We are running out of time!

[Swordsmyth]

It's not spin. Every immigration law is either pro-immigrant, letting more in, neutral, not affecting numbers at all, or anti immigrant, reducing numbers. But using your faulty "logic" even a complete moratorium on all immigration could be spun as not "anti immigrant" because you are just "adjusting the number of people who weren't here yet." You claimed that Republican passed anti immigrant laws as a result of Asians voting against republicans. Care to name one law that fits your definition of "anti immigrant?"

An immigration law might be anti-immigration but unless it targets immigrants already here it isn't anti-immigrant.
I didn't say Republicans passed any anti-immigrant laws, I said they changed their attitude to be more anti-immigrant because immigrants put their interest in importing more of their relatives above liberty and the good of the country.

I was making an analogy. People tend to vote according to their perceived best interest. If one party takes an action that someone considers hostile to his/her interest its not illogical for that person to turn against that party, and unfortunately in America we only have two viable parties.

I said they were putting their personal interest in importing more of their relatives above liberty and the good of the country, that is the problem, their priorities are wrong and we shouldn't allow too many of them in because of that.

[jmdrake]

An immigration law might be anti-immigration but unless it targets immigrants already here it isn't anti-immigrant.
I didn't say Republicans passed any anti-immigrant laws, I said they changed their attitude to be more anti-immigrant because immigrants put their interest in importing more of their relatives above liberty and the good of the country.

So..Republicans were pro immigration or neural on immigration when they passed laws restricting immigration? Yes a country has a right to restrict immigration. That is, by definition, anti immigrant. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with a population affected by that decision to say "Hmmm...I think I'll support the party that didn't push for those restrictions." The rest of your argument is just fantasy.

[Swordsmyth]

So..Republicans were pro immigration or neural on immigration when they passed laws restricting immigration? Yes a country has a right to restrict immigration. That is, by definition, anti immigrant. And there's nothing wrong with that.

At least you admit there is nothing wrong with it even if you don't understand the difference between being "anti" the immigrants who are already here and deciding to reduce how many more are allowed in.

There's also nothing wrong with a population affected by that decision to say "Hmmm...I think I'll support the party that didn't push for those restrictions." The rest of your argument is just fantasy.

There is very much wrong with supporting communists if republicans choose to reduce how many of your foreign relatives are allowed in, that's putting your selfish interests above freedom and it comes close to being invasion by blackmail.

[nikcers]

At least you admit there is nothing wrong with it even if you don't understand the difference between being "anti" the immigrants who are already here and deciding to reduce how many more are allowed in.



There is very much wrong with supporting communists if republicans choose to reduce how many of your foreign relatives are allowed in, that's putting your selfish interests above freedom and it comes close to being invasion by blackmail.

What if you marry your brother so they can stay in the country?

[Swordsmyth]

What if you marry your brother so they can stay in the country?

That's invasion by fraud.

[jmdrake]

At least you admit there is nothing wrong with it even if you don't understand the difference between being "anti" the immigrants who are already here and deciding to reduce how many more are allowed in.

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I said it was anti immigrant. If a country wants to pass anti immigrant laws it has a right to do so. And you are the idiot that doesn't know what an anti immigrant law is. You can't even name a single example of one. You are just playing games.

Here is the bottom line. Your whole argument is bullshyt. You claimed that people coming from countries without a history of freedom would automatically vote democrat. The data proves you are full of shyt. In 1992 these same people overwhelmingly voted Republican. Just because you are too dishonest to admit those were anti immigrant laws doesn't change the facts. This group came to the rational decision to vote their interests. And spare me the "Republicans are the party of liberty" bullshyt. George W. Bush invading Iraq for no apparent reason and pushing through the Patriot Act and the bailouts were some of the most anti liberty things done by any president ever. It just so happens that John Kerry was just as bad, voting for war (then claiming he was against it when it went bad), and pushing for the same Patriot Act. The dems were dumb as hell to run Kerry. Had they run someone with actual antiwar and anti police state credentials they might have beaten Bush and that would have been good for liberty. Both parties suck ass.

[Swordsmyth]

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I said it was anti immigrant. If a country wants to pass anti immigrant laws it has a right to do so. And you are the idiot that doesn't know what an anti immigrant law is. You can't even name a single example of one. You are just playing games.

An anti-immigrant law would be a law that attacked immigrants who are here in some way, like expelling them or requiring them all to wear ankle monitors, or forbidding them to own guns etc.

