Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"You didn't qualify the word "empathy". So now you restrict it to not everyone we happen to feel sorry for"
I have empathy for everyone born into the 3rd world. That doesn't mean I think we should bring them all here. The ones we do bring, we do so, because of empathy and hope.
Empathy is a fine thing. Most of us empathize. But it cannot be a rational purpose for an immigration policy.
"You are not clear about what you suggest"
I apologize. I'll try to clarify. I suggest that if Trump truly doesn't know why it's noble to bring some people from horrible places here, then he is a bigger jerk than I thought. And I thought he was a pretty big jerk.
Where do you get that he doesn't know why it's noble? And is being noble another purpose besides empathy for an immigration policy?
"Historically, from the inception of this country, immigration "policy" has been very selective "
That's exactly true. Until, what, the Kennedy years?
Immigration and Nationality act of 1965--"It created a seven-category preference system, which gave priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills." Still selective. And not based on empathy or nobility.
"there was no mention of "empathy" in it."
Oh. So if the word isn't explicitly stated on an immigration document, then immigration policy cannot be based on empathy? I thought it was kind of obvious.
The change in the 1965 immigration policy was to eliminate the preference for European immigrants, and to create a more "multicultural" society. It was not based on empathy or nobility. The immigration "problem" created by that change arose when amnesty was given to the millions of illegal "immigrants" here which not only brought about an unanticipated (by "Conservatives--maybe "liberals" did anticipate it) huge shift in demographics, especially when it was enhanced with chain migration. If you empathize with chain migration and think it is a noble thing, you're welcome to your opinion. I don't agree with such an opinion.
"What he doesn't want is massive thousands (of any kind) immigrating here within a vey short space of time, among whom would be many, if not a majority of those, especially from sh*thole countries, who do not fit the type 'you want"
That's not what he said. If he said "I don't want immigrants who won't be good neighbors", no one would take issue with that. No one. That's not what he said.
Nor did he say anything about race. He has said, at other times, similar things about immigration which you espouse.
People cannot control what country they are born into. I'm not a huge fan of attacking people for things they did not choose, and have zero control over.
When did he "attack" some because of the country they were born in?
"You read racism into what he said"
Possibly racist in my opinion. I don't have a history of screaming racism every time someone I disagree with opens his mouth. It takes something to get me to that point. To assume that people from Norway are automatically superior to people from Africa and Haiti, isn't something I like coming out of the mouth of my POTUS. If he runs against Hilary again in 2020, I will once again have his sign on my lawn. But I thought this statement was deeply offensive.
Was he referring to "whites" or to a compatible culture peopled by those who are far more likely to have the skill sets and attitudes that fit our needs then those raised in a sh*thole?
I'm not even saying I'm opposed to being more selective in immigration, to bring people who are more likely to thrive and more likely to embrace our culture, I have no problem with that. He just sounded like a eugenicist. Let the liberals worship Margaret Sanger, I don't want that filth where I breathe.
|