Fox News

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Vonnegut, Jul 6, 2021.

Loading...
  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Here it is. The "line". A very simple rhetoric technique tries to pit good immigrants who "wait in line" against bad hombres. Many of whom came legally, so it seems, because Don the Orange raged against "chain migration" (aka family preference), refugees, H1B workers, and even "anchor babies" who are citizens at birth and technically not immigrants at all (except their presumed skin hue is not "reel Amerikkkan"). In reality, US immigration system consists of several narrowly-defined eligibility categories. There's no "line" anyone can join to immigrate.
    Now, a typical American does not know this. So I don't blame (too much) a hypothetical Susie Foxviewer who may live next to me and use this line. She doesn't know any better. Much worse are professional propagandists. Ann Coulter likes this line; she's a lawyer and surely knows better. Worse yet, actual Nazis like Stevie Miller and conscious fellow travelers like #ucker Carson. No excuse for Trump: he was President for Heaven's sake. But you know who fills me with rage? Immigrants repeating this baloney, including what looks like the majority of '90ies exUSSR wave, along with many of my contemporaries. I mean, all y'all carefully collected and submitted an elaborate set of documents fitting you into a narrow admission category; does it look like a "line" to you? How would I sound telling a Guatemalan family on the southern border to "just get in line behind me": what, getting an advanced degree and a full-time teaching gig? Tell about "let them eat cake"!

    Moreover, Lerner dear: these categories are not created equal. I mean, one should absolutely use any he or she is legally entitled to; in fact, everyone I know no matter their path is a net gain for the country. Yet there are those who got immigration benefits using what GOPniks like to call "merit". To me, this would apply to, eg., most of Filipino community in Canada who got their PR after years of demanding work as live-in caregivers. Or, for that matter, someone who got through competitive points system and got selected for Canadian PR (gm!). Or someone who get into a fully funded, RA, ABET, ranked PhD program, spent years getting the degree on F1/J1, got experience, went through competitive hiring process, only to get on a three-stage EBGC process. And there are those who got a visa with stapled-on full work permit, assistance package, and expedited GC process as a gift from uncle Frank. Especially those in the largest wave, 1990ies, where emigration barriers crumbled. THOSe guys lecturing others to "get in line"? Give me a break, Jack!
     
  2. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, there are volumes of immigration laws and commentaries and all kind of lottery, as you mentioned merit. But I stated a truthful statement that the immigrants who came from Soviet Union many came as refugees.
    Sure there are also mail order brides from Russia, China etc etc. I have a friend who came on HIB and was sponsored by employer and today is US citizen.
    There are immigration advocate groups who are pointing out iniquities and trying to equalize or rectify injustices as they see them.
    All I said is that they came legally.
    But there was Amnesty for those who came in illegally and many who are on the way to the US now hope to be here so next wave of Amnesty applies to them because they may not qualify for legal immigration status based on the current laws.
    I'm not anti immigrant, These people work hard for fraction of what they should be making, have no rights etc.
     
  3. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    There's no line. Period.

    I fail to see the big difference between dreaded Amnesty and the Lautenberg Amendment. Both grant legal status in US to people otherwise not qualified for it. Lautenberg amendment is granting refugee status to people who are not actually persecuted.

    Also, Lerner, there is a policy problem in US with the undocumented population, and there is no practical way to solve it without relatively big legalization window. Those railing against "amnesty" do not want the problem solved; they want to continue to bank on it politically (and represent interests who benefit from undocumented labor; like, eg., Don the Con building his Tower or cleaning Maro Lardo). To the point of fueling outright fascist propaganda. The latest example is Darth Santis blaming his Covid blunders on southern border (not actually found in his state).

    But aren't you, though? You support anti-immigrant politics and spread anti-immigrant concerns. To the point of using these concerns to justify voting for a party that share NO policy preferences with you. You support supervillains who, right now, force my children into schools with no mask or vaccine mandates, freaking CAUSING outbreaks (school board next door started school last week and has 200 cases already). You are OK with their pro-plague and anti-democracy policies, OK with Fox advocating a neo-Nazi position, OK with everything - as long as they promise protection from brown people who take school resources from your "druther". Not anti-immigrant, you say?

    Sadly, there is a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in my immigrant network. More often than not, it is fueled by good old-fashioned racism. Don't see how you're any different.
     
    Rachel83az likes this.
  4. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I don't support anti immigrant policies, its your interpretation is such.
    Nothing I can do about how you interpret my comments.
     
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You support Lord Voldemort based on fear of immigrants. Functionally, it's the same as being anti-immigrant. Lots of folks supported Hitler because he was making Germany great again. Still Nazi.

