• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turns out Steven Miller's family were refugee immigrants

trixare4kids said:
I'd be interested if you didn't first labele lawmakers xenophobes. I thought I made that much clear in my above post but it's obvious that you're not willing to admit that stereotyping with pejoratives puts many people off.

Carry on...
Click to expand...

I call it like I see it. Anyway, peace.
 
Mycroft said:
Why should I care about something that Ingraham said? She didn't say it to me and I've never expressed any support for something she has said.

I made my comment to you...someone who actually spoke to me. You should know by now that I only speak for myself.
Click to expand...

Ingraham, Carlson, Hannity and the rest of the gang at Fox have pretty much said the same thing. They are the voice of conservatives in America today, especially Trump supporters. If you speak for yourself, why do you have a "conservative" label tacked on to your self as your identification?
 
Bullseye said:
Why do LW folks have such a problem with one little word - LEGAL. I'd guess Miller's relatives plus a huge, huge, huge percentage of those folks you list above followed legal immigration procedures whereas Trump's policy is aimed at ILLEGAL aliens.
Click to expand...

Because Laura Ingraham admitted it was not about just "ILLEGAL". She clearly said it was about any immigration.

It's not illegal for someone to show up at the border and seek asylum. What's illegal is putting them on a plane and sending them back before they even have a hearing, like Sessions did, or telling the country we shouldn't even have courts to hear them in the first place, like Trump did.
 
slick said:
No!!!!!! steven Miller is patriotic to the core
Click to expand...
Nativisim is not the same thing as patriotism. Especially in a pluralistic society.


The groups you mentioned 'dirty Jews, Irish, Catholics, Poles, Germans, Italians, Amish, Quakers, Puritans'
were all European. all were white. almost all were Christian.
Click to expand...
1) Are you actually saying that immigrants with white skin are different than all other immigrants? Seriously?

2) Irish, Jews, Poles, Germans, Italians and so on were not perceived as "white" during the big waves of European immigration. They were subjected to intensely negative discrimination, described in virulent terms, treated as subhuman.... In fact, today's nativists and xenophobes use many of the same arguments as they did in the past against those European immigrants -- including an alleged refusal to assimilate.

3) Catholics -- who, last I checked, were Christians -- were major targets of discrimination, in no small part because they were mostly Irish, Italian and so on. Nativists lied about them, accused them of crimes they didn't commit, there were anti-Catholic riots in the early 19th century. Anti-Catholic bigotry played a huge role in the downfall of Al Smith, and was still active in the 1960s when Kennedy ran for President.


'After each wave of immigration, there were long periods little or no immigration
that gave America time to assimilate the newcomers.
Click to expand...
Pat Buchanan is full of ****. The number of new immigrants did not change significantly between 1900 and 1970, and has been going up almost every year since. People whose families arrived here nearly 50 years ago did not fail to assimilate, because there were too many people arriving after them.

Immigrants come to the US because they want to be here, and they want to be a part of this society. Even 1st generation kids often act nearly the same as American kids whose families have been in the US for 2, 3, 5 or more generations. This is just as true today as it was in 1920 or 1880 or 1825 or 1790.


Today, however those schools have been
converted into madrassa of modernity, where it is forbidden to invoke the faith of our fathers and American
history is often taught as a series of crimes against people of color.'
Click to expand...
Pat Buchanan is still full of ****.

It's not the job of the public schools to force religion on students. Otherwise, schools are strongly managed by state and municipal authorities. If kids aren't learning civics, that's not because of "modernity," it's because people -- including in conservative districts -- aren't emphasizing it.


Celebrants of diversity always point to the successful huge waves of immigration between 1850 &
1920. They ignore these crucial elements mentioned above that then made America work.
Click to expand...
That's because those claims about "crucial elements" are basically wrong, if not outright lies.
 
Helix said:
I call it like I see it. Anyway, peace.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I support those "xenophobic" lawmakers who follow immigration law. That doesn't make me a xenophobe.
I'll let you think about why your labeling is off putting to the reader. It simply stops the conversation.

But at any rate, yes, :peace
 
trixare4kids said:
I'd be interested if you didn't first labele lawmakers xenophobes. I thought I made that much clear in my above post but it's obvious that you're not willing to admit that stereotyping with pejoratives puts many people off.

Carry on...
Click to expand...
He spewed the whole mantra the open borders crowd always chants. No surprises.
 
trixare4kids said:
Yeah, I support those "xenophobic" lawmakers who follow immigration law. That doesn't make me a xenophobe.
I'll let you think about why your labeling is off putting to the reader. It simply stops the conversation.

But at any rate, yes, :peace
Click to expand...

