What should be done about illegal immigration?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I guess NBC stands for Nativist-Bigot-Corporation

Anchor Babies

The argument about this term is ridiculous.

If it is so terrible, provide us with an alternative.

Babies born to illegal immigrants with some hope or belief that the child will help them to remain in the country of their choice is tough to repeatedly type.

Now you're pushing it. Poor, uneducated African Americans, living in the ghetto gets tiresome too. Much easier to just say niggers... or do you know an alternative word?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I guess NBC stands for Nativist-Bigot-Corporation

Anchor Babies

The argument about this term is ridiculous.

If it is so terrible, provide us with an alternative.

Babies born to illegal immigrants with some hope or belief that the child will help them to remain in the country of their choice is tough to repeatedly type.

Now you're pushing it. Poor, uneducated African Americans, living in the ghetto gets tiresome too. Much easier to just say niggers... or do you know an alternative word?

Undoubtedly some people use anchor baby in a pejorative way. These same people use Mexicans in a pejorative way.

If you wish to consider the term a pejorative, please do so.

Before good day, can you give me an example of anything I have falsely accused you of prior to your decision to make this personal? I can assure you that if you show me a false accusation I've directed at you personally, I will sincerely apologize.

Foxfyre wrote:

Before good day, can you give me an example of anything I have falsely accused you of prior to your decision to make this personal? I can assure you that if you show me a false accusation I've directed at you personally, I will sincerely apologize.

Foxy, I and others have collectively put many hours into providing you with many facts only to have you pretend they don't exist, and continue to state that all arguments against yours are actually personal attacks. Your characterizations as liberal, kneejerk, etc, of opposing disgust with your denial, approaches idiocy in its incoherence and utter lack of adhesion to the truth. There is nothing partisan about disgust with denial.

This is nonsense and it is tiresome. Compare Finn's presentations to your own, objectively, and you'll notice a stark contrast. Actually, no, you won't and that is precisely the problem and the reason the hours spent disproving your claims were in vain. I do not expect you to match Finn's rhetorical skill, as he is exceptional... but I would like to be able to expect you to match his integral recognition of opposing points and facts. Unfortunately, I can not, because you demonstrate no such integrity. I consider it a waste of time to provide reasoned argument to people who sidestep reason in favor of denial and feigning victim-hood to personal attacks when their assertions are demonstrated false.

You need not apologize for these ongoing false accusations as I don't believe they are intentional… and moreover I'm not convinced you're even aware or can be made aware of how fallacious they are. I apologize for being so judgmental, but my patience is exhausted.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Before good day, can you give me an example of anything I have falsely accused you of prior to your decision to make this personal? I can assure you that if you show me a false accusation I've directed at you personally, I will sincerely apologize.

Foxy, I and others have collectively put many hours into providing you with many facts only to have you pretend they don't exist, and continue to state that all arguments against yours are actually personal attacks. Your characterizations as liberal, kneejerk, etc, of opposing disgust with your denial, approaches idiocy in its incoherence and utter lack of adhesion to the truth. There is nothing partisan about disgust with denial.

This is nonsense and it is tiresome. Compare Finn's presentations to your own, objectively, and you'll notice a stark contrast. Actually, no, you won't and that is precisely the problem and the reason the hours spent disproving your claims were in vain. I do not expect you to match Finn's rhetorical skill, as he is exceptional... but I would like to be able to expect you to match his integral recognition of opposing points and facts. Unfortunately, I can not, because you demonstrate no such integrity. I consider it a waste of time to provide reasoned argument to people who sidestep reason in favor of denial and feigning victim-hood to personal attacks when their assertions are demonstrated false.

You need not apologize for these ongoing false accusations as I don't believe they are intentional… and moreover I'm not convinced you're even aware or can be made aware of how fallacious they are. I apologize for being so judgmental, but my patience is exhausted.

Do you think your opinion on any of this stuff has been discredited or disproved Obill? I think it has. Are you admitting to it? I haven't seen that you have changed your opinion. Why should I change my opinion when I think the information I have presented as evidence or rebuttal is superior to yours and any others who are on your side of the fence? Why does disagreement translate into selfishness or racism or bigotry or any of the other personally directed insults you have thrown at me through this debate? The worst personal insult I've directed at you personally I believe is drinking the Kool-ade and being a liberal. (I'll admit the last one is pretty bad so I'll apologize for that.)

I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me. I never have. I don't require anybody to agree with me in order to be acceptable. I do prefer to focus on the actual issue being discussed and do not consider personal insults to be smart, intelligent, or useful.