    "And it’s fine that voted for Voldemort
    As long as your reasons were purely fiscal"
     
  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I support protecting citizens and immigrants. you interpret it the way you want to interpret it.
    Its as if I would say you support law breaking. I'm not saying that you are but.
    Now here is someone you support and would voted for.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-08-13/us-immigration-advocates-blast-cruel-biden-policies-on-asylum

    U.S. Immigration Advocates Blast 'Cruel' Biden Policies on Asylum

    So whats the issue, that the migrants are no longer needed as its after elections now?
    I read that the ACE is a lot more friendlier and accommodating now.
    This summer was a campaign to naturalize many legal residents.
    There are many friendlier policies set up.



     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2021
  7. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    This is the key point I think. This has been an ongoing problem that the elected Republican leaders do not want to solve. It is a key trigger for their base, a key fund raising topic, and a rallying cry. It is far more valuable to them as an unsolved and festering problem. Once solved it ends a key fund raising topic for them. Immigration is also a favorite topic of fear mongering on the far right biased media Which is especially true for the less accurate sources that make up the bulk of the Republican base news sources. Which helps keep the topic a lucrative fund raising ploy.
     
  8. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Republicans under Reagan thought they will solve the issue by granting Amnesty so they did in 1985.
    It didn't solve the issue.
    Today there are estimate 12 to 16 some say 20 mil undocumented migrants.

    was it in 2007 - Republicans under Bush worked with Democrats submitted a bill.
    The bill was the fruit of months of negotiations by a group of Republican and Democratic senators and the White House.
    The bill tied tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a plan to legalize an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, most from Latin America, and to create a temporary worker program sought by business groups.
    It also would have created a merit-based system for future immigrants, something conservative Republicans sought.
    the bill was short 14 votes of the 60 needed in the 100-member Senate to advance toward a final vote.
    Unfortunately there was opposition from mostly fellow Republicans and few Democrats.
    BTW Bernie Sanders voted to kill immigration reform in 2007.
     
  9. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's like saying eating dinner doesn't solve the issue of needing food because you'll just be hungry again tomorrow.
     
  10. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Lerner:

    Also Lerner:
    I will hand it to you: it is in fact much easier to debate when you do not have actual position to defend. I only wonder whether being on GOPs side conditions people to be dishonest, or is it a prerequisite of joining.

    As for me: I'm with immigration advocates on this, and not with Biden. The current administration's progress on immigration and asylum has been disappointing. Even though most of issues cited are inherited from Trump or awkward attempts to deal with Trump's messes, I sure am glad people hold Biden's admin to account on these.

    Which does not compare, at all, on any level, to Trump relying on an actual neo-Nazi to shape legal immigration procedures for the country, or self-proclaimed "father of the Alt-Right" shaping overall direction. Or having a border policy so cruel that it involved firing farking Kirstjen "kids in cages" Nielsen for not being cruel enough. This is your team, Lerner; they ARE anti-immigrant, and so are you.
     
  11. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Its not all or nothing. No party can deliver that but I put on a scale multiple issues and GOP for me by far on many issues is the preferred party.
    BTW Putin may want other parts of Ukraine and maybe sensing that now its a good time, like in 2014.
     
  12. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Oh yeah. Way to cheer for your team without expressing any kind of opinion on anything. Reel intellectually honest and brave. Not.

    Meanwhile, on planet Earth, the preferred party is sending my daughters, tomorrow, into unmasked classroom, while also allowing parents whose children had contact with COVID to just send them anyway, unmasked, resulting in depressingly predictable and preventable COVID outbreaks. Which schools don't have to report to parents, anymore. In short, sickening and potentially maiming American children, and killing some grandmas (or with Delta, actually, parents and siblings), using the power of the state, for political aims. But Lerner said it is all for the greater good, so we all should just cheer on what is, literally, a state-sponsored terrorism in America. On top of all the Fascism, and Putin- and Orban-worship from the very same swell individuals.

    Don't lie to yourself and us, Lerner. Your party is anti-immigrant, anti-democracy, pro-plague, and Eat the Poor. And by extension, so are you. Knowingly and willingly.

    He need not have bothered before, when Trump punished American diplomats for standing up to Ukrainian corruption and making "deals" with literal Russian spies. The country would have just fallen into his tiny sweaty palms.
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Not for long. Schools will be closing up rapidly in the coming weeks.
     
  14. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Governor of TX is wrong.
    All safety measures needed to be established, mandate masks, social distancing, vaccinations and screenings of teachers and students weekly and distribute good quality masks.
    Allow parents to choose DL vs Classroom
    If it was me I would follow all the recommendations of CDC.
    This is my honest opinion.
     
  15. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

  16. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

  17. This doesn't seem to address the issue regarding the historical dialectic? Perhaps an argument for arguments sake?
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I love Garfunkel and Oates. Separately, they were two of the more charming--and important--guests on The Big Bang Theory.
     
  19. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Well-Known Member

    SteveFoerster likes this.
  20. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

Share This Page