Open discussion about the Statue of Liberty & immigration

jimbo · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
In lower skilled positions yes, which is why it makes no sense whatsoever to be rejecting immigrants because they're not skilled enough. Anybody can work gas station counter or clean a hotel room.

No, it was not. The U6 is always about 3-4% points higher than the official unemployment rate. Anything below 5% is considered by most economists to be full employment. There's always some turnover from people transition between jobs and getting laid off.

You're previous statement indicates that you yourself are witnessing shortages and training. How can you then turn around and claim otherwise in your next paragraph?

You get wage increases in high skilled positions as well if the market is limited.

Why does it make no sense to reject low skilled workers when we have quite a few low skilled citizens on unemployment?

jimbo · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
Actually the U.S. Birth rate is currently at it's lowest point in history so.... yeah we actually do need people to populate the west. That is if you want your property values to continue to increase at least. Population growth is what ultimately drives economic growth. Without it almost all of your investments will flat line or decrease. If our own domestic population isn't choosing to expand then additional workers from outside the U.S. are the only other source.

The West got along for billions of years with a minimum of people. Why is it necessary today to turn it into NYC?

The low income population growth fuels the growth idea is bogus. Over half the population does not pay their own way. They don't buy shiny new cars, build new mansions or boats. Eat prime steaks or buy 80 inch flat screens. The better off do that. They do however send the kiddos to school at 10K + each while paying no taxes.

Excon · Aug 3, 2017

Jesse Booth said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that she saw a lot more oppression under warmongering monarchs than just what the Jews went through.

More importantly, Excon said the statue was dedicated to the oppression of the Jews at the hands of a Jewish man. The only Jewish man who oppressed Jews on a large scale after the dissolution of the Roman Empire that I'm familiar with is Adolf Hitler, so until Excon clarifies what he was talking about, I am acting under the assumption that he made a mistake and pushed the 3rd Reich backwards in history by about 60 to 80 years.

Your commentary is a direct and deliberate lie.
At no time did I mention Hitler.
At no time did I say "the statue was dedicated to the oppression of the Jews at the hands of a Jewish man."

It appears you have a dishonesty issue.

Jesse Booth said:
TheGoverness said:

From him? Yes.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

To both, wrong as usual.

Jesse Booth said:
It's like you were TRYING to make this debate last far longer than it needed to, for no reason.

That would be you. Especially with the baiting like in the above.

Jesse Booth said:
Way to edit your post to clarify poorly worded details after they caused confusion, and then pretend you never edited your post.

1. You were dishonest the first time with your absurd and false Hitler assertion. That is on you. But way to try and deflect from it. :thumbs:
2. You are again being dishonest as I have not pretended anything. Just another false claim by you.
3. You failing to understand what was written is not my fault. But since you needed clarification (as stated in your post) I edited it to be more clear for you. This Is reflected by the difference between what you originally quoted and what it currently says and by the fact the the edit time is there for all to see.
And then you have the audacity to make a false claim about pretending not to have edited my post. WTF? Does your brain really work that way?

If you actually had a genuine inquiry, you should try a different tact. The direction you have taken this is also on you.

Jesse Booth said:
You know, if you has simply provided a source for your argument on an obscure fact about history the first time you were asked to, there might not have been six pages of pointless argument over a common misconception.

1. You are now engaged in what is called whining.
2. Your reply had to do with Hitler. I clarified that it had nothing to do with him as you absurdly thought.
Again.

I should not have to educate you on a subject you wish to discuss.

Jesse Booth said:
And sure, people should probably be informed about a certain part of history when they start a discussion, but I was under the impression that I WAS informed, and that the plaque had been on there since the statue was erected - as was the author of the article in the OP, and most of the people who commented here.

Yes, we know that, you got shown otherwise. Get over it.
And btw, even though these other folks you mention have now also been informed, you can probably count on them still being wrong about it in the future.

The Resister · Aug 3, 2017

Vox said:
People need to quit this whiny, emotion-driven rhetoric about immigrants.

Immigration was great when it was almost entirely Europeans who matched Americans in religion, work ethic, culture and goals.

Things have changed. Most of our immigrants are dissonant in religion, work ethic, culture and goals and they don't want to assimilate or be like us--they want to take over and turn America into some perverted version of the dysfunctional place from which they came.

They have no intention of being good American citizens because they don't like our values, religion, goals and way of life.

