Tucker Carlson: Omar 'living proof' US immigration laws are 'dangerous'

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Interesting thread. In some ways. Apparently lots of posters are wearing shoes that fit.
Interesting statement, please elaborate.

Sure. See posts #32 and #34 in which posters reference shoes fitting.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:E.g., was simply to "state facts" and inform Americans of a dangerous hole in immigration policy,
or does anyone discern a more political intent to amplify existing grievance in a target audience?

To reduce immigration by pointing out an example of an immigrant who, in his opinion, got everything they have from this country and yet still dislikes it. How about both?

An intent to simply inform AND to amplify grievances would simply be an attempt to amplify grievances, not "both."  Clearly not all are aggrieved by "ungrateful" immigrants though.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:My first question after reading the report of what Carlson said was--what, exactly, is the evidence that Omar "hates" America?
Did she say that some where? ("By Allah, I HATE the US and all it stands for!")

Let's say you start dating someone and move on to telling them you love them.  Immediately after you start pointing out numerous ways you want to change that person.  Did you really love that person if you have several ways you want them to change?  Now, a country is certainly different, but allow me to flip the script, when has she ever professed a deep affection for the United States?  I can point to her recent speech to high schoolers as an example of the opposite.

If your analogy holds, then was there some point where Omar was telling the US she "loved" it (as in her tweeted response to Carlson) before she unfairly tried to change it?

Also, if this analogy is to argue, then there must be an unstated premise that an attempt to "change" someone whom one claims to love via criticism means one doesn't really love that someone, or has overstepped some boundary.  It that's so, then the analogy, if valid would render any criticism of a government evidence one really doesn't love that government, or has overstepped some boundary.

Are you trying to supply the evidence for Carlson's argument when you "flip the script"?  A--one--recent speech to high schoolers shows Omar has "never professed a deep affection for the United States"? 

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Or is Tucker inferring that she does based upon some specific actions or action?
He says she "criticizes" the US, and concludes immigration policy should be more restrictive?

Didn't he do exactly that?
Not really the point he was making, no.

In your view, then, what is the "problem" he speaks of that is "not sustainable," if it is not an immigration policy which accepts "ungratefuls"?

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But isn't Carlson criticizing the US when he says the US' flawed immigration policy allows in "critics" rather than, what, the uncritically thankful? 

Depends on whether you think the government and the nation are synonymous.

Does Omar's "criticism" also depend on that?  Is there one of these terms one should not criticize? Seems one gets closer to the heart of the matter if one replaces nation and government with "Party": it is not criticism of government and/or nation when one party's policies are criticized, but it is when the other's are criticized.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Also, he addresses the issue of "assimilation"--and Omar is, apparently, someone who hasn't or doesn't want to, as evidenced by, what? Her election to Congress? Her religion? Funny clothes? "Maybe the problem is we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours."  Could "socialistic" Norway count as such a place? Somalia seems clearly such, perhaps also Kenyan refugee camps.

Yes, a Norwegian socialist would absolutely fit that bill.

Carlson spoke of places. You speak of a person. A "far leftist"?

On your interpretation, would Carlson "absolutely" consider Norway one of the places with antithetical values? Can you provide an example of a place with values not simply antithetical to ours?  Scotland maybe?   

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Should the no-criticism criterion apply only to immigrants from "certain places," or to all immigrants, or perhaps to all "natural born" Americans as well? Perhaps only to applicants for immigration--including children?

Is that a question he's asking, or you?  Also, did he say no criticism was allowed?  You can disagree with his position but overstating what it was doesn't help your argument at all.

That is a question I am asking. The reason why is because Carlson says Omar "criticizes" America, and then with no additional evidence, concludes that she exemplifies his thesis, that no country can import people who hate it and survive. She is "an alarm" and "warning to the rest of us."
 
The problem here is Carlson's "UNDERstating." If criticism of America makes Omar an exemplary warning, and further implies immigration policy ought not to be letting critics in, then it is Carlson's job to explain what he means, whether criticism is bad in itself or only when certain people do it.  I don't overstate anything by asking for clarification.

(07-10-2019, 07:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I leave Dill's argument feeling somewhat short changed on specific support.  Is there perhaps a subtext here, assumptions he expects some to know, but left unstated, could be denied? (BTW the "dog whistle" trope has been as worn out by the far left in this country as accusations of fascism)

There is an odd undercurrent to this thread that I won't imply, but simply point out.  Lot's of people complaining about Carlson while engaging in the same behavior they decry in him.  Very interesting.

Dill assumes people understand something of logical inference, implication, and entailment. Are those liberal dog whistles? 

If Tucker claims a country should not let in people who hate it, and he identifies people who hate the US by their criticism of it, then he is definitely saying we should not allow people who criticize the US to immigrate here, even if he does not state "We should not allow critics in." 

Further, if people should be kept out because they criticize the US, that logically implies criticizing the US is bad, even if Tucker does not explicitly say "criticizing the US is bad" or distinguish between levels and types of criticism.  But since he is criticizing US policy, that implies it is ok when some people do it. People like him. Hence my questions regarding how "ok" is decided.

Still further, he only refers to general, not specific or particular criticisms of the US. Usually people only do that when they think criticism in general is bad.

And my questions about Carlson's argument are still unanswered. He says Omar's criticism makes her a "Warning to us all."   If you agree, then you can fill in the gaps in his argument.  Who is allowed to criticize the US? From what social status, under what conditions?