Immigration law says you have to give people requesting asylum at least a hearing. These guys want to take away that law.

So clearly this has nothing to do about respecting any law.
 
trixare4kids said:
Your mega walk of links did not prove what you wrote above....
"Miller opposes offering refugees a legal route to migrate to the US, and wants to reduce (perhaps eliminate?) legal immigration as well."
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? He was behind policies to drastically reduce refugee / asylum programs, as well as an actual Trump proposal to cut legal immigration in half.

His antipathy towards minorities and immigrants is quite clear in the other links.
 
Bullseye said:
He spewed the whole mantra the open borders crowd always chants. No surprises.
Click to expand...

I am so weary. Did you know that if you support lawmakers who care about enforcing immigration law, you're a xenophobe?
And some wonder why they can't win elections...:roll:
 
ataraxia said:
Because Laura Ingraham admitted it was not about just "ILLEGAL". She clearly said it was about any immigration.
Click to expand...
Why would I give a **** about what Ingraham says? You do know that legal immigration doesn't just let anyone who shows up in, right? People applying for legal immigration are interviewed and have their backgrounds investigated.
ataraxia said:
It's not illegal for someone to show up at the border and seek asylum. What's illegal is putting them on a plane and sending them back before they even have a hearing, like Sessions did, or telling the country we shouldn't even have courts to hear them in the first place, like Trump did.
Click to expand...
Now you're shifting the goal posts.
Asylum is a different procedure.
 
trixare4kids said:
Yeah, I support those "xenophobic" lawmakers who follow immigration law. That doesn't make me a xenophobe.
I'll let you think about why your labeling is off putting to the reader. It simply stops the conversation.

But at any rate, yes, :peace
Click to expand...

You could ask yourself why your side has staunchly resisted enforcing the laws against employers who hire illegals.

Orrin Hatch tried to do away with employer sanctions shortly after the Reagan laws were passed that made it illegal.

This opposition remains to this day, although we have seen some large scale arrests of employers just recently. (Which makes me wonder if it was just donations from their competitors that got it done.)
 
trixare4kids said:
I am so weary. Did you know that if you support lawmakers who care about enforcing immigration law, you're a xenophobe?
And some wonder why they can't win elections...:roll:
Click to expand...
Interesting that Trump's Hispanic support is going up as Hispanic unemployment goes down. Kinda shows what they really value.
 
Visbek said:
Uh, hello? He was behind policies to drastically reduce refugee / asylum programs, as well as an actual Trump proposal to cut legal immigration in half.

His antipathy towards minorities and immigrants is quite clear in the other links.
Click to expand...

You make Miller sound like a criminal. Do YOU not know that this administration is for fulfilling its campaign promises?
Deal with it, dude. Your side did not win the presidential election. There's a new sheriff in town. Yeah, I know, enforcing immigration law, putting limits on the numbers of refugees who enter our country is so barbaric.
Oddly, you haven't a clue as to the real reason limits are being put on the numbers of refugees allowed to enter in a fiscal year. Keywords, fiscal responsibility. It has nothing to do with hate, antipathy or any other mean nasty faux pejorative used to label those whose politics differ from yours.

The Trump administration plans to cap the number of refugees the U.S. will accept next year at 45,000. That is a dramatic drop from the level set by the Obama administration and would be the lowest number in years.

The White House formally announced its plans in a report to congressional leaders Wednesday, as required by law.

The number of refugees the U.S. admits has fluctuated over time. But this cap is the lowest that any White House has sought since the president began setting the ceiling on refugee admissions in 1980.

Refugee resettlement agencies are disappointed with the 45,000 cap, which they say falls far short of what is necessary to meet growing humanitarian needs around the world. They had recommended a limit of at least 75,000.

Last year, the Obama administration set the cap at 110,000. Only about half that number have been admitted, after the Trump administration put the entire refugee resettlement program on hold under its travel ban executive orders.

"Churches and communities, employers and mayors, are heartsick at the administration's callous and tragic decision to deny welcome to refugees most in need," said Linda Hartke, the president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, one of largest resettlement agencies in the country.

The debate over refugees is often framed as a clash between humanitarian goals and national security.

But Trump administration also argues that the U.S. spends millions of dollars a year to screen and resettle refugees and to help them once they arrive.

"For the cost of resettling one refugee in the U.S., we can assist more than 10 in their home region," President Trump said in a speech to the United Nations earlier this month.

Once they arrive, refugees qualify for many social services, including health care, food stamps and cash assistance. Many of those costs fall on state and local governments, and some states are pushing back.

Earlier this year, Tennessee took the federal government to court over refugee resettlement.