Allowing them to flood in and dominate us is absolutely suicidal.

Sure they have problems. Sure we should feel sorry for them and send them some money.

But no......we are under NO OBLIGATION to let them into our country and turn it into a hellhole like the one they left.

You can be SURE that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers would agree with me.

SHUT IT DOWN! KEEP THEM OUT!!

I can work with this. It's hard to strike a balance on this immigration issue. The purpose for the colonists coming to America begins with our first governing document, the Mayflower Compact which contains this:

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia..."

America was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but with Christian precepts being the predominant factor in the founding of this country on English common law and Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. As such, our forefathers incorporated into our foundational principles the notion that man has Rights that are above the law. In the Declaration of Independence, is the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Unalienable Rights cannot be limited to citizens only. There were no citizens when the Declaration of Independence was penned. Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon man by his Creator, (his God, whomever he deems that to be) and he owes no duty to anyone for those Rights.

Today, we have this silly misconception that government can impose upon a segment of society because they are not "legal Americans." It is absolute horse dung and neither the Ds nor the Rs can explain to the foreigner what America was intended to be as the foreigners are just pawns in a sick game right now.

The reality is, in early America, only whites could become citizens and hold public office. Still, people poured in from every corner of the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. And, if there were supposed to be some special rules about immigration, nobody mentioned it to the founding fathers. They never even put the word into the Constitution! Adding insult to injury, for almost a full century after the ratification of the Constitution, the states would have control over immigration. Congress was limited to ONE act regarding immigrants: "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.) This was about citizenship not immigration.

It would not be until 1876 that the federal government would get control over immigration. In the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the power to control immigration rested with the federal government. The court chastised the California Immigration Commissioner and the San Francisco sheriff for not defending their positions. So, the United States Supreme Court unilaterally granted Congress plenary powers over immigration, a power they do not have in the Constitution and today confusion abounds. The United States Supreme Court cannot empower ANY branch of the government to do anything... at least not constitutionally.

The right has some delusional belief that the only people who should come here should do so with the intent of becoming citizens. The left, apparently, only sees easy votes and the problem is self perpetuating. The right wants the absolute POLICE STATE that surpasses the Orwellian nightmare and the left seems to want the Nanny State and they attract socialists and every race, creed, color, political persuasion, religious persuasion, and economic viewpoint except that of the posterity of the founding fathers. Both sides seem to confuse citizenship with immigration and that is to the detriment of our country.

There are better ways to resolve the issues than what is being considered today, but that requires thinking outside the box

Zyphlin · Aug 3, 2017

Vox said:
Provably false?

Why don't you prove it then

Sure.

Here's Shahid Khan, an immigrant from Pakistan (Non-European) and a practicing Muslim (Non-Christian) who became a citizen in 1991.

He speaks fluent English. (learn the language, CHECK)

He owns an automobile parts manufacturer in Illinois and is the 84th richest American, valued at $6.9 Billion (has a good job, CHECK)

He has assimilated into American culture so well that he's fully embraced the modern defacto American Passtime, purchasing the Jacksonville Jaguars of the NFL. (Assimilate, CHECK)

He has not been involved with any kind of welfare dependency, criminal activity, or terrorist activity (lack of chronic problems, CHECK)

The only thing I can't speak of is "religion problems" because...SHOCKER[/sarcasm]....you still haven't bothered to actually explain what in the world that means.

I could continue with the likes of Haim Saban of Egypt, who built a little bit of a media empire. Or Hamdi Ulukaya of Turkey, who's inability to get "good jobs" has led him to be the CEO of the most popular greek yogurt brand in the US. Or Marc Lasry of Morocco, a hedge fun manager who's a co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.

The reality is that yes...there are success stories from all kinds of NON-EUROPEAN and NON-CHRISTIAN countries and people. I don't know if you're just ignorant of that reality, or if you're so bigoted on this matter that you actually honestly believed that daring me to "prove it" was going to be successful because there'd be no such examples, but the reality is that fluent speaking, successful, assimilated, upstanding citizens are absolutely feasible from any country or religion in the world, because COUNTRY OF ORIGIN and RELIGION do not define what makes a good immigrant nor do they define the American Ethos.

