'America is a nation of immigrants'

[Ana the Ist]

ya that's about as divorced from reality as you can get. it seems to me that the nonsense is a fixture on the right more than anything these days. everything is a conspiracy. the media is fake news. the news is the enemy of the people. obama gonna take your guns away. obama is invading texas. jews are going to replace you. and so on and so forth.
perhaps if you didn't spend all your time trying to find the non-existent boogeymen that you keep imagining are trying to take your guns, marry your daughters, steal your house you'd probably be worth listening to.

People believe in things you don't believe....therefore they must be wrong about immigration?

That might be the worst argument I've ever seen. They could be right for the wrong reasons and still be right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's no "illegal" way to enter the US if you are seeking asylum as a refugee.

Sure there is...

If your claim to asylum isn't genuine and you avoid your asylum hearing to avoid being deported....

Then you're engaging in fraud to remain here legally.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

History has also shown that no matter what time period you look at immigration has always been an American bugaboo!

Good thing, too. Vigorous public debate over who we ought to let into our country from where can only be a good thing...

 

[mala]

People believe in things you don't believe....therefore they must be wrong about immigration?

That might be the worst argument I've ever seen. They could be right for the wrong reasons and still be right.

i wasn't addressing immigration in particular. i was addressing part of what the person wrote. it's not that hard to parse it at all. please try harder or don't bother trying to make another nonsense argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

i wasn't addressing immigration in particular.

The poster you were replying to was.

i was addressing part of what the person wrote. it's not that hard to parse it at all. please try harder or don't bother trying to make another nonsense argument.

I get that the poster you replied to made a poor argument. He displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of why the "other side" believes what it believes.

In turn, you displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of why the other side believes what it believes. Then, it appeared you used that reasoning to not consider their side at all.

If I got it wrong....I apologize.

All I'm saying is the dismissal of one argument doesn't justify the dismissal of another. That's nothing more than creating a thought bubble and only engaging those who agree with you or the worst arguments of those who don't.

 

[Chesterton]

No, she gave a history...


You’re trying to use the deep depravity of white American history to shield yourself from the same fate...all the while imagining that “what a horrible country it’ll be if THEY* get in”!

History has also shown that no matter what time period you look at immigration has always been an American bugaboo!

*who knows, maybe they’d make better Americans than the homegrown variety?

lol, I didn't mention America at all. You must work at the movie theater; that's some serious projection you're doing.

 

[rjs330]

Well, except for the ~45% of illegal immigrants who arrive by normal ports of entry and overstay their visa. But why let facts get in the way of narrative, right?

We need to do more about that too.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nationalism, often masquerading as patriotism, is an expression of the ancient instinctive suspicion of strangers. It worked well on the savannas of East Africa and has beneficial aspects that can enhance survival of the family, tribe or larger social group. Unfortunately in a world of seven billion people, many with access to weapons of mass destruction, it is an instinct and an attitude that has outlived its usefulness. I'm mildly surprised that, on a Christian forum, there are not more people citing the parable of the Good Samaritan rather than espousing a nationalist, excuse me, patriotic position.

 

[Pommer]

lol, I didn't mention America at all. You must work at the movie theater; that's some serious projection you're doing.

No, you didn’t.
I’ve rarely seen anything more than a biting comment, or a pithy one-liner, (kudos, BTW, they’re usually very entertaining), so a thoughtful response might be too taxing, I dunno.
But Shiloh did mention America, which your original jibe was aimed...
“Apparently you don't even realize you're making a great argument for limiting and restricting immigration.”

If I am wrong...please point out how so, in detail, if you would, for this boy of but little brain.

 

[rjs330]

Nationalism, often masquerading as patriotism, is an expression of the ancient instinctive suspicion of strangers. It worked well on the savannas of East Africa and has beneficial aspects that can enhance survival of the family, tribe or larger social group. Unfortunately in a world of seven billion people, many with access to weapons of mass destruction, it is an instinct and an attitude that has outlived its usefulness. I'm mildly surprised that, on a Christian forum, there are not more people citing the parable of the Good Samaritan rather than espousing a nationalist, excuse me, patriotic position.

Samaritans were legal people. They were not illegal aliens. Biblically God never espoused that we shouldn't have countries or borders. In fact he said governments were supposed to protect their citizens. Even in the OT there were three kinda if people with three different expectations. There were citizens, immigrants who were there legally and accepted as citizens and foreigners
who were not and did not have the same rights as citizens.

Now that does not mean we should mistreat anyone. That would be a violation scripture as well. We should treat people with dignity and kindness. That doesn't mean though that we have to accept them as people into our citizenry.

 

[Ophiolite]

Samaritans were legal people. They were not illegal aliens. Biblically God never espoused that we shouldn't have countries or borders. In fact he said governments were supposed to protect their citizens. Even in the OT there were three kinda if people with three different expectations. There were citizens, immigrants who were there legally and accepted as citizens and foreigners
who were not and did not have the same rights as citizens.

