Immigration and minorities

[Cewakiyelo]

Here are a couple of interesting things I was given to review and I thought they were good enough to pass along so I am passing them along. Please feel free to comment on these two items if you wish.

Authorship unknown.

On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:

"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians.

This next item is a video by Ray Stevens it is a laugh yourself out of your seat lyrical commentary on the U.S. policy concerning immigration. It is to funny and sadly to true.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WgOHOHKBEq ... detailpage

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 3 by Cewakiyelo]

Agreed. Here is a great video illustrating the liberal (il)logic about immigration:

Lol I love it you complain about liberal ideas on immigration when it was the great conservative icon Reagan that granted amnesty to millions of illegals.

Yes he did.

He made the mistake of trusting the Democrats when they promised to secure the borders if he would.

The IRCA was a bipartisan bill and neither side seemed concerned about leaving the enforcement provisions of the bill unfunded so please stop trying to blame only one side for the bills shortcomings. The bipartisan congress passed it and the republican president signed it into law knowing full well that the enforcement provision of the bill was unfunded.

If you wish to continue with this claim please present evidence of its truthfullness and not simply partisan rhetoric.

That's funny coming from you. It was up to Congress to fund border security, and they didn't do it. Which party controlled the House then? Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over.

[Wyvern]

[Replying to post 3 by Cewakiyelo]

Agreed. Here is a great video illustrating the liberal (il)logic about immigration:

Lol I love it you complain about liberal ideas on immigration when it was the great conservative icon Reagan that granted amnesty to millions of illegals.

Yes he did.

He made the mistake of trusting the Democrats when they promised to secure the borders if he would.

The IRCA was a bipartisan bill and neither side seemed concerned about leaving the enforcement provisions of the bill unfunded so please stop trying to blame only one side for the bills shortcomings. The bipartisan congress passed it and the republican president signed it into law knowing full well that the enforcement provision of the bill was unfunded.

If you wish to continue with this claim please present evidence of its truthfullness and not simply partisan rhetoric.

That's funny coming from you. It was up to Congress to fund border security, and they didn't do it. Which party controlled the House then? Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over.

Is anything I wrote incorrect? All I see here is your continued partisan rhetoric. If border security has been adequate since the '90's as you claim why is it illegal immigration is such an issue at this time? The very fact that Obama has been deporting illegals at a greater rate than any other president puts the lie to your claim.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 3 by Cewakiyelo]

Agreed. Here is a great video illustrating the liberal (il)logic about immigration:

Lol I love it you complain about liberal ideas on immigration when it was the great conservative icon Reagan that granted amnesty to millions of illegals.

Yes he did.

He made the mistake of trusting the Democrats when they promised to secure the borders if he would.

The IRCA was a bipartisan bill and neither side seemed concerned about leaving the enforcement provisions of the bill unfunded so please stop trying to blame only one side for the bills shortcomings. The bipartisan congress passed it and the republican president signed it into law knowing full well that the enforcement provision of the bill was unfunded.

If you wish to continue with this claim please present evidence of its truthfullness and not simply partisan rhetoric.

That's funny coming from you. It was up to Congress to fund border security, and they didn't do it. Which party controlled the House then? Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over.

Is anything I wrote incorrect? All I see here is your continued partisan rhetoric. If border security has been adequate since the '90's as you claim

Never said that, please reread.

why is it illegal immigration is such an issue at this time? The very fact that Obama has been deporting illegals at a greater rate than any other president puts the lie to your claim.

Right, is that why he is stopping AZ from enforcing immigration laws?

[10CC]

Do you think that the native americans should have a say in which immigrants and descendants of immigrants are allowed to stay?

Not anymore than anyone else. You aren't more of an American just because your descendants got here first.

Well I never said that I was. You have made your usual jump of faith and decided that if it looks like a rabbit and runs like a fox it must be a christian. Nah sorry jumps of faith never seem to work.

Obviously when I said 'your' I didn't mean you personally. I was talking against the ridiculous idea that Indians somehow have more of a right to decide policy than the rest of us, which you restate below. Seeing as they have their own 'nations', I don't see how they are even allowed to vote in our elections.

It is patently obvious that only the native americans (see the word NATIVE) are the only non immigrants in the country. Hence they are the only ones who have the right or not to accept immigrants.
Now that is a fact.

You're even wrong about that, Indians at one point came to North America from somewhere else, probably crossing the Bering land bridge. And English immigrants who came here from 1620-1776 technically were moving from one part of the British Empire to another, so they can't even be called immigrants.

What truly absurd arguments. Immigrants are people from a different country who have settled in another country.
When did these native americans cross the land bridge? I do hope it wasn't before adam?

[Wyvern]

That's funny coming from you. It was up to Congress to fund border security, and they didn't do it. Which party controlled the House then? Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over.

Is anything I wrote incorrect? All I see here is your continued partisan rhetoric. If border security has been adequate since the '90's as you claim

Never said that, please reread.

