Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 7:38 PM

Fervent said:
Your sense of victimization is palpable...and it would be funny if it wasn't so lacking in self-awareness.

Instead of a bumper sticker reply, how about you go into more detail about which things I said that are wrong (and please be specific)

Are you suggesting that modern progressives don't evaluate everything through a (largely racially based) oppressed vs. oppressor lens?

The "National Equity Project" states:
The lens of systemic oppression is a lens we intentionally employ to sharpen our focus on the ways in which any given form of oppression (race, gender, class, language, sexual orientation, etc) may be negatively impacting people’s ability to make progress on the things they care about and/or preventing individual or collective action toward the achievement of a particular goal. We believe it is vital to evaluate every issue through this lens.

Fervent · Saturday at 7:40 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Instead of a bumper sticker reply, how about you go into more detail about which things I said that are wrong (and please be specific)

"Wrong"? No, just appealing to emotion and a sense of victimization.

Always in His Presence · Saturday at 7:56 PM

Fervent said:
Click-baity titles that don't match the subject matter of the thread cause confusion

I would be embarrassed also.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 7:56 PM

Fervent said:
"Wrong"? No, just appealing to emotion and a sense of victimization.

You have it backwards, it's not the "pro border enforcement" position that's appealing to victimization and emotion.

"Their country is extremely poor, we should be welcoming"
"The reason their country is in shambles and they feel need to move is because of US corporatist policies"
"The policy of enforcing border restrictions is causing family separation"
"People just don't want them coming here because they're racist and don't want brown people in their country"

Those are are arguments appealing to emotion and victimization.

My argument is simply:
Do you want me to provide roads that adequately will support all the traffic?
Do you want me to know how many police, EMT, and firemen this city needs?
Do you want me to know roughly what size school we need to build and how many teachers to hire?
Do you want me to know how much land we need to approve for residential vs. commercial use?
Do you want me to know how large of a hospital this town needs?

If the answer to those questions is "Yes", then I need to have a rough idea of how to estimate how many people I can expect to have here.

And it should be noted, the need for specificity increases as the robustness of the social safety nets increase. It's no coincidence that the nations that have some of the most generous social safety nets have some of the strictest immigration laws. "Free healthcare and free college tuition for everyone" planning requires being able to come up with a fairly precise headcount.

Fervent · Saturday at 7:59 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
You have it backwards, it's not the "pro border enforcement" position that's appealing to victimization and emotion.

"Their country is extremely poor, we should be welcoming"
"The reason their country is in shambles and they feel need to move is because of US corporatist policies"
"The policy of enforcing border restrictions is causing family separation"
"People just don't want them coming here because they're racist and don't want brown people in their country"

Those are are arguments appealing to emotion and victimization.

My argument is simply:
Do you want me to provide roads that adequately will support all the traffic?
Do you want me to know how many police, EMT, and firemen this city needs?
Do you want me to know roughly what size school we need to build and how many teachers to hire?
Do you want me to know how much land we need to approve for residential vs. commercial use?
Do you want me to know how large of a hospital this town needs?

If the answer to those questions is "Yes", then I need to have a rough idea of how to estimate how many people I can expect to have here.

And it should be noted, the need for specificity increases as the robustness of the social safety nets increase. It's no coincidence that the nations that have some of the most generous social safety nets have some of the strictest immigration laws. "Free healthcare and free college tuition for everyone" planning requires being able to come up with a fairly precise headcount.

This isn't "pro border" vs "anti border" that is at the heart, it's you presenting emotional arguments that are permeated with a sense of white victimhood. The rest of this post is immaterial to the post I quoted.

Fervent · Saturday at 8:02 PM

Always in His Presence said:
I would be embarrassed also.

Who's embarrassed? I'm simply pointing out your deceptive presentation, I have nothing to be embarrassed about because I recognized your deceptive tactics for what they were. My initial response doesn't change whether it is in reply to the OP quotes or the current administrations hamfisted approach.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 8:10 PM

Fervent said:
This isn't "pro border" vs "anti border" that is at the heart, it's you presenting emotional arguments that are permeated with a sense of white victimhood. The rest of this post is immaterial to the post I quoted.

