GOP Rep. Mark Sanford: Haitian babies born in US don’t deserve birthrights because they are not ‘former slaves’

[laughing dog]

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

Holding the US responsible for its actions has absolutely no implication or relevance to holding any other country responsible for its actions when one is discussing US responsibility. It is a tu quoque fallacy.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

Holding the US responsible for its actions has absolutely no implication or relevance to holding any other country responsible for its actions when one is discussing US responsibility. It is a tu quoque fallacy.

Dude, you obviously don't even know what a tu quoque fallacy means. Context is everything. You are free to disagree, ignore it and bend it anyway you want, but the fact remains truth is found in context.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm baffled as to why you think I am. Believe me, I am no friend of Putin or his cronies, let alone the former Soviet Socialist Republic. They just aren't very relevant to the immediate topic at hand, unless you think they could be convinced to accept a larger number of economic migrants.

Actually, that's a great idea - lets send all asylum seekers to places that no longer exist. Siam and Prussia haven't taken their share yet, nor have Mesopotamia, Sumer or Rhodesia. So if the USSR won't take them, there's still lots of options.

Nice twist. Good luck with believing that way.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Believing that we should be responsible for our actions does not make me "anti-American"; I believe the same about everyone I respect. I can't answer for Russia's immigration policies, but I have a right and a responsibility to weigh in on ours.

Of course we should be responsible for our actions. I'm just curious why you and others hold only the US responsible while giving the Soviets a pass.

I'm baffled as to why you think I am. Believe me, I am no friend of Putin or his cronies, let alone the former Soviet Socialist Republic. They just aren't very relevant to the immediate topic at hand, unless you think they could be convinced to accept a larger number of economic migrants.

Then look at the world through context. Yes, the US has done a lot of bad things. Why? Have other nations done bad things? Why? As noted above, context is everything; it's like Newton's laws of motion; for every action there is a reaction.

Example: A lot of the problems in the Middle East can be traced back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, secret at the time, between Britain and France. Obviously few foresaw the US becoming the predominant superpower after WWI Part Deux. Few foresaw the collapse of British and French colonialism in the 20th Century even though there were lots of indicators. Few foresaw what the little revolution in Russia would become would the totalitarian society it became.....and few foresaw the rise of radical Islam as a global terrorist force.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm baffled as to why you think I am. Believe me, I am no friend of Putin or his cronies, let alone the former Soviet Socialist Republic. They just aren't very relevant to the immediate topic at hand, unless you think they could be convinced to accept a larger number of economic migrants.

Then look at the world through context. Yes, the US has done a lot of bad things. Why?

To secure the private wealth of those at the top at the expense of everyone else, and to eliminate any potential threats to this goal domestically and abroad. It's not very hard to understand if you pay attention to the actual context and not the ideological one provided by these selfsame plutocrats to justify their behavior (usually in terms of warnings about national security, threats to liberty, the dangers of foreign immigrants changing our culture, the purity of free enterprise, and the looming peril of "anti-American" sentiments). The real explanation is far simpler. People with power and money do everything they can to keep it, and a basic step in that process is to remove nearby obstacles to retaining and/or accumulating more of both. Democratically elected socialist-leaning nations south of our border were just too risky to allow to exist from their perspective, not because they cared about liberating anybody from the shackles of government regulation, but because they don't like it when the majority controls the way things are run. It's a smoothly continuing movement from the colonizing ambitions that started the United States to begin with.

Look, the point is that it's not possible to frame immigration from Latin America as a horde of lazy, opportunistic outsiders who weren't competent enough to solve the problems of their home countries, seeking to drag down our innocent society. The reality is both more complicated than that and simpler than one might think.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Then look at the world through context. Yes, the US has done a lot of bad things. Why?

To secure the private wealth of those at the top at the expense of everyone else, and to eliminate any potential threats to this goal domestically and abroad.....

...and this makes the US different from Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc how?

 

[PyramidHead]

Then look at the world through context. Yes, the US has done a lot of bad things. Why?

To secure the private wealth of those at the top at the expense of everyone else, and to eliminate any potential threats to this goal domestically and abroad.....

...and this makes the US different from Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc how?

Not at all? Did I say that it was particularly different? Are you the Tu Quoque Ranger?

In the context of Latin America, which is the topic of this thread, the United States is largely responsible for the mess that the immigrants are trying to escape.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...and this makes the US different from Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc how?

Not at all? Did I say that it was particularly different?....

Wow, sensitive to questions, ain'tcha!

