Opinions on 239K invaders in May. Anyone?

@lipareeno said
@shavixmir

Said the guy who lives in a white country.
Almost 90 percentage white.

What the hell do you know about securing borders?
Didn't y'all beg the USA to save you from the Germans?

The Germans were just enjoying your open borders idea so why didn't you let them in?

@shavixmir

Amsterdam.
87 percentage White.
10 percentage Hispanic.
3 percentage other.

Not diverse at all.

Let's look at another city?

@shavixmir said
But, say, didn’t the US beg France to help them defeat the English?

@lipareeno said
@shavixmir

Amsterdam.
87 percentage White.
10 percentage Hispanic.
3 percentage other.

@jj-adams said
@jimm619
"It's in line with the principles the country was founded on"...
No. No it wasn't.

@mott-the-hoople said
40 million more mostly Christians…

@shallow-blue said
That, at least, is true.

Your country was founded on the principles of mass extermination of the indigenous people, the enslavement of millions by thousands, and an extreme form of plutocracy.

I wouldn't be so proud of that if I were you.

We're drifting off-topic but on the subject of the Framer's views on slavery this is what Abraham Lincoln said at Peoria in 1854:

"The argument of "Necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory---the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death.[Earlier in the speech he says: " The practice was no more than bringing wild negroes from Africa, to sell to such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes or wild bears."-no1]. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY."

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/peoriaspeech.htm

As to "extreme plutocracy":

While many of those who oppose addressing economic inequality through public policy today do so in the name of freedom, Clement Fatovic demonstrates that concerns about freedom informed the Founding Fathers’ arguments for public policy that tackled economic disparities. Where contemporary arguments against such government efforts conceptualize freedom in economic terms, however, those supporting public policies conducive to greater economic equality invoked a more participatory, republican, conception of freedom. As many of the Founders understood it, economic independence, which requires a wide if imperfect distribution of property, is a precondition of the political independence they so profoundly valued.

Fatovic reveals a deep concern among the Founders—including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Noah Webster—about the impact of economic inequality on political freedom. America's Founding and the Struggle over Economic Inequality traces this concern through many important political debates in Congress and the broader polity that shaped the early Republic—debates over tax policies, public works, public welfare, and the debt from the Revolution. We see how Alexander Hamilton, so often characterized as a cold-hearted apologist for plutocrats, actually favored a more progressive system of taxation, along with various policies aimed at easing the economic hardship of specific groups. In Thomas Paine, frequently portrayed as an advocate of laissez-faire government, we find a champion of a comprehensive welfare state that would provide old-age pensions, public housing, and a host of other benefits as a matter of “right, not charity.” Contrary to the picture drawn by so many of today's pundits and politicians, this book shows us how, for the first American statesmen, preventing or minimizing economic disparities was essential to the preservation of the new nation’s freedom and practice of self-government." https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-2173-6.html

@no1marauder said
AJ: They will have brought their culture here

The same old bigoted trash that we've heard from morons like yourself for hundreds of years. My Irish ancestors who fled the "famine" 180 years had to listen to this crap, too.

There's nothing sacred about any majority "culture" (assuming one even exists in the US which is doubtful) and immigrants have generally added to ...[text shortened]... as many as possible as our forefathers did for about the first 100 years of the nation's existence.

@lipareeno said
@no1marauder

You're comparing immigrants from 100 years ago to immigrants of today?

European immigrants made America great.
Modern immigrants destroy cities and make them unlivable.

@no1marauder said
The poem was written by Emma Lazarus who was born in the US not France.

@averagejoe1 said
Marauder........are we talking about the same thing? 239,000 people who were trying to break into our country were chased down in May. You seem to be saying to let them in, including terrorists, 50 of which were identified. Can you simply answer that question without your liberal-eze about Ireland? Geez. And yes, as I respond to YOUR point, we do want aliens to be ...[text shortened]... e' as you say. Are you serious.? As many as possible???????????????? And you call ME a moron.

@averagejoe1 said
Wasted post, lipareeno. He will not respond directly to this. You may catch the Ireland scenario!!! Geez o Petey.

@no1marauder said
I understand that white supremacists like yourself object to immigration because of your ignorant racist views. Immigrants in the 19th Century heard the same type of views; maybe in 100 years or so, almost everyone will recognize how stupid such ideas were.

Pretty much every economic study of immigration to the US has concluded it results in a net economic gain.