"The bottom line is the federal government is coercing the state of Tennessee to spend Tennessee taxpayers monies in ways that some individual Tennesseans disagree with," Republican state Sen. John Stevens told member station WPLN in March.
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/5540...to-drop-refugee-cap-to-45-000-lowest-in-years
 
Bullseye said:
Interesting that Trump's Hispanic support is going up as Hispanic unemployment goes down. Kinda shows what they really value.
Click to expand...

I suppose I will take heat for this and I don't care, but the Democrats sorely have underestimated the intelligence of Hispanics, oh, and blacks.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
I suppose I will take heat for this and I don't care, but the Democrats sorely have misunderstood the intelligence of Hispanics, oh, and blacks.
Click to expand...

And ( I know I will take heat for this), above all, whites in fly over country.
 
What if...? said:
You could ask yourself why your side has staunchly resisted enforcing the laws against employers who hire illegals.

Orrin Hatch tried to do away with employer sanctions shortly after the Reagan laws were passed that made it illegal.

This opposition remains to this day, although we have seen some large scale arrests of employers just recently. (Which makes me wonder if it was just donations from their competitors that got it done.)
Click to expand...

Both sides oppose e-verify.
Keep up.
 
ataraxia said:
And ( I know I will take heat for this), above all, whites in fly over country.
Click to expand...

Nah, your racist innuendo simply shows you're still upset that your side lost the presidential election.

Glad I could help.
 
Visbek said:
Actually, it's pretty obvious. Lemme lay it out for you.

• Miller is against legal refugees who want to enter the US.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that they wanted to end all legal refugees. Can you point me to this quote? Or just the fact that he wants to toughen up the refugee laws a bit is enough for you? Because I find it severely lacking.

If Miller was consistent in his views, his own family should not have been allowed to immigrate to the US, even though it would have meant the destruction of his own family.
Click to expand...

Miller had zero to do with the immigration law of over 100 years ago.
 
Mycroft said:
Do "white skinned aristrocrats coming from developed nations...Norwegians" commonly try to enter the US as refugee immigrants? I don't think so.

Anyway, the answer to your question was in the quote I gave you: "to crack down on abuses".

Trump has said nothing about shutting the door in anyone's face.

Please stop pushing your false narrative. It's dishonest.
Click to expand...

I seem remember something about a wall with a "big, beautiful" door. I guess that means, no one is allowed.
 
trixare4kids said:
Nah, your racist innuendo simply shows you're still upset that your side lost the presidential election.

Glad I could help.
Click to expand...

How come when I say the exact same thing you say, it’s racist- but when you say it, it’s not ?
 
trixare4kids said:
You make Miller sound like a criminal. Do YOU not know that this administration is for fulfilling its campaign promises?
Deal with it, dude. Your side did not win the presidential election. There's a new sheriff in town blah blah blah....
Click to expand...
:roll:

I stated that Miller was working to reduce legal refugee allowances and legal immigration.
You asked me to prove it.
I proved it.

Have a nice day.
 
ataraxia said:
How come when I say the exact same thing you say, it’s racist- but when you say it, it’s not ?
Click to expand...

Because what I wrote wasn't racist. It was complimentary to both Hispanics and Blacks.
 
buck said:
I wasn't aware that they wanted to end all legal refugees. Can you point me to this quote? .
Click to expand...

I guess you must’ve forgotten about the promises to ban travel from all countries with a certain religious background. Especially the fear-mongering about Syrian refugees. Trump only wants Norwegians, not anyone from any distressed countries. Those are all Sh-thole places and he can’t figure out why in the world we would let them in, right?
 
buck said:
I wasn't aware that they wanted to end all legal refugees. Can you point me to this quote? Or just the fact that he wants to toughen up the refugee laws a bit is enough for you? Because I find it severely lacking.
Click to expand...
They're talking about cutting legal migration in half, in less than 10 years. That was an actual policy proposal.

I'm pretty sure that "screw the immigrants" is not a line from "The New Colossus."


Miller had zero to do with the immigration law of over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...
Miller's family is alive because the US allowed refugees to enter the US. Miller has fought for years to curtail exactly those types of policies. "My family can enter as refugees, but not anyone else's!"

Sorry, but he is a hypocrite. Excusing his behavior does not eliminate the inconsistency.
 
ataraxia said:
I guess you must’ve forgotten about the promises to ban travel from all countries with a certain religious background. Especially the fear-mongering about Syrian refugees. Trump only wants Norwegians, not anyone from any distressed countries. Those are all Sh-thole places and he can’t figure out why in the world we would let them in, right?
Click to expand...

Still looking for the quote where they are ending all legal refugee claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom