Rob's House Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Lol It's a very simple question and shows the arbitrary reasoning for not allowing immigration. The common arguments are usually economic or national identity or something in that area. The economic arguments never come up when people go from Colorado to Louisiana The national identity or culture never come up when talking about ppl moving from Colorado to Louisiana And the immigrants immigration status always comes up with various crimes both severe and petty. This is all coded racist language and here is why.... The response every time to this " I have no problem with people coming here legally" So again I ask Why not just make them legal??? If person x from wherever wanted to move here then why not just register them with a ss# and do a basic background check and on you go? Now the situation is just like going from Colorado to Louisiana Different politics Different cultures Different ppl Different geography Different resources Different economy Etc. The only real reason you stop immigration between Colorado and Louisiana ( outside of war or a crazy natural disaster) is someone has an ethnic or racial prejudice This is why he won't answer the question He knows if he obviously agrees with interstate travel then the only reason to oppose immigration is to call it illegal Why it's illegal, well we can't really justify why, but it's illegal because Murcia! So what's your proposal? Fully open borders where anyone and everyone who wants in gets citizenship? And are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with that does so because of racism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) You can bet anyone who is against immigration is simply a closet racist or extremely stupid.... People like takeyoutotasker and others belong on stormfront... I have more respect for those peoples opinion because at least they admit they are concerned with racial or ethnic preservation It's pretty pathetic and sad to hide your racist bs behind immigration policy. It's beyond getting old 10 minutes ago, Rob's House said: So what's your proposal? Fully open borders where anyone and everyone who wants in gets citizenship? And are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with that does so because of racism? If you don't have a problem with people moving from Colorado to Louisiana Why would you care if a normal person from Canada or Mexico or Brazil took a background check and was given a ss# for tax reasons obviously? Why would you stop them? You need to come up with a reason that's not racial or ethnic preservation that would equally apply to interstate travel Otherwise you are saying ppl are illegal because they're illegal which is circular for obvious reasons To avoid being called a racist Fyi I'm not dogmatic on the issue For example I was for the ( temporary trump travel ban) for reasons of serious conflict and development of a criteria to background check those ppl from those countries... Edited December 5, 2017 by westerndecline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 But it's a moot point because we are specifically discussing normal immigration, well except tasker.... Hes stopped the debate and took his ball home because his feewings was hurt. So pathetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, westerndecline said: You can bet anyone who is against immigration is simply a closet racist or extremely stupid.... People like takeyoutotasker and others belong on stormfront... I have more respect for those peoples opinion because at least they admit they are concerned with racial or ethnic preservation It's pretty pathetic and sad to hide your racist bs behind immigration policy. It's beyond getting old If you don't have a problem with people moving from Colorado to Louisiana Why would you care if a normal person from Canada or Mexico or Brazil took a background check and was given a ss# for tax reasons obviously? Why would you stop them? Actually, I have a problem with Northeastern liberals invading northern Virginia and turning a once proud state blue.We can debate the extent to which dual federalism should allow for state sovereignty, but the various states are still within the same country and article IV of the constitution gives them the right. Unless the person you're debating is arguing that the states are fully autonomous entities, independent of each other, your analogy fails for drawing a false equivalence. And Canadian, Mexican and Brazilian aren't races, so please explain yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) It's the same old bs I here when some old white baby boomers are bitching about black ppl moving into the neighborhood But then they say they aren't racist lol 3 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Actually, I have a problem with Northeastern liberals invading northern Virginia and turning a once proud state blue.We can debate the extent to which dual federalism should allow for state sovereignty, but the various states are still within the same country and article IV of the constitution gives them the right. Unless the person you're debating is arguing that the states are fully autonomous entities, independent of each other, your analogy fails for drawing a false equivalence. And Canadian, Mexican and Brazilian aren't races, so please explain yourself. So again we'll get specific Would you stop immigration from Vermont to Virginia based on political affiliation? That would be a bizarre if you reject travel because someone is a democrat or republican.... That's extremely dangerous but maybe you can explain it better Edited December 5, 2017 by westerndecline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, westerndecline said: It's the same old bs I here when some old white baby boomers are bitching about black ppl moving into the neighborhood But then they say they aren't racist lol So again we'll get specific Would you stop immigration from Vermont to Virginia based on political affiliation? It would be my preference. I'm not suggesting we should rewrite the constitution to facilitate my ideal, but if it were logistically feasible I'd keep socialists from migrating to my state. Unless she has big breasts and a nice ass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Rob's House said: It would be my preference. I'm not suggesting we should rewrite the constitution to facilitate my ideal, but if it were logistically feasible I'd keep socialists from migrating to my state. Unless she has big breasts and a nice ass. I respect your opinion I'm not sure how feasible that is. Imho it would be kinda red scarish to do that and could become highly toxic... Most people wouldn't agree with stopping travel from Vermont to Virginia based on politics but I respect your honesty I agree beautiful women are automatically granted citizenship lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Where the !@#$ did the ignore function go on the new board? Just click on your user profile in the far upper right and you'll see it as a choice in the drop-down. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, westerndecline said: Still avoiding the question Weird then that you would put a picture of racist Bill Murray in your profile. How does that make any sense? Edited December 5, 2017 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Sounds like Gator/Tiberous/ Baskin has a new persona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 8 hours ago, westerndecline said: Lol It's a very simple question and shows the arbitrary reasoning for not allowing immigration. The common arguments are usually economic or national identity or something in that area. The economic arguments never come up when people go from Colorado to Louisiana The national identity or culture never come up when talking about ppl moving from Colorado to Louisiana And the immigrants immigration status always comes up with various crimes both severe and petty. This is all coded racist language and here is why.... The response every time to this " I have no problem with people coming here legally" So again I ask Why not just make them legal??? If person x from wherever wanted to move here then why not just register them with a ss# and do a basic background check and on you go? Now the situation is just like going from Colorado to Louisiana Different politics Different cultures Different ppl Different geography Different resources Different economy Etc. The only real reason you stop immigration between Colorado and Louisiana ( outside of war or a crazy natural disaster) is someone has an ethnic or racial prejudice This is why he won't answer the question He knows if he obviously agrees with interstate travel then the only reason to oppose immigration is to call it illegal Why it's illegal, well we can't really justify why, but it's illegal because Murcia! It's illegal because nations have laws enforcing border security which people violate. Period. And the real reason he won't answer the question is because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IMMIGRATION BETWEEN COLORADO AND LOUISIANA." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 The fact that they don't understand why people are able to travel freely between Colorado and Louisiana and not between Canada and the US is indicative of either: 1. Retarded sovcit type "logic" or 2. just retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: The fact that they don't understand why people are able to travel freely between Colorado and Louisiana and not between Canada and the US is indicative of either: 1. Retarded sovcit type "logic" or 2. just retarded. Really...if someone wants to say "I think travel between countries should be as open as travel between Colorado and Louisiana," that's fine. It's stupid...but it's a coherent statement that the 500-year-old concept of "nation-state" should be invalidated, that can at least be discussed. "You're racist because you support immigration from Colorado to Louisiana" is just !@#$ing retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: Weird then that you would put a picture of racist Bill Murray in your profile. How does that make any sense? Bill Murray is god 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: It's illegal because nations have laws enforcing border security which people violate. Period. And the real reason he won't answer the question is because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IMMIGRATION BETWEEN COLORADO AND LOUISIANA." Circular logic try again You can't say ppl are illegal because they're illegal Again just admit to the racist bs or continue the joke 59 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Really...if someone wants to say "I think travel between countries should be as open as travel between Colorado and Louisiana," that's fine. It's stupid...but it's a coherent statement that the 500-year-old concept of "nation-state" should be invalidated, that can at least be discussed. "You're racist because you support immigration from Colorado to Louisiana" is just !@#$ing retarded. You simply refuse to acknowledge why a person can't come here if they pass a quick background check and get a ss# for tax purposes Outside of race or ethnic preservation, why would you prohibit that You don't with interstate travel? Do you not get that Edited December 5, 2017 by westerndecline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 22 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Bill Murray is god Circular logic try again You can't say ppl are illegal because they're illegal Again just admit to the racist bs or continue the joke You simply refuse to acknowledge why a person can't come here if they pass a quick background check and get a ss# for tax purposes Outside of race or ethnic preservation, why would you prohibit that You don't with interstate travel? Do you not get that Do you not get enough attention as gator or Tiberius? The "tells" are there. All you've done since you've started posting here is to make this a less desirable place to come to. Just like gator and Tiberius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 5, 2017 Author Share Posted December 5, 2017 43 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Bill Murray is god So you worship racists but call other people racists? Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: Really...if someone wants to say "I think travel between countries should be as open as travel between Colorado and Louisiana," that's fine. It's stupid...but it's a coherent statement that the 500-year-old concept of "nation-state" should be invalidated, that can at least be discussed. "You're racist because you support immigration from Colorado to Louisiana" is just !