Jump to content

US Democratic Primary Elections Thread


Justin Z

Recommended Posts

I guess its just my personality and background, I am just not used to people coming to me and telling me they are breaking the rules, but to be honest I would just as well they didn't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Justin Z

    57

  • Dawnrazor

    31

  • ri Alban

    17

  • jake

    14

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Bridge of Djoum
33 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

I guess its just my personality and background, I am just not used to people coming to me and telling me they are breaking the rules, but to be honest I would just as well they didn't.

 

 

I agree, Bob.

It took almost 2 years and much $$$ to get my Visa legally. Immigration must be fixed in the US, it is a completely broken system as it stands. My point was that it targets brown people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

I think the snowbirds thing has little to do with racism.  If a millionaire black or hispanic Canadian can afford $50k or more to rent a house in Florida or California for the wimter he or she would be as little troubled by the immigration police as a white Canadian. In fact the same would I suspect be true of a millionaire Mexican.

Just as rich Arabs have been free to occupy much of the most expensive parts of London for many decades.

Generally speaking immigration controls verywhere discriminate against the poor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/02/2020 at 15:14, Bridge of Djoum said:

I don't want to de-rail the thread but I'll answer.

 

Of course the biggest number of illegal immigrants in the US are Latino. However, having lived in NYC I've met countless numbers of Europeans and Canadians who over stayed their Visa, took advantage of the Visa waiver or simply bought a one way ticket. I've yet to meet one who fears being kicked out of the country. Not one. They simply are not being looked for. They pay taxes, some actually own businesses. They live pretty openly. Walk into any Irish bar in NYC and I'll guarantee there are Irish folk working illegally. I live in New England now and I've encountered the same situation in Boston, Providence and Connecticut.  the only draw back is they risk being found out if they leave the country and attempt to come back. It's an entirely different story for Latinos. They tend to work very low paid, cash in hand jobs. I've met many who do fear for their status. 

 

The guidelines and practices of ICE are absolutely based on race. You just cannot deny that.

I'm not sure if I get this, is the "ICE" agency Racist because they find and deport illegal immigrants, who by definition in the country illegally? Do they find and deport sex traffickers, drug dealers, murderers etc who are also illegally in the country?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'm not sure if I get this, is the "ICE" agency Racist because they find and deport illegal immigrants, who by definition in the country illegally? Do they find and deport sex traffickers, drug dealers, murderers etc who are also illegally in the country?

 

Mate, I gave you a lot of material in my post which you haven't responded to at all. About the massive Facebook groups full of ICE and CBP officers posting horribly racist things. Because the original topic was the institutional racism endemic in the US generally, I told you about HUD and redlining and provided a link. This week, an audio recording of Michael Bloomberg defending his stop-and-frisk policy as mayor of New York, which exclusively targeted Black and Latinx people. On this side of the pond, the British government has likewise targeted Black British people, some convicted of relatively minor drug offences, who have been here since infancy or very early childhood for deportation to a place they've never lived--and violated a court order to send them away on a charter flight. It was rightly pointed out that a current blonde in government had been subject to altogether different rules.

 

It's fine if you don't want to agree with the facts on the ground, but they're there. Asking a question phrased like this, in the face of the information you've already been given, including Bridge's firsthand story of how ICE only targeted the brown illegal immigrant at the bar, not the white ones, does not make it appear like you're asking in good faith.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mate, I gave you a lot of material in my post which you haven't responded to at all. About the massive Facebook groups full of ICE and CBP officers posting horribly racist things. Because the original topic was the institutional racism endemic in the US generally, I told you about HUD and redlining and provided a link. This week, an audio recording of Michael Bloomberg defending his stop-and-frisk policy as mayor of New York, which exclusively targeted Black and Latinx people. On this side of the pond, the British government has likewise targeted Black British people, some convicted of relatively minor drug offences, who have been here since infancy or very early childhood for deportation to a place they've never lived--and violated a court order to send them away on a charter flight. It was rightly pointed out that a current blonde in government had been subject to altogether different rules.

 

It's fine if you don't want to agree with the facts on the ground, but they're there. Asking a question phrased like this, in the face of the information you've already been given, including Bridge's firsthand story of how ICE only targeted the brown illegal immigrant at the bar, not the white ones, does not make it appear like you're asking in good faith.

 

I'm sorry if you don't think I'm asking in good faith, I am. My point is that an organisation can easily be labelled "racist" when the are charged with, amongst other things, finding and deporting "illegal immigrants".

According to the  U.S. Department of Homeland Security the % of people coming into the USA illegally is;

Mexico 55

El Salvador 6

Guatemala 5

India 4

Honduras 3

Philippines 3

China 2

Korea 2

Vietnam 2

Dominican Republic 1

Other 17 (which some must also be non white)

Considering the amount of non white people coming into the USA illegally and ICE are the department that have to deal with illegal immigrants, how can they find, charge and deport enough white immigrants to not be described as racist?

I could see your point if the numbers of white to non white immigrants were 50/50 and ICE consistently targeted non whites then yes, but considering the numbers?

Edited by Dawnrazor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'm sorry if you don't think I'm asking in good faith, I am. My point is that an organisation can easily be labelled "racist" when the are charged with, amongst other things, finding and deporting "illegal immigrants".

 

I definitely agree with you. The possibility is absolutely there.

 

I also think there's a massive difference between being labelled it, and owning it. ICE, and the American federal government writ large, have consistently owned it for decades. Made it their ethos, their reason for being.

 

Because of the reality of the statistics you posted, I'm happy to concede the possibility of some people getting the wrong idea, about a hypothetical organisation that operates on the up-and-up. But I feel there are an overabundance of examples, some of which have been shared in this thread, that put the question of these particular organisations beyond any practicable doubt. I feel this as well, having done immigration legal work of my own, having interacted on criminal cases I've done with both local police in Arizona and federal immigration officers. It's anecdotal though and statements like "they employ an alarming number of white nationalist fascists" don't really do much good for keeping the tone level.

 

7 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I could see your point if the numbers of white to non white immigrants were 50/50 and ICE consistently targeted non whites then yes, but considering the numbers?

 

But it's because of these realities that stories like Bridge's and mine are relevant, I feel like. The discriminatory, fundamentally racist way they operate is qualitative, as well as quantitative. I'm not sure how else to get that point across.

 

Well, there is another way. The targeting of American citizens by ICE because of their skin colour. Honestly on a Friday night having a drink or two I'm not in the mood to look up links but that's another big one. Naturalised US citizens, born in America to American parents, and they have to carry packs of documents around everywhere they go because they're brown. And then it still sometimes doesn't matter and they get detained for months or years in appalling conditions.

 

It's f--ked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

I definitely agree with you. The possibility is absolutely there.

 

I also think there's a massive difference between being labelled it, and owning it. ICE, and the American federal government writ large, have consistently owned it for decades. Made it their ethos, their reason for being.

 

Because of the reality of the statistics you posted, I'm happy to concede the possibility of some people getting the wrong idea, about a hypothetical organisation that operates on the up-and-up. But I feel there are an overabundance of examples, some of which have been shared in this thread, that put the question of these particular organisations beyond any practicable doubt. I feel this as well, having done immigration legal work of my own, having interacted on criminal cases I've done with both local police in Arizona and federal immigration officers. It's anecdotal though and statements like "they employ an alarming number of white nationalist fascists" don't really do much good for keeping the tone level.

 

 

But it's because of these realities that stories like Bridge's and mine are relevant, I feel like. The discriminatory, fundamentally racist way they operate is qualitative, as well as quantitative. I'm not sure how else to get that point across.

 

Well, there is another way. The targeting of American citizens by ICE because of their skin colour. Honestly on a Friday night having a drink or two I'm not in the mood to look up links but that's another big one. Naturalised US citizens, born in America to American parents, and they have to carry packs of documents around everywhere they go because they're brown. And then it still sometimes doesn't matter and they get detained for months or years in appalling conditions.

 

It's f--ked.

But you've ignored the numbers to be fair.

I get the racism exists in ICE, it exists in every profession and ethnic group.

