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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.