What should be done about illegal immigration?

Old Europe - truly this hysteria doesn't speak well of your mental state.

You are unfamiliar with the term "anchor baby" for the excellent reason that you aren't directly involved in U.S. immigration issues, first, and you fail to grasp the jus solis principle, second, which certainly doesn't apply in "Old Europe" where I gather you're located.

I doubt that Foxfyre has even heard of the late Enoch Powell, though I suspect you may have. Link to one of his speeches, for those unfamiliar:

Quote:

"Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood"
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary....

http://www.sterlingtimes.org/powell_speech.doc

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But again, you said 30+ thousand hits. Are you sticking with that?

Let me think about that for a second....

Sooo.... uh...... yes! Yes, I think I'm going to stick with it.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Old Europe - truly this hysteria doesn't speak well of your mental state.

You are unfamiliar with the term "anchor baby" for the excellent reason that you aren't directly involved in U.S. immigration issues, first, and you fail to grasp the jus solis principle, second, which certainly doesn't apply in "Old Europe" where I gather you're located.

Sure. The ius solis (or, jus solis, if you insist... bloody Americans).

I'm also directly involved in US immigration issues - not on the US side, but working in various countries in Latin America.

You know, I'd just like to have a discussion about this topic with Foxy. It would be interesting. But having to waste a dozen for something that can be verified in less than a second is probably not the best imaginable basis for that.

(Hey, HS, you know how to use Google, don't you? How many results? Laughing

)

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Old Europe - truly this hysteria doesn't speak well of your mental state.

You are unfamiliar with the term "anchor baby" for the excellent reason that you aren't directly involved in U.S. immigration issues, first, and you fail to grasp the jus solis principle, second, which certainly doesn't apply in "Old Europe" where I gather you're located.

I doubt that Foxfyre has even heard of the late Enoch Powell, though I suspect you may have. Link to one of his speeches, for those unfamiliar:

Quote:

"Like the Roman, I see the River Tiber foaming with much blood"
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary....

http://www.sterlingtimes.org/powell_speech.doc

Wow. I have in fact heard of Enoch Powell and have included his views re restriction of non-white immigration to the U.K. along with many others, in discussions of the great debates over racism, equality, etc. in the 19th and 20th Centuries and how these affected the Church. (I write and have taught curriculum on that stuff.)

I'm not sure his "River of Blood" stance is the same as the debate here, however. I'm not seeing anybody--other than the very few David Duke type nuts out there--argue a case for white supremacy in the USA. That's comes more from slurs from the 'open borders' advocates who use it to accuse the pro-enforcement people.
_________________
--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.

0 Replies

Sorry, Foxfyre, I didn't realize you knew him, but you're mistaken in repeating racism allegations about him.

He simply observed that people who cannot possibly be assimilated even after generations in the country shouldn't be allowed in to begin with.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Sorry, Foxfyre, I didn't realize you knew him, but you're mistaken in repeating racism allegations about him.

He simply observed that people who cannot possibly be assimilated even after generations in the country shouldn't be allowed in to begin with.

No, I didn't mean to imply that he was coming from a position of racism. I understand his arguments re assimilation, etc. though I'll admit I have not read a large amount of his stuff. But you'll have to admit that his non-white immigration stance aka people who cannot be assimilated would be considered racist in today's climate in the USA and was considered racist by many in his day as well.

0 Replies

Got to leave, but should say that I had attended a lecture Powell was giving in the vicinity on Banbury Road, where I attended a school at the time, on which he spoke on the Latin-Greek translations into modern languages, quoting Heidegger at length; he was a very great classicist, fearful of the future of the UK and Europe in general.

Very much of what he predicted has in fact come to pass since 1968.

0 Replies

OE, using your search method I kept getting error messages from the web. I finally did get the following however:

Results 1 - 10 of about 353,000 for immigration salon.com. (0.31 seconds)

Since it seems even more implausible that there are 353,000 references to immigration in Salon.com as would be 30+ thousand references, I have to figure the search engines are coming up with more than just Salon there. I could be wrong. I often am. I'm just applying my version of logic here.
_________________
--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.

0 Replies

I went back and reread my first post re Powell, HS, and I can see where the 'white supremacy' would give the impression you got. I've got to think about these things more before I hit the submit key. Smile

0 Replies

This is funny.

