Immigration

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Immigration of all stripes is likely an economic boon in the long run.

Agreed, if there is a streamlined path to citizenship. I'm thinking that if even a small portion of the current non-citizen labor pool were to gain citizenship, they would then enter the workforce at minimum wage rather than below it, making the competitive gap in wages much smaller. As citizens they then add to the tax base and likely become more regular consumers. Furthermore the amount of bureaucracy devoted to tracking migrant work diminishes. So an easier path to citizenship would look like an economic win from almost all angles.
 
however the discussion is more interesting (and amusing) to me when things are somewhat "belligerent"

And therein lies the problem. As is evidenced in this thread, if the beginning post is belligerent, then others will be tempted will feel compelled to respond in kind. And that's unfortunate and not your fault, but you also know full well that it would come. Toss in a good smattering of "libtard" and "fuckwit" and other immature insults, and the thread turns to crap in no time. You might find it amusing but it's a pretty shitty thing to hope for threads that practically beg people to get personal.

This goes for everyone and not just bigjohn:
If you want to have an open discussion, please, do so. Argue in good faith. In a civil tone. Lay off the insults. Resist the urge to get personal. Don't let other people's immaturity give you the excuse to stoop to their level. Argue the topic and not the person.

Give to charity. Help an old lady across the street. Be the change you want to see in the world. Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Visualize world pe---- woah... what just happened? :huh:
 
Yeah, it's a shame too, because there could have been a real discussion. And needs to be.

This is a very complicated issue, and no one on any side seems to want to really discuss it.

There's a moral issue here.
There's a safety issue here.
There's an economic issue here.(both ways, the who pays for this and the rise of goods and services when farm and hospitality labor has to go legitimate)

Is there a race issue here? Absolutely, but both sides hide behind it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

You aren't going to believe this but I just spent the last 20-30 minutes or so writing my REAL, well-thought out, rational, no ranting or raving antics response to this but when I clicked post it came up that I was logged out because I guess I spent too much time writing it and I lost the whole fucking thing.

It was maybe 3x longer than my original post and might've made a decent college paper. :scream::scream::scream:
 
You aren't going to believe this but I just spent the last 20-30 minutes or so writing my REAL, well-thought out, rational, no ranting or raving antics response to this but when I clicked post it came up that I was logged out because I guess I spent too much time writing it and I lost the whole fucking thing.

It was maybe 3x longer than my original post and might've made a decent college paper. :scream::scream::scream:


You lost all credibility the moment you started calling people libtards.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
This goes for everyone and not just bigjohn:
If you want to have an open discussion, please, do so. Argue in good faith. In a civil tone. Lay off the insults. Resist the urge to get personal. Don't let other people's immaturity give you the excuse to stoop to their level. Argue the topic and not the person.

And also, bigjohn

1. Click this > Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Read it.
3. Stop doing it.
 
Cost of Illegal Immigrants The cost of illegal immigration to government budgets is debated, but is likely far more modest than the numbers trotted out by anti-immigration activist. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, one could make the argument that we should deport lower income Americans because they cost money. But we don't because we're a humane and caring country, even though some of our citizens don't want us to be. Illegal immigrants provide a boost to the economy and entire industries such as agriculture are dependent on immigrant labor. To simply deport them all would be very bad for our economy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I wouldn't go that far.
 
You mean after I was called a racist and "fucking arsehole?"


Other people calling you names doesn't make it okay to also name call. You're not a racist for opposing immigration (even though you're wrong about the impact of immigration on this country). But saying that immigrants bring disease into the country (when actually a higher percentage of immigrants are vaccinated than Americans) is a classic nativist argument that's been used throughout history and is widely viewed as a racist argument. I don't think you're a racist, but some of your arguments veer dangerously close to classic racist arguments against immigration.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
As long is they are WHITE. Isn't that the response you're after.

But seriously, most highly intelligent foreigners with skills in high demand get visas and come here legally, not jump a fence or come in by banana boat.

The people that come here illegally aren't usually in that category are they?

Don't put words in my mouth. I insinuated no such thing and would prefer it if you would not insinuate that I'm racist. :| I civilly asked you a question in order to get a civvilized discussion going, but apparently that seems hardly possible in this thread. Let's try again.

Sure there's a big part that come here legally, but there's also highly intelligent people from third world countries that get no chance to study or get a good job to afford the visa and trip. Most people don't even get the chance, while if they are given the chance here, they could easily grow out to contribute greatly to our society.
 
And therein lies the problem. As is evidenced in this thread, if the beginning post is belligerent, then others will be tempted will feel compelled to respond in kind. And that's unfortunate and not your fault, but you also know full well that it would come. Toss in a good smattering of "libtard" and "fuckwit" and other immature insults, and the thread turns to crap in no time. You might find it amusing but it's a pretty shitty thing to hope for threads that practically beg people to get personal.

