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: Eshel
Donald Trump is a waste of flesh.
He is a racist through and through.
Anyone who defends this man must also be of the same cloth.
These are my opinion.
If you disagree with them then fine. But I will not budge in my beliefs.
Regardless of how many times I am silenced.
“I will remain triggered” -Eric
originally posted by: ketsuko
This is thinking that everyone - left and right - has. Everyone knows it too.
People on both sides use that argument all the time. "We can't send them back! Their countries are so messed up!" "They are breaking their necks to come here because their countries are messed up, but they should be fixing their own problems, not bringing them here!"
What on earth does anyone think a messed up country is if it isn't exactly what the president said in less "diplomatic" terms?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Grambler
To be clear, I am not against taking in a certain number of people who are poor and likely to be more of a drain than a boon right away, but we do not need to take in unrestricted numbers of them, we absolutely have a right to be selective about it, and we are also under no obligation to take them and all of their nearest blood relations to the 3rd and 4th degree to avoid "breaking up families" (chain migration) when we do it.
And at the same time, we also have every right to place a priority on the best and brightest immigrants from wherever in the world they happen to hail from to fill out the bulk of our yearly immigration totals in whatever way best suits our country's needs too.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Grambler
To be clear, I am not against taking in a certain number of people who are poor and likely to be more of a drain than a boon right away, but we do not need to take in unrestricted numbers of them, we absolutely have a right to be selective about it, and we are also under no obligation to take them and all of their nearest blood relations to the 3rd and 4th degree to avoid "breaking up families" (chain migration) when we do it.
And at the same time, we also have every right to place a priority on the best and brightest immigrants from wherever in the world they happen to hail from to fill out the bulk of our yearly immigration totals in whatever way best suits our country's needs too.
I agree.
I am for a merit based system.
There is no reason that ta system of that couldnt take Haitians or people from the other countries.
However, we do know that country of origin does factor in on likelihood of a successful assymilation, so it may be a small factor.
But that is vastly outweighed by other things like education level,beliefs, skill sets, etc.
The current immigration system does not have the goal of taking the people that is best for our country, and that is absurd.
Trump is right to ask his question; why does the lottery system demand we take in so many people from these crappy countries.
Again, this is not saying that many people from these countries wouldnt get in on a merit based system, but to demand that the US take these people based only on their countries or origin and not merit, is baffling considering how crappy these countries are.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AMPTAH
The statue was a gift from France and reflects French ideas of what America was at the time.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Falenor
Every other country in the world does, and then they presume to lecture us for thinking it ought to be the same.
They're hypocrites one and all.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: jonnywhite
Some blokes, indeed, considering many of "those blokes" were European.
According to Quinion, Ernest Weekley and John Camden Hotten, bloke probably derives either from the Romany, language of the Rom (gypsies), or from Shelta, a secret language of Welsh and Irish Travellers.[2][3][4] These languages have roots with the Hindi word loke, a man.[2][3] Lexicographer Eric Partridge conjectured the word loke was the original but an unspecified word "too low for mention" was the cause of a b- added in slang.[4] The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says the word is of "Origin unknown" but adds: "Ogilvie compares 'Gypsy and Hindi loke a man.'" The OED's first cited use is in 1861.[5] Some believe it derives from the Celtic word ploc, a large, bull-headed person.[2][3] The word first appears in early 19th century England possibly, according to Michael Quinion, as a variation of the slang term gloak, which itself was a variation of an older slang term buzzgloak, meaning pickpocket.