Okay let me quote you,

Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over

Correct me if I am wrong but the Gingrich congress as you call it was in the 90's and you stated quite unequivocably that the funding at that time was adequate. So I ask you again if funding levels reached adequate levels then why is it illegal immigration is an issue now?

why is it illegal immigration is such an issue at this time? The very fact that Obama has been deporting illegals at a greater rate than any other president puts the lie to your claim.

Right, is that why he is stopping AZ from enforcing immigration laws?

You repeating the same old debunked claims does not help your argument and only demonstrates your only desire is to villify the president and not to actually discuss the actual issue this thread is about. Reaching any kind of solution is going to require bipartisan cooperation and your demonstrated hostility towards any viewpoint other than your own will only result in nothing happening.

[otseng]

puts the lie to your claim.

Moderator Comment

Just correct the claim without implying that someone is lying.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[East of Eden]

Do you think that the native americans should have a say in which immigrants and descendants of immigrants are allowed to stay?

Not anymore than anyone else. You aren't more of an American just because your descendants got here first.

Well I never said that I was. You have made your usual jump of faith and decided that if it looks like a rabbit and runs like a fox it must be a christian. Nah sorry jumps of faith never seem to work.

Obviously when I said 'your' I didn't mean you personally. I was talking against the ridiculous idea that Indians somehow have more of a right to decide policy than the rest of us, which you restate below. Seeing as they have their own 'nations', I don't see how they are even allowed to vote in our elections.

It is patently obvious that only the native americans (see the word NATIVE) are the only non immigrants in the country. Hence they are the only ones who have the right or not to accept immigrants.
Now that is a fact.

You're even wrong about that, Indians at one point came to North America from somewhere else, probably crossing the Bering land bridge. And English immigrants who came here from 1620-1776 technically were moving from one part of the British Empire to another, so they can't even be called immigrants.

What truly absurd arguments. Immigrants are people from a different country who have settled in another country.

Which means settlers from England weren't immigrants when they moved to another part of British territory. Are you an immigrant if you move from CA to NY?

When did these native americans cross the land bridge? I do hope it wasn't before adam?

Happy to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia

[East of Eden]

That's funny coming from you. It was up to Congress to fund border security, and they didn't do it. Which party controlled the House then? Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over.

Is anything I wrote incorrect? All I see here is your continued partisan rhetoric. If border security has been adequate since the '90's as you claim

Never said that, please reread.

Okay let me quote you,

Adequate border security wasn't funded until the Gingrich Congress took over

Correct me if I am wrong but the Gingrich congress as you call it was in the 90's and you stated quite unequivocably that the funding at that time was adequate. So I ask you again if funding levels reached adequate levels then why is it illegal immigration is an issue now?

Once again you misrepresent a statement. Because adequade funding happened in the GOP congress doesn't mean it has been adequate ever since, unfortunately the GOP hastn't been in power since then. Here is an example of Obama cutting funding for border security: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/03/29/o ... -security/

You repeating the same old debunked claims

No it hasn't.

does not help your argument and only demonstrates your only desire is to villify the president and not to actually discuss the actual issue this thread is about. Reaching any kind of solution is going to require bipartisan cooperation and your demonstrated hostility towards any viewpoint other than your own will only result in nothing happening.

Once again you show stating facts = 'villifying the president'. I wish I had a quarter for every time you've used that phrase.

[Wyvern]

Once again you misrepresent a statement. Because adequade funding happened in the GOP congress doesn't mean it has been adequate ever since, unfortunately the GOP hastn't been in power since then. Here is an example of Obama cutting funding for border security: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/03/29/o ... -security/

In the ensuing period the number of border patrol agents has increased nearly five times, if funding was adequate back then why has the number of agents continued to increase at such a dramatic rate? Also your article is about the sequestration not at all what the title suggests.

You repeating the same old debunked claims

No it hasn't.

You repeating claims that have already been addressed is silly.

does not help your argument and only demonstrates your only desire is to villify the president and not to actually discuss the actual issue this thread is about. Reaching any kind of solution is going to require bipartisan cooperation and your demonstrated hostility towards any viewpoint other than your own will only result in nothing happening.

Once again you show stating facts = 'villifying the president'. I wish I had a quarter for every time you've used that phrase.

If you would actually address the issue would be helpful instead of using every thread as an excuse to villify the president.

[East of Eden]

Once again you misrepresent a statement. Because adequade funding happened in the GOP congress doesn't mean it has been adequate ever since, unfortunately the GOP hastn't been in power since then. Here is an example of Obama cutting funding for border security: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/03/29/o ... -security/

In the ensuing period the number of border patrol agents has increased nearly five times, if funding was adequate back then why has the number of agents continued to increase at such a dramatic rate? Also your article is about the sequestration not at all what the title suggests.

Reread the article. Obama is not responsible for sequestration being implemented, but his administration is responsible for how those cuts are made, and as the article stated the cuts were made to front-line border patrol agents, not back-office administrators as it should have been.

You repeating claims that have already been addressed is silly.

Your addressing them is just your opinion, which I reject.

I wish you would address the issue would be helpful instead of using every thread as an excuse to villify the president.

Huh? In a thread about immigration the current president is somehow off-limits, or has to be agreed with in all his policies? Not in my book, this is a debate forum.