Trump refers to immigrants from Haiti and Africa as being from s***hole countries.

#477
#477
The major accomplishment here is that Trump completely nuked any chance of this bull**** “compromise” from moving forward. Doesn’t matter how far some republicans are willing to bend over to Dems for, Dems will never sign on to anything that touches this now. So DACA will expire and candidates can campaign on the issue in the midterm elections
 
#478
#478
#479
#479
allvol123 said:
How in the Hell would Europe compare, they already had established themselves.

We are not talking about becoming a shihole, we are talking about currently and and always being one.
Click to expand...

a lot of our ancestors were fleeing **** situations.

Religious prosecutions (Quakers, Catholics, everyone), hunger (Irish in particular), tyrannical regimes (just about everyone, Georgia was a prison colony), and poor living conditions that they couldn't improve.

that's why they came here, they were looking for a new chance that they didn't have in their country for whatever reason. We are the poor, the sick, the hungry.

I still believe they should go through the legal process but we shouldn't turn someone away because of the situation they were in or where they came from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#480
#480
Vol0725 said:
Correct, while they keep dumbing down the American communities, children/young adults in the country who HAVE TALENTS, POTENTIAL ETC...and they need help, support and guidance JUST AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER IMMIGRANT, whether low IQ or not...it's methodical identity politics the elitist Liberal Dems use just to stay in power.
Click to expand...

Why are we importing foreigners that need help? How does importing foreigners who are a net negative benefit Americans? Those resources could be used to help fellow Americans.
 
Last edited:
#481
#481
The bigger issue here is who was at the meeting that felt compelled to go to the media. That person has no business being involved in any type of big boy meetings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#482
#482
Lib: "We can't send these people back to countries where there's no respect for human rights, no concept of women's rights, complete economic collapse, high corruption, roving bands of brigands, rape squads, political oppression, and genocide."

American: "Yeah, those places are real sh*tholes."

Libs: "Bigot!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#483
#483
Orange_Crush said:
u seem to have taken a MASSIVE swerve in argument when someone had the presence of mind to call you on your argument.

You're still making an emotion-based plea, but at least you're no longer trying to as blatantly paint it as a rational argument.


The reason that we must be selective in who we allow to immigrate in is because we have to protect our ability to be what we are. Call it "protecting our resources". There are only so many resources available to us as a country. As we invite more and more destitute, helpless, uneducated, drains on society, society will eventually become completely drained and America will no longer be strong enough to be the benefit to the world.

We can help many people as a strong country. If we open the doors and invite in all of the derelicts of the world, we will no longer be strong enough to be of any benefit.

At our church, we are inundated with pleas for help from the helpless. And I/we want to help every one. We actually get a hard time about nearly every person we don't help.

We have to be choosy about who we help.

We have to, because if we weren't selective in who and how we invest, we would go broke, cease to exist, and then there would be one less church in the city to help anyone.

If we tried to indiscriminately help every person who needs help, we'd do a disservice to our church and our community.

So. No one has the right to enter the US. US citizens have the first right to resources here. The US has the right to protect our own interests above others, and if we don't we will lose the ability to protect/help anyone else's interests.

That's pragmatism. in case of cabin decompression, you put your own oxygen mask on first or you won't be around to help the person in the seat next to you.

They want to come here because we are a great nation. Our first priority is to make sure we remain great enough to be a blessing to some, because we can't be a blessing to everyone.
Click to expand...

This is where your logic runs amok.

Immigrants help our nation, dude. It's not some friggin welfare handout. Do you even know any immigrants personally? I do. And they're hardworking, taxpaying, law abiding people who love this country every bit as much as you do.
 
#485
#485
Vols_Baby_Boomer said:
Why does the foreigner have a right to this country, but we don't have a right to say who can and cannot come in?
Click to expand...


I was referring more to your inference that no one can enter unless they come from "more desirable" places.

I think most people would agree that there are certain countries in the world that are much poorer economically than others. Haiti is certainly economically far worse off than Denmark or Switzerland or wherever.

The two problems with what he said are that a) he's the president and people expect him to be a bit more diplomatic and careful about his language; and b) use of that language and comparison betrays something that the GOP claims it is all about, which is individual merit.

The GOP claims it values people based on what they have done, as an individual. Yet that comment groups people together and discusses their merit based on what county they are from. In theory, it is the antithesis of what the GOP claims to support as its world view.

What he did, crass language aside, is confirm what we all knew he was thinking, anyway, which is that he can ascribe the worth of a potential immigrant based solely on what country they are coming from.

It reveals an alarming lack of sophistication. Frankly, we all knew that to be the case with Trump. So I'm just not all that surprised.
 
#486
#486
OuterBanksVol said:
This is where your logic runs amok.