But you've leveled specifically ICE as rasict, I've quoted figures that, I think, it would be hard not to be described as racist if you carry out the duties you've been given. 

I've had a bottle of Red Wine watching the rugby and so feel your "not in the mood to look up links" and despite your dismissive and antagonistic feel to your post, because I haven't instantly agreed with you links, Bloomberg!!!!! C'mon!!!! 

Its, in today's parlance "woke" to label everything racist, but I'm just looking at the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I am not a big believer in I was only obeying the orders of my command, but I am sure many ICE  officers took the job with no racist motivation.  There is no doubt some because of their beliefs will react strongly and indeed racist, but the job by its definition requires action against basically all the same type of people, Latino, and even if doing the function according to the rules will be adjudged racist. It is not always the individual, but more so the policy that is the offensive action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

I definitely agree with you. The possibility is absolutely there.

 

I also think there's a massive difference between being labelled it, and owning it. ICE, and the American federal government writ large, have consistently owned it for decades. Made it their ethos, their reason for being.

 

Because of the reality of the statistics you posted, I'm happy to concede the possibility of some people getting the wrong idea, about a hypothetical organisation that operates on the up-and-up. But I feel there are an overabundance of examples, some of which have been shared in this thread, that put the question of these particular organisations beyond any practicable doubt. I feel this as well, having done immigration legal work of my own, having interacted on criminal cases I've done with both local police in Arizona and federal immigration officers. It's anecdotal though and statements like "they employ an alarming number of white nationalist fascists" don't really do much good for keeping the tone level.

 

 

But it's because of these realities that stories like Bridge's and mine are relevant, I feel like. The discriminatory, fundamentally racist way they operate is qualitative, as well as quantitative. I'm not sure how else to get that point across.

 

Well, there is another way. The targeting of American citizens by ICE because of their skin colour. Honestly on a Friday night having a drink or two I'm not in the mood to look up links but that's another big one. Naturalised US citizens, born in America to American parents, and they have to carry packs of documents around everywhere they go because they're brown. And then it still sometimes doesn't matter and they get detained for months or years in appalling conditions.

 

It's f--ked.

The idea that "brown people" in the USA have to carry around packs of documents to avoid being deported is so ludicrous that I begin to doubt Justin z's credentials as some sort of authority on the USA.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'm sorry if you don't think I'm asking in good faith, I am. My point is that an organisation can easily be labelled "racist" when the are charged with, amongst other things, finding and deporting "illegal immigrants".

According to the  U.S. Department of Homeland Security the % of people coming into the USA illegally is;

Mexico 55

El Salvador 6

Guatemala 5

India 4

Honduras 3

Philippines 3

China 2

Korea 2

Vietnam 2

Dominican Republic 1

Other 17 (which some must also be non white)

Considering the amount of non white people coming into the USA illegally and ICE are the department that have to deal with illegal immigrants, how can they find, charge and deport enough white immigrants to not be described as racist?

I could see your point if the numbers of white to non white immigrants were 50/50 and ICE consistently targeted non whites then yes, but considering the numbers?

Ask yourself why? Why are white folk not illegal? Are the goalposts on a different playing field?

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The idea that "brown people" in the USA have to carry around packs of documents to avoid being deported is so ludicrous that I begin to doubt Justin z's credentials as some sort of authority on the USA.

 

You lost your credentials as anyone with any sort of understanding or insight into how anything works a long time ago. You are truly King Dunning-Kruger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Ask yourself why? Why are white folk not illegal? Are the goalposts on a different playing field?

Nobody is saying white people not illegal, where is it said they are?

But if 80+% of illegal immigrants are from the a over list, how many would you expect to be white? If 80+% are non white, what percentage of non white illegal immigrants would you say should be charged and deported?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 I am not a big believer in I was only obeying the orders of my command, but I am sure many ICE  officers took the job with no racist motivation.  There is no doubt some because of their beliefs will react strongly and indeed racist, but the job by its definition requires action against basically all the same type of people, Latino, and even if doing the function according to the rules will be adjudged racist. It is not always the individual, but more so the policy that is the offensive action.

