Anti-immigrant rhetoric

[anotherneil]

I'm not sure if you're avoiding the question of if you just don't get it - separating children from their parents. That is the point you responded to, in each of the posts, mine and another, you responded to.

It's children being separated from adults. If you want to claim that the adults are the parents of the children that they're bringing with them, then you need to back it up. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Here's a simple way of resolving this problem: build the wall, guard that wall, and make anyone who wants to enter the country go through the proper legal channels with necessary documentation; parents who do this don't get separated from their children.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I have to ask the question, does this collection of women, children and families look like a jail population or a mental asylum population to you?

I don't think they do. I don't generalize immigrants as being bad, plenty are good workers who don't want to cause trouble. But if they come from a place with unfortunate political tension, then it might create anti-social groups within the population. And also, I kind of think that maybe some of the bad apples aren't going to always want to cross with groups of families, though one can imagine them being in the midst of better people, who might feel intimidated into being quiet around them

Secondly though, I think the concept of immigration also conflicts with something about modernity. I'm not sure, what with automation and the rise of what they are calling AI, if there are really that many more jobs to fill anymore. And also, with 8 billion people on the planet, I think we are running out of space. But since I think the Amazon rainforest is imporant and worth saving, if people need to come here in order not to chop it down to create industrial plant and suburbs, then fine. Though I think we should probably have a period on earth where all families only have 1 child each, so we can gradually get the world population down to half a billion, without war or strife

We need to see some evidence of this actually occurring under the circumstances you are positing

well, what do you make of senator Josh Hawley talking to Mayorkas about the issues surrounding missing immigrants? You can youtube search for that. You gave me a link the other day to this graph thing to help decide what news networks are trustworthy. But that's just talking about what's on the news. You can also watch politicians and government officials disagree with each other directly. But a clear answer doesn't appear to me by doing this either - it can just look like people disagreeing, in the same way anyone else would. Only I assume that they have more information or knowledge about issues than do media broadcasters

 

[anotherneil]

No, you didn't. This is what baffles me about Trumpers, the idea that simply posting some vid constitutes making a point.

Re. the article in The Atlantic you posted, what is it, specifically, that you think is misrepresentative, and why. Be specific. Argue your point, properly, so it can be responded to.

Yes, I did, and it answers your question - right here: Anti-immigrant rhetoric

"Is it a video clip edited to portray a false narrative about Trump just like the edited video clip of him talking about the Charlottesville incident painted a false narrative about Trump?"

 

[anotherneil]

Are you implying that that much of a backlog would not have been seen under Trump? LOL
Whether under Trump or Biden, this is an example of the number of people that have to be dealt with according to US law. Or you could take the position that these people would have been that much farther into the US under trump. There is way more to it than your simplistic arguments for a wall.

Biden's the one who invited them to surge the border. Don't trust me, listen to it for yourself right from his own mouth:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Biden's the one who invited them to surge the border. Don't trust me, listen to it for yourself right from his own mouth:

I would like for you to find the full clip if relevant and check if it is not edited and so on. That is your standard so it also applies to you. You can't trust media as per your own claim for not being edited and so on. So have you checked?

 

[anotherneil]

This is exactly what you are doing. Make your case for why you believe CNN to be discredited without using vague assertions, random beliefs, selective information and unsupported claims.

This thread isn't about me, and what's in it for me to fulfill your task? How much will you pay me for this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This thread isn't about me, and what's in it for me to fulfill your task? How much will you pay me for this?

No, but it is in part about your standards for trusting and not trusting media and unless you can explain how you are special that also apply to you.

 

[anotherneil]

Nope. You claimed Trump's sexual predation is down to one court case.

I'm only aware of one court case, and it was a civil court case, not a criminal court case; is it more than one - civil or criminal?

 

[Pogo]

Biden's the one who invited them to surge the border. Don't trust me, listen to it for yourself right from his own mouth:

Ever seen the green lady, I very much suspect that your ancestors understood the same statement from her. Some reason that she is no longer to be honored?

 

[anotherneil]

Yeah, you avoid answering:


I asked if for your case as presented is so for all adults with children as relevant for your example?

Oh, I think I understand your question, now. I wasn't getting the context; by cases, you mean each case of an adult with a child, correct? I thought you maybe meant something like cases of adults with children who don't have any documentation to prove that they're their parents, adults with documentation that proves that they're the parents of the children with them, etc. I wasn't sure what you meant in the context of those types of cases.

That isn't me avoiding answering, that's me unable to answer the question because I couldn't since I didn't understand the question. I myself try not to judge people the way you're judging me, here.

To answer your question, I would expect and imagine that in every case, they are screening them to determine whether the adults are indeed the parents of the children that are with them. This begs a question, though; if these are "undocumented immigrants" that are illegally entering the country, and they have documentation, then why would they be referred to as undocumented immigrants?

 

[anotherneil]

No, I am pointing out that Trump is conflating many problems to make it seem if they are related and demonizing all of them for the problems of a few.

No, you are just claiming that Trump is doing this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

To answer your question, I would expect and imagine that in every case, they are screening them to determine whether the adults are indeed the parents of the children that are with them. This begs a question, though; if these are "undocumented immigrants" that are illegally entering the country, and they have documentation, then why would they be referred to as undocumented immigrants?

They can't prove that they are the parents if the USA don't accept their home country documentation.

Now please compare the price of the current system with the price of your wall with all and answer who is going to pay of it in both cases?

 

[anotherneil]

Please give a breakdown of how illegal immigrants enter and the price of building the wall versus DNA-testing. Further include the price of maintaining the wall and checking no tunnels are built under it.
If you want to include costs, do it for all of what is in play.

I'm willing to take a crack at this, but not for free; how much will you pay me for this task?

You're the one who brought up DNA tests, not me; I was just responding to it.

Do you think that DNA testing is the only expense that taxpayers have to deal with? Does it not occur to you that there are countless other expenses involved with facilities, maintenance and energy for those facilities, food, water, clothing, diapers, caretaker resources, healthcare workers, etc. That's just for dealing with the processing of all of these individuals; for example there's also the use by those who snuck in without being caught of healthcare facilities (emergency rooms, etc.), and taxpayers having to foot the bill for that. Building the wall isn't only about that or the cost of a DNA test, it's about illegal aliens entering the country and taking jobs from Americans - what's the expense on Americans for this & do you even know how to calculate this expense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm willing to take a crack at this, but not for free; how much will you pay me for this task?

You're the one who brought up DNA tests, not me; I was just responding to it.

Do you think that DNA testing is the only expense that taxpayers have to deal with? Does it not occur to you that there are countless other expenses involved with facilities, maintenance and energy for those facilities, food, water, clothing, diapers, caretaker resources, healthcare workers, etc. That's just for dealing with the processing of all of these individuals; for example there's also the use by those who snuck in without being caught of healthcare facilities (emergency rooms, etc.), and taxpayers having to foot the bill for that. Building the wall isn't only about that or the cost of a DNA test, it's about illegal aliens entering the country and taking jobs from Americans - what's the expense on Americans for this & do you even know how to calculate this expense?

Well, you brought up the cost. Further building the wall is not certain to solve the question? That is why I asked you about statistics of how illegals enter the country?

As for taking jobs, it seems that there is enough employers willing to hire illegals, so you might want to start there.

 

[Tomef]

I'm only aware of one court case, and it was a civil court case, not a criminal court case; is it more than one - civil or criminal?

His own admission of barging into the changing rooms at miss teen American contestants, their complaints, his own admission of sexually assaulting women, some of which presumably was consensual, some of it, according to the women so assaulted, was not. Trump’s complete lack of credibility as an extraordinarily prolific liar compared to multiple accusations from people without that same record. His previously close relationship with known sex offenders, comments from former colleagues, wives and family members.

 

[anotherneil]

So you somewhat trust media. That is the same with me. Glad we agree. I consider this sub-thread done.

I don't; you're still showing that you're either ignoring what I wrote or don't understand it for some reason.

What is there to trust regarding what Trump said if it's a video that actually shows him speaking for himself? I'm not asking you if you trust or don't trust what Donald Trump himself said.

 

[Tomef]

This thread isn't about me, and what's in it for me to fulfill your task? How much will you pay me for this?

Don’t you think you should be able to credibly explain your POV?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes. The question is, in what way, if any, is this different from the rhetoric pushed by Trump (etc) today.

It isn't. The U.S., a nation of immigrants who pushed the original inhabits aside and under, goes through this sort of thing periodically. Perhaps it's an underlying sense of guilt for what the original European immigrants did to the aboriginal peoples of the continent (Canada shares in this), commingled with fear that somebody else might do it to them.

Whatever the underlying cause (and I imagine it to be just another case of crowds being lathered up by a few power-seeking zealots), the history of the world does seem to suggest tha,t except for some very remote places like the Sentinel Islands, you cannot stop the migrations of humans. Perhaps, now that the world is so very small, and travel so easy, we'll figure that out one day.

 

[Tomef]

The burden of proof is on you, not me

You’re claiming those adults are not their parents, hence you create a burden of proof to demonstrate why you think so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't know of any groups targeted by Trump (although I haven't read all his speeches). But among the general hoi polloi, one might hear rhetoric about "Mexicans pouring over the border" and things like that. 9/11 also prompted many Americans to target Muslims as a potential threat and have wanted to limit their immigration on that basis. In fact, I recall Trump received a lot of criticism over what many perceived as a ban on Muslim immigration.

Oh, Trump has made his bigotry pretty obvious -- just remember his jabber about "****-hole" countries, and why can't we get Norwegians, instead. (Norwegians, you may recall, are pretty much solidly white.)