Here is the bottom line. Your whole argument is bullshyt. You claimed that people coming from countries without a history of freedom would automatically vote democrat. The data proves you are full of shyt. In 1992 these same people overwhelmingly voted Republican.

Republicans in 1992 were especially freedom oriented?
Obviously the ASIAN (you are cherry picking the best possible immigrants to try to help your argument but I don't mind because it ends up helping mine instead) immigrants were voting for them for financial reasons which is a part of liberty but obviously they didn't really value liberty for its own sake or they wouldn't have ever been willing to vote for the Demoncrats.
Allowing in very many people who will stab you in the back and vote anti-liberty because of some selfish personal reason is a bad idea and the Asians a re an excellent example of why you don't want too many immigrants even from cultures that are less likely to vote for communists than some other cultures.

Just because you are too dishonest to admit those were anti immigrant laws doesn't change the facts. This group came to the rational decision to vote their interests.

Putting their interests above liberty is THE problem.
We don't want to let in very many people like that.

And spare me the "Republicans are the party of liberty" bullshyt. George W. Bush invading Iraq for no apparent reason and pushing through the Patriot Act and the bailouts were some of the most anti liberty things done by any president ever. It just so happens that John Kerry was just as bad, voting for war (then claiming he was against it when it went bad), and pushing for the same Patriot Act. The dems were dumb as hell to run Kerry. Had they run someone with actual antiwar and anti police state credentials they might have beaten Bush and that would have been good for liberty. Both parties suck ass.

I never said that, my point is that the Demoncrats are the party of communism and government micromanagement, if Asians had switched to voting Constitution Party or even the Libertarian Party I wouldn't have a case and I might even advocate for importing more of them. BUT THEY SWITCHED TO VOTING FOR COMMUNISTS.

[jmdrake]

An anti-immigrant law would be a law that attacked immigrants who are here in some way, like expelling them or requiring them all to wear ankle monitors, or forbidding them to own guns etc.

So expelling immigrants is anti immigrant? Why? A country has a right to expel immigrants just like it has a right not to let them come into the country in the first place. You are consistently inconsistent.

Republicans in 1992 were especially freedom oriented?

Non sequitur. Almost nobody sits down and votes based on some "freedom index" score. If so, do you think dubya would have even gotten nominated in the first place? People look at their own interests. Why do you think Obama won two terms but many Obama voters turned around and voted Trump in 2016? Did they suddenly become "pro freedom?" I don't think so. Coal miners heard Hillary Clinton say she was going to end the coal industry and they decided to vote Trump. If you can't figure out how to convince voters that its in their interest to vote for your candidate that's your own damn fault.

[Swordsmyth]

So expelling immigrants is anti immigrant? Why? A country has a right to expel immigrants just like it has a right not to let them come into the country in the first place. You are consistently inconsistent.

You are funny.
How is throwing people out who don't want to leave not "anti" the targeted population?
Just because we have a right to throw them out doesn't mean doing so isn't "anti" them.

Non sequitur. Almost nobody sits down and votes based on some "freedom index" score. If so, do you think dubya would have even gotten nominated in the first place? People look at their own interests. Why do you think Obama won two terms but many Obama voters turned around and voted Trump in 2016? Did they suddenly become "pro freedom?" I don't think so. Coal miners heard Hillary Clinton say she was going to end the coal industry and they decided to vote Trump. If you can't figure out how to convince voters that its in their interest to vote for your candidate that's your own damn fault.

Most people don't necessarily vote base on raw liberty but their chosen priority list is either more liberty oriented or less, anyone whose priority list is anti-liberty enough that they could ever vote for the Demoncrats just because Republicans didn't want as many H1Bs we don't want very many of.

[jmdrake]

You are funny.
How is throwing people out who don't want to leave not "anti" the targeted population?
Just because we have a right to throw them out doesn't mean doing so isn't "anti" them.

I didn't even mention Trump dumbass. I made a blanket statement that a country has a right to expel immigrants. It's still anti immigrant. And I don't think you meant what you said here.

How is throwing people out who don't want to leave not "anti" the targeted population?

By definition anybody that you throw out is someone who doesn't want to leave!

Really, I don't think you've thought your argument through. For example the whole "Republicans in 1992 were especially freedom oriented" quip. Republicans in 2016 aren't especially freedom oriented. What with all of the face scanning cameras going in at the airports and such. Guess who just banned face scanning cameras in their city? Liberal San Francisco! On some things Democrats sometimes trend more liberty and on other things Republicans trend more liberty. That's why I reject both parties. If you had a lick of sense you would too.