"It is not always the individual, but more so the policy that is the offensive action"

What is it you mean Bob? Surely the alternative is open borders and unlimited and unchecked immigration?

I agree with most of the rest of you post

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Nobody is saying white people not illegal, where is it said they are?

But if 80+% of illegal immigrants are from the a over list, how many would you expect to be white? If 80+% are non white, what percentage of non white illegal immigrants would you say should be charged and deported?

 

I think what he's trying to say is taking it back a step, white people, purely by design of the system are more likely in general to be able to immigrate legally, than nonwhite people.

 

  

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

"It is not always the individual, but more so the policy that is the offensive action"

What is it you mean Bob? Surely the alternative is open borders and unlimited and unchecked immigration?

I agree with most of the rest of you post

 

But no, there is in fact a lot of grey in-between these. A false dichotomy isn't helpful.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fancy a brew said:

I don't know what the right response to illegal immigration is , but separating children from their parents could not be more wrong.

Any parents in the USA found commiting a crime are separated from their children if found with them, no matter what colour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I think what he's trying to say is taking it back a step, white people, purely by design of the system are more likely in general to be able to immigrate legally, than nonwhite people.

 

  

 

But no, there is in fact a lot of grey in-between these. A false dichotomy isn't helpful.

 

" a false dichotomy"?

Considering the figures of colour/race/ethnicity of illegal immigrants, how is this false?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

Any parents in the USA found commiting a crime are separated from their children if found with them, no matter what colour.

 

Not accurate. Source: I practised criminal law in the US.

 

Also a completely inapplicable statement to the systematic and needless splitting of migrant, legal asylum-seeking families who have declared their intentions at the border as required by international law. The rhetorical device of attempting to lump them in with those "committing a crime" is exactly the sort of systemic racism being repeatedly pointed out to you on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I think what he's trying to say is taking it back a step, white people, purely by design of the system are more likely in general to be able to immigrate legally, than nonwhite people.

 

  

 

But no, there is in fact a lot of grey in-between these. A false dichotomy isn't helpful.

 

" a false dichotomy"?

Considering the figures of colour/race/ethnicity of illegal immigrants, how is this false?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

" a false dichotomy"?

Considering the figures of colour/race/ethnicity of illegal immigrants, how is this false?

 

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

But no, there is in fact a lot of grey in-between these.

 

Nothing else needs to be said. It is not one or the other as you just tried to claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

 

Nothing else needs to be said. It is not one or the other as you just tried to claim.

So what's you answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

So what's you answer?

 

If you really want to discuss this, start a new thread. It doesn't change the fact that there's a nearly infinite range of options between "institutionally racist immigration enforcement" and

 

9 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Surely the alternative is open borders and unlimited and unchecked immigration?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Not accurate. Source: I practised criminal law in the US.

 

Also a completely inapplicable statement to the systematic and needless splitting of migrant, legal asylum-seeking families who have declared their intentions at the border as required by international law. The rhetorical device of attempting to lump them in with those "committing a crime" is exactly the sort of systemic racism being repeatedly pointed out to you on this thread.

So if parents are found with 2 children whilst commiting a crime, are arrested, sent to prison pending a charge the children are not separated from the parents and go to prison with them?

Entering the US illegally is a crime is not not?

I'm not lumping legal asylum seeking families with the illegal immigrants coming over the border, if they want to seek asylum let them come through legal and recognised points of access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

If you really want to discuss this, start a new thread. It doesn't change the fact that there's a nearly infinite range of options between "institutionally racist immigration enforcement" and

 

 

The point is is that it isn't "institutionally" racist to seek and deport illegal immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

The point is is that it isn't "institutionally" racist to seek and deport illegal immigrants.

 

This is both not what anyone has been arguing, at all, and you have had it pointed out to you in numerous examples by multiple people now how the US system goes well beyond this white bread (pun intended) description.

 

Thus why you need to start a new thread if you're going to continue to ignore everything presented to you, because it's a derail of this thread topic anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

This is both not what anyone has been arguing, at all, and you have had it pointed out to you in numerous examples by multiple people now how the US system goes well beyond this white bread (pun intended) description.

 

Thus why you need to start a new thread if you're going to continue to ignore everything presented to you, because it's a derail of this thread topic anyway.

I've ignored nothing!! Ive asked a fairly simple question of, considering the figures and percentage of people coming into the US how is possible not to describe ICE as racist  the point I responded to in my first post. Its you that have ignored these points.

Edited by Dawnrazor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

So if parents are found with 2 children whilst commiting a crime, are arrested, sent to prison pending a charge the children are not separated from the parents and go to prison with them?

 

If all of the above occur, with the correction that pending charge you are sent to jail or a holding facility, not prison--then children might be placed with other immediate family, with friends, etc. Some familiar place. This is a lot of caveats and directly contradicts your claim that "Any parents in the USA found commiting a crime are separated from their children if found with them, no matter what colour", which is categorically, 100% wrong.

 

4 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Entering the US illegally is a crime is not not?

 

Yes.

 

4 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'm not lumping legal asylum seeking families with the illegal immigrants coming over the border

 

Yes you are. There are a great many thousands for which this is one in the same, and you have poisoned the well by calling that activity illegal and calling them "illegal immigrants" . . .

 

5 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

if they want to seek asylum let them come through legal and recognised points of access.

 

. . . because this is exactly what they have done and they have had their children stolen from them and both they and their children been kept in separate cages often states apart for no reason but for the cruelty for the sake of alleged deterrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dawnrazor said:

I've ignored nothing!! Ive asked a fairly simple question of, considering the figures and percentage of people coming into the US how is possible not to be describe ICE as racist  the point I responded to in my first post.its you that have ignored these points.

 

You keep asking the same simple question after having it answered repeatedly, in great detail, because you are ignoring the answers. Stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

If all of the above occur, with the correction that pending charge you are sent to jail or a holding facility, not prison--then children might be placed with other immediate family, with friends, etc. Some familiar place. This is a lot of caveats and directly contradicts your claim that "Any parents in the USA found commiting a crime are separated from their children if found with them, no matter what colour", which is categorically, 100% wrong.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Yes you are. There are a great many thousands for which this is one in the same, and you have poisoned the well by calling that activity illegal and calling them "illegal immigrants" . . .

 

 

. . . because this is exactly what they have done and they have had their children stolen from them and both they and their children been kept in separate cages often states apart for no reason but for the cruelty for the sake of alleged deterrence.

So children are separated from parents of criminals when you said they don't, entering the US is a criminal offence, I've still not lumped them together as you've claimed and children aren't "stolen", they've separated from people commiting a criminal offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

So children are separated from parents of criminals when you said they don't

 

What I said was, your statement that 100% of children are separated from 100% of parents who committed a crime, is categorically wrong. It is.

 

You then added a bunch of caveats and details and are now trying to claim that's the exact same thing as "any parents found committing a crime"--what you originally said. It isn't.

 

Why are you so intellectually dishonest?

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

You keep asking the same simple question after having it answered repeatedly, in great detail, because you are ignoring the answers. Stop.

You've patently failed to answer my simple question despite posting god knows how many replies!!! Stop!!! 

I'll leave it here with you but your virtue signals have been heard loud and clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

What I said was, your statement that 100% of children are separated from 100% of parents who committed a crime, is categorically wrong. It is.

 

You then added a bunch of caveats and details and are now trying to claim that's the exact same thing as "any parents found committing a crime"--what you originally said. It isn't.

 

Why are you so intellectually dishonest?

 

You're really bad at twisting things, I actually believe you must've been a good lawyer!!!

I'm still waiting for you to answer a question  I asked, you haven't and obviously aren't going to so please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

You've patently failed to answer my simple question despite posting god knows how many replies!!! Stop!!! 

I'll leave it here with you but your virtue signals have been heard loud and clear.

 

Thank you for reminding me why I had you on ignore before.

 

12 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

So children are separated from parents of criminals when you said they don't, entering the US is a criminal offence, I've still not lumped them together as you've claimed and children aren't "stolen", they've separated from people commiting a criminal offence.