It doesn't matter if there are "numerous examples in the opposite". That's irrelevant and doesn't in any way invalidate my point. See, that's your problem. YOU made a dumb, ignorant, bigoted stance. The fact that your dumb, ignorant, bigoted stance is easily blown out of the water by highlighting the fact that country of origin and religion do NOT dictate the ability to assimilate, get a job, or be a benefit to society only harms YOUR argument. If I was sitting here and saying "We must only immigrate non-christians/non-europeans because they're the best at getting jobs, assimilating, etc", then pointing out examples of ones that go against that statement would be a good argument. But that's not my argument, because I'm not in the business of making dumb arguments.

My argument is that you can find good and bad potential immigrants from both European Countries and non-European countries, from Christians and non-Christians, and as such the determination for who we let in and who we don't should not be based around what their religion is or what country their from, but rather based around the INDIVIDUAL and the traits and facts about them that actually are RELEVANT to things like the ability to speak fluent English, the ability to obtain employment and support oneself, the potential for criminal activity, etc.

I know EXACTLY how you feel. You have a personal issue with non-Europeans and non-Christians and you don't want them in this country, and so you come up with a bull****, illogical, factually incorrect excuse because you don't want to man up and just say "I don't like them, so I don't want them". This is BEYOND EVIDENT because if you actually gave a damn about the capacity to assimilate, the ability to learn the language, and the knowledge to obtain a job, your criteria would've been focused around those things, but it's not.

Because in your eyes apparently, an uneducated, lazy, America hating, criminal from Germany who loves him some Jesus is perfectly fine...but Ahmed from Iran who praises Allah, has a college degree, yearns for a secular democratic society built around freedom, steeps himself in western entertainment, and speaks impeccable English with better grammar than most of our recent college graduate? Well **** him, he shouldn't be brought in, because he's not a Euro and worships the wrong god.

Zyphlin · Aug 3, 2017

Vox said:
Ask yourself.......If they were not HERE.......would there BE a problem?

The same can be said for every immigrant from a European country or of Christian Faith that has ever, while in this country, gone on welfare, not assimilated, is unemployed, or committed a crime.

Are you suggesting that has never happened? Because unless that's your assertion, by your own (ignorant and ridiculous) logic, we should ALSO stop all EUROPEAN and CHRISTIAN immigration as well. Because after all, if they weren't here, they wouldn't be a problem. And so long as ANY of them are a problem, that apparently means we need to stop all of them singularly on the basis of country of origin or religion.

The answer is no.

And the question is retarded

Now here's a very Liberal news source

Why do I give a **** what a "very liberal news source" says.

Oh...oh, I get it. Because I disagree with your idiocy that automatically makes me a "liberal" in your mind? That's cute, especially from the guy who toooootally was a Democratic voter before Trump.

:roll:

slick · Aug 3, 2017

Vox said:
People need to quit this whiny, emotion-driven rhetoric about immigrants.

Immigration was great when it was almost entirely Europeans who matched Americans in religion, work ethic, culture and goals.

Things have changed. Most of our immigrants are dissonant in religion, work ethic, culture and goals and they don't want to assimilate or be like us--they want to take over and turn America into some perverted version of the dysfunctional place from which they came.

They have no intention of being good American citizens because they don't like our values, religion, goals and way of life.

Allowing them to flood in and dominate us is absolutely suicidal.

Sure they have problems. Sure we should feel sorry for them and send them some money.

But no......we are under NO OBLIGATION to let them into our country and turn it into a hellhole like the one they left.

You can be SURE that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers would agree with me.

SHUT IT DOWN! KEEP THEM OUT!!

'A French lawyer is said to have commented in 1865 that any monument raised to U.S. independence would properly be a joint
project of the French and American peoples. "The Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" was a gift of friendship from the people
of France to the United States and is recognized as a universal symbol of freedom and democracy. The Statue of Liberty was
dedicated on October 28, 1886. It was designated as a National Monument in 1924.

There were 5 Inscriptions, plaques, and dedications,' one of which
was the poem Democrats refer to in order to portray the statue
as a beacon to welcome immigrants of which it certainly was not,
which was inserted many years after the monument was presented.

slick · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
I believe Lincoln and Teddy make up half of Mount Rushmore. The generation that won the civil war and ended slavery should probably get some credit for founding this country don't you think? I have confidence that being just one or two generations removed from the original founders they likely had a better idea about their intentions for this country than you did.

Hell the founding fathers before them were so desperate for working class immigrants to help them work in their fields they paid to bring over indentured servants and slaves from Africa.

