Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

[xbuzzerx]

.
Just to clarify:

• My late father was an immigrant.*
• Both of my maternal grandparents were immigrants.*
• Although I haven't been white enough for most people, I've managed to survive.

*Their being here made this a better place.

Anyone who doesn't like it can go stuff it.

I asked Benvolio at some point if his insistent argument that all immigrants do is ruin the economy, absorb jobs and government service dollars and are a net drain on the society they enter, if he was acknowledging that his family from entry to the present day were a drain on the American society. He didn't deign to answer.

 

[Benvolio]

Through this thread, opinterph has suggested that those of us who oppose immigration are motivated by racism and do not really care for the poor and minorities.

 

[opinterph]

Through this thread, opinterph has suggested that those of us who oppose immigration are motivated by racism and do not really care for the poor and minorities.

That's your case?

 

[Benvolio]

That's your case?

I am responding to the inquiry when had you attacked me. I am not undertaking to prove the harm with liberal sources to your closed mind.
Remember that I asked you to explain why the benefits of mass immigration exceed the harms.

 

[Just_Believe18]

^No, you did not respond to the inquiry. Show me a quote from opinterph that proves he personally attacked you rather than engaged in a constructive debate.

 

[Benvolio]

^No, you did not respond to the inquiry. Show me a quote from opinterph that proves he personally attacked you rather than engaged in a constructive debate.

That does not reflect what I said.

 

[palbert]

What a train wreck this discussion has become.

 

[Benvolio]

What a train wreck this discussion has become.

No, it is close to the original intent. We now know that in proposing the "citizenism" debate, opinterph was thinking that people who oppose immigration, and those rare few who discuss citizenism, are racists, with citizenism being pretextual.

 

[Just_Believe18]

That does not reflect what I said.

Yes, it does. You have yet to prove anywhere in this thread where opinterph personally attacked you with a quote from his own words. Prove that he considers you a racist.

 

[palbert]

No, it is close to the original intent. We now know that in proposing the "citizenism" debate, opinterph was thinking that people who oppose immigration, and those rare few who discuss citizenism, are racists, with citizenism being pretextual.

Sorry. I see creditable sources aligned against obduracy. Put up or be quiet.

 

[Benvolio]

Sorry. I see creditable sources aligned against obduracy. Put up or be quiet.

Then you have not read the thread. Opinterph does not claim the sources he has linked are credible. On the contrary he says they are not credible.becaus of their ulterior motive.

 

[Kulindahr]

Through this thread, opinterph has suggested that those of us who oppose immigration are motivated by racism and do not really care for the poor and minorities.

Citation, please?

 

[Kulindahr]

Through this thread, opinterph has suggested that those of us who oppose immigration are motivated by racism and do not really care for the poor and minorities.

To be honest, most of us here, regardless of our position on immigration, are convinced that YOU oppose immigration because of racism, or because of fascism. In your imagination that extends to everyone who opposes immigration.

 

[Benvolio]

Citation, please?

Through the thread, but 248, 251 in particular.

 

[Kulindahr]

We now know that in proposing the "citizenism" debate, opinterph was thinking that people who oppose immigration, and those rare few who discuss citizenism, are racists, with citizenism being pretextual.

Citation, please?

 

[Benvolio]

To be honest, most of us here, regardless of our position on immigration, are convinced that YOU oppose immigration because of racism, or because of fascism. In your imagination that extends to everyone who opposes immigration.

The problem is that you allow that irrelevancy to foreclose rational thinking about the major issues confronting our country. If for instance it is true that the allowing of millions and millions of poor people is perpetuating or expanding poverty, then logically the bad character af all those who oppose it is irrelevant. Their badness does not in any sense make immigration a good thing. It is the classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The problem is that you allow that irrelevancy to foreclose rational thinking about the major issues

That description most suits someone who holds an argument in complete spite of the facts, and an inability to substantiate any of their beliefs through facts-- your position, in short.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Through the thread, but 248, 251 in particular.

He showed that you are advancing the same argument which is also presented by recognized white supremacy groups which oppose immigration for exactly the same argument you advocate.

He then asked you to supply proof indicating that your claims are based in actual facts and not in the same racist assumptions that underlie the beliefs of white supremacy groups and you are unwilling (and unable) to do so.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is that you allow that irrelevancy to foreclose rational thinking about the major issues confronting our country. If for instance it is true that the allowing of millions and millions of poor people is perpetuating or expanding poverty, then logically the bad character af all those who oppose it is irrelevant. Their badness does not in any sense make immigration a good thing. It is the classic ad hominem fallacy.

Interesting screed, but it doesn't address my post -- in fact, it's a cute way of throwing around lies as a smoke screen.

No one is saying immigration is good because you're a racist -- that's your pattern of argument, for example where you assert things are automatically socialist if Obama supports them. But people are saying that you're against immigration because you're a racist (or a fascist) -- and there's plenty from your arguments to support that. Their point is that opposing immigration for YOUR reason is vile. You're the only one making the ad hominem linkage.

 

[Kulindahr]

Through the thread, but 248, 251 in particular.

You mean where he points out that your arguments appear to have their source in racist material? and asks if you concur with those?

Those don't show what you're accusing him of -- they show only that he is pointing out that there are people driven by racism, and that the rhetoric you employ matches theirs.