Fun fact: in old bankruptcy depositions, Trump's own personal lawyers talked about their internal policy of always bringing at least two people into meetings with him, to prevent him from later lying about what was agreed to.
@Rufus said:
Not content with deporting illegal immigrants, now the Trump administration wants to start deport the legal ones too.
Reading the article, this is rational behavior on the part of the United States. Most immigrants are not of net benefit to existing citizens. We should not be letting them move here.
Most existing citizens are not of net benefit either, may as well deport them too. All the lazy rich kids of Instagram, trailer trash, blogging professionals, social media experts, starving artists, homeless people, tv anchors, the elderly, kids, people that take up two parking spaces with a single vehicle, take too long ordering at restaurants, owners of trucks that are too big, anyone that rolls coal or bikes to work, anyone that's fallen for an MLM, religious people, high school drop outs, fat people, anorexics, furries, bronies, magic the gathering players, professional gamers, travel agents, fortnite streamers, boomers with no retirement savings, smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, radio talk show hosts, authors of self help books
@Bill said:
Reading the article, this is rational behavior on the part of the United States. Most immigrants are not of net benefit to existing citizens. We should not be letting them move here.
Even the Republican's own study shows that there is a massic financial benefit to immigration. The economic cost of immigration is a dog-whistle that's been disproven.
The only reason to be anti-immigration is because you're unwilling to share your country with all those weird people, born in different countries. That is the siren song of the nationalist/racist.
I don't believe that study. I've seen other studies that are far more convincing.
There is nothing wrong with simple nationalism, and there is no reason at all that citizens should have to share their country if they prefer not to. Cultural diversity comes with many costs, and it is dishonest to pretend that it doesn't.
No no, you set the bar for worthy immigration as immigrants that are a net benefit to citizens. There's innumerable examples of immigrants providing a net benefit, why kick out legal immigrants before they've had the time to provide that benefit?
@Bill said:
There is nothing wrong with simple nationalism, and there is no reason at all that citizens should have to share their country if they prefer not to.
When you live in a country that is founded on, and by, immigrants; you were born in the wrong place. Maybe you should emigrate to a country that shares your dislike for immigration.... Wait.... You wouldn't be welcome...
@Bill said:
Cultural diversity comes with many costs, and it is dishonest to pretend that it doesn't.
As a citizen of a country that embraces and celebrates diversity, successfully, your assertion is nonsense to me.
@Rufus said:
As a citizen of a country that embraces and celebrates diversity, successfully, your assertion is nonsense to me.
My Canadian relatives are against immigration and always have been as far back as I can remember. Your country isn't going to be singing "Kumbaya" if things go the way I fear they are going to go, either. Block voting by race will be one of the first clear symptoms. (I saw this relevant bit by Sailer after I had already posted the above.)
@filious said:
No no, you set the bar for worthy immigration as immigrants that are a net benefit to citizens. There's innumerable examples of immigrants providing a net benefit, why kick out legal immigrants before they've had the time to provide that benefit?
On the one hand, we can welcome an eminent physicist, a renowned composer, and a successful entrepreneur. On the other hand, we can let in thirty peasants. Can you choose wisely?
All of the above? Someone's gotta sweep floors, pick produce at farms and do kitchenwork at restaurants. Sure, kick out the ones that break the law but they all ought to have a shot.
@Rufus said:
As a citizen of a country that embraces and celebrates diversity, successfully, your assertion is nonsense to me.
My Canadian relatives are against immigration and always have been as far back as I can remember.
Your relatives are hardly representative of the consensus in Canada... We have lots of hard-line conservatives, as any society would... we've got our share of left-wing wackos too... Just because you know someone on one side of an issue, in Canada, does not mean anything for the majority opinion.
@Bill said:
Block voting by race will be one of the first clear symptoms.
If this was going to be a thing, it would have been, long ago... There are massive ethnic groups in Canada (and Ontario in particular) and there is no evidence that their voting patterns are any different than any other...
The only block voting we've ever had was all the Francophone Quebecers, who vote Bloc Quebecois; and there aren't enough separatists in Quebec (let alone Canada) to have any real impact.
Just watch out for those Catholics. They'll all vote as a bloc and soon we'll end up with the pope as shadow-ruler of the United States!
(Note: That was a very real fear for a surprising number of citizens during most of our lifetimes).
Surprisingly, many Catholics, including hispanic Catholics, will vote for a candidate that is pro-choice and pro birth control. They may not admit it to their neighbors, but that is the wonderful thing about how voting normally works.
"But they'll vote as a block" is such a bizarrely stupid argument against immigration. If the country can't survive people voting freely for their own best interest, it doesn't warrant protecting in the first place.
@Clme said:
Just watch out for those Catholics. They'll all vote as a bloc and soon we'll end up with the pope as shadow-ruler of the United States!
(Note: That was a very real fear for a surprising number of citizens during most of our lifetimes).
I remember (from documentaries) there a significant group of people who felt that JFK couldn't be trusted to be the President because he was Catholic. Mitt Romney was also attacked for being Mormon.
There's lots of reasons for Mitt Romney to not be elected President. Being Mormon isn't one of them.
Comments
Of course he calls off Cold War II.
The original Cold War started back up and Putin just won a major battle in it. The next year will determine if he wins the entire war.
