The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[China]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's a little extreme.  Make no mistake about it, if Trump could shot to kill people at the border, he would, that's different, this is different.

 

Anyone thinking trying to repair our image after Bush was hard, no single president can repair the threat of us going rouge again.

It's not extreme.

 

We have been doing that nonsense all over the world for over 50 years.

 

We have been killing children for many years. 

 

Trump just says we are going to do it while other presidents tried to be tepid.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It's not extreme.

 

We have been doing that nonsense all over the world for over 50 years.

 

We have been killing children for many years. 

 

Trump just says we are going to do it while other presidents tried to be tepid.

 

There's a difference between being hypocritial at points in our history and saying we never were moral leaders. Thats too far and a lot of people overseas don't feel THAT way about us, more somewhere in the middle.  Stuff like the civil rights movement and civil rights act were and still are a big deal.  To say we never were a moral leaders begs the question if there ever was one, another reason I get where you are coming from, but thats too far.

[brandymac27]

I have a question  about this latest incident with the tear gas. Why were these people  rushing the border and throwing rocks,etc? Did something happen to them and were they afraid or in danger? 

I'm so conflicted on this because on one hand, gassing women, children,  and innocent  people seeking asylum is, impo, an outrage.

Otoh, what caused them to rush the border with rocks, etc?

If it was just because of their impatience or because of some trouble makers, then I can at least understand  trying to get control of the situation,  even though I don't think gassing them was the correct way to go about it at all. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There's a difference between being hypocritial at points in our history and saying we never were moral leaders. Thats too far and a lot of people overseas don't feel THAT way about us, more somewhere in the middle.  Stuff like the civil rights movement and civil rights act were and still are a big deal.  To say we never were a moral leaders begs the question if there ever was one, another reason I get where you are coming from, but thats too far.

You can’t be moral leaders if you aren’t acting morally. That’s hypocrisy.

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You can’t be moral leaders if you aren’t acting morally. That’s hypocrisy.

Can you tell me which, if any, countries ARE the moral leaders?

[TradeTheBeal!]

28 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you tell me which, if any, countries ARE the moral leaders?

 

Thats a matter of perspective.  For the Honduran migrants, the answer was likely the United States...WAS.

 

Conversely, for many ardent Trump supporters the answer is clearly Nazi Germany and the CSA.

Edited November 27, 2018 by TryTheBeal!

[LD0506]

Fox News Host Tomi Lahren Enjoys Watching Migrant Children Being Hit With Tear Gas

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/11/fox-host-tomi-lahren-enjoys-watching-migrant-children-being-hit-with-tear-gas/

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

We were never better than this.

 

That's the one thing that is good about Trump is that Americans can finally see that we have never been moral leaders.

 

6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Thats a matter of perspective.  For the Honduran migrants, the answer was likely the United States...WAS.

 

Conversely, for many ardent Trump supporters the answer is clearly Nazi Germany and the CSA.

I get it is perspective.  But I was more curious because of the above post.  The two uses of the word "never".  I think most will agree that we aren't currently.  But I think most would agree that we have, at some point, been so in the past.  That is why I wanted to know who he thought was.  I don't understand his thinking but am curious to explore it.

[Renegade7]

57 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You can’t be moral leaders if you aren’t acting morally. That’s hypocrisy.

24/7?  Please, in that case none of us qualify, not even you.

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

24/7?  Please, in that case none of us qualify, not even you.

1) I’m not calling myself a leader in morality

2) saying that the US couldn’t be focused on morality 24/7 is a nice way to explain the atrocities we have done in Central America, which is a big reason why these people are on our border.

50 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Can you tell me which, if any, countries ARE the moral leaders?

What is exactly is the point of this question? 

28 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

For the Honduran migrants, the answer was likely the United States...WAS.

 

I wouldn’t think that at all. Especially since we overthrew their democratically electric leaders for a tyrant.

 

People don’t come to the United States for morals. They come for opportunity. Many come and find out that it is extremely hard here as well.

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

What is exactly is the point of this question?

Broadly, the point is discussion.  It's kinda what we do here.  More pointedly, it will help me understand what you use in determining what a moral leader is.  So can you please tell me who you think the countries that are moral leaders are?  

[TradeTheBeal!]

17 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 Especially since we overthrew their democratically electric leaders for a tyrant.

 

 

Uh...not sure about that one, bro.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Uh...not sure about that one, bro.

Yea, I don't know if their leaders were democratically electric or another form of electric.  Direct current possibly?  (I just noticed that typo)

[TradeTheBeal!]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Yea, I don't know if their leaders were democratically electric or another form of electric.  Direct current possibly?  (I just noticed that typo)

 

Let it go, he’s rolling.

[Renegade7]

22 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

1) I’m not calling myself a leader in morality

2) saying that the US couldn’t be focused on morality 24/7 is a nice way to explain the atrocities we have done in Central America, which is a big reason why these people are on our border.

