Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Think Your Ancestors Were Legal Immigrants? THINK AGAIN.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, Im not lazy to read. I learned early on you need to read the entire post in order to make any kind of intelligent reply. I just hate the idea of re-posting in quotes what has already been said. Maybe I should have quoted you here rational since yours is one further back. Ehhh, screw it...

    Good article about who was here first. We could do either immigration alternative but the forces opposing both are too strong for the politicians to fend off.

    I may not like what you say but I've defended your right to say it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Looks like you had few of Heinekens before posting this..
    Oh, brother..
    Life goes on, so let's just enjoy it while we can.
    Chips will fall as they may..

    RationalE

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    The two extreme measures to solve the current illegal immigration problem are BLANKET AMNESTY and MASS DEPORTATION.

    But I think the right way to solve this huge issue is addressing it in the MIDDLE, because either one of these extremes is not POSSIBLE to carry out now.

    That's what the current US legislative branches attempted at doing this year, (after lots of in the past and a last-ditch one at that) that miserably failed due to time constraints and the politics of it all.

    No wonder, because what they're trying to achieve is not an EVENT, but rather a long-drawn PROCESS.

    Hence, what we got out of them until now is the status quo, the most convenient alternative for them, but not necessarily for us. Oh, they passed into law the REAL ID and BORDER FENCE Acts. So, what choices do we have other than to wait and see?

    And in case people tend to forget how this country leans towards laying bridges rather than building walls to newcomers, this is just a reminder.

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    If you are lazy to type may be you are also lazy to read

    Anyway, what matters is the totality of circumstances and forces.

    They are such that amnesty is not feasible at present time.
    And no argument will change that.

    In fact the wise/best thing to do is to increase the enforcement measures and secure the borders.

    Simple..

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By definition a politician is kissing a baby when the camera is rolling and stealing their candy when not.

    If never caught speeding it is possible they never do. Not me, too many tickets, wrecked cars.

    The rules made concerning immigration are not being enforced to any real extent. A token arrest here and there is all we see. The border is wide open for any one to kangaroo across. The real benefactors are larger employers from cheap labor. They have a lobbiest, thats why.

    I wasn't saying the laws should be restored. It was the idea of the argument concerning the legal comparison of prior laws to today. That it was so easy then compared to now isn't a fair statement to make. By the same token getting a phd 100 years ago was much easier than today. A student could argue they should be at the same standard as then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



    Ok, I get your point.
    You are not interested in responding to any point of view , even if it's in agreement (in core) with what you were trying to say.

    You are an abstractionist on your own.
    You 'splash' disconnected images and leave it to others to make sense of it

    I certainly won't try to interpret it.

    Regards,

    RationalE

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    The Yung gang is a yawn, consisting of Davdah and RationalE. The talk is empty, I see words and letters typed but no substance whatsoever. It's like seeing water splashed on glass or paper. It either evaporates or slides right off of my mind.
    Futile conversations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The highest point of mental and spiritual excellence is attainment of emptiness.
    I appreciate your comment (which is, indeed, a compliment).

    Regards,

    RationalE

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    The Yung gang is a yawn, consisting of Davdah and RationalE. The talk is empty, I see words and letters typed but no substance whatsoever. It's like seeing water splashed on glass or paper. It either evaporates or slides right off of my mind.
    Futile conversations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks, Iperson!

    Leave a comment:


  • NeedHelpFast
    replied
    Hey, welcome back Iperson, haven't heard from you in a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    However, I do understand the weekness of the legal requirements of then versus now. And how most if under the same legal requirements of today would have been turned away 100 years ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There is no 'however' or/and 'and', it's just a matter of fact.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But thats life, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You are right about that.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..and is how many politicians will use little known facts to sway an opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It isn't clear to whom, what politicians you refer to in the context.

    But in general, any politician will use any facts, little of well known, to advance his/her own cause (and if not, then he/she better look for a job in a different sector).


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regadless, it still doesn't take away from the fact we can not have a wholesale amnesty program. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Regardless of what?
    Of politicians doing their job?

    It's true that wholesale amnesty is political impossibility at present time, but where does it connect to previous statement, or how previous acknowledgement implies feasibility of amnesty to justify "Regardless" in the beginning of the next sentence?


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We did that years back and it only made matters worse today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Matters are worse today not because of amnesty yesterday, but because half of 1986 legislation was left perpetually unenforced.

    While INA said that it was "illegal" to work and be present in US, nothing was done to enforce it and overall atmosphere was like "since you are here who cares how you got here and what papers you have or have not, just don't do a crime and no one will bother you in twenty(almost literally) years".
    Of course millions have poured in, as a direct consequence of the failure to enforce INA.

    But amnesty can not nor will be enacted today or anytime soon.
    There are natural reasons to that, but you cite none.


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The politicians do have to represent their voters as long as it is within the confines of the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is correct.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we use the same analogy of past laws to present then arguments could be made to ban the womens right to vote, to bring back slavery, etc. Point being we can't look too far back at prior legal situations and try to apply them to today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But OP's argument wasn't that we should restore all or any of the laws of the past.

    He stated (and it's valid argument, btw) that one can't successfully argue against amnesty on the grounds of "My ancestors came here legally" because it sounds like "calling someone a good driver because they never got caught speeding on the Autobahn".

    But, regardless, the OP's position is unrealistic and indefensible from practical point of view, therefore my responces were:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RationalE:

    It's not analogies/articles that decide the course of events.

    It's the course of events that decides everything else </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    and

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no fallacy with his logic or argument per se.
    But there is a great fallacy in his lack of understanding how the social, political processess evolve in practice.
    They are more like natural fenomena with natural causes and effects that can not be influenced by mere/abstract logic or argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Now concentrate your mind and think of it a bit, don't just readily resort to sardonic remarks (I know you are very good at latter).
    With your background, your life experience, your intelligence and practical wisdom you should be doing better than that (obviously I don't know anything about you beyond what you posted here, but it was enough to appreciate some of your personal and intellectual qualities, which you don't use to the fraction most of the time).


    Regards,

    RationalE

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just for the record I was being a bit of a smart a s s with the yong wong hung stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    We all are from time to time.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, I do understand the weekness of the legal requirements of then versus now. And how most if under the same legal requirements of today would have been turned away 100 years ago. But thats life, and is how many politicians will use little known facts to sway an opinion. Regadless, it still doesn't take away from the fact we can not have a wholesale amnesty program. We did that years back and it only made matters worse today.

    The politicians do have to represent their voters as long as it is within the confines of the law. If we use the same analogy of past laws to present then arguments could be made to ban the womens right to vote, to bring back slavery, etc. Point being we can't look too far back at prior legal situations and try to apply them to today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Your vision of what can or can not take place at present is correct.
    But the arguments you use are vulnerable.
    Not that it matters much, but it wouldn't hurt if you could produce arguments that were as strong as their cause.

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BronzeLady:
    Rational E,

    I love your mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I believe you.

    Leave a comment:


  • BronzeLady
    replied
    Rational E,

    I love your mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    This davdah is very wise guy, I must admit.
    Wung Hung Low himself could learn volumes from him.

    However, in all simplicity (as always):

    1. The OP's major argument is set against the argument commonly used to oppose amnesty.
    ("My ancestors came here legally and so should you").
    Logical premises of OP are solid. ("If there were no restrictions back then in the first place, how can you give credit to your ancestors (for coming here legally) that you take away from todays's illegal newcomers by comparison'").

    2. Just because OP has logically sound argument against implausible argument used in defence of 'no-amnesty' policy doesn't in fact mean that amnesty can/shoud succeed now (nor the argument of OP will have much effect, since it's not the argument per se cited by OP ("My ancestors came here legally and so should you") that is preventing the amnesty, but rather there are underlying natural forces that guide the course of events, forces that have natural causes and natural effects).

    Hence: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RationalE:
    It's not analogies/articles that decide the course of events.
    It's the course of events that decides everything else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    and

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RationalE:
    There is no fallacy with his logic or argument per se.
    But there is a great fallacy in his lack of understanding how the social, political processess evolve in practice.
    They are more like natural fenomena with natural causes and effects that can not be influenced by mere/abstract logic or argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Is this clearly undeerstood?

    Somewhere Lao Tze said something to the effect that the greatest wisdom is in non-action (not to confuse with inaction),i.e. in becoming one with the clouds and sliding effortlessly off the surface of sky.

    Leave a comment:


  • explora
    replied
    ilw.com
    July 31, 2007

    1. COMMENT

    My Ancestors Were Legal

    A NJ Star Ledger editorial says, "First of all, for hundreds of
    years, as immigrants poured in by the hundreds of thousands from
    the 1600s to the early 1900s, there were simply no federal
    immigration laws to break ... Once Congress put immigration
    quotas in place to keep out less desirable Eastern and Southern
    Europeans in 1921, they began sneaking in by the thousands ...
    Clearly, if everyone's grandparents said they immigrated legally,
    someone's grandparents were lying." For the full editorial, see here.
    http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ss...0787315220.xml

    We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by
    writing to mailto:editor@ilw.com.

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was refering everyone's desire to gain money regardless of race. I think we need to add a yong to ying and yang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That's incredibly sharp witted and funny

    Leave a comment:


  • RationalE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were some restrictions in place then. All be it next to none compared to now but it was only a function of what was required then. At the time we needed people to populate the country. The same as a lot of water being needed to get a river flowing. Once the water nears the top of the bank then the flow needs to be restricted to keep from flooding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    All above is true, but the following statement is hillarious :

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The one thing that binds us and is causing this problem is usually the love of the other color, green. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Must be davdah's interpretation of Ying-Yang sign

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X