It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WH clarified Statue of Liberty Poem - Not actually part of American Values

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
there are tons of Americans who wouldn't be able to pass that merit system but nothing is done about their ignorance.


Why would they need to, they're the REAL Americans


That comment you replied to is actually an important one because it reveals the mind set. There is no concept of nationality or nation with some people. i.e. no USA at all, just a land mass and resources that everyone in the world should be entitled to. It's why the debates about immigration policy or foreign policy can be so strange.

I'm sorry. You are a Brit. You have no idea what is and isn't a real American in the first place, so your input here is unnecessary.


Will you be accusing others of logical fallacies while conveniently ignorng your own i wonder?




posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Today's millennial conservatives forget that for the longest time, unskilled immigrant labor was a secret love of the Republican party. It meant cheap labor and maximum profit.

Go back and watch some presidential debates with Reagan and George Bush during the 80's. The "Conservative Jesus" himself had quite a different tone about immigration:




posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Exactly. Its the same reason we haven't seen the long list of nation states that have prospered under isolationist policies. When you distill it down to its basest form, adopting policies based on fear rarely produces a positive result.


So what do you do for a living? There is a limit in everything you know... Personally I don't want to compete with 1.2 billion from India, do you? I know my number seem so Straw man like but we have billions that want a better life and want your life, are you willing to complete? As a betting man, I think you would lose...


Your logic suggests either that a good percent of the population doesn't deserve a job that maybe someone else in the world would do it better and cheaper, or you feel that the answer to success is to double down on population in that the more humans the more need for support of those humans. Have you ever seen what life in highly dense areas of the world looks like..lol

edit on 5-8-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

As you said, this is a straw man argument.

I'm an engineer. Yes, I am absolutely willing to compete internationally (and do regularly). I could follow your train of logic, and think to myself how great it would be if American's were only allowed to buy from me, but ultimately it would allow me to become complacent, since without any competitive stressors driving me to become more efficient, to develop my products in more effective and economic ways, to push the envelope of my field and therefore benefit all customers more, I would consider it a great loss (and a boring and unfulfilling situation to find myself in).

Everyone deserves a job, and just because there are more people in the total system, doesn't mean that there are less jobs to go around. It sounds like you would rather purposefully keep a large segment of the human race in squalor out of fear they would take your jobs and leave you in squalor, and that my friend is your own subconscious projecting. I think you would benefit from the clarity provided by even an economics 101 course, if you had the time or inclination.

Once again, i'll reiterate my point since you quoted it but missed the meaning I think. Please show me an example of an isolationist policy that through history was shown to ultimately benefit that nation/city-state/region. It has been proven beyond contestation that the more people that are introduced into an economic model, the bigger the economy of that model gets, and the more wealth is generated (where that wealth is distributed is another issue altogether). Arguments to the contrary are rooted in fear, xenophobia, racism, and sometimes even just base selfishness, but all of them are false when the evidence is actually weighted and analyzed.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

A refreshing memory of great writing and logical reasoning.

Well done.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, the poem stands.
Unfortunately it doesn't read "Give me your.... .... so our current citizens can pay for them to survive".

Was there even a welfare state back then?
Was anyone allowed in?

More importantly, from Acosta's point of view, outside of the US, is English only spoken by people in Britain and Australia? What a dope... even rabid anti-Trumpers were embarrassed for him




So you can read Jim Acosta's mind now? Know what he was thinking do you?

Hey, here's an idea ... why don't you put up some evidence to go with all those wild claims.

Like, for example, that all immigrants are automatically put on welfare, or any of the other nonsense you posted.


Why would I need to read his mind - he asked the question very publicly... he thought that a rule that an immigrant should be able to speak English meant that only Britain and Australia were allowed.


Immigrants automatically put on welfare - who said that? Is this another of your straw man arguments?

edit on 5/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

No, your house and land is not yours.

Right now it is.


It will be there after you have left.

...after which I honestly dont care what anyone does to it.


You have no right to it.


I do right now.