One example of a rebuttal I used: You posted a list of events from a website dedicated to showing that Texas was stolen from Mexico purely because Mexico abolished slavery or at least that was your interpretation of it..

I gave you a rebuttal from a credible website showing that both your timeline and the reasons for Texas Independence did not jive with your list or your interpretation of your list. Your response was that the history I posted must have been written by Texans and therefore you were dismissing it accordingly. So who was being unreasonable? Have you studied Texas history? I have.

I will be very surprised if you can show that I have criticized you personally in any way prior to the point where you started the mudslinging.

I don't see where you have had any patience at all in this debate but you insist that your point of view is the only one that counts and everybody else is racist, bigoted, selfish, defamatory yadda yadda yadda.

I don't take positions or express strong opinions that are not developed without some thought or that I can't support with reason, logic, and/or hard evidence. I will and do change my opinions when I am shown that they are based on faulty perception and/or facts. But I don't consider all information to be equal and therefore all rebuttals do not discredit my point of view. I am amazed that I seem to be the only person on A2K that is expected to accept what everybody else says???? Okay, that's a faulty perception. But sometimes it feels that way.

So far, none of you who so very much wish to discredit, embarrass, insult, or whatever me or anybody else on this issue and/or our point of view on the subject has presented any facts that I consider to be superior to those provided by those who are pro-strong immigration policy and enforcement.

I'm sorry if I have offended you out of hand. I much prefer having a friend than an enemy.

I don't think friendship should require somebody to accept what they believe to be error.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

One example of a rebuttal I used. You posted a list of events from a website dedicated to showing that Texas was stolen from Mexico purely because Mexico abolished slavery.

I gave you a rebuttal from a credible website showing that both your timeline and the reasons for Texas Independence did not jive with your list or your interpretation of your list. You response was that the history I posted must have been written by Texans and therefore you were dismissing it accordingly. So who was being unreasonable? Have you studied Texas history? I have.

I'm sorry if I have offended you out of hand. I much prefer having a friend than an enemy.

I don't think friendship should require somebody to accept what they believe to be error.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Before good day, can you give me an example of anything I have falsely accused you of prior to your decision to make this personal? I can assure you that if you show me a false accusation I've directed at you personally, I will sincerely apologize.

Foxy, I and others have collectively put many hours into providing you with many facts only to have you pretend they don't exist, and continue to state that all arguments against yours are actually personal attacks. Your characterizations as liberal, kneejerk, etc, of opposing disgust with your denial, approaches idiocy in its incoherence and utter lack of adhesion to the truth. There is nothing partisan about disgust with denial.

This is nonsense and it is tiresome. Compare Finn's presentations to your own, objectively, and you'll notice a stark contrast. Actually, no, you won't and that is precisely the problem and the reason the hours spent disproving your claims were in vain. I do not expect you to match Finn's rhetorical skill, as he is exceptional... but I would like to be able to expect you to match his integral recognition of opposing points and facts. Unfortunately, I can not, because you demonstrate no such integrity. I consider it a waste of time to provide reasoned argument to people who sidestep reason in favor of denial and feigning victim-hood to personal attacks when their assertions are demonstrated false.

You need not apologize for these ongoing false accusations as I don't believe they are intentional… and moreover I'm not convinced you're even aware or can be made aware of how fallacious they are. I apologize for being so judgmental, but my patience is exhausted.

Do you think your opinion on any of this stuff has been discredited or disproved Obill? I think it has. Are you admitting to it? I haven't seen that you have changed your opinion. Why should I change my opinion when I think the information I have presented as evidence or rebuttal is superior to yours and any others who are on your side of the fence? Why does disagreement translate into selfishness or racism or bigotry or any of the other personally directed insults you have thrown at me through this debate? The worst personal insult I've directed at you personally I believe is drinking the Kool-ade and being a liberal. (I'll admit the last one is pretty bad so I'll apologize for that.)

I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me. I never have. I don't require anybody to agree with me in order to be acceptable. I do prefer to focus on the actual issue being discussed and do not consider personal insults to be smart, intelligent, or useful.

One example of a rebuttal I used: You posted a list of events from a website dedicated to showing that Texas was stolen from Mexico purely because Mexico abolished slavery or at least that was your interpretation of it..

I gave you a rebuttal from a credible website showing that both your timeline and the reasons for Texas Independence did not jive with your list or your interpretation of your list. Your response was that the history I posted must have been written by Texans and therefore you were dismissing it accordingly. So who was being unreasonable? Have you studied Texas history? I have.

I will be very surprised if you can show that I have criticized you personally in any way prior to the point where you started the mudslinging.

I don't see where you have had any patience at all in this debate but you insist that your point of view is the only one that counts and everybody else is racist, bigoted, selfish, defamatory yadda yadda yadda.