This goes for everyone and not just bigjohn:
If you want to have an open discussion, please, do so. Argue in good faith. In a civil tone. Lay off the insults. Resist the urge to get personal. Don't let other people's immaturity give you the excuse to stoop to their level. Argue the topic and not the person.

Give to charity. Help an old lady across the street. Be the change you want to see in the world. Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Visualize world pe---- woah... what just happened? :huh:


Just me speaking, but I refuse to be civil to someone who comes in and seriously posts this:

So by your thinking we should have NO immigration laws and let ANYONE who want's to come here that wants to, including those without a pot to piss in (nor any sort of skill or trade) from 3rd world nations. And when they come here and can't support themselves (I know, impossible in this job market :rolleyes:) who is going to support them? How about we take 50-75% or more of YOUR wages if you feel that strongly about it?

And also by that logic you are comfortable with rapists, murderers, and career criminals immigrating here without any of those pesky immigration laws, right?

And also all the people with incurable and/or contagious diseases and STDs can all come too right? Maybe we can all pay for their treatment as well.


And then he has the gall to whinge and complain. Pathetic.
 
libtard.jpg
 
Could you possibly not use the word "tard" going forward?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Bigjohn, I'm having a hard time not interpreting that post as trolling/willfully ignoring my comments.

I think I've been more than patient, but you're pushing it.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention "tard" is a pretty offensive word. Bigjohn's hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Perhaps this thread has served its course. A couple of us tried to get a civil discussion going, but get the same treatment as everyone else. Guess this guy is just not capable of responding in a normal, calm manner.
 
This place is ridiculous. The left complains that this place is a ghost town echo chamber of people who agree more than disagree. But then when the right comes along, they do it in such batshit crazy, incoherent, and obnoxious manner that no reasonable discussion can be had with them anyway.
 
This place is ridiculous. The left complains that this place is a ghost town echo chamber of people who agree more than disagree. But then when the right comes along, they do it in such batshit crazy, incoherent, and obnoxious manner that no reasonable discussion can be had with them anyway.

The right hasn't gone away from FYM, it's just been sleeping. The sleeping giant has now awoken.

Now then. Let me begin with some assertions from a commentator who - like me - is always right.

James Delingpole: 'The Truth About Immigration' is anything but


Immigration. Were you aware that this has become a bit of a problem these past ten years? I wasn’t, obviously, because like all credulous idiots I get my news from a single trusted source, the BBC, and as a result I’ve known for some time now that immigration is great, regardless of what the facts and figures are.

I know, for example, that all those warnings by evil right-wing MPs about a potential ‘flood’ which might ‘swamp’ Britain were dangerously inflammatory ‘dog-whistle’ politics; that eastern Europeans have a work ethic that puts our native population to shame; that all the cleverest think tanks tell us that immigration represents a boon to our economy; that we are a nation of immigrants and that this is what has made us great; that anyone who thinks otherwise is ‘racist’; and so on.


This week the BBC tried a cunning new variant on this theme called The Truth about Immigration (BBC2, Tuesday). By roping in notionally right-leaning Nick Robinson to present it and by trailing it as some kind of massive volte-face the BBC sought to give the impression that it was saying something new, controversial and daring.


It wasn’t really, though. Sure, there were some sops to reality: interviews with dejected native northerners (including a second-generation Asian), upset by the Roma gangs hanging around on street corners and dumping rubbish everywhere; ex-Labour minister Jack Straw expressing ‘regret’ at the way his administration had underestimated the scale of immigration by a factor of ten; scenes of English people at the New Forest show wondering where their country had gone. Underneath all that distracting surface detail, though, here was the same old BBC feigning a critique of Britain’s disastrous immigration policy but ending up presenting an apologia for it.




Consider, for example, its predictably lazy analysis of Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech. According to the programme, this was what for years after rendered all serious discussion of the race and immigration issue politically untenable. What it didn’t attempt to grapple with, though, was why this might have been.


Was Powell’s speech disturbing, lurid, nightmarish — inflammatory even? Why yes, very likely, but that was rather the point — much as, say, Fiver’s blood-drenched visions were in Watership Down. You don’t deliver urgent warnings in such a way as to lull your audience into complacency, do you?
Now, when confronted by a speech like Powell’s (or Fiver’s), there ought, in any rational world, to be two logical responses: either you agree with it and discuss the best practical response or you disagree with it and explain why you think it’s rubbish and that no action should be taken. This is how free speech and civilisation work.


