Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?

No, is absolutely, positively not. The founding philosophy is that nobody is given anything, and nobody has anything taken away, by the damn government.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Everything you've said has implied that.

Nope, I favor legal inclusion and have stated so multiple times. You are misquoting me out of context.

[queequeger]

We have no obligation to let people in, yet you berate us for acting in our country's best interest. Quasi-moral, glass-half-empty-half-full criticisms of immigration policy do little good except increase your post count. The really substantial piece of information is WHY you favor this or that policy, and hopefully there is something more convincing then a general feeling of goodwill towards man.
When it comes down to it, the people who vote with vague notions are the onces who go for the politicians who are all bark and no bite.

Yeah, what? Is there something more convincing than a general feeling of goodwill toward man? My whole argument is that we should help non-citizens even at cost to ourselves, so yeah, that's my whole argument.

I'm also deathly curious about your 'glass half empty half full' comment. Please explain what that means. Also, how my criticisms are actually 'Quasi moral' instead of just 'my morals.'

Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?

Yeah, I quoted myself. What? :p

It does sound more like socialism. It also sounds like the intent that was put forward in the declaration of independence...

But, thinking about it, these notes will receive the same arguments as all the others. The simple difference between me and those who disagree with me seems to be that your 'us group' is defined by your country and mine is defined by my species. We could get into that difference but it seems to me that we'll continue to disagree based on our personalities.

My belief is that a human is more important than a countryman, and yours ('yours' being those who've disagreed about my immigration philosophy) is a countryman more important than a human. Sounds like an irreconcilable difference?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I want fair legal immigration. Only that.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

There is no such thing as fair.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by queequeger

My belief is that a human is more important than a countryman, and yours ('yours' being those who've disagreed about my immigration philosophy) is a countryman more important than a human. Sounds like an irreconcilable difference?

But there are many countries that do operate on this principle. Has it never occurred to you to wonder why our country is successful and theirs are not? Why people clamor to immigrate to our country and not many of the others?

[queequeger]

Which countries are you talking about? It's also really important to define what you mean by successful, because it's not about (IMHO) making as much money as you can. I think a happy, healthy, educated populace is far more important than a rich one.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Originally Posted by rkzenrage
I want fair legal immigration. Only that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
There is no such thing as fair.

The first quote is in reference to laws and ours are fair. The second was in reference to general situations and, though you obviously can't, most can read the whole context for themselves

True queeq, every socialist/communist nation out there has to keep their people prisoner. How great their nations are!

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

True queeq, every socialist/communist nation out there has to keep their people prisoner. How great their nations are!

Yeah we should get some political movement to free the people of Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, et al. How can we let these horrible social democracies just lock up their people!

Listen to the plight of the Nords! This affront to free societies can not stand!

[yesman065]

You aren't serious are you??? Are you comparing those countries to the US??? C'mon.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, he want's to bring the US down to their level. He's more than happy to give away my money and my country so we aren't being mean.

[9th Engineer]

Yeah, what? Is there something more convincing than a general feeling of goodwill toward man? My whole argument is that we should help non-citizens even at cost to ourselves, so yeah, that's my whole argument.

Yes, there is. Arguments based on the social progression of the last 100 years, economic and political data, comparisons of similar movements in other countries and the eventual results. In short, I'm looking to see something with weight and substance rather then vague and far-reaching opinions. Everyone has opinions, but none are worth anything unless the underlying reasons for them are logical. I'm not saying goodwill is stupid or harmfull, I'm saying it's not enough to bring to a discussion about domestic policy.
I've been clashing with you on this because I've been reading your posts and thinking "alright...but what comes next?...why?". I'm prying for how you generate your opinion, which is always more interesting then just the opinion alone.

I'm also deathly curious about your 'glass half empty half full' comment. Please explain what that means. Also, how my criticisms are actually 'Quasi moral' instead of just 'my morals.'

That comment was referring to the comments on 'letting people in, except for the ones we keep out' and 'keeping people out except for the ones we let in'. Because there are only two possible decisions regarding an immigrant (let him in or keep him out), the statement by itself is strange. I know the difference is that middle section of neither useful, nor harmful people.
I was actually throwing you a bone with the quasi-moral bit, since "I think it's wrong" without additional information to explain why is meaningless. I'm assuming your attitude is based on some sort of experience or fact, hence the inclusion of both moral attitude and information.

[DanaC]

No, he want's to bring the US down to their level.

He wants to bring the US down to the level of Scandinavia, Norway, Denmark et al? Those are good places to live.

[Clodfobble]

And yet in recent years, places like Denmark and Norway have been clamping down on previously loose immigration policies. Huh.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

He wants to bring the US down to the level of Scandinavia, Norway, Denmark et al? Those are good places to live.

Not for people that break the law... any law. Strict regimentation.... think ant colony.... is mandatory. Those $100,000 speeding tickets, are a bitch.

[DanaC]

Fines are proportionate to the offender's income: if you have vast wealth you gt fined more. Most people wouldn't get fined that much :P