 

I'll leave it here with you to explain why it's necessary to separate children from parents who are all coming to a country to seek asylum, legally, and who are all being detained. I'll leave it here with you to explain why parents and children are being deported separately from each other. I'll leave it here with you to explain why you keep pushing a racist narrative that them doing this, legally under international law, is committing a crime. I'll leave here with you to explain why you keep repeating the same question, over and over again, when it's repeatedly answered. I'll leave it here with you to explain why you keep misrepresenting what other people are saying. I'll leave it here with you to explain why making a false statement, then claiming your false statement is true once you've added a bunch of caveats and details which change the statement, is someone else "twisting things".

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

You've patently failed to answer my simple question despite posting god knows how many replies!!! Stop!!! 

I'll leave it here with you but your virtue signals have been heard loud and clear.

 

He's answered everything, in detail clearly backed up by years of expertise, and you've thrown a strop and cried virtue signalling. 😂 

 

Excellent. 

Edited by parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

Thank you for reminding me why I had you on ignore before.

 

 

I'll leave it here with you to explain why it's necessary to separate children from parents who are all coming to a country to seek asylum, legally. I'll leave it here with you you to explain why you keep pushing a racist narrative that them doing this, legally under international law, is committing a crime, and explain how it's not because you're a racist. I'll leave here with you to explain why you keep repeating the same question, over and over again, when it's repeatedly answered. I'll leave it here with you to explain why you keep misrepresenting what other people are saying. I'll leave it here with you to explain why making a false statement, then claiming your false statement is true once you've added a bunch of caveats and details which change the statement, is someone else "twisting things".

My god!!!

I'm racist because someone said ICE are racist?

You know the question I asked, you've failed to answer it, maybe you cant , that's ok. 

I've asked you repeatedly, I don't think anyone e else, as you continually fail to answer my point but continually go back on what you've said previously and trying g to misinterpret what I've asked. I've not made any false statements but pointed the inconsistencies in yours, it isn't then it is a crime , they don't ever separate but sometimes they do it is a crime to come in but then it isn't!!!

In the first post I questioned it was stated that ICE was racist, i don't agree, i don't think, as Bob said, all the people in ICE ARE all racist, I'll stand by that. I then asked, considering the percentage of people coming in to the USA, how easy it is to shout "Racist" when 80+% are not white. I thought it was a fairly simple point, sorry for any unintended offence to anyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parker said:

 

He's answered everything, in detail clearly backed up by years of expertise, and you've thrown a strop and cried virtue signalling. 😂 

 

Excellent. 

Aye ok!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone here can see you approve of demonstrably racist policies. That you've gone out of your way to choose to wrongly call brown legal asylum seekers "illegal", and claim they're committing a crime. :smile:

 

Everyone here can see you are intellectually dishonest in order to obscure the reasons for your condoning of these actions. :smile:

 

Have a great day. Cheerio! :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Everyone here can see you approve of demonstrably racist policies. That you've gone out of your way to choose to wrongly call brown legal asylum seekers "illegal", and claim they're committing a crime. :smile:

 

Everyone here can see you are intellectually dishonest in order to obscure the reasons for your condoning of these actions. :smile:

 

Have a great day. Cheerio! :smile:

Your talking mince!!!

You're still saying that the policies are racist, my point which you have continually avoided answering directly is that it's almost impossible not to be construed as racist when 80%+ of the people entering into the USA are non white and from a different country. Obviously the huge percentage of people cought and deported will be the same. If, as I said before, that if 50 % were Canadian or Europen and 50% were South American and ICE completely ignored the Canadian and European and solely targeted the South American people, then certainly that would be racist. 

As for my "intellectual dishonesty" I think your virtue signaling is clouding your judgment.

Have a good day, cheerio.

Edited by Dawnrazor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were leaving it. That would have been sensible. :smile:

 

3 minutes ago

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

my point which you have continually avoided answering directly is that it's almost impossible not to be construed as racist when 80%+ of the people entering into the USA are non white and from a different country.

