briar patch

[JohnL]

Someone just broke his rule #2.

[JohnL]

And there goes rule #1.

[Bootstrap]

And there goes rule #1.

OK, I'll bite.

What is the topic of this thread? What is in and out of scope?

Also - JohnL, are you agreeing that you think rule #1 is an important one that we should pay attention to?

[JohnL]

And there goes rule #1.

OK, I'll bite.

What is the topic of this thread? What is in and out of scope?

Also - JohnL, are you agreeing that you think rule #1 is an important one that we should pay attention to?

Evaluate your own words Bootstrap. Have you noticed that responses diminish when you make several long posts one right after the other. It comes across as forcing your opinion on the rest. We have a saying. Short and to the point keeps your point sharp.

[JohnH]

And there goes rule #1.

OK, I'll bite.

What is the topic of this thread? What is in and out of scope?

Also - JohnL, are you agreeing that you think rule #1 is an important one that we should pay attention to?

Evaluate your own words Bootstrap. Have you noticed that responses diminish when you make several long posts one right after the other. It comes across as forcing your opinion on the rest. We have a saying. Short and to the point keeps your point sharp.

Might I ask whom the “we” are here?

[JohnH]

Refugees that don’t send fraudulently acquired funds to terrorist organizations are welcome, I truly don’t want tax dollars by hard working people to go to anti-American organizations.

Anyone involved in fraud or funding terrorism should be prosecuted. It doesn't matter if they are citizens, permanent residents, illegal immigrants, refugees, TPS, or whatever.

One of the things that "good" looks like is separating those issues instead of presuming that refugees and immigrants are involved in illegal activities.

I think this is really important. Very few refugees do any of these things. Their crime rates are lower than native-born Americans. But if one refugee does something wrong, the Internet explodes with people who say, "look, that's what they are all like!" Often, the Internet explodes with accusations that never happened in the first place.

That is a way of spreading hate.

So what are you saying?

Are you saying citizens should be replaced with refugees because refugees have a lower crime rate? (I assume you are saying “refugees” to specifically dodge “asylum seekers” and “TPS-eligible illegal aliens”, since they are technically legally separate.)

Should we apply that to other subgroups of people?

For example, we could divide citizens by certain demographic groups and find that some groups commit more crime in aggregate than others. Perhaps we will find refugees slot in between some of these groups.

Then what would you think is best to do?

[Bootstrap]

Anyone involved in fraud or funding terrorism should be prosecuted. It doesn't matter if they are citizens, permanent residents, illegal immigrants, refugees, TPS, or whatever.

One of the things that "good" looks like is separating those issues instead of presuming that refugees and immigrants are involved in illegal activities.

I think this is really important. Very few refugees do any of these things. Their crime rates are lower than native-born Americans. But if one refugee does something wrong, the Internet explodes with people who say, "look, that's what they are all like!" Often, the Internet explodes with accusations that never happened in the first place.

That is a way of spreading hate.

So what are you saying?

Are you saying citizens should be replaced with refugees because refugees have a lower crime rate? (I assume you are saying “refugees” to specifically dodge “asylum seekers” and “TPS-eligible illegal aliens”, since they are technically legally separate.)

Should we apply that to other subgroups of people?

For example, we could divide citizens by certain demographic groups and find that some groups commit more crime in aggregate than others. Perhaps we will find refugees slot in between some of these groups.

Then what would you think is best to do?

I am saying precisely what I said. Why cloud it by making up emotional red-flag statements and putting them in my mouth? Suppose I wanted to do the same to you, it would look like this:

So what are you saying?

That we should gun foreigners down in the streets?

Can you see why that is just not OK? Can you see why it makes it hard to actually discuss topics?

I'm not saying the things you put in my mouth. You are not saying the above. For some reason, you do not want to respond to what I AM saying, and you want to ramp up the heat and distract from what I am saying.

Why?

[JohnH]

Can you see why that is just not OK? Can you see why it makes it hard to actually discuss topics?

I'm not saying the things you put in my mouth. You are not saying the above. For some reason, you do not want to respond to what I AM saying, and you want to ramp up the heat and distract from what I am saying.

Why?

Has anyone even advocated that refugees (when I say "refugee", I am speaking about the legal class of refugees in terms of being granted permanent immigrant visas and so on) need to be mass deported or removed or something?

What are you actually complaining about?

Overall, Americans have said they simply don't want more migrants here for any reason. I think that's part of the democratic process for people to say that and make that decision. That means the refugees here can obviously stay, but large numbers of more refugees won't be admitted.

But when you say, "Refugees commit less crime than Americans," what's the purpose of saying that? Are you arguing that U.S. citizens should be replaced?

As far as I'm concerned, any crime committed by an immigrant at all should mean they go straight back. There is no reason to tolerate them staying here. Do you have some reason you think criminal migrants should stay here?

[Bootstrap]

Can you see why that is just not OK? Can you see why it makes it hard to actually discuss topics?

I'm not saying the things you put in my mouth. You are not saying the above. For some reason, you do not want to respond to what I AM saying, and you want to ramp up the heat and distract from what I am saying.

Why?

Has anyone even advocated that refugees (when I say "refugee", I am speaking about the legal class of refugees in terms of being granted permanent immigrant visas and so on) need to be mass deported or removed or something?

What are you actually complaining about?

This is what you responded to:

I think this is really important. Very few refugees do any of these things. Their crime rates are lower than native-born Americans. But if one refugee does something wrong, the Internet explodes with people who say, "look, that's what they are all like!" Often, the Internet explodes with accusations that never happened in the first place.

That is a way of spreading hate.

I think it's quite clear that I am saying we should not spread viral rumors online with loaded language, inspiring hate against refugees and immigrants. We are more or less programming people to look at foreigners and feel certain ugly feelings.

I think you changed the subject, invoking Great Replacement theory ("Are you saying citizens should be replaced with refugees..."). I do not believe that every new immigrant "replaces" a citizen.

I also think that the vast majority of Americans are descended from immigrants. At one time, Irish were considered undesirable, and so were Germans. Plenty of hate was directed at them, too. Spreading hate is not good. Many of our ancestors were affected. Mine were. The fears were not justified. We still speak English in America, not German.

[JohnH]

And I assume they should be convicted of a crime, not merely accused? Viral internet claims should not require deporting people who are not convicted of a crime?

I think a conviction would be the gold standard. Of course, the federal government can assess situations like plea bargains and decide to remove someone for actions they took they nonetheless managed not to get convicted of. This often happens with DUIs, for example.

The federal government has very wide discretion to decide to remove someone because it is no longer in the interests of the United States for them to remain here.

And I assume you don't mean speeding, jaywalking, underage drinking,

Speeding is not really treated like a "crime" in America. In my state it has its own special classification. Same with jaywalking. However, I think even immigrants can respect laws like these. I strongly encourage the immigrants I know (who may or may not have legal status here) to avoid things like speeding.

Underage drinking is something people shouldn't be doing, so yes I would support removal for that.

or fishing without a license?

I think fishing without a licence should make someone subject to removal. One of the things about America that is special is our conservation of our environment. If someone expects to be in America, they need to learn to respect that. As it stands, there are lots of people (both immigrants and U.S. citizens) who engage in mass poaching which destroys the environment, and I see no reason why we should tolerate people like that staying in the country.

When I have visited other countries, I have managed not to illegally fish there. All immigrants are capable of doing this.