Scroll up and you'll see the context.

 

[PyramidHead]

...and this makes the US different from Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc how?

Not at all? Did I say that it was particularly different?....

Wow, sensitive to questions, ain'tcha!

Scroll up and you'll see the context.

Not seeing it. What context is missing from my analysis that changes the responsibility of the United States for the plight of its southern neighbors? I mean, whatever the circumstances, it's not like anything would fully absolve the US of its responsibility to these fleeing immigrants. For example, if it was true that other countries also meddled in the affairs of South American elections etc., then I'd happily concede that those countries should also welcome immigrants from the nations they disrupted... but the caravan is heading for the US, not France or Russia. My original point still stands: the United States ought to pony up bigtime for these people instead of treating them as barbarian invaders, regardless of what other countries were involved in the centuries-long gang rape of their home nations.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Wow, sensitive to questions, ain'tcha!

Scroll up and you'll see the context.

Not seeing it. What context is missing from my analysis that changes the responsibility of the United States for the plight of its southern neighbors? I mean, whatever the circumstances, it's not like anything would fully absolve the US of its responsibility to these fleeing immigrants. For example, if it was true that other countries also meddled in the affairs of South American elections etc., then I'd happily concede that those countries should also welcome immigrants from the nations they disrupted... but the caravan is heading for the US, not France or Russia. My original point still stands: the United States ought to pony up bigtime for these people instead of treating them as barbarian invaders, regardless of what other countries were involved in the centuries-long gang rape of their home nations.

I didn't think you would since you didn't the first time.

First, a geography lesson. The reason the "caravan" isn't headed for France or Russia is the same reason most Muslims are headed for France and not the US - they can't swim the Atlantic.

Second, neither France, Russia nor the US owes any other country anything and vice versa. Ergo, there's no reason to "pony up bigtime". The Constitution restricts the Feds in their actions. If religious groups or any other wish to "pony up bigtime" by supplying money or volunteers, they should be free to do so. Are you joining the Peace Corps or some other group to help those people?...or like most people are you too busy and would prefer someone else does it?

 

[PyramidHead]

Wow, sensitive to questions, ain'tcha!

Scroll up and you'll see the context.

Not seeing it. What context is missing from my analysis that changes the responsibility of the United States for the plight of its southern neighbors? I mean, whatever the circumstances, it's not like anything would fully absolve the US of its responsibility to these fleeing immigrants. For example, if it was true that other countries also meddled in the affairs of South American elections etc., then I'd happily concede that those countries should also welcome immigrants from the nations they disrupted... but the caravan is heading for the US, not France or Russia. My original point still stands: the United States ought to pony up bigtime for these people instead of treating them as barbarian invaders, regardless of what other countries were involved in the centuries-long gang rape of their home nations.

I didn't think you would since you didn't the first time.

First, a geography lesson. The reason the "caravan" isn't headed for France or Russia is the same reason most Muslims are headed for France and not the US - they can't swim the Atlantic.

No disagreement here. If they could and they were, I'd be saying that France and Russia should accept and shelter them. So?

Second, neither France, Russia nor the US owes any other country anything and vice versa. Ergo, there's no reason to "pony up bigtime".

Well, you say that, but then you don't demonstrate it or back it up with anything. In ordinary situations, when one party severely hampers another party's ability to function and thrive as a human being in society, placing them in mortal danger and depriving them of basic necessities in order to get and stay rich, we call it unjust. If I burned down your neighborhood, poisoned your food, ransacked every shop within a 50-mile radius of your home, sent assassins to take out your family members and friends, and bulldozed your town to make room for my business, any money I make from that business would quite simply be money I have stolen from you. Decades go by, and that money has since been invested in creating a beautiful new neighborhood somewhere else. You come crawling to the city gates after having escaped the husk of your original home with your meager stash of possessions, in search of shelter and a place to start fresh. All I want you to tell me is whether I have a moral obligation of some kind here, or if we're still perfect strangers and I get to look after my pretty new town that I paid for with my business earnings.

The Constitution restricts the Feds in their actions.

Where in the Constitution does it restrict the federal government from passing a law that allows unrestricted immigration from Latin America? Don't we routinely enact policies, sometimes by executive order (ahem) that discriminate among immigrants based on their places of origin?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...Well, you say that, but then you don't demonstrate it or back it up with anything. In ordinary situations, when one party severely hampers another party's ability to function and thrive as a human being in society, placing them in mortal danger and depriving them of basic necessities in order to get and stay rich, we call it unjust. ...

