Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum
TW, if you follow the exchange from posts 350 to 352, you might see that my comments were in the context of a huge flood of people. Doubling the population in five years kind of scenario. I cannot imagine this would be in any country's interest - the infrastructure would simply be swamped.
|
Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? It is the assumption found in Rush Limbaugh logic. But where are the numbers - the facts? That assumption is not proven by history. Your intent may not be to agree with Rush – who does preach xenophobia to promote a political agenda as Goebels did in Nazi Germany. You have assumed reasoning based in the xenophobia found in Limbaugh logic. Obviously that does not even imply you are xenophobic.
Of course no reasonable person is suggesting population doubling even with unrestricted immigration. Those doubling numbers are also provided by the myths and fears from Limbaugh types.
Of course a massive influx would create problems. The Economist said same. Problems that mean only good things when solved as The Economist also notes. Did Rush logic forget to mention that part - the good part? Of course. Did he forget to mention addressing those problems means only good things? Of course. It promotes his poltiical agenda of preaching to those who 'know by entertaining their fears'.
Are you xenophobic? I don't know, I don't care, I never stated it, and it is not relevant. But you should be asking a question in the last sentence of this paragraph. In the deep south, when your conclusions or actions correspond with others who were overtly racist, then at what point do you question your actions? You may not intend to be racist, you may dislike reacists, and do not regard yourself as racist. But does it matter when your actions correspond with racists? Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?
Now don't do as classicman so often does. Do not read superficially to assume I have called you racist (or xenophobic). Do not entertain your emotions to ignore the statements here. I am intentionally making it easy to come to two radically different conclusions based upon whether you entertain the logic or entertain personal biases (emotions). The 'your' in that previous paragraph is not the same as something else called ZenGum. It was intentionally written so that you might jump to wild conclusions - as Rush Limbaugh supporters do. Or step back, read with greater care, and then grasp an underlying point and the associated questions. Only thing relevant in any of my posts are the facts.
There is a fine line between those who use xenophobia to make conclusions and those who come to the same conclusion but do not intend to be xenophobic. Again I ask the question. Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? The assumption is converted to fact by the xenophobic. Others used same reasoning to ‘know’ Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any facts that say a massive immigration influx is 'destructive'. Somehow the xenophobic have converted ‘problems’ into ‘disaster’. They are completely different. Only emotion to converts problems into something destructive. It is a game that Limbaugh can play with great affect.
Problematic? Of course massive immigration creates problems. So what? Confronting and solving those problems means an even greater nation as proven by this nations history and the point bluntly made by The Economist. We are suppose to learn from history – not rewrite it.
But again, this simple question that Rush disciples do not ask because they automatically believe what they are told: Why is a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? Source of such ‘fact’ comes from those with a ‘them verses us’ mentality. Same intolerants also believed Saddam would conspire to attack the US – when obvious facts said otherwise. But again, they knew Saddam wanted to attack the US because their fears converted wild speculation into facts. Their fears also assume massive immigration is bad – using same speculation declared as fact.
Any assumptions of an “I am xenophobic” suggestion was 100% your assumption. It did not exist in anything I posted; may be posted so that you might make that assumption (to test your ability to separate what was posted from personal assumptions), and is completely contradictory to the purpose of that post. “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?” Did you apply this fact when reading that post? Actions and intents are two completely different concepts that may coincide or contradict. Did I specifically say ZenGum is xenophobic? Now reread the paragraph that ends with “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?”
Then ask "Why is a massive inflow of immigrants bad?" when history and the above The Economist quote say otherwise.