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/
That is..... extensive.
Fun fact: in old bankruptcy depositions, Trump's own personal lawyers talked about their internal policy of always bringing at least two people into meetings with him, to prevent him from later lying about what was agreed to.
In a less-than-surprising move... yesterday Trump banned a reporter for asking "questions".
The war on the media continues...
You just jelly of this hot mess.
Michael Cohen is the gift that keeps on giving.
I love Obama:
https://www.facebook.com/199049746935671/photos/a.199051206935525.1073741828.199049746935671/1073187556188548/?type=3&theater
It doesn't look like he really tweeted that.
...but I kind of wish he did.
Aw... it's fake. {sadface}
Not content with deporting illegal immigrants, now the Trump administration wants to start deport the legal ones too.
Soon they'll begin deporting citizens.
But they'll probably deport them to Puerto Rico. Since we've forgotten it exists and apparently don't know its a U.S. territory.
And chain migration is evil... unless it's our family: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics/viktor-amalija-knavs-us-citizens/index.html
Warren Buffet takes tax deductions that he thinks should be eliminated.
Most laws aren't about things that are directly right and wrong. Chain migrations isn't evil, but it's bad for the country.
Reading the article, this is rational behavior on the part of the United States. Most immigrants are not of net benefit to existing citizens. We should not be letting them move here.
You're right, immigrants like Tesla and Einstein didn't contribute shit.
Most existing citizens are not of net benefit either, may as well deport them too. All the lazy rich kids of Instagram, trailer trash, blogging professionals, social media experts, starving artists, homeless people, tv anchors, the elderly, kids, people that take up two parking spaces with a single vehicle, take too long ordering at restaurants, owners of trucks that are too big, anyone that rolls coal or bikes to work, anyone that's fallen for an MLM, religious people, high school drop outs, fat people, anorexics, furries, bronies, magic the gathering players, professional gamers, travel agents, fortnite streamers, boomers with no retirement savings, smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, radio talk show hosts, authors of self help books
Citizens have a right to be here. Immigrants do not.
Even the Republican's own study shows that there is a massic financial benefit to immigration. The economic cost of immigration is a dog-whistle that's been disproven.
The only reason to be anti-immigration is because you're unwilling to share your country with all those weird people, born in different countries. That is the siren song of the nationalist/racist.
I don't believe that study. I've seen other studies that are far more convincing.
There is nothing wrong with simple nationalism, and there is no reason at all that citizens should have to share their country if they prefer not to. Cultural diversity comes with many costs, and it is dishonest to pretend that it doesn't.
No no, you set the bar for worthy immigration as immigrants that are a net benefit to citizens. There's innumerable examples of immigrants providing a net benefit, why kick out legal immigrants before they've had the time to provide that benefit?
When you live in a country that is founded on, and by, immigrants; you were born in the wrong place. Maybe you should emigrate to a country that shares your dislike for immigration.... Wait.... You wouldn't be welcome...
As a citizen of a country that embraces and celebrates diversity, successfully, your assertion is nonsense to me.
There's nothing magical about being founded by immigrants. All countries on the planet were founded by immigrants.
My Canadian relatives are against immigration and always have been as far back as I can remember. Your country isn't going to be singing "Kumbaya" if things go the way I fear they are going to go, either. Block voting by race will be one of the first clear symptoms. (I saw this relevant bit by Sailer after I had already posted the above.)
On the one hand, we can welcome an eminent physicist, a renowned composer, and a successful entrepreneur. On the other hand, we can let in thirty peasants. Can you choose wisely?
All of the above? Someone's gotta sweep floors, pick produce at farms and do kitchenwork at restaurants. Sure, kick out the ones that break the law but they all ought to have a shot.
Your relatives are hardly representative of the consensus in Canada... We have lots of hard-line conservatives, as any society would... we've got our share of left-wing wackos too... Just because you know someone on one side of an issue, in Canada, does not mean anything for the majority opinion.
If this was going to be a thing, it would have been, long ago... There are massive ethnic groups in Canada (and Ontario in particular) and there is no evidence that their voting patterns are any different than any other...
The only block voting we've ever had was all the Francophone Quebecers, who vote Bloc Quebecois; and there aren't enough separatists in Quebec (let alone Canada) to have any real impact.
Just watch out for those Catholics. They'll all vote as a bloc and soon we'll end up with the pope as shadow-ruler of the United States!
(Note: That was a very real fear for a surprising number of citizens during most of our lifetimes).
Surprisingly, many Catholics, including hispanic Catholics, will vote for a candidate that is pro-choice and pro birth control. They may not admit it to their neighbors, but that is the wonderful thing about how voting normally works.
"But they'll vote as a block" is such a bizarrely stupid argument against immigration. If the country can't survive people voting freely for their own best interest, it doesn't warrant protecting in the first place.
I remember (from documentaries) there a significant group of people who felt that JFK couldn't be trusted to be the President because he was Catholic. Mitt Romney was also attacked for being Mormon.
There's lots of reasons for Mitt Romney to not be elected President. Being Mormon isn't one of them.
So, more petty retaliation against people who say things Trump doesn't like. Abuse of power? (Yes). Does anyone think that Trump will face any consequences for it (aside from the fake media attacking him)?