But even if I accept your property rights, I'll just camp out on your land then and you don't need to feed me.. deal?

Sure. I've got 6 acres in the sticks. I also have quite a diverse array of firearms that I tend to fire on my own land legally, I strongly advise that you DONT camp downrange.


There you go.
Your message is - "yeah come on in to the country, it belongs to everyone in the world, but set foot on my land and i'll likely kill you."


Providing advice on where NOT to be if they want to "camp" on my land is tantamount in your mind to suggesting if they do they will die?

No wonder you're such an avid Donald Trump sycophant, you share a sense of logic.


Why would your advice be necessary - it's not your land... you belong to the land remember? That is what you posited based on your research into Mick Dundee.


Now you're just being stupid. Stop with the antics and grow up.


You are the one who brought Mick Dundee into the conversation.
Your point was that no one owns the land, we belong to it, right?

I guess it's now changed to the exception for YOUR land - you own that.


I guess ideologies can become problematic when they end up at your own front door.

edit on 5/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You don't get irony?

Sarcasm?

Wow.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
The New Collosus was intended as a clever advertising scheme to get donatiins from the common man for erection of the statue and it's pedestal. The government simply did not have the money at the time, and rich people were not lining up to donate. Hence, an appeal to the common man was hatched. Much of the money used to erect The statue was gained in the form of donations of $1 or less.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
The New Collosus was intended as a clever advertising scheme to get donatiins from the common man for erection of the statue and it's pedestal. The government simply did not have the money at the time, and rich people were not lining up to donate. Hence, an appeal to the common man was hatched. Much of the money used to erect The statue was gained in the form of donations of $1 or less.


This is not entirely correct. The French paid for almost all of the statue itself. The stone pedestal at its base is what the poem was used to help drum up financial support for, as you mention.

Here is an excellent piece describing the process: www.thoughtco.com...

It still begs the questions of why would people inspired by the poem to donate consider the poem not a part of the American values they cherished at the time?



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The U.S. wasn't as Socialist of a nation back then. I bet if the working man back then knew the government would be stealing from him to be paying welfare, food stamps, housing, health insurance etc. for all the tired, poor and huddled masses, he sure as hell wouldn't have approved of it.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
The U.S. wasn't as Socialist of a nation back then. I bet if the working man back then knew the government would be stealing from him to be paying welfare, food stamps, housing, health insurance etc. for all the tired, poor and huddled masses, he sure as hell wouldn't have approved of it.


You are correct.
Isn't it interesting how for one argument some are happy to go back over a hundred years for their rationale, but at the same time argue that other policies should not be based on old ideas and be brought into 2017.

You are spot on, though, the welfare socialist policies of modern America make the 'huddles masses' argument a poor one.
As long as people are brought in according to skills requirements, it's all fair and reasonable. The idea of not providing any financial assistance for 5 years after entry is also a great idea.
edit on 5/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I'm an engineer. Yes, I am absolutely willing to compete internationally (and do regularly). I could follow your train of logic, and think to myself how great it would be if American's were only allowed to buy from me, but ultimately it would allow me to become complacent, since without any competitive stressors driving me to become more efficient, to develop my products in more effective and economic ways, to push the envelope of my field and therefore benefit all customers more, I would consider it a great loss (and a boring and unfulfilling situation to find myself in).


So you do not mind if I bring a highly educated and qualified guy in on a H1B visa to replace you since I can bay him 50% of what I would need to pay you and get the same or better performance? I'm in a highly technical field too and I do my job (senior manger) quite well, but I do understand that there are a lot of people out there that can do my job just as well too. I have a lot of engineers that work with me and when I hire the pay offer is basically what can I get the person in the door with while keeping the pay inline with industry standards and close to others that would be considered equal within the company.

If that pay is 50k 100k 150k for the same job I don't care as along as it fits within what I said above. I can tell you this that if we used H1B visas that pay would be closer to 50k than 150k. As I said even with hiring it is still about supply and demand, and unless you have super special talents you can be replaced.



Everyone deserves a job, and just because there are more people in the total system, doesn't mean that there are less jobs to go around. It sounds like you would rather purposefully keep a large segment of the human race in squalor out of fear they would take your jobs and leave you in squalor, and that my friend is your own subconscious projecting. I think you would benefit from the clarity provided by even an economics 101 course, if you had the time or inclination.


They do but everyone doesn't need to work in America. I have lived all over the world, and people want to have a good life and they can without the need to all come here...lol I can't control the human race or what it does, so keeping it in squalor is really not even a thought for me. 800 million Chinese live in squalor, 3 million homeless children run the streets in Brazil in gangs, India is a sea of squalor...many places have a density of 50k to 200k people per sq km. We can't control or fix all that by bringing the masses here.



Once again, i'll reiterate my point since you quoted it but missed the meaning I think. Please show me an example of an isolationist policy that through history was shown to ultimately benefit that nation/city-state/region. It has been proven beyond contestation that the more people that are introduced into an economic model, the bigger the economy of that model gets, and the more wealth is generated (where that wealth is distributed is another issue altogether). Arguments to the contrary are rooted in fear, xenophobia, racism, and sometimes even just base selfishness, but all of them are false when the evidence is actually weighted and analyzed.


Yes I understand your point, but is an annual pay of $600 India and $3000 China good examples of your "the more people the better economic model"? This is why people are willing to come here and work very hard and live a very meager life so they can send money back home. In the case of India, if I payed an engineer 50k a year from India for a job that I would typically pay 120k it is a win win right? I get great work for a lot less, and that person can send home 40x or more the avg pay in India. To do this they group up and have 10 people live in a 3 bed house, which is still good for them compared to what they might have back home. Is this something you want to compete against?

So the question is why should I pay you 120k and not this other guy 50k? Why should I pay a person 15 bucks an hour and not just pay another person min wage or less when I can? You can't do much with 15 bucks an hour on what we see in America as our lifestyle, but living a commune lifestyle even with min wage can get a group of people by and even save to send home a good chunk of money. Not really the life model I'm looking for.


edit on 5-8-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You are basing your entire argument around H1-B visa's, which you will find very few people claiming that they were structured in a way that was beneficial to you or I (the proletariat). If you espouse a plutocratic view of the world and your aim is to engender support for executives directly benefiting from those visa's, then yes, in a basic sense there would be a disparity in the cost/value for what I can provide as a full citizen vs an immigrant working here, unless of course I have made myself and my skills above and beyond what someone on an H1-B visa can provide (and I'm happy to report that I have - primarily because of the hyper specialized nature of my work).

Your assertions that a $600/year or $3000/year pay is relevant to the economic scale of the population is incorrect. The forces that drive those values are independent of the population size.

Ultimately, (and I am assuming that even as senior manager you aren't at executive level), the H1-B system is being abused by executive level individuals to increase their bottom line at the expense of the workers beneath them (us). This does not make it right, and I am every bit as much for removing/restructuring immigrant visas to close this loophole, but not for inhibiting immigrants from coming here to work. Even something as simple as a quasi-unionized group that represented workers as a whole (both indigenous and immigrant) would help to shore up the disparity that exists currently.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Your assertions that a $600/year or $3000/year pay is relevant to the economic scale of the population is incorrect. The forces that drive those values are independent of the population size.


I disagree somewhat, I think you can still have more people than jobs. What do we do when machines start to take over tasks that a large percent of the workforce does today to make a living? There are a lot of variables involved in whether everyone can make a living. In my line of work I'm somewhat protected since you need clearances to work where i work, so for me there is that.

that 600/3000 represents why these people come here and are willing to work for a lot less than what we considered a living wage for us.


This does not make it right, and I am every bit as much for removing/restructuring immigrant visas to close this loophole, but not for inhibiting immigrants from coming here to work. Even something as simple as a quasi-unionized group that represented workers as a whole (both indigenous and immigrant) would help to shore up the disparity that exists currently.


I guess my main point is you make your immigration policies around the needs of the country and not just let people in because they happen to live in a bad place.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join