[Swordsmyth]

I didn't even mention Trump dumbass. I made a blanket statement that a country has a right to expel immigrants. It's still anti immigrant. And I don't think you meant what you said here.

How is throwing people out who don't want to leave not "anti" the targeted population?

By definition anybody that you throw out is someone who doesn't want to leave!

You have completely lost track of what we were talking about.
You said I didn't give an example of what an anti-immigrant law would be when I said limiting new immigrants wasn't anti-immigrant, I gave you some examples and I didn't mention Trump.

Really, I don't think you've thought your argument through. For example the whole "Republicans in 1992 were especially freedom oriented" quip. Republicans in 2016 aren't especially freedom oriented. What with all of the face scanning cameras going in at the airports and such. Guess who just banned face scanning cameras in their city? Liberal San Francisco! On some things Democrats sometimes trend more liberty and on other things Republicans trend more liberty. That's why I reject both parties. If you had a lick of sense you would too.

The Demoncrats are far more anti-liberty than Republicans on far more important issues, Frisco is only banning face-scanning cameras to protect AntiFa and illegals, when the left takes over completely they will happily implement them.

The fact that Asians would ever vote for them means we don't want very many of them, if they voted LP or Constitution Party instead of Republican that might be different but they don't.

[jmdrake]

You have completely lost track of what we were talking about.
You said I didn't give an example of what an anti-immigrant law would be when I said limiting new immigrants wasn't anti-immigrant, I gave you some examples and I didn't mention Trump.

Mass deportation of immigrants isn't anti-immigrant based on your definition of anti-immigrant. You are arguing against your own stupid position. The only thing that would be anti immigrant the way you have defined it would be putting immigrants in the gas chamber. Immigrants have no more "right" to stay than they have to come.

The Demoncrats are far more anti-liberty than Republicans on far more important issues, Frisco is only banning face-scanning cameras to protect AntiFa and illegals, when the left takes over completely they will happily implement them.

The fact that Asians would ever vote for them means we don't want very many of them, if they voted LP or Constitution Party instead of Republican that might be different but they don't.

Well we need to find a way to legally deport all of those rust belt Obama voters even though they later voted Trump. I know, I know, they got rights. Still it's the exact same equation. People who sometimes vote Republican also sometimes vote Democrat. And I'm glad those San Francisco Democrats are more pro liberty than your boy Trump on the question of face scanning cameras.

[Swordsmyth]

Mass deportation of immigrants isn't anti-immigrant based on your definition of anti-immigrant. You are arguing against your own stupid position. The only thing that would be anti immigrant the way you have defined it would be putting immigrants in the gas chamber. Immigrants have no more "right" to stay than they have to come.

What are you talking about?
How is throwing people out not "anti" the people you throw out?
Their right to be here or lack there of has nothing to do with whether an action is "anti" them, I never said it did, but limiting the number of people who haven't come here yet who are allowed to come here is not doing anything to the people who are already here and therefor can't be "anti" the people who are already here.

Well we need to find a way to legally deport all of those rust belt Obama voters even though they later voted Trump. I know, I know, they got rights. Still it's the exact same equation.

It's not the same equation because they were born here but if we could separate from them and let them be their own country that would be a good thing and if a civil war comes and they choose to be on the anti-liberty side we may end up having to kill or expel them.

People who sometimes vote Republican also sometimes vote Democrat. And I'm glad those San Francisco Democrats are more pro liberty than your boy Trump on the question of face scanning cameras.

They won't be for long and their other transgressions are far worse.
Go live there for a while and you will see.

[jmdrake]

What are you talking about?
How is throwing people out not "anti" the people you throw out?
Their right to be here or lack there of has nothing to do with whether an action is "anti" them, I never said it did, but limiting the number of people who haven't come here yet who are allowed to come here is not doing anything to the people who are already here and therefor can't be "anti" the people who are already here.

The same way not letting them in is not "anti" the people you aren't letting in. You can't have it both ways.

They won't be for long and their other transgressions are far worse.
Go live there for a while and you will see.

If Trump keeps getting he way on expansion of face scanning cameras the entire United States will become more like China. You will see.

[Swordsmyth]

The same way not letting them in is not "anti" the people you aren't letting in. You can't have it both ways.

They aren't immigrants until we let them in.
It isn't anti-immigrant, it's anti-immigration or anti-foreigner.

If Trump keeps getting he way on expansion of face scanning cameras the entire United States will become more like China. You will see.

I don't support him about that, I oppose him about that but the Demoncrats will have us completely like China much faster.

[jmdrake]

They aren't immigrants until we let them in.
It isn't anti-immigrant, it's anti-immigration or anti-foreigner.

immigrant noun
im·​mi·​grant | \ ˈi-mə-grənt \
Definition of immigrant
: one that immigrates: such as
a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

The definition of immigrant is not "someone who is allowed in a country." It is "someone who comes to a country to take up permanent residence."

I don't support him about that, I oppose him about that but the Demoncrats will have us completely like China much faster.

And you are entitled to your opinion on that. So far Trump has been worse than Obama on the 2nd amendment and on expanding the surveillance state. (Face scanning cameras). Based on a series of GOP leaders who have done horrible things regarding liberty there is not this "democrats are the authoritarians and the GOP will save us from tyranny" black and white dichotomy that you are pretending there is. So....people vote their own interests.

[Swordsmyth]

immigrant noun
im·​mi·​grant | \ ˈi-mə-grənt \
Definition of immigrant
: one that immigrates: such as
a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

The definition of immigrant is not "someone who is allowed in a country." It is "someone who comes to a country to take up permanent residence."

If they aren't allowed in then they can't have COME here, if they are still in a foreign country they haven't COME here and aren't immigrants.
Telling them that they can't all come here isn't anti-immigrant because they aren't immigrants yet because they haven't COME yet.

And you are entitled to your opinion on that. So far Trump has been worse than Obama on the 2nd amendment and on expanding the surveillance state. (Face scanning cameras).

That is a myth.

Based on a series of GOP leaders who have done horrible things regarding liberty there is not this "democrats are the authoritarians and the GOP will save us from tyranny" black and white dichotomy that you are pretending there is. So....people vote their own interests.

Based on a series of Demoncrat leaders the Demoncrats are much worse.
The Republicans are very far from perfect but immigrants don't tend to vote for the LP, they vote for the greater of two evils unless we pander to their demands and even then they usually vote for them. (remember that you can't just discuss Asians)

[nikcers]

immigrant noun
im·​mi·​grant | \ ˈi-mə-grənt \
Definition of immigrant
: one that immigrates: such as
a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

The definition of immigrant is not "someone who is allowed in a country." It is "someone who comes to a country to take up permanent residence."



And you are entitled to your opinion on that. So far Trump has been worse than Obama on the 2nd amendment and on expanding the surveillance state. (Face scanning cameras). Based on a series of GOP leaders who have done horrible things regarding liberty there is not this "democrats are the authoritarians and the GOP will save us from tyranny" black and white dichotomy that you are pretending there is. So....people vote their own interests.

Technically you can't immigrate into a country that doesn't consent to it. It's like the difference between sex and rape.

[pcosmar]

Running out of time.

Yes.. Physics 101
from a purely physical standpoint..

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible. All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder.

Entropy is the loss of energy available to do work. Another form of the second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant; it never decreases. Entropy is zero in a reversible process; it increases in an irreversible process.

The idea of heat death stems from the second law of thermodynamics, of which one version states that entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. From this, the hypothesis implies that if the universe lasts for a sufficient time, it will asymptotically approach a state where all energy is evenly distributed.

we are in fact running out of Time.

[jmdrake]

If they aren't allowed in then they can't have COME here, if they are still in a foreign country they haven't COME here and aren't immigrants.
Telling them that they can't all come here isn't anti-immigrant because they aren't immigrants yet because they haven't COME yet.

People come to this country all of the time and are denied entry. Seriously your argument is stupid. And many H1B VISA applications have already been let into the U.S. on student visas. So using your retarded definition they are still immigrants.

That is a myth.

No it isn't.

Based on a series of Demoncrat leaders the Demoncrats are much worse.
The Republicans are very far from perfect but immigrants don't tend to vote for the LP, they vote for the greater of two evils unless we pander to their demands and even then they usually vote for them. (remember that you can't just discuss Asians)

Clinton was worse but mainly because he passed the GOP drafted crime bill so that's pretty much even.

Technically you can't immigrate into a country that doesn't consent to it. It's like the difference between sex and rape.

You are an immigrant when you make the attempt. If you got turned away at Ellis Island or the Mexico border that didn't make you not an immigrant. Before a country can consent you have to make the attempt. Using your analogy, a man is a "rapist" if he tries to make a move on his wife even if he stops when she says "I'm not interested tonight." Very progressive of you.

[Swordsmyth]

People come to this country all of the time and are denied entry. Seriously your argument is stupid. And many H1B VISA applications have already been let into the U.S. on student visas. So using your retarded definition they are still immigrants.

If they are denied entry then they didn't successfully come into the country and they aren't immigrants and the small number of immigrants who are trying to change their status are an exception that doesn't make reducing the number of H1Bs anti-immigrant.

Stop trying to stretch the facts to fit your rhetoric.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Clinton was worse but mainly because he passed the GOP drafted crime bill so that's pretty much even.

That's not all that made him worse and it isn't even close to even.

You are an immigrant when you make the attempt. If you got turned away at Ellis Island or the Mexico border that didn't make you not an immigrant. Before a country can consent you have to make the attempt. Using your analogy, a man is a "rapist" if he tries to make a move on his wife even if he stops when she says "I'm not interested tonight." Very progressive of you.

If you are told "don't come, you are in excess of the limits we have placed on immigration" and you come anyway then you are not an immigrant, you are an invader.

[nikcers]

You are an immigrant when you make the attempt. If you got turned away at Ellis Island or the Mexico border that didn't make you not an immigrant. Before a country can consent you have to make the attempt. Using your analogy, a man is a "rapist" if he tries to make a move on his wife even if he stops when she says "I'm not interested tonight." Very progressive of you.

By your definition of anti immigrant everyone who won't have sex with me is anti sex.

[jmdrake]

By your definition of anti immigrant everyone who won't have sex with me is anti sex.

If someone makes a blanket statement that they don't want to have sex with anyone like you they might just be anti stupid.

[jmdrake]

If they are denied entry then they didn't successfully come into the country and they aren't immigrants and the small number of immigrants who are trying to change their status are an exception that doesn't make reducing the number of H1Bs anti-immigrant.

Stop trying to stretch the facts to fit your rhetoric.

A) It's not a small number with student visas who apply for H1B status. There are nearly 400,000 people with student visas. There are only 60,000 H1B visa slots. Do the math.....if you can.

B) The fact is that immigrant includes those who come trying to get in but are denied. That's from the freaking definition! You are the one twisting facts. If someone came to Ellis Island he was an immigrant. That doesn't mean he couldn't get turned away. Some did. That person didn't do anything wrong by trying.

Really, you make up arguments based on "facts" that have no basis in reality.

[nikcers]

If someone makes a blanket statement that they don't want to have sex with anyone like you they might just be anti stupid.

See what you did there? You sort of argued my case that someone isn't anti sex just because they choose not to have sex with me.

[Swordsmyth]

A) It's not a small number with student visas who apply for H1B status. There are nearly 400,000 people with student visas. There are only 60,000 H1B visa slots. Do the math.....if you can.

Don't play stupid games, not all student visa holders apply for H1B status and most H1B holders are imported rather than being former student visa holders.

B) The fact is that immigrant includes those who come trying to get in but are denied. That's from the freaking definition! You are the one twisting facts. If someone came to Ellis Island he was an immigrant. That doesn't mean he couldn't get turned away. Some did. That person didn't do anything wrong by trying.

Really, you make up arguments based on "facts" that have no basis in reality.

Wrong, you aren't an immigrant unless you are allowed in, you are the one making up your own reality.

[Anti Federalist]

blimp

[acptulsa]

Don't play stupid games, not all student visa holders apply for H1B status and most H1B holders are imported rather than being former student visa holders.

So you can't do the math. He's right, @jmdrake. You should never start playing stupid games. That's his job.

Wrong, you aren't an immigrant unless you are allowed in, you are the one making up your own reality.

I see. So opium that reaches a consumer without the aid of a prescription, and is therefore an illegal drug, isn't a drug at all.

Gee, why is there such a big market for a substance that does nothing?

[nobody's_hero]

AF why you bump this? you know there's never gonna be a reply as good as Minime's original post.

This thread should be archived and placed in a plexiglass vacuum-sealed artifact display case.

[Snowball]

So you can't do the math. He's right, @jmdrake. You should never start playing stupid games. That's his job.



I see. So opium that reaches a consumer without the aid of a prescription, and is therefore an illegal drug, isn't a drug at all.

Gee, why is there such a big market for a substance that does nothing?

We live in a society where a tv reality contestant made 100k selling her farts in a jar, then had to go to hospital for making herself fart too much,
so you tell me.