I think the first supreme court justice can be judged as a spokesman for the founders.

'John Jay looked about and saw a country of common blood, faith, languauge, history, customs, culture & principles.

'Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, descended from the same ancestors,
speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government & similar
in manners & customs.

This country & these peoples seem to have been made for each other, united to each other by the strongest ties,
should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous & alien sovereignties.'

It's highly unlikely that the founders expected that a little more than 200 years later this country would become
a boarding house for all the world.

mike2810 · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
Actually the U.S. Birth rate is currently at it's lowest point in history so.... yeah we actually do need people to populate the west. That is if you want your property values to continue to increase at least. Population growth is what ultimately drives economic growth. Without it almost all of your investments will flat line or decrease. If our own domestic population isn't choosing to expand then additional workers from outside the U.S. are the only other source.

No thanks, There is plenty of people in the West.

MrShangles · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
Your delusion is sad. You expect us to believe they used a poem about a New Colossus to fund raise for the statue, and then put the poem on the statue, but it has nothing to do with the statue? What color is the sky in your world exactly?

The founding fathers used that poem because they thought it was the perfect description of what they wanted this new country to be. Anyone who believes otherwise is a delusional fool.

You are wrong, read your history, we can't take all the dead beats of the world the poem doesn't say anything about dead beats does it.are you personally ready to support some of them. Better get another job if you fill so compassionate about helping people that can't stand our way of life.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MrWonka · Aug 3, 2017

slick said:
'Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, descended from the same ancestors,

Got some bad news for you, but you have the same ancestors as your African and Arab friends.

slick said:
speaking the same language,

A lot of different languages were spoken in the early days of the United States.

slick said:
professing the same religion,

Many different religions were worshiped in the early days of the United States.

slick said:
It's highly unlikely that the founders expected that a little more than 200 years later this country would become
a boarding house for all the world.

No, actually I think they would have considered that the greatest measure of success possible. If virtually the entire planet is willing to risk their lives to live in your country then you probably have a good country. The people who recognize that and want to be apart of that are not the problem.

Harshaw · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
Your delusion is sad. You expect us to believe they used a poem about a New Colossus to fund raise for the statue, and then put the poem on the statue, but it has nothing to do with the statue? What color is the sky in your world exactly?

The founding fathers used that poem because they thought it was the perfect description of what they wanted this new country to be. Anyone who believes otherwise is a delusional fool.

Founding fathers? The poem was written in 1883. All of the founding fathers were long dead.

Also, the poem is not on the statue. It's on the pedestal. It was a poem used in one of many attempts to fundraise for the pedestal, a project which had been going on long before the poem was ever written. And the statue project had been in the works for years before that, with the first pieces of the statue completed nearly a decade before the poem was written.

The statue really had pretty much nothing to do with immigration.

slick · Aug 3, 2017

MrWonka said:
Got some bad news for you, but you have the same ancestors as your African and Arab friends.

A lot of different languages were spoken in the early days of the United States.

Many different religions were worshiped in the early days of the United States.

No, actually I think they would have considered that the greatest measure of success possible. If virtually the entire planet is willing to risk their lives to live in your country then you probably have a good country. The people who recognize that and want to be apart of that are not the problem.

Thanx for questioning one of the leading founders John Jay take on the situation as it existed!
Quite an impact you're making

Vox · Aug 3, 2017

Zyphlin said:
Sure.

Here's Shahid Khan, an immigrant from Pakistan (Non-European) and a practicing Muslim (Non-Christian) who became a citizen in 1991.

He speaks fluent English. (learn the language, CHECK)

He owns an automobile parts manufacturer in Illinois and is the 84th richest American, valued at $6.9 Billion (has a good job, CHECK)

He has assimilated into American culture so well that he's fully embraced the modern defacto American Passtime, purchasing the Jacksonville Jaguars of the NFL. (Assimilate, CHECK)

He has not been involved with any kind of welfare dependency, criminal activity, or terrorist activity (lack of chronic problems, CHECK)

The only thing I can't speak of is "religion problems" because...SHOCKER[/sarcasm]....you still haven't bothered to actually explain what in the world that means.

I could continue with the likes of Haim Saban of Egypt, who built a little bit of a media empire. Or Hamdi Ulukaya of Turkey, who's inability to get "good jobs" has led him to be the CEO of the most popular greek yogurt brand in the US. Or Marc Lasry of Morocco, a hedge fun manager who's a co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.

