Hey Socialist liberals...want 'immigrants'? Ya got em!

[ChristineM]

You maintain that this is a true statement?

I maintain there are just over 5 million native Americans, you do the maths.

And i thought you had said bye bye... Let me check... Yes post #93, was that a false statement?

 

[ChristineM]

Not really.



Not it wasn't as you do not know what immigrant is. People born in the US are not immigrants by law. People that are descendants of immigrants are not immigrants as the status isn't hereditary. Your dictionary definition proved my point. Try again. Maybe read next time. Hilarious

I am not the only one pointing this out.

I have provided the dictionary definition which matches my statement. You have provided incredulity

You stated meant migrants. I didnt

And others have agreed. Where do we go from here

 

[Shad]

Yes, a country of immigrants that fears immigrants, go figure, not to mention social programs such as tax money going to universal health care, oh no we can't have that.

Immigration changed due to the wealthfare state.

 

[Shad]

I have provided the dictionary definition which matches my statement. You have provided incredulity

Which refuted your point. An immigrant is a person born in one nation-state moving to another for citizenship. People born in the destination state are not immigrants by definition. Again a fine demonstration you can barely read

You stated meant migrants. I didnt

You said immigrants which was wrong. I pointed out many are migrants as per the settlers as they didn't immigrant to some tribal confederacy.

And others have agreed. Where do we go from here

Other people have poor reading skills like you do. You just couldn't admit you didn't work your comment correctly until pushed to do so by me. Gold star for you.

Definition of IMMIGRANT

a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Which refuted your point. An immigrant is a person born in one nation-state moving to another for citizenship. People born in the destination state are not immigrants by definition. Again a fine demonstration you can barely read



You said immigrants which was wrong. I pointed out many are migrants as per the settlers as they didn't immigrant to some tribal confederacy.



Other people have poor reading skills like you do. You just couldn't admit you didn't work your comment correctly until push to do so by me. Gold star for you.

Definition of IMMIGRANT

a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

It most certainly didnt refute my point

You pointed out? No you insisted i meant migrants

Some people have poor cognitive skills like you do. See where this goes?

 

[Shad]

It most certainly didnt refute my point

It did completely as per the comment not the intention in your head.

You pointed out? No you insisted i meant migrants

Nope. First I pointed out your stat was BS. I later pointed out you didn't know what the words you use mean. Someone else pointed out settlers and colonization. I pointed out as those people didn't become citizens of some tribal confederacy ergo are not immigrants. More so the one reference made to support it declared out right in the first sentence who the settlers were loyal to. It was King James of England.... Those people would be migrants

Some people have poor cognitive skills like you do. See where this goes?

It goes some where you can figure out words have a certain definition not merely what you want it to mean.

 

[Watchmen]

I maintain there are just over 5 million native Americans, you do the maths.

And i thought you had said bye bye... Let me check... Yes post #93, was that a false statement?

Bye bye to your credibility. Not the discussion. Do you maintain 98+% of people in the U.S. are immigrants?

 

[Shad]

Bye bye to your credibility. Not the discussion. Do you maintain 98+% of people in the U.S. are immigrants?

She clarified but wont admit the mistake.

 

[Watchmen]

She clarified but wont admit the mistake.

And therein lies one of the major problems in political discourse on BOTH sides. It would be so much better if she admitted she was wrong and restated her position correctly rather than playing word games, moving the goal posts and digging in.

 

[ChristineM]

It did completely as per the comment not the intention in your head.



Nope. First I pointed out your stat was BS. I later pointed out you didn't know what the words you use mean. Someone else pointed out settlers and colonization. I pointed out as those people didn't become citizens of some tribal confederacy ergo are not immigrants. More so the one reference made to support it declared out right in the first sentence who the settlers were loyal to. It was King James of England.... Those people would be migrants



It goes some where you can figure out words have a certain definition not merely what you want it to mean.

You think clairvoyance makes you better? You have no compression what goes on in my head so dont pretend you do.

My stat was accurate, you stated it wasnt but gave no evidence to back up your claim

Those people left there home land (emigrated) to another country to become immigrants in that county. Who was boss is irrelevant

 

[ChristineM]

Bye bye to your credibility. Not the discussion. Do you maintain 98+% of people in the U.S. are immigrants?

I have explained this to you 3 times now. What makes you think it will change

 

[Shad]

And therein lies one of the major problems in political discourse on BOTH sides. It would be so much better if she admitted she was wrong and restated her position correctly rather than playing word games, moving the goal posts and digging in.

A large problem is the disconnect between what nation-state offer to citizens now compared to the past. There was no massive welfare state during settlement or early US history. Now there is. Ergo a failed immigrant in the past relied upon their community not the Fed. Now a failed immigrant could live of the Fed for the rest of their life.

 

[ChristineM]

And therein lies one of the major problems in political discourse on BOTH sides. It would be so much better if she admitted she was wrong and restated her position correctly rather than playing word games, moving the goal posts and digging in.

I have restated/clarified my position several times, not my problem if you continue to deny it

 

[Watchmen]

I have restated/clarified my position several times, not my problem if you continue to deny it

You haven’t admitted or acknowledged your mistake/misrepresentation.

 

[Shad]

You think clairvoyance makes you better?

I have no such power.

You have no compression what goes on in my head so dont pretend you do.

Wrong. You attempted to state something about the US population that you didn't work correctly. It is easy to figure out. The fact you think a super power is required you, nothing more.

My stat was accurate, you stated it wasnt but gave no evidence to back up your claim

No it wasn't as you didn't know what immigrant means. I do not need to show a stat when your own dictionary citation refuted your point.

Those people left there home land (emigrated) to another country to become immigrants in that county. Who was boss is irrelevant

Settlers didn't become citizens of some tribal nation. Again another demonstration you have no idea what some words actually mean.

You obviously do not know what a colony is. Colonies were not under the authority of some tribe but of European nation-states. Try again.

Actually it matter who is in change as that establishes sovereignty of a nation state. I could claim Japan runs Canada but the fact is it doesn't. Nor does my statement make me a Japanese citizens. Try again.

 

[Watchmen]

A large problem is the disconnect between what nation-state offer to citizens now compared to the past. There was no massive welfare state during settlement or early US history. Now there is. Ergo a failed immigrant in the past relied upon their community not the Fed. Now a failed immigrant could live of the Fed for the rest of their life.

The immigration argument is weak. A bucket can only hold so much water. If you leave the faucet on it will overflow. What’s wrong with turning off the faucet when the bucket is near or at capacity? Keep in mind I’m not necessarily talking physical numbers, but the economic impact. There’s only so much to go around. Shouldn’t we take care of our own first before letting more in? What does the Left find so outrageous about that?

 

[Shad]

The immigration argument is weak. A bucket can only hold so much water. If you leave the faucet on it will overflow. What’s wrong with turning off the faucet when the bucket is near or at capacity? Keep in mind I’m not necessarily talking physical numbers, but the economic impact. There’s only so much to go around. Shouldn’t we take care of our own first before letting more in? What does the Left find so outrageous about that?

Keep in mind I am in Canada. We have immigration laws Trump dreams of. The low class is barred outright beside via sponsorship. (sponsorship places all financial costs on the sponsor not the government) Immigrants are required to have a massive amount of savings in order to pay their own way as immigrants are barred from some social programs completely and up to 5 years after citizenship. Government does not bail out failed immigrants, they get deported. Government does not accept people with just the shirts on their backs.

The general idea here is an immigrant must benefit Canada. Not maybe, could, perhaps, in 10 years, their children, etc, etc. This is an ironic point as nations such as Canada are often used as examples by such liberals. Yet they do not know why Canada has become such an example. They only see the results not the methods. For example the standard of living is high as we do not import the poor which would reduce the standard of living if we did. Which is a problem in the US.

 

[Watchmen]

Keep in mind I am in Canada. We have immigration laws Trump dreams of. The low class is barred outright beside via sponsorship. Immigrants are required to have a massive amount of savings in order to pay their own way as immigrants are barred from some social programs completely and up to 5 years after citizenship. Government does not bail out failed immigrants, they get deported.

How insensitive and outrageous of your country!

 

[ChristineM]

You haven’t admitted or acknowledged your mistake/misrepresentation.

Is i said previously, i do not believe it was a mistake, and asked you to check out the maths, it seems you didnt

 

[ChristineM]

I have no such power.



Wrong. You attempted to state something about the US population that you didn't work correctly. It is easy to figure out. The fact you think a super power is required you, nothing more.



No it wasn't as you didn't know what immigrant means. I do not need to show a stat when your own dictionary citation refuted your point.



Settlers didn't become citizens of some tribal nation. Again another demonstration you have no idea what some words actually mean.

You obviously do not know what a colony is. Colonies were not under the authority of some tribe but of European nation-states. Try again.

Actually it matter who is in change as that establishes sovereignty of a nation state. I could claim Japan runs Canada but the fact is it doesn't. Nor does my statement make me a Japanese citizens. Try again.

You make claims that you know what is going on in my head, what power do you want to call it?

I provided my figures, no superpower needed

I am not going round and round in circles with you tellingme what i know and dont know.

Then you cant refute my figures, fair enough

I am done with your ignorant insults.