Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US is not your house. People try this stupid analogy all the time and we've explained over and over again why it's faulty (not that it should even need explaining).
There's no hypocrisy between wanting control of your personal property and simultaneously wanting immigration reform.
Stupid analogy? Does that mean when you use one of your analogies, it is also stupid or are you analogies superior due to your superior intellect? It has been explained to you over and over why your analogies are faulty (not that it should even need explaining).
The US is an owned territory by a group of people that are its citizens. Citizens control who may come in, it is not up to you to say whose house it is or not, as we all live in the same house, you need to ask permission to bring in/over your "friend" (worker, immigrant, etc).
The US is an owned territory by a group of people that are its citizens. Citizens control who may come in, it is not up to you to say whose house it is or not, as we all live in the same house, you need to ask permission to bring in/over your "friend" (worker, immigrant, etc).
lol, this might be one of the least accurate ways to describe countries that you could reasonably think sounds OK.
You do not have an ownership right in the whole of the United States. Citizens do not control who may come in. Citizens do not grant other citizens permission to bring immigrants over.
Stupid analogy? Does that mean when you use one of your analogies, it is also stupid or are you analogies superior due to your superior intellect? It has been explained to you over and over why your analogies are faulty (not that it should even need explaining).
The US is an owned territory by a group of people that are its citizens. Citizens control who may come in, it is not up to you to say whose house it is or not, as we all live in the same house, you need to ask permission to bring in/over your "friend" (worker, immigrant, etc).
Is this really your argument? So, OK, let's go with this, then. Elections are basically how we decide this stuff, right? The people elected Obama, he says it's cool (he's giving permission), so are you guys going to stop complaining now?
Is this really your argument? So, OK, let's go with this, then. Elections are basically how we decide this stuff, right? The people elected Obama, he says it's cool (he's giving permission), so are you guys going to stop complaining now?
cliffnotes: freedom is winning. Get used to it.
Obama is saying hiring illegal aliens (I-9 audits) or that EWI is "cool"? And here I thought he was deporting more illegal aliens (S-Comm) than any other previous administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
lol, this might be one of the least accurate ways to describe countries that you could reasonably think sounds OK.
You do not have an ownership right in the whole of the United States. Citizens do not control who may come in. Citizens do not grant other citizens permission to bring immigrants over.
I'm not describing "countries", I generalized the US itself. The US citizens, as a collective, have ownership rights of the US, again generalized. Rhymetime seemed to understand it.
Is this really your argument? So, OK, let's go with this, then. Elections are basically how we decide this stuff, right? The people elected Obama, he says it's cool (he's giving permission), so are you guys going to stop complaining now?
cliffnotes: freedom is winning. Get used to it.
Obama inspite of what he may think of himself is not the god emperor of the United States of America.
He is 1 man. Our congress and Senate write the laws. The vast majority of US citizens want retricted or limited immigration.
That said The citizens elect reps to represent them. The citizens not the illegals.
So your side claims that the citizens of this country have no say? I beg to differ.
That said what makes you or anyone else think that illegals have a say?
I'm not describing "countries", I generalized the US itself. The US citizens, as a collective, have ownership rights of the US, again generalized. Rhymetime seemed to understand it.
I understand it and it's wrong as Rock pointed out. My reply showed that even if we accept your broken analogy, you've dug yourself into a hole.
I understand it and it's wrong as Rock pointed out. My reply showed that even if we accept your broken analogy, you've dug yourself into a hole.
Then please enlighten us all about how and who actually owns the US (figuratively, not monetarily) if it is not its citizens. Is the government not elected by its citizens? Does Congress not debate and vote the supposed will of the citizens?
Then please enlighten us all about how and who actually owns the US (figuratively, not monetarily) if it is not its citizens. Is the government not elected by its citizens? Does Congress not debate and vote the supposed will of the citizens?
Yes, and every country has borders. That means those citizens within that border are the owners and have full say in who may enter and who may not. Those on the other side of that border do not. Just like the fence around one's home. Those who live within that property's perimeters bordered by that fence are the owners or are renting it with the property owner's permission. It's not rocket science.
Last edited by chicagonut; 08-30-2011 at 04:19 PM..
Is the government not elected by its citizens? Does Congress not debate and vote the supposed will of the citizens?
We can cast aside the ridiculous notion that the government is merely just an extension of the will of the people. 4th grade civics brainwashing doesn't deserve everything but a healthy eye roll, and yet here we are, asking whether government is elected by its citizens (um, a tiny fraction of it is, yes) as if it's a rhetorical question the answer to which might be something other than HELL NO.
If you ACTUALLY wanted to see a citizen's will represented, you could just let citizens do what they wish. You seem to be treating the citizenry as some sort of monolith. If YOU want to not hire cheap Mexican labor or whatever, you shouldn't have to. Nor should you, if you are interested in the will of the citizenry, be seeking to stop another citizen from voluntarily doing so. Your contention seems to be that you can actually isolate the singular will of the people and then policy will reflect it. Even if the former WERE true, the latter wouldn't be.
...Citizens do not control who may come in. Citizens do not grant other citizens permission to bring immigrants over.
And citizens don't pay (unless they've sponsored other immigrants through petition fees, but it isn't from taxes) for other citizens to bring immigrants over...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
intellect? It has been explained to you over and over why your analogies are faulty (not that it should even need explaining).
