Quote:The Native Americans didn't immediately kill off the immigrants, and that worked out terribly for them. Isn't the lesson to be learned from that 'don't let immigrants into your country, or they'll kill you all'?

One was a colonization attempt by the European powers with full intention of displacing the natives .The other is desperate people fleeing for there lives or at least not wanting to live in crippling poverty .There is a bit of a difference.

---

Quote:The question relies on people being self-centered, so they think "That'd be bad!" because they look at it from the white man's perspective. But if you look at it from the perspective of Native Americans (which is what would be applicable if it were a serious point), it would have been WAY better for the Naive Americans to just kill off the white people when they showed up.  

Just an amusing thing about how self-centered people are.  They identify with their race, not their position in the relationship dynamic.

No as a Native i think it would have been better if we had found a way to co exist

(June 25, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:The Native Americans didn't immediately kill off the immigrants, and that worked out terribly for them. Isn't the lesson to be learned from that 'don't let immigrants into your country, or they'll kill you all'?

One was a colonization attempt by the European powers with full intention of displacing the natives .The other is desperate people fleeing for there lives or at least not wanting to live in crippling poverty .There is a bit of a difference.

---

Quote:The question relies on people being self-centered, so they think "That'd be bad!" because they look at it from the white man's perspective. But if you look at it from the perspective of Native Americans (which is what would be applicable if it were a serious point), it would have been WAY better for the Naive Americans to just kill off the white people when they showed up.  

Just an amusing thing about how self-centered people are.  They identify with their race, not their position in the relationship dynamic.

No as a Native i think it would have been better if we had found a way to co exist

Nu uh, President Shithole called all of them an "infestation".

OK, so the best plan of action is for everyone to contact all of the Congress Critters and insist that the US take active steps to import all of the suffering people from all of the shithole countries around the world. It's unfair for them to stay in their countries where they are being oppressed when they can live lives of luxury in America (and in Canada). So as part of the plan to improve people's lives I propose that we take over Canada because it has lots of land and very few people. Then we can develop vast tracts of land there for the foreigners to live. We can also do the same for them in the lightly populated Rocky Mountain and Great Plains States.

Now everyone will benefit from this. The foreigners will work and pay all of those lovely taxes. The foreign countries will get rid of their undesirables. The bleeding hearts will love it because they get to feel good about taking in those huddled masses yearning to be free. And North Korea, China, and Russia will love it because they get to send hundreds of millions of stealth troops who will overthrow the US and Canada without engaging in a direct war themselves. The people from south of the border might hate it if they lose their special victim status but we should be able to easily cater to their special needs. And it will make the Pope feel good.

So the call to action is for everyone to get busy and to write all of the Congress Critters to make it possible. Insist that we import at least 6 billion people within the next five years. If they resist vote them out of office. Working together we can make it happen so let's get it done!

(June 25, 2018 at 10:47 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: But you have a fancy new house, do you think that you should have a say, in who enters into it?   If I just let myself in, and started making myself a sandwich is that OK?    You could come home tomorrow, and find me and 20 other people having a Bible study in your living room.  I think that if we want to change immigration policies (and relax them); that is a different conversation from tolerating illegal immigrants.

As long as we're imagining analogies, let's make this one a little more accurate. The house is so big and so many people live there already that you might not see the people who moved in on a daily basis, 20 more is only a 3% increase. And they're willing to build extensions to the house. Some of the people in the house invited the 20 people to do jobs for them, and would benefit from more coming, and other people in the house want to forbid it, and want to press charges for trespassing even though the people who want to give them jobs have invited them in. But a lot are in between those two extremes.

And 87% of the people in the house support letting the kids who were brought into the house when they were minors stay. They feel they're reasonably part of the household now. The majority want the yard reasonably secure, but are happy with any kind of reasonable barrier, they don't want a wall around the whole place. There's no clear majority on whether letting them in under the current rules should be reduced, kept the same, or increased; but there's a clear majority against taking the children of the people coming in away from them, for some reason. The majority in the middle just wish the people who make the rules would hash out a reasonable compromise so they can all move on with their lives.

(June 25, 2018 at 5:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 10:47 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: But you have a fancy new house, do you think that you should have a say, in who enters into it?   If I just let myself in, and started making myself a sandwich is that OK?    You could come home tomorrow, and find me and 20 other people having a Bible study in your living room.  I think that if we want to change immigration policies (and relax them); that is a different conversation from tolerating illegal immigrants.

As long as we're imagining analogies, let's make this one a little more accurate. The house is so big and so many people live there already that you might not see the people who moved in on a daily basis, 20 more is only a 3% increase. And they're willing to build extensions to the house. Some of the people in the house invited the 20 people to do jobs for them, and would benefit from more coming, and other people in the house want to forbid it, and want to press charges for trespassing even though the people who want to give them jobs have invited them in. But a lot are in between those two extremes.

