Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries (/Thread-Trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-%E2%80%98s-hole%E2%80%99-countries)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I have noticed the left ignoring the part that you failed to bold.

Economists can argue the financial effects (positive/negative) about deporting illegals; however, no one can argue that they are not illegal; they can simply choose to overlook it.; regardless what snippit of a point they choose to focus on.

Nor can anyone change the fact that the left is willing to hold Citizens and their federal benefits hostage in efforts to protect a population that is in this country illegally. As I said you can argue the merit, you just cannot argue the fact.

"The Left" has no power in this country. You must be referring to centrist, liberal Democrats.


In a democracy, the "illegal" status of people who never chose to break the law can easily be fixed. And 80% of the American voters, who are the ultimate ground of US law, would support that fix. That is where the issue lies.

Why keep the illegal's status illegal, then behave as if the law were, in this instance, some natural fact (like the law of gravity) that can never ever be altered?  Then claims of fact only disguise value judgments. 

So claiming "no one can argue they are not illegal" is a red herring.  No relevant point there at all. 

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 06:01 PM)Dill Wrote: So claiming "no one can argue they are not illegal" is a red herring.  No relevant point there at all. 

Sure it is, let's try an experiment:

Argue that they are not illegal

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Belsnickel - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it is, let's try an experiment:

Argue that they are not illegal

As of right now, they are still protected under an unexpired DACA program that makes them legal residents in the United States. Their status, as it stands at this moment, is not as an illegal/undocumented immigrant.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - hollodero - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 05:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are right that the word choice carries with it an implicit judgement. However, it shouldn't be something held against bfine in this situation. This is a word choice used by the players in Washington all the time with these things. Schumer, in 2013, said: "No matter how strongly one feels about an issue, you shouldn’t hold millions of people hostage".

I don't agree with the language, but it is the language of the topic.

Oh I do not hold it against him at all. I tried to explain why - in my view - the words could be read in a certain way.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 06:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As of right now, they are still protected under an unexpired DACA program that makes them legal residents in the United States. Their status, as it stands at this moment, is not as an illegal/undocumented immigrant.

Though DACA just delayed deportation of qualified illegal immigrants

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it is, let's try an experiment:

Argue that they are not illegal

Let's grant the undocumented are here illegally, for sake of argument, and try a meaningful experiment.

Let's pose the American voters and their lawmakers a choice:

1) since it is people who make laws, find a way to accommodate these people who have never lived anywhere else,

2) send these dreamers back to countries they have never lived in, whose language they might not speak.

The choice here is between values, not facts.  If someone says "the dreamers are illegal," and some one else responds, "Well technically they are not and anyway let's permanently legalize them," would you just continue saying "No one can argue they are not illegal"? 

Sounds like you would.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 06:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As of right now, they are still protected under an unexpired DACA program that makes them legal residents in the United States. Their status, as it stands at this moment, is not as an illegal/undocumented immigrant.

LOL Joe Arpaio begs to differ. [Image: arizona-sheriff-pardon.jpg]

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-19-2018

(01-19-2018, 09:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's grant the undocumented are here illegally, for sake of argument, and try a meaningful experiment.

Let's pose the American voters and their lawmakers a choice:

1) since it is people who make laws, find a way to accommodate these people who have never lived anywhere else,

2) send these dreamers back to countries they have never lived in, whose language they might not speak.

The choice here is between values, not facts.  If someone says "the dreamers are illegal," and some one else responds, "Well technically they are not and anyway let's permanently legalize them," would you just continue saying "No one can argue they are not illegal"? 

Sounds like you would.

You may have to take up the "they are here illegally" part with Matt, but appreciate you acknowledging that simple fact.

Now as to the strawmen you present (introducing an argument that was not made)

1) If the person "has never lived anywhere else" they do not need the protections of DACA; they are a US citizen

 2) See 1)

I have expressed my views on DACA and I hope that they pass a budget today that allows everyone brought into this country as a child and has proven to be a productive member of our society a pathway to citizenship. I'm just not going to cheapen my stance by overlooking the fact that they are currently here illegally. 

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-23-2018

Well if Tom Cotton is to be believed then strong words were used during the meeting; however, nobody challenged them at the time (aka standing up to the bully). Seems his stance is similar to mine.

I have 0 doubt that Trump referred to some countries as "shitholes"; I've been in a few myself. But it is not racist nor does it disparage the innocent citizens in that country.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - GMDino - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if Tom Cotton is to be believed then strong words were used during the meeting; however, nobody challenged them at the time (aka standing up to the bully). Seems his stance is similar to mine.