The reality is that yes...there are success stories from all kinds of NON-EUROPEAN and NON-CHRISTIAN countries and people. I don't know if you're just ignorant of that reality, or if you're so bigoted on this matter that you actually honestly believed that daring me to "prove it" was going to be successful because there'd be no such examples, but the reality is that fluent speaking, successful, assimilated, upstanding citizens are absolutely feasible from any country or religion in the world, because COUNTRY OF ORIGIN and RELIGION do not define what makes a good immigrant nor do they define the American Ethos.

It doesn't matter if there are "numerous examples in the opposite". That's irrelevant and doesn't in any way invalidate my point. See, that's your problem. YOU made a dumb, ignorant, bigoted stance. The fact that your dumb, ignorant, bigoted stance is easily blown out of the water by highlighting the fact that country of origin and religion do NOT dictate the ability to assimilate, get a job, or be a benefit to society only harms YOUR argument. If I was sitting here and saying "We must only immigrate non-christians/non-europeans because they're the best at getting jobs, assimilating, etc", then pointing out examples of ones that go against that statement would be a good argument. But that's not my argument, because I'm not in the business of making dumb arguments.

My argument is that you can find good and bad potential immigrants from both European Countries and non-European countries, from Christians and non-Christians, and as such the determination for who we let in and who we don't should not be based around what their religion is or what country their from, but rather based around the INDIVIDUAL and the traits and facts about them that actually are RELEVANT to things like the ability to speak fluent English, the ability to obtain employment and support oneself, the potential for criminal activity, etc.

I know EXACTLY how you feel. You have a personal issue with non-Europeans and non-Christians and you don't want them in this country, and so you come up with a bull****, illogical, factually incorrect excuse because you don't want to man up and just say "I don't like them, so I don't want them". This is BEYOND EVIDENT because if you actually gave a damn about the capacity to assimilate, the ability to learn the language, and the knowledge to obtain a job, your criteria would've been focused around those things, but it's not.

Because in your eyes apparently, an uneducated, lazy, America hating, criminal from Germany who loves him some Jesus is perfectly fine...but Ahmed from Iran who praises Allah, has a college degree, yearns for a secular democratic society built around freedom, steeps himself in western entertainment, and speaks impeccable English with better grammar than most of our recent college graduate? Well **** him, he shouldn't be brought in, because he's not a Euro and worships the wrong god.

LOL!

You found four rich immigrants that assimilated and you think that proves something?

Good GAWD.......couldn't you come up with anything more irrelevant?

And then you rant and call me names?

Are you posting under the influence?

Vox · Aug 3, 2017

Zyphlin said:
The same can be said for every immigrant from a European country or of Christian Faith that has ever, while in this country, gone on welfare, not assimilated, is unemployed, or committed a crime.

Are you suggesting that has never happened? Because unless that's your assertion, by your own (ignorant and ridiculous) logic, we should ALSO stop all EUROPEAN and CHRISTIAN immigration as well. Because after all, if they weren't here, they wouldn't be a problem. And so long as ANY of them are a problem, that apparently means we need to stop all of them singularly on the basis of country of origin or religion.

And the question is retarded

Why do I give a **** what a "very liberal news source" says.

Oh...oh, I get it. Because I disagree with your idiocy that automatically makes me a "liberal" in your mind? That's cute, especially from the guy who toooootally was a Democratic voter before Trump.

LOL!

Posting rants while intoxicated.

Your namecalling is noted. Guess we have to expect that from You.

PirateMk1 · Aug 3, 2017

Josie said:
What does the statue represent?

The Statue of Liberty is the Mother of Exiles, she holds the Beacon of Liberty. She represents Liberty.

jdog · Aug 3, 2017

Josie said:
View attachment 67220829

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus (November 2, 1883)

If you had to explain the Statue of Liberty to someone who knew nothing about it, what would you say? How do you interpret Emma Lazarus' words in terms of our immigration policies of the past and present?

It is just a statue, nothing more. People always try to make things more than they are.

Open discussion about the Statue of Liberty & immigration

jimbo

jimbo

Excon

The Resister

Well-known member

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

slick

slick

mike2810

MrShangles

MrWonka

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

slick

Vox

Voice and Wisdom of God

Vox

Voice and Wisdom of God

PirateMk1

jdog