 

13 hours ago

13 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I definitely agree with you. The possibility is absolutely there.

 

:smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I thought you were leaving it. That would have been sensible. :smile:

 

3 minutes ago

 

13 hours ago

 

:smile:

Lol!!! Apologies for going of on one!!

I think you're wise of the mark on a lot of things you've posted though, it's not really a "possibility " though is it, you've pretty much said ICE is racist, I still disagree, one point is that you've said that all people coming into the USA are asylum seekers, all 14million of them?

I have to disagree with this, theres no way all them are in fear of their safety as the asylum laws state, cmon, even you cant say that??!!!

I think ICE have a hell of a hard job to to and to label them all as racist is bang out of order imo.

Is the whole system "institutionally racist" I dont think so, could it be made fairer and easier? No doubt, but it'll be virtually impossible to do with the sheer number of people coming over the border at do many points. What's your answer to a better system? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

one point is that you've said that all people coming into the USA are asylum seekers, all 14million of them?

 

I appreciate you apologising for going off on one. But just stopping at this bit here. I think this right here is the crux of the problem.

 

You just apologised for going off on one because you'd completely missed how I agreed that there is the potential for bad optics / looking like racism because of the numbers and percentages involved.

 

But now with this bit here, you have made a claim I said something I've never come close to saying. At all. Because claiming 14 million immigrants (or however many) are all asylum seekers would be insane. So I wouldn't claim that.

 

It seems like you need to slow down, read and digest the actual words being said, and once you have, revise accordingly.

 

But please, do so in another thread. The answers to the rest of your revised post can be discussed in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Nobody is saying white people not illegal, where is it said they are?

But if 80+% of illegal immigrants are from the a over list, how many would you expect to be white? If 80+% are non white, what percentage of non white illegal immigrants would you say should be charged and deported?

 

I know what you said. I was just asking why only 20-% are White. Is it easier to become a legal?

 

I'm not trying to fight btw, I'm just asking why it's easier for whites. Especially Australia, the Identikit we are about to introduce.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I know what you said. I was just asking why only 20-% are White. Is it easier to become a legal?

 

I'm not trying to fight btw, I'm just asking why it's easier for whites. Especially Australia, the Identikit we are about to introduce.

 

I'm not looking for a fight either!!

I'm not sure, perhaps the European or Australians will number in the tens of thousand, will have better English, may come through a recognised entry point, may have better paperwork, all this would make things easier and quicker?

South Americans may come over the border at unrecognized points, may not speak English as well, im not sure about the english speaking part but I can only presume that Australians  will have english as thier first language and a family from Honduras may not, possibly do not have the correct paperwork and number in the millions according to government figures, figures from wiki admittedly, all these things would have an effect I'd think???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

I'm not looking for a fight either!!

I'm not sure, perhaps the European or Australians will number in the tens of thousand, will have better English, may come through a recognised entry point, may have better paperwork, all this would make things easier and quicker?

South Americans may come over the border at unrecognized points, may not speak English as well, im not sure about the english speaking part but I can only presume that Australians  will have english as thier first language and a family from Honduras may not, possibly do not have the correct paperwork and number in the millions according to government figures, figures from wiki admittedly, all these things would have an effect I'd think???

👍 

I suppose money talks, anaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your intent is insightful political commentary and your position is you don't abide racism and don't listen to supremacists, posting a link from Dan Bongino runs counter to everything you claim you stand for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

If your intent is insightful political commentary and your position is you don't abide racism and don't listen to supremacists, posting a link from Dan Bongino runs counter to everything you claim you stand for.

He's a "supremacist"? Source?

*edit*

Sorry, Thomas Homan is a "supremacist"?

I posted a, what I thought, was an interesting video from someone who is/was close to the situation, that's all.

*edit again*

A "supremacist" married to a Colombian?

Edited by Dawnrazor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel Farage's wife is a German. I don't buy this, 'because he or she is' example. I know plenty of bitter Orangemen with Catholic wifes. And I have no doubt Slave owners, you know what.

 

Anyway, I don't know who the source is. Just an observation. 

 

And people are allowed to have an opinion without being racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...