Not, however, if you think like the BBC. Rather, you choose the third way of deciding that the language you have heard is so discomfiting that the argument must be declared off-limits for two generations — even if this means that the nightmare vision you found so offensive starts to come true. The reason the BBC can never talk honestly about the immigration problem, in other words, is that it is largely responsible for shaping the cultural and dialectical mindset that made it possible.


That would explain another of the programme’s sleights of hand — the way it concluded by offering a false dichotomy, between continued economic growth on the one hand and (relative) cultural homogeneity on the other. Even Nigel Farage was co-opted into conceding this point, saying that he would prefer Britons to have lower average incomes if that was the price to be paid for less immigration. (You wonder how much else of what he said, rather less convenient to the BBC’s narrative, was left on the cutting-room floor. Acres, I’m guessing.)


But this just isn’t true. As the 2008 House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on the Economic Impact of Immigration found, ‘immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita’. Even the NIESR — one of the BBC’s favourite left-leaning think tanks — agreed in 2011 that the impact of eight eastern European countries joining the EU between 2004 and 2009 would have a ‘negligible’ long-term impact on UK GDP per capita.


So all this overcrowding, all this destruction of social cohesion, all this unwelcome pressure on our schools, hospitals and transport infrastracture, all this dilution of what used to be our national identity has been inflicted on us, by our remote political class, against our wishes, to no useful purpose whatsoever. What a fantastically interesting subject for a documentary that would be. Now I wonder who is going to make it.


This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 11 January 2014
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/television/9111161/the-bbcs-immigration-programme-was-an-apologia-for-immigration-masquerading-as-a-critique/
 
This place is ridiculous. The left complains that this place is a ghost town echo chamber of people who agree more than disagree. But then when the right comes along, they do it in such batshit crazy, incoherent, and obnoxious manner that no reasonable discussion can be had with them anyway.
Duh-Ding DING!

Ridiculous posts from nearly everyone involved (nearly everyone does not mean all)
 
The USA has a clear immigration problem that has to be addressed. It's basically already out of hand.

It's just unfortunate that so many people who scream the loudest about it basically have to sound racist or like they are foaming at the mouth (see initial post). Is it any wonder that rational people haven't yet managed to come up with a practical fix-all?

I reckon Bush loved large scale immigration because he thought - probably correctly - that Mexican immigrants were mainly Roman Catholic social conservatives who would be likely to vote for him. If one were to take a more charitable view of Bush's policy, it is possible that he did not kow-tow to racists on the right of the GOP for moral/ethical reasons, but this is the guy that had Rove as his main advisor, so I'm not sure if I'm prepared to be that charitable as regards motives here.

These days it seems to me that there is an immense hypocrisy about some on the right that attack Obama (the well known far left MUSSLIM from KENYA) over the issue without saying a word against Bush.
 
The right hasn't gone away from FYM, it's just been sleeping. The sleeping giant has now awoken.

Now then. Let me begin with some assertions from a commentator who - like me - is always right.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/television/9111161/the-bbcs-immigration-programme-was-an-apologia-for-immigration-masquerading-as-a-critique/

I saw you said you forgot your pw and made a new handle, aren't a new poster, etc. in DB's thread. Since you're not running around insulting people a la this big john character, or touting Indy-like conspiracy theories, are you AEON? Or someone I just don't know because I so infrequently come into fym?

My problem is I got bored reading that because I am American and a) know nothing about immigration policy in the UK b) don't really find it relevant c) can't be bothered to sort out the point past the smugness of that article past its criticism of the BBC. I find immigration a difficult subject to look at from outside my geographical location, which even puts Mexican immigrants into the category of purely academic. Sure, we have them. But they work, and then get robbed at gunpoint by our Puerto Rican population, whose main source of income outside of drugs and my tax dollars seems to be stealing from the Mexicans (I exaggerate, I know we have Puerto Ricans who aren't shitbags, and plenty of white shitbags, plenty of black shitbags, and even a few shitbags from south east Asia. My point is shitbags come in all shapes and colors and generations of having been in the country, and this is why I find the racist argument of "immigration = more shitbags coming here" to be a gross oversimplification non-argument).
 
This place is ridiculous. The left complains that this place is a ghost town echo chamber of people who agree more than disagree. But then when the right comes along, they do it in such batshit crazy, incoherent, and obnoxious manner that no reasonable discussion can be had with them anyway.


I wish that Indie were still around. I disagreed with him a lot, but he presents himself in a somewhat sane way.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I wish that Indie were still around. I disagreed with him a lot, but he presents himself in a somewhat sane way.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Except when trying to ask him why he thinks people like Irvine and I are less human than he is. He never really gave me a response to that, sadly. I was honestly trying to understand his views, but yea.. apparently I wasn't evevn worth enough to answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom