|
|
| Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad (1174089) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Apr 14 22:30:43 2014, in response to Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon Apr 14 21:42:59 2014. And you are completely absurd.I can't help but notice that this isn't actually an argument. Why is country in quotes? To indicate that your use of the term differs from the standard use. You declare that one society is a country but another is not, so I put "country" in quotes to indicate that you have arbitrarily chosen to exclude one particular society from that definition for reasons you have not adequately explained. Because "north america" is not a country. I used it as a catchall term for several countries due to the arbitrary nature of borders. The distinction between the United States and Canada did not exist prior to the establishment of those nations by European colonists, so it would be incorrect to say, for example, that the initial European settlers did not get permission from the Canadians prior to settling in what is now Quebec. For the sake of this example, we'll refer to a fairly arbitrary chunk of the east coast of North America as "Land." Any territory under the same government as that chunk is also part of "Land." You claimed that the European immigrants to Land did not need permission from the existing inhabitants of Land before they arrived, but the current immigrants to Land need permission from the current inhabitants. I asked why that was the case; you have consistently failed to provide an answer. Who is saying certain races can't be here? The same law applies to ANYONE coming here. That's plainly untrue. The law you keep invoking to declare people "illegal" plainly didn't apply to me when I came here, and I doubt it applied to you either. Why should one group have ant extra privledge than others? Good question. In fact that's a very good question. In fact, it's the question I've kept asking and you kept dodging. You are saying one country has a right to come here without documentation and rule of law but others can? I'm saying that some people have a "right" to come here and others don't for reasons entirely unrelated to their lives, actions, or character. Blathering about "documentation" and "rule of law" is just noise— what the law says is irrelevant to the question of whether the law is right. So you are saying the British didn't win the war with the Dutch? You are saying the Americans didn't win the war with the British? I'm saying that taking something by force does not make you its legitimate owner, and that "let's fight for it" is bad policy in pretty much any situation. And who is saying it does? The United States is a country of all races. Who is excluded from it? Anyone who is not born in its territory or descended from people who were— and the people who whine about "illegal" immigration generally claim that the former is illegitimate in the absence of the latter. If you want to say that's "ancestry" rather than "race" then knock yourself out— if we can agree that it's bigotry, I'll let you call it anything you like. A naturalized legal former Mexican citizen is just as much US citizen as anyone else. Yes, a person of Mexican ancestry who earns US citizenship by jumping through the many hoops required to get special dispensation to live here is considered fully equal to a person of American ancestry who earns US citizenship by being born. The problem is that the accident of your ancestry determines whether the right to live in New York is a birthright or something that requires special permission. This is wrong. I've been trying to explain that to you, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Anyone from any country can apply to immigrate to the US. We have a process. No, we have two processes— an easy one for me and a difficult one for thee. Double standards like that are wrong. I gave you a link to that process to l;egally enter...legally. why should people who don't follow that process cut in front? I didn't follow that process. Did you? I am a naturally born citizen. I don't have to go through immigration. Why not? Why, precisely, is the right to live in New York a birthright for you but something that has to be earned for everyone else? That is the rule of law. You can stop saying this nonsense right now. We're arguing about human rights and what the law should say. Unless you want to defend every law ever written, then what the law does say is completely irrelevant to those topics. A black person born here is equally a natural born cituzwn . And anyone else. A nauralized citizen is one that legally came as an alien....and went through naturalization to become a citizen. Yes, that's what I've said repeatedly. Some people are declared "natural born" citizens entitled to live here by birthright. Some people are required to earn the right to come here. The determination is made by birth lottery. This double standard is wrong, and you have failed to provide any argument to the contrary. Anyone can do that too if they came from another country. In practice, they can't. I know for a fact that I would never be able to meet the exacting standards for an American immigration visa and I doubt you would either. |
|
|
|