I have 0 doubt that Trump referred to some countries as "shitholes"; I've been in a few myself. But it is not racist nor does it disparage the innocent citizens in that country.

Then you have zero doubt that the POTUS and multiple other people have outright lied about it.  Good.  Step in the right direction.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Bengalzona - 01-23-2018

“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.

John 1:46

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - GMDino - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 10:04 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.

John 1:46

"I only recall Nathanael speaking in harsh term about Nazareth. The words were not remembered by me nor my fellow disciples even if they were spoken for we know what is in his heart."

Michael 1:23

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - BmorePat87 - 01-23-2018







RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - fredtoast - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: nor does it disparage the innocent citizens in that country.

And that explains why he has no problem with those citizens coming to the United States, right?

LMAO

It is amazing the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend Trump.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - fredtoast - 01-23-2018

(01-19-2018, 09:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just not going to cheapen my stance by overlooking the fact that they are currently here illegally. 

"Cheapen"?

You base your value system on the law?

"I'd love to let Rosa Parks sit on the bus, but it would cheapen my high moral standards to allow something that is against the law."

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - BmorePat87 - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Cheapen"?

You base your value system on the law?

"I'd love to let Rosa Parks sit on the bus, but it would cheapen my high moral standards to allow something that is against the law."

It's just extra silly when their parents caused them to be in violation of the law and they're now just trying to be legal. 

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - BmorePat87 - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have 0 doubt that Trump referred to some countries as "shitholes"; I've been in a few myself. But it is not racist nor does it disparage the innocent citizens in that country.

Saying that you don't want people from "shithole countries" but rather Norway does disparage those citizens. You're saying they're less desirable or worthy than Norwegians. The comment was made within the context of rejecting the citizens of those nations. 

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - GMDino - 01-23-2018

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370346-white-house-graham-durbin-immigration-bill-dead-on-arrival?__twitter_impression=true


Quote:The White House on Tuesday hardened its position against a bipartisan proposal in the Senate that would shield young immigrants living in the U.S. from deportation.



Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders gave her strongest indication yet that President Trump would not sign the measure, written by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), if it reaches his desk. 


“It’s totally unacceptable to the president and should be declared dead on arrival,” she told reporters. 


President Trump previously dismissed the proposal in profane fashion when it was first presented to him in the Oval Office, remarks that helped lead to a government shutdown.


The White House has reiterated its opposition to the measure, and officials say they are escalating criticism to kill it as immigration talks resume. 


On Sunday, during the government shutdown, a White House spokesman called the plan "a giant step in the wrong direction" in a statement to The Hill.


“The Flake-Graham-Durbin proposal embodies every reason Americans do not trust Washington. It puts people who are in this country unlawfully ahead of our own American citizens,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement to The Hill, also referring to another sponsor, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)


Sanders said it did not meet the White House's demands that an immigration bill strengthen border security, dramatically reduce family reunification in immigration and end the visa lottery. 
 
Lawmakers are trying to work out an agreement before a Feb. 8 spending deadline. 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pledged to hold an open debate on immigration if a deal is not reached before that deadline.

Besides the obvious, Trump is a liar and/or has no idea what he wants, how many people does it take to clarify what the President says?

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - BmorePat87 - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 08:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370346-white-house-graham-durbin-immigration-bill-dead-on-arrival?__twitter_impression=true



Besides the obvious, Trump is a liar and/or has no idea what he wants, how many people does it take to clarify what the President says?

He doesn't know much beyond the basics of policy, so he'll agree to something in a meeting and then one of his handlers tells him what he agreed to and why he shouldn't. When it's Stephen "the Weasel" Miller doing it, he's going to tell him to reject anything remotely beneficial to immigrants. His opinion, for the most part, is just a reflection of the last loudest person he heard.

RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-23-2018

(01-23-2018, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Cheapen"?

You base your value system on the law?

"I'd love to let Rosa Parks sit on the bus, but it would cheapen my high moral standards to allow something that is against the law."

This is you totally missing the point.

I recognize the fact that those protected by DACA are here illegally I am not sure how that speaks to moral superiority. I do think there should be a merit based pathway to citizenship as opposed to supporting a program that just defers deportation.

For me to suggest that those currently protected by DACA are here legally would cheapen my opinion that they should be allowed to earn citizenship.

As to your little example. Of course I would fight to give Rosa the legal right to sit where she wanted; I would not suggest we should just renew a system that allows her to ride the bus.