@#$ing retarded. And there's the rub. The idiocy of advancing the idea that because people travel freely between states they should be able to do so between countries is staggering, ignores multiple realities and makes many flawed assumptions. The first troublesome assumption it makes is that because free travel between states exists that is always desirable. The fact the free travel between states is the legal norm does confer on to it special status. Take, for example, the current situation in California in regards to secession. The people of California (and in prior years, citizens of Texas) are seeking to sever a 167 year old bond because of political differences they find to be irreconcilable. I understand the priori assumption that it is the right of a free people to travel, but the freedom of travel does not extend to places where an external authority has forbidden you to go by exercising it's just authority over it's own property or territory. The freedom of travel is a red herring here, as it applies to the government of a free people disallowing travel to a destination they do not exercise jurisdiction over; not to the sovereign body holding jurisdiction restricting travel into it's property/territory by foreign nationals. Distilled down to the most basic level, the freedom to travel does not grant you the authority to stand in my yard if I don't want you there. The case can be made that it is in the best economic interests of most involved to permit free movement, but you'll notice "economic" modifies interests here; and that there are compelling competing interests which are not economic in nature. The bare assertion that the only interests to be considered are economic (which is a blanket statement made in a vacuum without consideration given to expenses of services consumed under a welfare state) is a flawed Utilitarian argument under which the harms of minimizing opposing interests are under stated and the value of maximizing the interests of travel are overstated, and represent only the subjective valuations of the individual advancing the case with complete disregard for opposing valuations. The people of California seem to value their culture, and the enforcement of laws unique to them, to the point that they are seeking to disassociate with the United States as an act of political freedom. It serves to reason, then, that they also might wish to restrict migration from areas which hold viewpoints that run counter to their desire to secede. Edited December 5, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 5 hours ago, DC Tom said: It's illegal because nations have laws enforcing border security which people violate. Period. And the real reason he won't answer the question is because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IMMIGRATION BETWEEN COLORADO AND LOUISIANA." Try again You keep saying it's illegal because well nation state meh Murcia That's not a reason lol. U can't say someone should be illegal because meh illegal Again If a person from Mexico can be given a ss# ( taxes etc) and we did a quick background check Why would you not let them in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Why would you not let them in? Because resources aren't infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: And there's the rub. The idiocy of advancing the idea that because people travel freely between states they should be able to do so between countries is staggering, ignores multiple realities and makes many flawed assumptions. The first troublesome assumption it makes is that because free travel between states exists that is always desirable. The fact the free travel between states is the legal norm does confer on to it special status. Take, for example, the current situation in California in regards to secession. The people of California (and in prior years, citizens of Texas) are seeking to sever a 167 year old bond because of political differences they find to be irreconcilable. I understand the priori assumption that it is the right of a free people to travel, but the freedom of travel does not extend to places where an external authority has forbidden you to go by exercising it's just authority over it's own property or territory. The freedom of travel is a red herring here, as it applies to the government of a free people disallowing travel to a destination they do not exercise jurisdiction over; not to the sovereign body holding jurisdiction restricting travel into it's property/territory by foreign nationals. Distilled down to the most basic level, the freedom to travel does not grant you the authority to stand in my yard if I don't want you there. The case can be made that it is in the best economic interests of most involved to permit free movement, but you'll notice "economic" modifies interests here; and that there are compelling competing interests which are not economic in nature. The bare assertion that the only interests to be considered are economic (which is a blanket statement made in a vacuum without consideration given to expenses of services consumed under a welfare state) is a flawed Utilitarian argument under which the harms of minimizing opposing interests are under stated and the value of maximizing the interests of travel are overstated, and represent only the subjective valuations of the individual advancing the case with complete disregard for opposing valuations. The people of California seem to value their culture, and the enforcement of laws unique to them, to the point that they are seeking to disassociate with the United States as an act of political freedom. It serves to reason, then, that they also might wish to restrict migration from areas which hold viewpoints that run counter to their desire to secede. Firstly your yard is not a society Secondly your stated opinion of the benefit of travel not taking into consideration other variables like culture and politics has already been debunked... During peace time you don't stop dems from California going to Texas. That's fascism sir..... thirdly you're now talking about political differences and not letting people into the United states hypothetically because they are democrats... Fourthly Don't use the word utilitarianism to sound smart This isn't ethics class you pompous idiot This isn't logistically feasible and would mean most likely a civil war ( WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ) We are not talking about times of war or a great natural disaster We are talking about normal immigration or travel Person x from Mexico wants to come here Why won't you let them? 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Because resources aren't infinite. Thank you someone who gets it lol... Would you limit travel from Colorado to Louisiana because of resources? I could see this being a temporary reason but not something during the norm. Resources would have to be so scarce tht there was a natural disaster which goes back to my previous point Edited December 5, 2017 by westerndecline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts