Trump reiterates claim that he wants more legal immigration

[timosman]

What gives them that right?

Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?

[Swordsmyth]

What gives them that right?

Birth in our territory or being granted citizenship by us.
Those who do not have any other citizenship and who do not qualify to get any other citizenship would also be cruelly and unusually punished if we made them persons without a country.

It is a concession to liberty and human rights to allow citizens to stay here even if their political beliefs are less than perfect but it would be better to impose liberty in all its other aspects and expel those who oppose liberty than to allow unlimited immigration of people who oppose liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?

LOL

[RJB]

I would have complained about immigration when the mountain men moved in and ruined things. I would have complained about the cattle herders, the atrocities that our cities have become. I don't want immigrants: Hispanics, European, anybody. My country is screwed up enough. I really don't want to see it turn into Venezuela like California is.

When I drive to work in the morning, the last thing I think is, "Gee, I wish we could get a whole bunch more people so I will have a longer sit in this f-ing traffic jam."

Our infrastructure is falling apart. Our cities are turning to slums. Our rights are getting stripped away and I am supposed to support more rights for outsiders than my own kids. Screw that. Go away and leave me alone!

[RJB]

Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?

Racist has already lost its meaning when anyone who disagrees with "E" is called a racist. Calling people who drive race cars that will further degrade the meaning of that word.

[Swordsmyth]

Racist has already lost its meaning when anyone who disagrees with "E" is called a racist. Calling people who drive race cars that will further degrade the meaning of that word.

Then perhaps we should begin calling them that immediately.

[Danke]

I would have complained about immigration when the mountain men moved in and ruined things. I would have complained about the cattle herders, the atrocities that our cities have become. I don't want immigrants: Hispanics, European, anybody. My country is screwed up enough. I really don't want to see it turn into Venezuela like California is.

When I drive to work in the morning, the last thing I think is, "Gee, I wish we could get a whole bunch more people so I will have a longer sit in this f-ing traffic jam."

Our infrastructure is falling apart. Our cities are turning to slums. Are rights are getting stripped away and I am supposed to support more rights for outsiders than my own kids. Screw that. Go away and leave me alone!

I have nothing against immigrants (Nigerians aside), but I am starting to live in a third world here. Can't stand driving around town anymore. No common sense, courtesy, erratic driving or using a simple thing like a turn signal.

[RJB]

I have nothing against immigrants (Nigerians aside), but I am starting to live in a third world here. Can't stand driving around town anymore.

I am friends with some people who are immigrants. However, I am in a rotten mood today.

[Swordsmyth]

I am friends with some people who are immigrants. However, I am in a rotten mood today.

Too many immigrants will cause that.

[Superfluous Man]

Birth in our territory or being granted citizenship by us.

What determines that those things give someone a right to be here?

[Swordsmyth]

What determines that those things give someone a right to be here?

Nature and Nature's GOD.

Also LOGIC.

[Anti Federalist]

I am friends with some people who are immigrants. However, I am in a rotten mood today.

Welcome to my world...every day.

[Superfluous Man]

Nature and Nature's GOD.

Also LOGIC.

Could you please explain the logic that leads to that conclusion?

[Swordsmyth]

Could you please explain the logic that leads to that conclusion?

Anyone who is born here (legally) is part of our group and almost all of them have nowhere else to call home, those that we give permission to join us have permission from the group to joint it.

You know all this already.

[Superfluous Man]

Anyone who is born here (legally) is part of our group and almost all of them have nowhere else to call home, those that we give permission to join us have permission from the group to joint it.

You know all this already.

I know already that you tend to assert this kind of thing. It just seems like you're making up your ethics as you go along with whatever ad hoc provisions you need to cook up in order to reach the conclusion you want.

Who decides that anyone born here legally is part of our group? Is it we ourselves who get to decide that? And if so, then it means we're not obligated to say that, and we could just as well say that someone who is born here doesn't have the right to stay as we can say that they do, and then if we think that they're liable to vote for Communists, we would have as much ethical standing to deport them as we would a so-called illegal immigrant.

[Swordsmyth]

I know already that you assert this kind of thing. It just seems like you're making up your ethics as you go along with whatever ad hoc provisions you need to cook up in order to reach the conclusion you want.

LOL

You would say the same thing about 2+2=4 if it suited your purposes.

"Why does 2+2=4?"
"Because if you count to 2 and then count 2 more you arrive at 4"
"I know already that you assert this kind of thing. It just seems like you're making up your ethics as you go along with whatever ad hoc provisions you need to cook up in order to reach the conclusion you want. "

[Superfluous Man]

LOL

You would say the same thing about 2+2=4 if it suited your purposes.

"Why does 2+2=4?"
"Because if you count to 2 and then count 2 more you arrive at 4"
"I know already that you assert this kind of thing. It just seems like you're making up your ethics as you go along with whatever ad hoc provisions you need to cook up in order to reach the conclusion you want. "

Not at all. 2+2=4 can be proven. What you're doing though is just making stuff up and asserting that it's logical without being able to support it through any kind of argumentation that doesn't keep coming back to you making things up.

[Swordsmyth]

Not at all. 2+2=4 can be proven. What you're doing though is just making stuff up and asserting that it's logical without being able to support it through any kind of argumentation that doesn't keep coming back to you making things up.

Sure, if you discount the obvious logic.

[Superfluous Man]

Sure, if you discount the obvious logic.

I promise not to discount obvious logic. But since you refuse to present a syllogism that supports your conclusion, that's a moot point.

[Swordsmyth]

I promise not to discount obvious logic. But since you refuse to present a syllogism that supports your conclusion, that's a moot point.

I presented the logic and you just dismissed it.
How about you disprove what I said?

[Swordsmyth]

Who decides that anyone born here legally is part of our group?

Are they part of their parents' group? Yes.

[Superfluous Man]

I presented the logic and you just dismissed it.
How about you disprove what I said?

I missed it. I didn't see any argumentation from you. Just baseless assertions.

[Swordsmyth]

I missed it. I didn't see any argumentation from you. Just baseless assertions.

So you say.

[Superfluous Man]

Are they part of their parents' group? Yes.

Sure. If that's the group you want to count. There are infinitely many groups we could all count anyone in, including groups that they and their parents belong to as well as groups they belong to without their parents and groups their parents belong to without them.

I don't se the relevance of that to the discussion though.

[acptulsa]

I presented the logic and you just dismissed it.
How about you disprove what I said?

Do you want him to disprove nature? God? Or do you want him to disprove your "logic" when you didn't display one shred of it--you just said,

Assertion

Because "Logic"

QED

...like that means jack $#@!.

Nobody--nobody--is impressed when you fill in the blank of A -> ??? -> B with "Because logic".

[Swordsmyth]

Sure. If that's the group you want to count. There are infinitely many groups we could all count anyone in, including groups that they and their parents belong to as well as groups they belong to without their parents and groups their parents belong to without them.

I don't se the relevance of that to the discussion though.

Are their parents part of our group? Yes.

If they are part of their parents' group then they are also part of our group.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you want him to disprove nature? God? Or do you want him to disprove your "logic" when you didn't display one shred of it--you just said,

Assertion

"Logic"

QED

...like that means jack $#@!.

LOL

[Stratovarious]

I promise not to discount obvious logic. But since you refuse to present a syllogism that supports your conclusion, that's a moot point.

How many syllogisms did you bring with you tonight?

[acptulsa]

LOL

So are you saying you can't back up your opinions, you're only a hyena?

How many syllogisms did you bring with you tonight?

You get yours at Wall Mart, all wrapped in plastic?

He doesn't need to keep them frozen in the box. He can cook his up to order.

And they come out pretty good, too.

What about you? You want to back Swordshyll up so bad. If you can't produce some logic to support his point of view, then that is what kind of backup you give him--so bad

[Swordsmyth]

So are you saying you can't back up your opinions, you're only a hyena?

If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't waste your time on this garbage.