using the internet: An American Catastrophe

If you think anything is 'fake', point out exactly what and why you think it is fake.

 

[Pogo]

How many times do I need to answer this question? It's not that there's a claim that the adult is not the parent of the child, it's that this fact is unknown.

You keep asking something to the effect, "Is it yes or no?"
And I have to keep saying that the answer is that we do not know whether the answer is yes or no.

Do you live your life by guessing at answers that you do not yet know?


Do you have a source for this? I suspect that what it actually states is something to the effect that parents are adviced not to try to cross the US border with their children without proper documentation.


It seems like you're trying to preclude the possibility that an adult with a child is in fact not the parent. You're the one with something wrong if you can't understand that it is not impossible for an adult illegally crossing the border with a child to not to be the parent of that child.

If the issue is that they're separated for too long and there's no tracking process, then those specific issues are what need to be fixed, but an easier solution would be to build that wall.


That's fine I'll take your word for it (at least for now, anyways); same thing as before - if this specific problem is what needs to be fixed, then focus on a solution for this specific problem (and at this point I won't repeat the solution having something to do with a wall).


If the problem is that there is verification that the adult is indeed the parent of the child, and they continue to be kept separated, then that's a specific problem that can be fixed.

At this point I'll mention one more time that these problems can be prevented or at least mitigated to a manageable level by installing that wall.

Why do you think that trafficking is sending children without their parents to the US? This is just absurd, Yes, families pay to get themselves as a unit to the US, but as a unit.
Trafficking for sex or other purposes is not done in family units, but in groups of saleable individuals and they are hidden in trucks etc. and pass through border checkpoints.

 

[Father Heathen]

The only people who have the right to complain about immigrants are Native Americans.

 

[Altfish]

Not to mention Corey Comperatore, a firefighter that died because of the anti-Trump hatred spread by the Left.
A hatred destroying the young generations.

Wasn't the gunman a Republican?

 

[Estro Felino]

Wasn't the gunman a Republican?

Source?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What do people think about the ideas expressed here, by leading anti-immigration politicians (directed mainly at Italian and Irish immigrants)? In what way do the ideas expressed here differ from the current rhetoric of characters like Trump?

Excerpt from "Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States":​

"The most important act in the great drama of annihilating this Republic, is now performing. Foreigners are the principal actors; but, we must not deceive ourselves, there are native citizens also enlisted in the unholy work. In the mysterious movements of the political elements, it is our duty to be watchful. Our soil is already invaded, our homes are already polluted, the enemies of our liberties are already in the midst of us....They have their establishments, their schools, and their press; they are quietly, but effectually, moulding public sentiment in conformity to the views of their leaders. Under the specious pretext of charity, their wily emissaries are already at work to secure the confidence of the unsuspecting."


"They are cutthroats, murderers, and a pestilence to our great American city."
This sentiment was widespread, and Italians were often depicted as inherently criminal and associated with the Mafia.

"Irish papists will burn down our homes and our churches unless we drive them from our shores."

"The scum of the earth has found a haven in our land. Italians… are here to drain the blood of the American Republic."

Sorry, haven't read the thread except for the first page...but the first thing I note...and I don't know if anyone else did...that this quote is (quoting Encyclopedia.com):

"Morse launched several public attacks on Roman Catholicism, including the publication in 1835 of Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States, a treatise warning Americans against the political influence of Roman Catholicism. Foreign Conspiracy ranks among the most virulent and paranoid of a flurry of anti-Catholic documents published during the antebellum period.

Clearly, the same rhetoric gets recycled for going on two centuries now...

 

[anna.]

Wasn't the gunman a Republican?

Yep.

 

[Spice]

Legal immigrants will go to a place of legal entry and show their paperwork. They will come in at 100% rate because they have been invited. The illegal immigrant looks for a place to sneak in since they have no paperwork and have not been vetted.

I'm sorry, but you make the process sound so simple and straightforward, but it is not, and that is one of the problems. BTW, when they reach a place of legal entry, that is when and where asylum seekers apply for paperwork. When they "sneak across," in most cases, it is to be caught and taken to the head of the line to apply for paperwork. They must be on U.S. soil to apply for asylum.

Those that come to legal entry points with paperwork in hand are visitors, not immigrants, and sometimes even those "pre-approved" are turned back. And yes, sometimes they sneak in because they have a job waiting and no more money to pay to the lawyers to get their visas fixed.

It is a crazy, complicated system and needs honest appraisal and overall.

 

[Pogo]

Well I'm skeptical of your sources, particularly because, as I said before - why are they referred to as "undocumented immigrants" if they actually have documentation?

Documents refer to visas and green cards and the like that are the "legal" documents for foreigners,

Undocumented immigrants, or undocumented aliens, often lack several key documents that are typically required for legal residency or citizenship. These documents include:

1. Visa: A legal authorization for entry into a country for a specific purpose and duration.
2. Work Permit: Authorization to work legally in a country.
3. Green Card: Also known as a Permanent Resident Card, which allows immigrants to live and work permanently in a country.
4. Social Security Number (SSN): Issued for tax and employment purposes in countries like the United States.
5. National Identification Card: Some countries require a national ID for various legal and administrative purposes.
6. Driver’s License: While some regions allow undocumented individuals to obtain a driver’s license, many do not.
7. Proof of Legal Entry: Documentation proving lawful entry into the country, such as an entry stamp or I-94 form (in the U.S.).
8. Residency Documentation: Papers showing legal residence status or change of status.

People who are in the process of applying for asylum after crossing the border only have their court papers which are not on this list.
However, so long as they are not in violation of their court status, they are not subject to deportation though they can't legally work in the US.
The reason there are so many is that it can take years to process the claims due to lack of courts/personel etc.

The situation is that a family from Venezuela or wherever is in fear for their lives from gangs or something so they get to the US border where they can apply for asylum, they turn themselves in and wait for their claims to be processed.

These are not the bogeymen that Trump pretends are "poisoning our people", they are the modern equivalent of the refugees from the potato famine.
If they have a criminal record at home, the US just calls their home country and they are not allowed to go further. Is the system perfect, no, but it is not this catastrophe that Trump is telling everyone.

You have been suckered by Trump into believing a whole bunch of nonsense about the migrants crossing the border.

 

[anna.]

Sorry, haven't read the thread except for the first page...but the first thing I note...and I don't know if anyone else did...that this quote is (quoting Encyclopedia.com):

"Morse launched several public attacks on Roman Catholicism, including the publication in 1835 of Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States, a treatise warning Americans against the political influence of Roman Catholicism. Foreign Conspiracy ranks among the most virulent and paranoid of a flurry of anti-Catholic documents published during the antebellum period.

Clearly, the same rhetoric gets recycled for going on two centuries now...

One of the more well-known nativist cartoons:

 

[Altfish]

Source?

FBI: Trump gunman acted alone, but motive still unknown - BBC News

Authorities said that Thomas Crooks - the shooter - appears to have viewed the Trump rally as a "target of opportunity".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Estro Felino]

FBI: Trump gunman acted alone, but motive still unknown - BBC News

Authorities said that Thomas Crooks - the shooter - appears to have viewed the Trump rally as a "target of opportunity".

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting.
Then the theory according to which a powerful rightist élite hired him to get rid of Trump is much more credible, thanks to your article.

Are you sure you want to abandon the "lone wolf theory"? It would save those élites' derrière.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting.
Then the theory according to which a powerful rightist élite hired him to get rid of Trump is much more credible, thanks to your article.

Are you sure you want to abandon the "lone wolf theory"? It would save those élites' derrière.

What are you on about? Nothing in the article supports your view?!!