THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Okeefenokee]

Wow, you just blatantly admitted that you think these countries are shitholes BECAUSE these people are SHIT PEOPLE. That is why all these arguments about "but but but it's not racist because the countries really are shit holes and therefore you liberals are hypocrites" are idiotic.

Again, no one has addressed my point that a huge and direct reason why these places are shit holes are from historic US intervention, and I'll add to that centuries of racism, European-driven slavery, etc.

US intervention did not turn those countries into shitholes, they were already shitholes before US intervention. How about placing some of that blame on the shithole nations themselves instead of prioritizing blame on The US or The West for these nations issues?

Hey I was just asked why I thought it was right to let some come in here. I specifically did not only place blame on the US - but it is undeniable we continue to knock em down. But my idea of this country from a small child is that WE were better than how we've sometimes acted. It's the dumb idealist in me, my husband would say (he's not nearly as patriotic as I am). But I do find historical context very important here.

A people oppressed by dictators and crushing poverty and the complete inability of poverty to deal with natural disasters- is that the people's fault? I think from history, and thinking about this with any empathy, would lead any rational, non racist person to see that these places are not always destined to have been and always be shitholes because they contain shit brown and black people.

Black and brown people, ya'll.

[Smitty-48]

Wow, you just blatantly admitted that you think these countries are shitholes BECAUSE these people are SHIT PEOPLE. That is why all these arguments about "but but but it's not racist because the countries really are shit holes and therefore you liberals are hypocrites" are idiotic.

Again, no one has addressed my point that a huge and direct reason why these places are shit holes are from historic US intervention, and I'll add to that centuries of racism, European-driven slavery, etc.

US intervention did not turn those countries into shitholes, they were already shitholes before US intervention. How about placing some of that blame on the shithole nations themselves instead of prioritizing blame on The US or The West for these nations issues?

Hey I was just asked why I thought it was right to let some come in here. I specifically did not only place blame on the US - but it is undeniable we continue to knock em down. But my idea of this country from a small child is that WE were better than how we've sometimes acted. It's the dumb idealist in me, my husband would say (he's not nearly as patriotic as I am). But I do find historical context very important here.

A people oppressed by dictators and crushing poverty and the complete inability of poverty to deal with natural disasters- is that the people's fault? I think from history, and thinking about this with any empathy, would lead any rational, non racist person to see that these places are not always destined to have been and always be shitholes because they contain shit brown and black people.

But you are better, simple as that, the Anglo-Saxon rule of law, is the path by which the Anglo-Saxons came to rule the world, Catholic Theocrats to Soviet Bolsheviks, the shit holes simply backed the wrong horses.

[ooky]

It's always America's fault that nations that were shitholes before the US ever existed persist in being shitholes today.

Nice try. I provided evidence of recent and direct US jackassery in El Salvador. Just because it isn't entirely our fault, does not mean we have not contributed.

El Salvador jackassery in the US,

You just equated actions of our representative, elected government to actions of these non elected criminals who are the worst examples you can come up with of El Salvadoreans.

Poor rhetoric.

[StCapps]

Not everyone from shithole countries are shitty people. SJWs be reaching to attack Trump by claiming he called all hispanics and blacks shithole people, because of their skin color, just because he called some countries shitholes, it's ridiculous. Yet ooky wonders why many folks on the forum call her "fake news" all the time, lulz.

[Martin Hash]

Immigration is at the discretion of the president. Period. Everytime one of these activist judges gets appealed to the Supreme Court, that will be the finding. Trump decides.

[ooky]

US intervention did not turn those countries into shitholes, they were already shitholes before US intervention. How about placing some of that blame on the shithole nations themselves instead of prioritizing blame on The US or The West for these nations issues?

Hey I was just asked why I thought it was right to let some come in here. I specifically did not only place blame on the US - but it is undeniable we continue to knock em down. But my idea of this country from a small child is that WE were better than how we've sometimes acted. It's the dumb idealist in me, my husband would say (he's not nearly as patriotic as I am). But I do find historical context very important here.

A people oppressed by dictators and crushing poverty and the complete inability of poverty to deal with natural disasters- is that the people's fault? I think from history, and thinking about this with any empathy, would lead any rational, non racist person to see that these places are not always destined to have been and always be shitholes because they contain shit brown and black people.

But you are better, simple as that, the Anglo-Saxon rule of law, is the path by which the Anglo-Saxons came to rule the world, Catholic Theocrats to Soviet Bolsheviks, the shit holes simply backed the wrong horses.

"We" as in we the nation of the US have never been just white, "we" have included a lot of african and latin american people from the very beginning, and while allowed way less power proportionately, those people have also always contributed to this nation. I have Mexican american relatives whose ancestors lived in southern Arizona generations before my husband's Norwegian relatives came over.

[Smitty-48]

You just equated actions of our representative, elected government to actions of these non elected criminals who are the worst examples you can come up with of El Salvadoreans.

Poor rhetoric.

Other than invading El Salvador and annihilating MS-13 with boots on the ground, which the likes of you would probably decry as "Neo-Colonialism", what is the US supposed to do about it? Just let them flow over the border with impunity?

Offensive or defensive, pick one already.

[Okeefenokee]

I don't even understand what you are claiming is fake.

This,

Our immigration law has traditionally had three stated primary goals: 1) reuniting families, 2) supplying employers and 3) protecting refugees.

Three stated primary goals of US immigration law. Still waiting on the citation for that claim.

You presented goals for immigration law from two private groups, the first of which explicitly stated that immigration law hasn't stated the goals of said laws.

The Elusive Goals of U.S. Immigration Policy

There is little in the way of clear goals for national immigration policy in the U.S. code where the basic statutes of modern policy are recorded the laws of 1921, 1924, 1952, 1965, 1986, and 1990.1 These statutes begin simply with definitions of terms, usually in numbing detail, then set out their substantive changes in the law. In this respect the immigration laws are quite in the mainstream of U.S. lawmaking. One can find policy goals stated explicitly at the front of some major federal statutes,

but most often both the legislation and even the more voluminous rhetoric of the legislative history have little or nothing to say about precise policy goals. Public law generally begins with definitions of terms, sets out a series of complaints about the state of the union or some part of it, then outlines regulatory or programmatic initiatives.

A rare example of a statute which begins with reasonably explicit goals is the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, which begins with a section entitled "Purpose" followed by a two-page Title I, "Policies and Goals."2

The absence of explicit goals from U.S. immigration statutes does not mean that our nation's immigration policy lacks goals. Immigration laws, as administered by Federal bureaucracies and as interpreted by the courts, produce results. In the absence of explicit goals, these results may be taken as the operative goals of national policymakers. The economists have a useful term, when they speak of the "revealed preference" of buyers, as expressed in the goods and services actually purchased. Lacking explicit statements of national immigration policy goals, we have the revealed goals of policymakers the results their actions (and inactions) actually produced.

Do I need to explain that to you, or can you take it from here?

Don't bother. No one here thinks you're going to retract your horseshit claim.

I've been marching

Stick to the marching. Thinking isn't your strong suit.

[Smitty-48]

"We" as in we the nation of the US have never been just white, "we" have included a lot of african and latin american people from the very beginning, and while allowed way less power proportionately, those people have also always contributed to this nation. I have Mexican american relatives whose ancestors lived in southern Arizona generations before my husband's Norwegian relatives came over.

The Africans and Latins were not allowed to be in charge, if the Africans and Latins had been running things, then all of the Americas would be a shit hole, but notice which parts aren't? The two parts run by the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who knew?

[StCapps]

"We" as in we the nation of the US have never been just white, "we" have included a lot of african and latin american people from the very beginning, and while allowed way less power proportionately, those people have also always contributed to this nation. I have Mexican american relatives whose ancestors lived in southern Arizona generations before my husband's Norwegian relatives came over.

The Africans and Latins were not allowed to be in charge, if the Africans and Latins had been running things, then all of the Americas would be a shit hole, but notice which parts aren't? The two parts run by the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who knew?

*yip*