But they weren't "white victimhood" arguments...

Pointing out that modern equity advocates view everything through that lens isn't expressing white victimhood. It's merely pointing out what I see as the flaw in their argument.

The "white victimhood" accusation is a just a trope that people use to shut down opposing viewpoints. Basically implying that "any objections you have to way we want things done is just you being a stuffy white guy who's afraid of losing your spot"

It's not unlike the "any criticism of the government of Israel makes you an antisemite" rationale.

Fervent · Saturday at 8:14 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
But they weren't "white victimhood" arguments...

Pointing out that modern equity advocates view everything through that lens isn't expressing white victimhood. It's merely pointing out what I see as the flaw in their argument.

The "white victimhood" accusation is a just a trope that people use to shut down opposing viewpoints.

It's not unlike the "any criticism of the government of Israel makes you an antisemite" rationale.

No trope, you simply are making a false accusation that exposes the lens you view things through rather than those you criticize. Your "argument" is nothing but an emotional appeal that itself presents the issue through the lens of race and attempts to put white people as victims of "racism". It says nothing about those you criticize, and everything about you.

rjs330 · Saturday at 11:59 PM

Fervent said:
No trope,

Yeah that argument is a trope. The moment you decide to use race as an excuse you have left the realm of cogent argument into the realm of emotional victimization.

When it is said that people are coming illegally, and tge response is, "you just dint want brown people here," then one is no longer arguing whether or not people are violating the law, but instead one has no cogent answer, so one appeals to emotions. And its the worst kind of appeal because its a character assassination. Pushing people to defend themselves instead of defending the point.

So you accuse others of doing something you are doing yourself. Even though someone never even mentioned race, you do.

Immigration law has prohibitions on anyone. Not just brown people. We expect everyone to abide by the law. No one has a right to come here just because they want to. And one who comes here illegally has no right to stay. There are those who come with permission, who also may have those permissions removed.

Your trope is only based upon race. An emotional attack designated to create an emotional response. No substantive argument is used.

Fervent · Sunday at 12:17 AM

rjs330 said:
Yeah that argument is a trope. The moment you decide to use race as an excuse you have left the realm of cogent argument into the realm of emotional victimization.

When it is said that people are coming illegally, and tge response is, "you just dint want brown people here," then one is no longer arguing whether or not people are violating the law, but instead one has no cogent answer, so one appeals to emotions. And its the worst kind of appeal because its a character assassination. Pushing people to defend themselves instead of defending the point.

So you accuse others of doing something you are doing yourself. Even though someone never even mentioned race, you do.

Immigration law has prohibitions on anyone. Not just brown people. We expect everyone to abide by the law. No one has a right to come here just because they want to. And one who comes here illegally has no right to stay. There are those who come with permission, who also may have those permissions removed.

Your trope is only based upon race. An emotional attack designated to create an emotional response. No substantive argument is used.

Your response is made of straw, as I wasn't the one who introduced the idea of race. Pointing out that a post displays a clear sense of victimization and relies on emotional argumentation is not introducing race into the equation. As I mentioned, my response to his post was not about arguing in favor or against immigration enforcement but entirely about pointing out his "argument" was purely an emotional appeal and dripping with a sense of victimization. So no, it's not a trope.

Yttrium · Sunday at 1:22 AM

Always in His Presence said:
That is what happens when you read a title and then not bother to look at both video's.

If you had, you would have realized Trump is not mentioned at all, but two presidents do speak on immigration.

Nope. Trump is mentioned in the title. As far as Clinton goes, I think he had a reasonable approach. Nothing unusual there.

ozso · Sunday at 2:24 AM

I had no trouble discerning the OP is about what President Clinton and President Obama had to say about border control, illegal aliens and deportation.

Which in both cases was much closer to what Trump has to say about it, than what the Democrats and Left are saying about it now.

It was all pretty bipartisan, until Trump started saying the same kinds of things Clinton and Obama had. The Left decided that any stance Trump took, absolutely had to be opposed, even if it was a stace previously held by the Left.

Always in His Presence · Sunday at 8:17 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
which, when you think about what that actually means "Despite the fact that we openly said we'd be happy to do it, it's cruel that you'd ask us to do thing that we were expecting you to deal with 1000 miles away because you'd never called our bluff before"

QFT

Always in His Presence · Sunday at 8:20 AM

Yttrium said:
Nope. Trump is mentioned in the title. As far as Clinton goes, I think he had a reasonable approach. Nothing unusual there.

He is?

Here is the title

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

I don’t see Trump.

GoldenBoy89 · Sunday at 8:20 AM

ozso said:
I had no trouble discerning the OP is about what President Clinton and President Obama had to say about border control, illegal aliens and deportation.

Which in both cases was much closer to what Trump has to say about it, than what the Democrats and Left are saying about it now.

It was all pretty bipartisan, until Trump started saying the same kinds of things Clinton and Obama had. The Left decided that any stance Trump took, absolutely had to be opposed, even if it was a stace previously held by the Left.

This is simply divorced from reality. The idea Trump has only ever said the same exact things about immigrants as Obama, Clinton or any other president before him is simply ridiculous. Tell me when Clinton or Obama ever blatantly lied about people stealing and eating their neighbor’s pets.

GoldenBoy89 · Sunday at 8:21 AM

Always in His Presence said:
He is?

Here is the title

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

I don’t see Trump.

President of the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Always in His Presence · Sunday at 8:25 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
President of the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So were they.

How about addressing the topic instead of crying about how the title reads.

GoldenBoy89 · Sunday at 8:25 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
The infrastructure the US has that is planned on a population basis
(our roads, bridges, schools, city services, etc...)

We do pay for that correct? And in order for those to be effective and sufficient, planners do need to have at least a rough idea of how many people they can expect to inhabit the area, correct?

If I were throwing a dinner party, and planning on providing food for everyone, and had a list of 15 names that were supposed to be showing up (documented), and 25 people show up because 10 people decided to come over without an invitation or letting me know prior so I could document it in order to make appropriate preparations or set the right amount of money aside, that would present a challenge, yes?

And before you dismiss that as a "silly analogy"

https://spa.sdsu.edu/_resources/files/documents/planning_with_unauthorized_immigrant.pdf

it is a real concern for city planning and service/budget allocation, and it's a concern/challenge that's disproportionately experienced by communities that are much closer to the border.

Hence the reason when certain governors made it a policy to transport undocumented arrivals to "sanctuary cities", those cities freaked out, and changed the narrative to "that's cruel that you'd send them here"

...which, when you think about what that actually means "Despite the fact that we openly said we'd be happy to do it, it's cruel that you'd ask us to do thing that we were expecting you to deal with 1000 miles away because you'd never called our bluff before"

I think people had more of an issue with these people being used as props in some political gamesmanship by red state governors. Lying to people and then transporting them to a part of the country they’ve never been to before just to make some political point about is cruel but we see now, cruelty towards the undocumented is the official of the administration.

GoldenBoy89 · Sunday at 8:27 AM

Always in His Presence said:
So were they.

Yes, they were.

Always in His Presence said:
How about addressing the topic instead of crying about how the title reads.

Already answered:

GoldenBoy89 said:
We no longer live in the worlds of the Obama or Clinton presidencies. Their speeches on any political subject, to include immigration, are only relevant to the times in which they were given.

ozso · Sunday at 8:37 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
This is simply divorced from reality. The idea Trump has only ever said the same exact things about immigrants as Obama, Clinton or any other president before him is simply ridiculous. Tell me when Clinton or Obama ever blatantly lied about people stealing and eating their neighbor’s pets.

It helps when one reads what was written rather than going by what one reads into it ie ozso: "same kinds of things" vs GoldenBoy89: "same exact things".

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mad Scientist

✦

Jesus is the only Way

Jesus is the only Way

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?​

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?​

Jesus is the only Way

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

✦

Similar threads

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?