I don't take positions or express strong opinions that are not developed without some thought or that I can't support with reason, logic, and/or hard evidence. I will and do change my opinions when I am shown that they are based on faulty perception and/or facts. But I don't consider all information to be equal and therefore all rebuttals do not discredit my point of view. I am amazed that I seem to be the only person on A2K that is expected to accept what everybody else says???? Okay, that's a faulty perception. But sometimes it feels that way.

So far, none of you who so very much wish to discredit, embarrass, insult, or whatever me or anybody else on this issue and/or our point of view on the subject has presented any facts that I consider to be superior to those provided by those who are pro-strong immigration policy and enforcement.

I'm sorry if I have offended you out of hand. I much prefer having a friend than an enemy.

I don't think friendship should require somebody to accept what they believe to be error.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Here's one from Houstonculture.org

Quote:

Texas Independence

In 1823, Stephen F. Austin brought 20 families to Texas with the permission of the Mexican government and settled a small community on the Brazos River. About 20,000 immigrants from the United States soon followed, bringing with them 2,000 slaves.

As the immigrant population exceeded that of the permanent residents, differences escalated between the newcomers and the Mexican government, which prohibited slavery. In 1834, Stephen F. Austin requested independence for the newly-settled lands and was jailed in Mexico City.

The American immigrants declared independence prompting Mexican President Santa Anna to lead troops to Texas to quell the rebellion.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well hopefully Obill will soon lay off the Kool-ade and will bone up on history and not swallow the leftwing rewrite hook line and sinker. Certainly his uncharacteristically peculiar view of the world does not [etc].

Specifically what in the Houstonculture.org quote Bill brought is peculiar or a "leftwing rewrite"? Is Houstonculture.org a leftwing site?

If you were not referring to the Houstonculture.org quote that he brought, could you address it after all?

Bill's last post referenced this which I had missed at some point. So I rechecked his post which seems to link to a http://www.pinzler.com site which seems to be some individual's blog. Going to the Houstonculture.org site, their account of Texas independence closely concurs with the website I posted as well as the alternate site discussing slavery in Mexico and Texas which I also linked (and both of you have not addressed). I acknowledge that "leftwing rewrite" was a bit strong, but based in on his using this material as proof for his suggestion that Texas fought for independence from Mexico purely over the issue of slavery, I was sure no conservative would write something like that . Slavery was an issue as it was for all the southern states, yes, but it was by no means the only or even the most important reason Texans fought for their independence from Mexico.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Don't worry, Canada's Multiculturalism and our open arms immigration policy will save both the US and Mexico

Can I pick the ones we send up there? It won't have anything to do with race, ethnicity, or country of origin.

"We just don't like people who are not like us coming into our neighborhoods," Harrison [added: Editor and Publisher of Talkers Magazine, according to AmericanPatrol] said.

Foxfyre wrote:

Can I pick the ones we send up there? It won't have anything to do with race, ethnicity, or country of origin.

From AmericanPatrol:

Quote:

"We just don't like people who are not like us coming into our neighborhoods," Harrison [added: Editor and Publisher of Talkers Magazine, according to AmericanPatrol] said.

From AmericanPatrol:

Quote:

"We just don't like people who are not like us coming into our neighborhoods," Harrison [added: Editor and Publisher of Talkers Magazine, according to AmericanPatrol] said.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

From AmericanPatrol:

Quote:

"We just don't like people who are not like us coming into our neighborhoods," Harrison [added: Editor and Publisher of Talkers Magazine, according to AmericanPatrol] said.

... and the question remains: will Foxy accept that those guys are fringe lunatic racists, or will she maintain that they offer a reasonable take on the issue?

I think I even offered to accept it as a wacko site if your evluation came to that. But then we will have to designate CNN as featured on wacko sites won't we?

Foxfyre wrote:

I think I even offered to accept it as a wacko site if your evluation came to that. But then we will have to designate CNN as featured on wacko sites won't we?

I guess the wacko sites want to bolster their credibility by referring to CNN articles. Smart strategy, eh? Hey, look, 911truth.org does it, too! Does that mean the 9/11 conspiracy guys are not fringe wackos?

I can't help you with an evaluation. Walter, nimh and I have offered quite a bit of evidence for the wackoness of that website. But if you can't see it, you can't see it.

He doesn't seem to be inclined to speak to that.

I included the American Patrol as a mostly anti-conservative, anti-Bush, anti GOP

I offered to go with your evaluation if you make a good attempt at an honest and objective one. If you choose not to, I can't see how you have shown it to be a wacko site at all.