Immigration and the left.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I have not expressed a single feeling in this thread. Everything I say is one based from logic and research.

...........


Yeah, It's a shame your ancestors didn't get the same when they came here.

Wow, you amaze me with your ability to not understand yourself.

When the nation was being built, people from all different nations came here, and collectively, they all decided that we need to protect what we built. That is why we have immigration laws to begin with. And we have them in place so some bonehead doesn't decide that because his "feelz" are hurt, we should just let everyone play in our sandbox.

a reply to: network dude

I care, and about half of the nation also cares. See, this is where your version of reality isn't congruent with the Nation's.

So it's only reality if it agrees with you half and your half speaks for the entire nation?

You may not like it, but WE are interested in securing our borders. By WE, I mean the half of the voting public that decided to take a chance on Trump.

Ok. So how does that deal with the people that are already here? This seems to be the problem I keep mentioning. This issue is much more complex than what fancy campaign slogans and border walls are going to fix.

I find it interesting that you said in the OP that you are honestly interested to know what the Left thinks on this issue and when you are told, you just insult people.

It appears that honesty was not the proper term to use.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Home ownership is NOT comparable to country borders. It's more apt to compare a country's borders to state borders. So let's do that. States have open borders and allow people to cross freely without checking. How many states have been torn apart due to free access between them?

I'm afraid I will need you to explain why borders of nations are not the same as borders for your property. They are just "imaginary lines" as you put it.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

If the laws were just written a few years ago, you might have a leg to stand on, you don't. Unless you can show that the nation as a whole is biased towards letting people from "desirable" nations enter, you are just using a logical fallacy. Appeal to emotion. Don't be that guy.

Did you not read your own OP? You are that guy.

LOL, you have fun with your version of reality. It's refreshing to see just how far skewed your thinking is.

No need to have a different version of reality. You posted it. You said it.

Your hypocrisy is your burden to bear, not mine.

and your posts are here for all to read as well. I am happy to own mine.

I'm sure you will own it and be happy with it.

Ignorance is bliss.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

I care, and about half of the nation also cares. See, this is where your version of reality isn't congruent with the Nation's.

So it's only reality if it agrees with you half and your half speaks for the entire nation?

You may not like it, but WE are interested in securing our borders. By WE, I mean the half of the voting public that decided to take a chance on Trump.

Ok. So how does that deal with the people that are already here? This seems to be the problem I keep mentioning. This issue is much more complex than what fancy campaign slogans and border walls are going to fix.

I find it interesting that you said in the OP that you are honestly interested to know what the Left thinks on this issue and when you are told, you just insult people.

It appears that honesty was not the proper term to use.

no, it's reality because it's the #ING LAW! Jesus, do you not understand how laws work? They aren't subject to your mood, they are LAWS. I really have to say this, your position on this is EXACTLY why I wrote this and why I question your mental ability to function on your own.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I have not expressed a single feeling in this thread. Everything I say is one based from logic and research.

...........


Yeah, It's a shame your ancestors didn't get the same when they came here.

Wow, you amaze me with your ability to not understand yourself.

When the nation was being built, people from all different nations came here, and collectively, they all decided that we need to protect what we built. That is why we have immigration laws to begin with. And we have them in place so some bonehead doesn't decide that because his "feelz" are hurt, we should just let everyone play in our sandbox.

Why is it always Fear when talking about aliens, foreign people? How about some positive emotions, like proudness that they chose to come to your country, or feeling mercy for war refugees, or something like that?

Why always the Fear that They will do inevitably harm?

How about trying to be a little more optimistic?
Or how about being mercifull or altruistic like your favorite religion undoubtedly tells you to be?

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Isn’t morality relative?

Yes. That is why laws need to be flexible and adaptable as morality evolves and changes with the times.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

I care, and about half of the nation also cares. See, this is where your version of reality isn't congruent with the Nation's.

So it's only reality if it agrees with you half and your half speaks for the entire nation?

You may not like it, but WE are interested in securing our borders. By WE, I mean the half of the voting public that decided to take a chance on Trump.

Ok. So how does that deal with the people that are already here? This seems to be the problem I keep mentioning. This issue is much more complex than what fancy campaign slogans and border walls are going to fix.

I find it interesting that you said in the OP that you are honestly interested to know what the Left thinks on this issue and when you are told, you just insult people.

It appears that honesty was not the proper term to use.

no, it's reality because it's the #ING LAW! Jesus, do you not understand how laws work? They aren't subject to your mood, they are LAWS. I really have to say this, your position on this is EXACTLY why I wrote this and why I question your mental ability to function on your own.

The law is subject to change.
If enough people think that the law is wrong, the legislative is induced to work on that law.

No law is permament.

a reply to: network dude

Where's your source explaining this? I posted a source that shows the bias that fueled immigration laws which backed up my argument. You appear to just be talking out your ass. So prove your claims.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I have not expressed a single feeling in this thread. Everything I say is one based from logic and research.

...........


Yeah, It's a shame your ancestors didn't get the same when they came here.

Wow, you amaze me with your ability to not understand yourself.

When the nation was being built, people from all different nations came here, and collectively, they all decided that we need to protect what we built. That is why we have immigration laws to begin with. And we have them in place so some bonehead doesn't decide that because his "feelz" are hurt, we should just let everyone play in our sandbox.

Why is it always Fear when talking about aliens, foreign people? How about some positive emotions, like proudness that they chose to come to your country, or feeling mercy for war refugees, or something like that?

Why always the Fear that They will do inevitably harm?

How about trying to be a little more optimistic?
Or how about being mercifull or altruistic like your favorite religion undoubtedly tells you to be?

Ah, another appeal to emotion. How is it that we DO have a process to enter the United States and become a citizen? Did you forget that, while you were opening up your home to any and all who wish to squat there?

a reply to: network dude

no, it's reality because it's the #ING LAW! Jesus, do you not understand how laws work? They aren't subject to your mood, they are LAWS. I really have to say this, your position on this is EXACTLY why I wrote this and why I question your mental ability to function on your own.

I'm flattered...but not really.

You are just continuing to prove exactly what I posted. This is not a black and white issue and you are incapable of thinking beyond such simple terms. You have not taken the time to address the issues I brought up, just reverting back to the same line over and over like you are Judge Dredd..."THE LAW".

And it is ok for you to question my mental ability. You really have nothing else to stand on. You have not presented any reasonable counter argument to the points I made and so you revert to what you know...insults.

At least we now know for certain that your OP was completely dishonest. You were not interested in knowing what the left thinks.

a reply to: network dude

Scope and scale. I can use a shovel to level out a dirt hill, but if I took a shovel to a mountain I'd be at it for awhile.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

i have to say our reptilian withcitizen i met are kind of wicked minds

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Where's your source explaining this? I posted a source that shows the bias that fueled immigration laws which backed up my argument. You appear to just be talking out your ass. So prove your claims.

www.uscis.gov...

Why don't you finish your explanation on why your personal property borders are different than that of the Nations.
Try not to get sidetracked again.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I have not expressed a single feeling in this thread. Everything I say is one based from logic and research.

...........


Yeah, It's a shame your ancestors didn't get the same when they came here.

Wow, you amaze me with your ability to not understand yourself.

When the nation was being built, people from all different nations came here, and collectively, they all decided that we need to protect what we built. That is why we have immigration laws to begin with. And we have them in place so some bonehead doesn't decide that because his "feelz" are hurt, we should just let everyone play in our sandbox.

Why is it always Fear when talking about aliens, foreign people? How about some positive emotions, like proudness that they chose to come to your country, or feeling mercy for war refugees, or something like that?

Why always the Fear that They will do inevitably harm?

How about trying to be a little more optimistic?
Or how about being mercifull or altruistic like your favorite religion undoubtedly tells you to be?

Ah, another appeal to emotion. How is it that we DO have a process to enter the United States and become a citizen? Did you forget that, while you were opening up your home to any and all who wish to squat there?

Because we are humans after all. Why do you separate that from yourself?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol, and how does that happen? What if I feel like drunk driving is perfectly fine? Or I feel like genocide is ok? Laws are there for a reason. Illegal immigrants failing to pay taxes, stealing socials and bankrupting hospitals isn’t moral.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not sure what you think this text:

The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

proves from your argument at all.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol, and how does that happen? What if I feel like drunk driving is perfectly fine? Or I feel like genocide is ok? Laws are there for a reason. Illegal immigrants failing to pay taxes, stealing socials and bankrupting hospitals isn’t moral.

Morality evolves with the populace. Not with the individual. If the populace of a country decides that something is no longer immoral or that an action that was done traditionally IS immoral then that is how morality changes and evolves.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Scope and scale. I can use a shovel to level out a dirt hill, but if I took a shovel to a mountain I'd be at it for awhile.

yes, and the difference in character would be how you dealt with that task. Either give up before you start because it's just too cumbersome, or dig in, and work at it until you make some progress. Or, you could continue with your current approach and hope that others feel sorry for your plight and take you to a place with no hills.

originally posted by: network dude

So please explain why you feel we should ignore the law on this topic. I would honestly like to know.

Laws are validated by enforcement.

If you introduce a law, and then don't enforce it, "the practice" of lax enforcement itself becomes the law.

Whatever the actual practice of application of that law is, becomes the "common law" of the land.

You can't "suddenly" decide that the law should be enforced more strictly, without violating that "common law."

That's because you're now introducing a "new interpretation" of the written law, with your change in the practice of its application.

So, the battle going on is all about that "interpretation" of the law. Some want to change the "interpretation of law" to be "more strict" application of the law, while others want to recognize that lots of human lives have already long been established on the actual practice which is the "common law" of the land. So, it's disruptive to the lives of these people, and unfair to suddenly change the interpretation of the written law, without recognizing the negative impact on those living under the common practice of that law.