Now that does not mean we should mistreat anyone. That would be a violation scripture as well. We should treat people with dignity and kindness. That doesn't mean though that we have to accept them as people into our citizenry.

Clearly explained (thank you for that) but disappointing. I find much that is admirable about the ethical position promoted in the NT, but not this.

 

[Chesterton]

No, you didn’t.
I’ve rarely seen anything more than a biting comment, or a pithy one-liner, (kudos, BTW, they’re usually very entertaining), so a thoughtful response might be too taxing, I dunno.
But Shiloh did mention America, which your original jibe was aimed...
“Apparently you don't even realize you're making a great argument for limiting and restricting immigration.”

If I am wrong...please point out how so, in detail, if you would, for this boy of but little brain.

Well no, actually, you're not wrong. This is the American Politics forum, and the OP is about immigrants to America, so the way you interpreted my post was not unfair. But honestly it wasn't about that. I was just talking about immigration as a general principle of one people moving onto real estate occupied by another people, regardless of where or when. And yes I know it's controversial to even speak of different "peoples" since we're all supposed to be one, but different cultures are a reality.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Nationalism, often masquerading as patriotism, is an expression of the ancient instinctive suspicion of strangers. It worked well on the savannas of East Africa and has beneficial aspects that can enhance survival of the family, tribe or larger social group. Unfortunately in a world of seven billion people, many with access to weapons of mass destruction, it is an instinct and an attitude that has outlived its usefulness.

Strangers can still be dangerous...

 

[Ophiolite]

Strangers can still be dangerous...

True. So can friends and relatives. For example child abuse is much more likely to be perpetrated by a relative or family friend than by a stranger. Anybody can be dangerous. Prejudging a stranger simply because they are a stranger is thoughtless, unethical, immoral and other things that courtesy and forum rules prevent me mentioning.

 

[rjs330]

Clearly explained (thank you for that) but disappointing. I find much that is admirable about the ethical position promoted in the NT, but not this.

The position of the NT is silent on immigration policy. It is not silent on how we should treat people as Christians. The NT speaks directly that it is a governments job to protect it's citizens and enforce the law. We as believers are to follow the law as long as it does not being us into disobedience to God.

On the immigration issue we would be in disobedience if we as believers mistreated lawbreakers or advocated for such. We would not be disobedient if we simply supported the government in enforcing the law.

 

[Ophiolite]

The position of the NT is silent on immigration policy. It is not silent on how we should treat people as Christians. The NT speaks directly that it is a governments job to protect it's citizens and enforce the law. We as believers are to follow the law as long as it does not being us into disobedience to God.

On the immigration issue we would be in disobedience if we as believers mistreated lawbreakers or advocated for such. We would not be disobedient if we simply supported the government in enforcing the law.

Yes. I understand that. And you are of course free to be disappointed when I tell you I find the last sentence ethically deplorable. But this is the Political sub-forum, not Ethics, so we are moving off-topic.

 

[rjs330]

Yes. I understand that. And you are of course free to be disappointed when I tell you I find the last sentence ethically deplorable. But this is the Political sub-forum, not Ethics, so we are moving off-topic.

We would be moving off topic. But it's important to note that ethics is opinion based only. The Bible does not deal in ethics. God deals in law and obedience/disobedience. And while some of what God deals with can be considered ethics, it's not the foundation of what the Bible teaches.

 

[PeachyKeane]

These words opened the longest paragraph in the Pelosi remarks at 2019 California Democratic Party state convention.

As with most things I fall somewhat in the middle on this one, and I do not completely accept the case that is being made.

The argument is that we / our ancestors came to this continent and therefore we are hypocrites if we say others can't.

A slightly unfair counter example would be when a room with a fire regulation occupancy limit of 50 reached 70 (I was in that situation) and the meeting had to be brought to a close, for everyone.

If someone had kept count then would it have been fairer to stop everyone after 50 from entering or would it have been fairer to do as was done, once occupancy exceeded the limit to end the meeting and all leave?

Are you saying America has reached capacity? Based on what?

 

[Redac]

True. So can friends and relatives. For example child abuse is much more likely to be perpetrated by a relative or family friend than by a stranger. Anybody can be dangerous. Prejudging a stranger simply because they are a stranger is thoughtless, unethical, immoral and other things that courtesy and forum rules prevent me mentioning.

Would you be more comfortable leaving your child in the care of a total stranger off the street than in the care of a family friend or other relative?

Of course we both know the answer to this, and we both know that to prejudge any given stranger in this situation is not at all immoral or unethical. That you might signal otherwise is just that: signalling.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would you be more comfortable leaving your child in the care of a total stranger off the street than in the care of a family friend or other relative?

Of course we both know the answer to this, and we both know that to prejudge any given stranger in this situation is not at all immoral or unethical. That you might signal otherwise is just that: signalling.

Completely irrelevant to the point being made. The statement I was responding to "Strangers are dangerous" is purest xenophobia and as such unacceptable in an allegedly civilised and Christian society. That's not a signal, that's a vigorous expression of outrage.