nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:The difference being that those who arrived on Ellis Island did so with legal permission to do so and were quite willing to abide by U.S. law and wanted to be Americans. That really isn't all that much to ask.
You've been trotting out, through this thread, the purported difference between those "good" immigrants back then and the bad illegal immigrants now time and again: they respected the law! They came legally!
Small problem in that logic; as Thomas already explained to you way in the beginning of the thread (on page 12), before 1922 there
were no "legal permissions" handed out for immigration. Anyone (except Chinese) who was able-bodied, had no criminal record and had $20 on him, could enter - thats it! So what is this stuff about "they arrived with legal permission to do so"?
As for the other part of your demand, most illegal immigrants want desperately "to abide by U.S. law" too - they'd love to be
legal immigrants, after all...
Foxfyre wrote:[I think your primary problem is that you cannot articulate a reasoned response to my position(s) on this and therefore it is much easier to excoriate me. I have elected not to do that to you no matter how wrong headed I think your position is.
You mean, apart from a spate of digs like this?
Foxfyre wrote:It is my opinion that it is possible to care about human beings AND obey the law, and this is what I have been advocating. That may be a concept that is foreign to you
(Trust me, I just read fifty pages of this thread today - there were plenty of snidenesses like that from you - mostly unprovoked)
I admit to being snide to those who decide it is more fun to focus on me and my perceived faults than it is to debate my opinion. If that is wrong I apologize, but I probably won't do it much differently in the future either.
But is generally those who demonstrate a good deal of snideness (ie snottiness etc.) who accuse me of same.
Re immigration policies or any other policies, can you name any country in the world who is doing business and operating under the identical laws or non laws that were in place 50 - 60 - 70- 80 - 90 - 100 years ago? Or do the laws and regulations and policies change as circumstances change? And yes, when others cite Ellis Island as the 'model of all virtue and compassion and acceptance', I am going to point out that those immigrants who arrived via that route did so in compliance with the existing laws and policies of that time.
I do not believe it it too much to ask that the existing laws and policies of our time also be respected and obeyed, and if they need adjusting, improving, amendment, etc., then that is exactly what I think this whole debate should be about.