Immigrants help our nation, dude. It's not some friggin welfare handout. Do you even know any immigrants personally? I do. And they're hardworking, taxpaying, law abiding people who love this country every bit as much as you do.
Click to expand...

You asked why we should be selective as to who we bring in. I told you on a very practical, pragmatic, and real level.
 
#487
#487
#488
#488
Orange_Crush said:
You asked why we should be selective as to who we bring in. I told you on a very practical, pragmatic, and real level.
Click to expand...

He’s ignoring my question about why should people from 3rd world countries get preferential treatment over people from 1st world countries.
 
#489
#489
LouderVol said:
yup

and their test has more to do with being comfortable with the idea of a standardized test than actual intelligence. also probably helps to be familiar and comfortable with computers and the patterning going on.
Click to expand...

Cite exactly where their methodology is wrong. Be specific. Pretty typical, libs don't like the results, so they attack the authors or the methodology. But when asked to point out what exactly is wrong, they can't.
 
#490
#490
OuterBanksVol said:
This is where your logic runs amok.

Immigrants help our nation, dude. It's not some friggin welfare handout. Do you even know any immigrants personally? I do. And they're hardworking, taxpaying, law abiding people who love this country every bit as much as you do.
Click to expand...

Who said immigration hurts our country?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with sensible 'legal' immigration; such as a merit-based. A merit-based immigration system would help Americans...and skilled foreigners.

Details of the Proposed Merit-based Visa System under the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Details of the Proposed Merit-based Visa System under the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act
 
#492
#492
hog88 said:
He’s ignoring my question about why should people from 3rd world countries get preferential treatment over people from 1st world countries.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence of the legal preferential treatment Mexicans are given over any first world country.
 
#493
#493
Exactly...it's about keeping Libby Dems in power...they could care less about 3rd world country immigrants vs keeping their seat at the table...ggeezz Louise!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#495
#495
hog88 said:
He’s ignoring my question about why should people from 3rd world countries get preferential treatment over people from 1st world countries.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. They should be evaluated on their own individual merits. Specifically including the quality of their education, work experience, ability to speak the English language, the results of a thorough background check and their willingness to assimilate into American culture. However, with Trump's "s***hole countries" remark, he made it clear that he holds their place of origin against them. That's not a meritocracy. That's elitism from a snob.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#496
#496
BowlBrother85 said:
They shouldn't. They should be evaluated on their own individual merits. Specifically including the quality of their education, work experience, ability to speak the English language, the results of a thorough background check and their willingness to assimilate into American culture. However, with Trump's "s***hole countries" remark, he made it clear that is he holding their place of origin against them. That's not a meritocracy. That's elitism from a snob.
Click to expand...

We don't need these people. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#497
#497
Vols_Baby_Boomer said:
Cite exactly where their methodology is wrong. Be specific. Pretty typical, libs don't like the results, so they attack the authors or the methodology. But when asked to point out what exactly is wrong, they can't.
Click to expand...

their methodology is wrong because they are making assumptions or using different methods. not apples to apples. for someone who has never done something before you can't hold them to the same standard as someone who has done a similar task multiple times. doesn't mean they can't do it, or do it as well as those with experience, just means they haven't done it before and you can expect some level drop off from the lack of familiarity.

also that quote comes from their source material. not something I made up.

btw 131.2. 94th percentile. first time taking any IQ test.

also pretty funny that you demand I answer a question and then cut off the time I have to answer in the same post. hardly rational. you seem to be threatened by these "retards".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#498
#498
BowlBrother85 said:
They shouldn't. They should be evaluated on their own individual merits. Specifically including the quality of their education, work experience, ability to speak the English language, the results of a thorough background check and their willingness to assimilate into American culture. However, with Trump's "s***hole countries" remark, he made it clear that is he holding their place of origin against them. That's not a meritocracy. That's elitism from a snob.
Click to expand...

Trump's statement is poorly worded to be sure, but it is also a generalized statement that many of us have made to our circles of influence over time. And I believe that at the heart of the comment is the burning question why do we want to bring in people who do not make us better?

If this was a recruiting situation, Volnation would have already melted down just because someone would even consider bring in a class of mostly unranked recruits.
 
#500
#500
LouderVol said:
their methodology is wrong because they are making assumptions or using different methods. not apples to apples. for someone who has never done something before you can't hold them to the same standard as someone who has done a similar task multiple times. doesn't mean they can't do it, or do it as well as those with experience, just means they haven't done it before and you can expect some level drop off from the lack of familiarity.

also that quote comes from their source material. not something I made up.

btw 131.2. 94th percentile. first time taking any IQ test.

also pretty funny that you demand I answer a question and then cut off the time I have to answer in the same post. hardly rational. you seem to be threatened by these "retards".
Click to expand...

I asked you to be specific.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top