So how far back does this go? Don't the Romans owe me for enslaving my ancestors? The Catholic church? The French? The Brits? When are they going to "pony up bigtime" to compensate me?

Despite the clamoring from Chrisitians, we are not a "Christian nation", we're a secular nation with a majority of Christian citizens. If someone wants to donate their time and money to "help those people", they are free to do so, but the Constitution doesn't give the Feds to power to be the world's charity.

Read the Preamble of the Constitution and tell me where it allows the Feds to become the world's police men or taxpayers forced to become the world's money pot.

 

[bilby]

The big difference between the USA and the European nations is that the latter had long enough with massive wealth disparity between haves and have nots to learn that if the haves don't give the have nots at least SOME of the gravy, the have nots have a nasty tendency to rise up in bloody rebellion and chop the haves fucking heads off.

America will learn, if she lasts long enough.

 

[PyramidHead]

...Well, you say that, but then you don't demonstrate it or back it up with anything. In ordinary situations, when one party severely hampers another party's ability to function and thrive as a human being in society, placing them in mortal danger and depriving them of basic necessities in order to get and stay rich, we call it unjust. ...

So how far back does this go? Don't the Romans owe me for enslaving my ancestors? The Catholic church? The French? The Brits? When are they going to "pony up bigtime" to compensate me?

Despite the clamoring from Chrisitians, we are not a "Christian nation", we're a secular nation with a majority of Christian citizens. If someone wants to donate their time and money to "help those people", they are free to do so, but the Constitution doesn't give the Feds to power to be the world's charity.

Read the Preamble of the Constitution and tell me where it allows the Feds to become the world's police men or taxpayers forced to become the world's money pot.

The Preamble isn't legally binding, and laws have been past since then. Still, you don't seem to understand what I'm suggesting; I'm not saying the United States should be a charity or a police force, I'm saying it should effectively give back some of the money it extorted, acknowledging its hand in the creation of the immigration issue. The Constitution does not prohibit the government from providing all manner of aid to disadvantaged people across the country and the world, including billions of dollars in aid to other continents. You don't need to invoke any legal scholarship to justify providing all immigrants from Latin America (at least) with a safe place to live, access to basic necessities, and an equal voice in society's operation. It will never work out that way, but my comment wasn't about what is likely.

 

[PyramidHead]

The big difference between the USA and the European nations is that the latter had long enough with massive wealth disparity between haves and have nots to learn that if the haves don't give the have nots at least SOME of the gravy, the have nots have a nasty tendency to rise up in bloody rebellion and chop the haves fucking heads off.

America will learn, if she lasts long enough.

America might have already missed its opportunity, as the rise in inequality was accompanied here by something that was missing from the European nations during the times of revolt: the emergence of credit as a pillar of economic activity in every household. The effect it had from the 70's onward was to convince the have-nots that they could still roll with the haves, at least for now, and just pay them back once all that wealth finally trickled down.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...Well, you say that, but then you don't demonstrate it or back it up with anything. In ordinary situations, when one party severely hampers another party's ability to function and thrive as a human being in society, placing them in mortal danger and depriving them of basic necessities in order to get and stay rich, we call it unjust. ...

So how far back does this go? Don't the Romans owe me for enslaving my ancestors? The Catholic church? The French? The Brits? When are they going to "pony up bigtime" to compensate me?

Despite the clamoring from Chrisitians, we are not a "Christian nation", we're a secular nation with a majority of Christian citizens. If someone wants to donate their time and money to "help those people", they are free to do so, but the Constitution doesn't give the Feds to power to be the world's charity.

Read the Preamble of the Constitution and tell me where it allows the Feds to become the world's police men or taxpayers forced to become the world's money pot.

The Preamble isn't legally binding, and laws have been past since then. Still, you don't seem to understand what I'm suggesting; I'm not saying the United States should be a charity or a police force, I'm saying it should effectively give back some of the money it extorted, acknowledging its hand in the creation of the immigration issue. The Constitution does not prohibit the government from providing all manner of aid to disadvantaged people across the country and the world, including billions of dollars in aid to other continents. You don't need to invoke any legal scholarship to justify providing all immigrants from Latin America (at least) with a safe place to live, access to basic necessities, and an equal voice in society's operation. It will never work out that way, but my comment wasn't about what is likely.

Dude, if you went to college, you should demand your money back. Yes, the Preamble, as is the rest of the Constitution, is legally binding.