Foxfyre, you need to put this exact phrase in the Google search box -- you can just copy and paste it (though I really don't get why old europe's screenshots won't do -- do you think he forged them?):

immigration site:www.salon.com

What you put in ("immigration salon.com") is just links that contain those two words/phrasess. The above search phrase narrows it down to links that are on ON www.salon.com that contain the word "immigration."

Why am I speaking up? 'Cause it's funny, and because I've certainly run into the "Damn, when is Foxfyre going to learn to use Google already?" problem myself before. That one thing -- learning how to use Google -- would save soooo much time.

0 Replies

Trust me Soz, I have been doing just that and I got what I posted. Sorry if my computer does this differently than everybody elses but it apparently does.

So you are comfortable that Salon.com has posted more than 300 thousand articles on immigration?
_________________
--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.

0 Replies

By your own words, no that's not just what you did.

Foxfyre wrote:

OE, using your search method I kept getting error messages from the web. I finally did get the following however:

Results 1 - 10 of about 353,000 for immigration salon.com. (0.31 seconds)

That means that what you put in the search box was:

immigration salon.com

What you need to put in the search box is:

immigration site:www.salon.com

Do you see the difference?

0 Replies

Okay did it again and this time I got:
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 7,880 from www.salon.com for immigration. (0.07 seconds)

At least 7880 is more plausible than 30+ thousand or 300+ thousand.

0 Replies

I didn't get 350,000 results when I did it the way old europe did, and when I did it the way I told you to do it.

I also don't get the same results as old europe -- that happens when the searchers are in different countries. I get

Results 271 - 280 of about 25,000 from www.salon.com for immigration. (0.34 seconds)

which is close enough, and believe that he got the number shown in the screenshot. (Again, do you think he, like, doctored it?)

Note again the wording in the bolded section -- "FROM www.salon.com."

0 Replies

I don't know why it's such a discrepancy, but a) it looks like you learned how to do it, yay, and b) can we agree that 7,880 uses of the word "immigration" on salon.com (using the lowest number of the various Google search results) at least means that, now that you know how to look, Salon has used the word "immigration" quite a lot?

Foxfyre wrote:

Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either. Shall we therefore conclude that 'immigration' is not a term widely used or understood? See what I mean?

0 Replies

google help

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I don't know why it's such a discrepancy, but a) it looks like you learned how to do it, yay, and b) can we agree that 7,880 uses of the word "immigration" on salon.com (using the lowest number of the various Google search results) at least means that, now that you know how to look, Salon has used the word "immigration" quite a lot?

Foxfyre wrote:
Was it Blatham who said that he couldn't find 'anchor baby" on Salon.com? I couldn't find "immigration" there either. Shall we therefore conclude that 'immigration' is not a term widely used or understood? See what I mean?

I already acknowledged that immigration is featured on Salon.com. Contrary to my reputation, I usually do admit I'm wrong when I can clearly see that I was wrong. I also stick to my guns when I believe I'm right. My friends accept that about me and even tolerate those times when I'm excessively stubborn.

0 Replies

Hey Walter and old europe, add "&gl=us" to the end of your search query. (I found that here, but don't know yet how to do the equivalent to let Foxfyre and I see the German results.)

(Again, I think the specific number -- somewhere over 7,880 -- is moot, but curious about this aspect.)

0 Replies

I used google.co.uk (German version gets less)

0 Replies

I mean originating from Germany. There are different results in different areas -- you (Walter) and old europe got the same result, I got another (25,000), Foxfyre got another yet.

Quote:

Google even implied that if you were to go to Google.com from outside the US, the results there might be more customized to your location, even when searching the entire web -- though likely to less degree than if you searched the entire web on Google Germany.

I keep saying implied because they stopped short of saying they actually do this, phrasing things like "you can imagine that we might" or "it wouldn't be surprising if." Qualifications aside, it explains some increasing reports I've heard from others that searching the entire web via Google but from outside the US brings back different results.

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=60&page=1&pp=20

I don't know why Foxfyre and I -- both within the US -- got different results, but I'll go ahead and take her word for it. (Here I mean the second, 7,880 result, not the first one which was done incorrectly.)

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know