 

I didn't say it couldn't, you're saying we never were, which I don't agree with.  We have obviously made mistakes, things we should not have done.  Are you arguing that everything we've down wrong negates everything we've done right? 

 

You also didn't answer my question on who the moral leader was in the 20th century even if we aren't right now under Trump.  Maybe we are talking about two different things, in that you are saying that we weren't moral leaders and I'm saying that a lot of the world still looked at us that way, especially in comparison to other countries like Russia and China.

 

Let's be clear before we get off topic that as of right now we are setting a terrible example in regards to dealing with these people seeking asylum.  But we were also instrumental in the creation of the international system setup via the United Nations for asylum in the first place.

[Gallen5862]

2 hours ago, brandymac27 said:

I have a question  about this latest incident with the tear gas. Why were these people  rushing the border and throwing rocks,etc? Did something happen to them and were they afraid or in danger? 

I'm so conflicted on this because on one hand, gassing women, children,  and innocent  people seeking asylum is, impo, an outrage.

Otoh, what caused them to rush the border with rocks, etc?

If it was just because of their impatience or because of some trouble makers, then I can at least understand  trying to get control of the situation,  even though I don't think gassing them was the correct way to go about it at all. 

Their were reports that a No Borders group was upset about the possible deal that President Trump was making with the incoming Mexican President. The group said that the new deal could not take effect until at least December First. The ones that stormed the border were being emcourgaed to crash the border gate with the US like they had broke through the Mexican border weeks earlier. One of the Chief Border patrol agents said that the tear gassing rules were left over from President Obama from when at the same crossing in 2014 they gassed 100 people throwing rocks trying to storm the crossing then. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Uh...not sure about that one, bro.

then what happened to Zelaya?

 

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Are you arguing that everything we've down wrong negates everything we've done right? 

No, I am saying we are not a moral leader and never have been based on our actions domestically and abroad.

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

You also didn't answer my question on who the moral leader was in the 20th century even if we aren't right now under Trump.

It is not a relevant question because our nation's morals were always compromised.

[Renegade7]

6 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

No, I am saying we are not a moral leader and never have been based on our actions domestically and abroad.

 

That was a yes or no question, not a fit in your answer to get around the fact people disagree with you. A lot of people disagree with you, here and abroad, that we were never moral leaders. You didn't address our contributions to the UN or our aid to humanitarian causes at all.  How many international natural disasters has our military shows up, something I don't recall militaries being used for prior to that on the level that we do?

 

Quote

It is not a relevant question because our nation's morals were always compromised.

 

Define compromised?  Like we looked out for ourselves at same time as our part of the deal to push for the democratic and capitalistic society we for the most part take for granted today?  Oh yea, what we did to Iran was messed up with the coups, and even tough there's no way Obama coulda fixed the damage done by that, insisting on the Iran Deal instead of invading (which Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted) was the right message to send to countries we don't get along with. 

 

I don't always agree with you, I don't always disagree with you, I can't co-sign to this one.  Think you should start a separate thread on this topic, I don't think the world needs us like it did immediately after world war 2 so our relationship with the world should be re-evaluated.  But not in this thread, this is an immigration thread.

 

US has earned the right for people to be angry at them, I just don't get what you are shooting for in general, not just here. Can't change the past Benning, most of us here either know it or running from it. Now what?  if that's how you really feel, I can understand why, but now what?

Edited November 27, 2018 by Renegade7

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Burgold]

You can be a moral leader and still have feet of clay.

[twbab]

For some reason America is suppose to be the only country without secure borders.

[LD0506]

Ok, this is an interesting side track, debating who/what determines a "moral leader". IMHO, the US has been that moral leader in the world, overwhelmingly because there was never any competition for the title, it was by default. But how exactly, definitely not in the grassroots way that we treat our own citizens and particularly not how we've treated those from other countries. It has been in our aspirations, our ideals, our striving to rise above our baser urges and try to be something better, something more. The centuries of history we acknowledge have been one of strife, of warring egos and arrogance, of domination and theft, of slavery and extermination. That's not criticism, it's a critique. The USA is significant and different and valuable to mankind as the first established nation that declared in it's formative declarations to recognize fundamental rights of humanity, to try and codify these into law and erect a structure to protect them. Yes, we have done a lot of ****ty things along the way, and we have always been infected with that original sin of overarching greed, but there has always been those words, those hopes and ideals, that while still not recognized were held out as a signpost forward. In that regard we have been a moral leader, but we are waistdeep in the morass of  our own lies, in the realization that those ideals are still just that, ideals not yet fulfilled. It is our obligation to aspire yet again, to move towards those hopes rather than throw them aside, they are the sole beacon forward for us all.

[TheGreatBuzz]

@BenningRoadSkin not sure if you missed my response.  Can you say who is the moral leader if not the USA?