91–100 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was a crime, there would need to be a trial before deporting them.
Trials are for citizens. Immigrants do get due process though and stand before a judge.
Wrong. Non-citizens who are accused of committing crimes get trials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your first comment: "glib remarks" and "making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking." > you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia Yes, thank you for insulting me a second time. And sorry, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, despite its selective citations. Median income is a single measurement, it doesn't mean an iota if your coun…
You casually slandered my entire country and now you have a problem with my tone? What, exactly, do you expect? Especially when you’re just flat out wrong. I’m not even arguing that the US is the best, merely that it’s clearly a first world country, as evidenced by the incredible prosperity that most Americans participate in. And regarding health care and a social safety net: you should familiarize yourself with Medi…
I made an observation about the state and its governance, not the inhabitants. These are two quite different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>“to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would comp…
> White was also not considered a race in the 20's. Yes, it was. > There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s. > I should also mention, th…
And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>“to restrict citizenship by birth within the United States to the children of parents who are of a race which is eligible for citizenship”—i.e., whites White was also not considered a race in the 20's. There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. American eugenicists also were very much into "building" a race. They would have family breed competitions at fairs where families would comp…
I'm currently reading about this now on Wikipedia, and holy crap this a chunk of US history that I've not looked before. It seems that the eugenic movement was fully developed in California, way before the Nazis imported it from them and used it to their advantage... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You casually slandered my entire country and now you have a problem with my tone? What, exactly, do you expect? Especially when you’re just flat out wrong. I’m not even arguing that the US is the best, merely that it’s clearly a first world country, as evidenced by the incredible prosperity that most Americans participate in. And regarding health care and a social safety net: you should familiarize yourself with Medi…
> You casually slandered my entire country I made an observation about the state and its governance, not the inhabitants. These are two quite different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada doesn’t do better at lifting people out of poverty. They’re just more selective in who they let in and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border.
Canada's immigration rate is 5.3 per year per 1000 residents (200K per year, population 37.59M). The US immigration rate is 3.6 per year per 1000 residents (1.18M per year, population 327.2M). And in absolute (not per capita!) terms, Canada resettles more refugees than the US [1]. The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> White was also not considered a race in the 20's. Yes, it was. > There were Nordics, Jews, Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Southern Europeans. The existence of those groups, and the fact that then-current concepts of whiteness would exclude some or all of them, doesn't change the fact that “White” was the identity of the dominant racial group, and had been for quite some time by the 1920s. > I should also mention, th…
I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong. The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. We were going to improve the human race through science, technology, and industrialization. Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research. Carnegie and Stanford created the scientific studies that would help support hundreds of new eugenics laws. UC Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, etc would teach eugenics…
That’s hilarious but...
> The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics.
There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as:
> And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
I don't think it ever happened; even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. But, no, white racists that saw the race they favored as the “white” race did not first show up in the 1960s-1970s, as evidence by the Cornerstone Speech in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens laid out his view of the central case for the Confederate cause in 1861: “...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. ...”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You casually slandered my entire country I made an observation about the state and its governance, not the inhabitants. These are two quite different things.
Alright, I'm out of here. Just for the record, though: only one of us offered any evidence to support their position. And it wasn't you.
It's a literal grouping of countries by an old system, rather than meaning "economic" or "cultural" backwater.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-world_model
As a 2nd data point, the median income response is about economic power. It's obviously possible to be economically strong whilst at the same time having poor culture.
There seem to be several current examples of this in the world. :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be in administrative violation of a statute without being criminally liable. This distinction matters a lot in law because in the former case any litigation is a civil, not criminal matter. As an everyday example, suppose you park carelessly and get a lot of parking tickets and then don't pay them. You could run into all sorts of problems and eventually your car might be towed away and sold but generally you…
Deportation is also an administrative punishment similar, since you brought this analogy, to impounding an illegally parked car. People who are anti-immigration are not demanding prison sentences for illegal aliens, are they? They demand the appropriate administrative action - deportation.
Deporting people to certain countries can get them killed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong. The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. We were going to improve the human race through science, technology, and industrialization. Rockefeller Foundation funded eugenics research. Carnegie and Stanford created the scientific studies that would help support hundreds of new eugenics laws. UC Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, etc would teach eugenics…
> I respect your decision to be completely and utterly wrong That’s hilarious but... > The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics. There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as: > And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all g…
>even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great.
You are so committed to this modern liberal partisan revisionist historiography that you are willing to admit the narrative doesn't make any sense, and yet equally willing to keep at it. That's commitment.
Irish, Italians, russians, and other "inferior" whites were always considered white. "White" has never and will never be the barrier to entry into this country or into the american hierarchy. Looks, charm, stature, sharpness of mind, focus on meaningful pursuits like work, not being too interested in "meaningless pursuits" like art and music. Not being promiscuous, no criminality, no epilepsy, no "feeble-mindedness" or imbecility. This is what race was about. Virginia aristocracy, the Boston Brahmins etc, were spurred on by the leading science and technology of the day, to believe these attributes were genetically inherited and "selected" by nature, which meant they could also be selected with Mendelism. We were not interested in a "white race." Since race was something you could control, we were interested in a "superior american germplasm" a genepool of the best of the best while the rest were sterilized, aborted, deported, or imprisoned in jails, asylums, or reservations. American eugenicists were interested in "building a race." A concept Hitler adopted and was quoted talking about fairly often.
Racism was not white vs black. Its nowhere near that simple