And 87% of the people in the house support letting the kids who were brought into the house when they were minors stay. They feel they're reasonably part of the household now. The majority want the yard reasonably secure, but are happy with any kind of reasonable barrier, they don't want a wall around the whole place. There's no clear majority on whether letting them in under the current rules should be reduced, kept the same, or increased; but there's a clear majority against taking the children of the people coming in away from them, for some reason. The majority in the middle just wish the people who make the rules would hash out a reasonable compromise so they can all move on with their lives.

I don't have that big of a house, but I would think that someone entering it illegally, would still be wrong.

(June 25, 2018 at 5:23 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have that big of a house, but I would think that someone entering it illegally, would still be wrong.

It would be illegal, misdemeanor trespassing. It's hard to say it would be wrong given that the members of the household are in disagreement on how best to handle those who would enter, and a chunk of the house the size of Texas was seized by violence (because their law did not allow slavery) by your grandpa was taken from another house, and it's mostly people from that house he stole from that want to cross to 'your' house now. Come to think of it, grandpa stole every part of your house, and killed a lot of the previous occupants.

If someone stole a big chunk of your house and declared it off limits to you, and you wanted to come back, would you think 'golly, I'd like to go back, but they stole it from grandpa fair and square!'? If you didn't have food or medicine for your baby and you knew your only neighbors who had any for miles around would not let you in even though some of the occupants are happy to pay you to do work that needs to be done around the house, but the rule-makers won't let you even work for food, would you consider sneaking in and out when you could, or would your rather risk your baby dying?

And wouldn't it be a better house to live in, overall, if the rules allowed at least the people from the house grandpa stole to come in legally if they're willing to earn their keep?

This analogy is making my head hurt.

(June 25, 2018 at 5:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 5:23 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have that big of a house, but I would think that someone entering it illegally, would still be wrong.

It would be illegal, misdemeanor trespassing. It's hard to say it would be wrong given that the members of the household are in disagreement on how best to handle those who would enter, and a chunk of the house the size of Texas was seized by violence (because their law did not allow slavery) by your grandpa was taken from another house, and it's mostly people from that house he stole from that want to cross to 'your' house now. Come to think of it, grandpa stole every part of your house, and killed a lot of the previous occupants.

If someone stole a big chunk of your house and declared it off limits to you, and you wanted to come back, would you think 'golly, I'd like to go back, but they stole it from grandpa fair and square!'? If you didn't have food or medicine for your baby and you knew your only neighbors who had any for miles around would not let you in even though some of the occupants are happy to pay you to do work that needs to be done around the house, but the rule-makers won't let you even work for food, would you consider sneaking in and out when you could, or would your rather risk your baby dying?

And wouldn't it be a better house to live in, overall, if the rules allowed at least the people from the house grandpa stole to come in legally if they're willing to earn their keep?

Actually it would be up to those in authority of the house to decide if it was legal or not.  However; I think at this point, we are stretching the analogy a bit thin.  

If you want to change the immigration policies, I would suggest that you contact your representatives.  Or I am happy to discuss, if you have an idea.  However what you feel the immigration policy should be, I believe is a different topic from what to do with those who violate those laws.

If anyone is equating jaywalking to 1rst degree murder, you fucking need help.

Quote:I don't have that big of a house, but I would think that someone entering it illegally, would still be wrong.

A house isn't equal  to a country

---

Quote:Actually it would be up to those in authority of the house to decide if it was legal or not.  However; I think at this point, we are stretching the analogy a bit thin.   

Nope still works fine you just like the end result 

Quote:If you want to change the immigration policies, I would suggest that you contact your representatives.  Or I am happy to discuss, if you have an idea.  However what you feel the immigration policy should be, I believe is a different topic from what to do with those who violate those laws.

Or we could do the far more rational thing and not follow a terrible law

---

(June 25, 2018 at 4:51 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: OK, so the best plan of action is for everyone to contact all of the Congress Critters and insist that the US take active steps to import all of the suffering people from all of the shithole countries around the world.  It's unfair for them to stay in their countries where they are being oppressed when they can live lives of luxury in America (and in Canada).  So as part of the plan to improve people's lives I propose that we take over Canada because it has lots of land and very few people.  Then we can develop vast tracts of land there for the foreigners to live.  We can also do the same for them in the lightly populated Rocky Mountain and Great Plains States.  

Now everyone will benefit from this.  The foreigners will work and pay all of those lovely taxes.  The foreign countries will get rid of their undesirables.  The bleeding hearts will love it because they get to feel good about taking in those huddled masses yearning to be free.  And North Korea, China, and Russia will love it because they get to send hundreds of millions of stealth troops who will overthrow the US and Canada without engaging in a direct war themselves.  The people from south of the border might hate it if they lose their special victim status but we should be able to easily cater to their special needs.  And it will make the Pope feel good.  

So the call to action is for everyone to get busy and to write all of the Congress Critters to make it possible.  Insist that we import at least 6 billion people within the next five years.  If they resist vote them out of office.  Working together we can make it happen so let's get it done!

Do you ever stop engaging in hyperbole