About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind

January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[ClintonBeGone]

Another effect is that a lot of posters who don't care for all of the btterness have avoided the Illegal Alien threads altogether. Civility is an enabler of the free exhcange of ideas.

One of the most disappoint exchanges I had was the other day on one of Pubbie's threads. He seems to think that because he started it and decided to label it 'activisism' it was somehow immune from question. Those are not the seeds of good debate.

[ClintonBeGone]

I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I enjoy a good rough and tumble exchange of ideas now and then. I don't even mind the name calling because that just proves that I've won the debate. The only time anyone resorts to name calling is when they can't defend their position.

Exactly. I can understand a few zaps for profanity or very poor word choices, but the gist of our passion needs a place to be expressed without running to the mods for censorship of the other side.

[mrustow]

Are you going to address that comment by Sam Francis or not?

Or are you instead going to duck that uncomfortable fact by questioning my motives for posting on this thread?

I ask again, is the comment below by Sam Francis acceptable discourse?

"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people." — SAMUEL FRANCIS, SPEECH AT THE AMERICAN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE, MAY 1994

A simple yes or no will do. Of course, I can understand why you might not wish to deal with it.

In addition, if one seeks to LOWER the current quotas, is that not advocating restriction? Isn't "restrictionist" an appropriate adjective for those who advocate that position? Why do you object to that term if it is accurate?

So, you're lumping all immigration reformers together with white nationalists? Is that the best you can do? (A simple yes or no will do.) So, if we refuse to surrender to criminals, you'll call us bad names (or just make nasty insinuations)? Oh, dear. I think I'll just die of shame!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks!

[Poohbah]

So, you're lumping all immigration reformers together with white nationalists?

No, he's asking whether or not they actually are.

There is a difference.

So, is that quote acceptable discourse, or is it unacceptable? What's so hard about making a simple, declarative statement one way or the other?

[Sabertooth]

That's one of those say-nothing phrases I hate.

Oh, then you're misunderstanding what was said.

I'm saying, in answering the way I have, that I don't like the quote, and I'm also saying that I'm not going to play your buddy's gotcha game by allowing myself to be badgered in to passing litmus tests on Sam Francis, whose site I've never visted, read, linked to, or recommended.

If you guys don't like Sam Francis, post a thread about him explaining why not, and flag me to it. Feel free to educate me, because I know next to nothing about him.

[eleni121]

I can assure you that the only terrorists who are out to destroy us are the Islamic jihadis and if there is one immigrant group to be closely monitoring it is immigrants legal or otherwise who are Islamic...but they are not an ethnic group are they? Most of them are here legally by the way.

Let me add that there are born in the US types who are fundamentally at war with free market Judaeo Christian philosophies which abound in our nation. What do you propose to do about them?

Your comment about the Third World sounds bizarre given the fact that most Americans were third worlders when they came...and most are loyal patriotic Americans.

[Nataku X]

Timing is the key here--another day I'd agree the picture would need to be pulled, but today I'm having a very hard time finding sympathy for Bush.

[eleni121]

You are right that most are hard working people who simply seek the best for their families. It is easy for many anti immigration types to point their fingers at illegals as the cause of all personal and national ills in America.

As the President said, work, patience and assimilation is what his proposals demand. That is what our ancestors did and hopefully what the present day sojourners will do as well.

[MissAmericanPie]

I have never had any reason not to trust the moderators to do a fair job. Personally I have never pushed the abuse button, I'm a big girl, and this site is not about me or my ego it is about the issue at hand. No one has to come to my rescue but evidently some posters do not have the rhino hide that I come equipped with.

I have had posters attempt to bait me into getting banned, it only amuses me to play with them around the edges. I have been flamed, so what? For emotionally strong posters it is a hassel to have to deal with those they consider weak minded with weak arguments hitting the abuse button like they are still tattling to the teacher in elementry school.

But such is life, if you really are a strong poster you are strong enough to remain civil in the face of baiting and flaming, without resorting to the same. The issues here are so very critical that yes it's vexing to have your person addressed in a derogitory manner rather than the issue, but rise above is all I can suggest.

[Pubbie]

No I asked for there to be no flaming on the thread per the Admin Mods wishes.

[presidio9]

I think most people who know me here will recognize that I am not an "LA Times" plant. That being said, when a poster refers to Mexicans as "wetbacks" what am I supposed to think. A lot of the opposition to immigrants sure sounds racially (or ethnically, or whatever you want to call it) motivated to me.

[presidio9]

This post was intended for you too.

[Mr. Mojo]

the fact that most Americans were third worlders when they came

Europe is the first world, not the third. ....And most Americans are of European ancestry.

[spectre]

My relatives came over on the boat to Ellis Island. I shouldn't have to point out what Italian immigrants who came here LEGALLY endured. Remember the first rule? Sponsorship of a LEGAL alien meant you were responsible for supporting that person if he became unemployed or needed medical assistance... It was taught in school and also was conversation at all MY family gatherings for decades..

BUT THIS! This is waving the white flag to those who are here ILLEGALLY, and don't contribute much of anything to our country. By making them legal, they are going to be an added burden on our already strained SS system and medical system.

AND if you think that they are going to willingly pay Taxes and everything else that goes with being a U.S. Citizen, think again. Welfare is more like it.

I, along with most of the others who oppose this, supported George W. Bush in everything he did. This time, he overstepped his bounds. I'm furious..disappointed..and can't believe this day has come...Shame on Bush.

sw

[eleni121]

Of course the early immigrants were mainly from Europe but they fit one of the definitions of third world: - economically disadvantaged, politically and culturally exploited, dominated peoples - in these respects they are not dissimilar to the Hispanic immigrants moving North. BTW - Most Hispanics share European ancestry as well.

[Final Authority]

I do not usually respond to questions as answers to my questions but please answer, what would Truman have done, let them in, give them food stamps, health care, jobs, and SS benefits then allowed them to daisy chain relatives in? It matters not whether we are at war there is a principle here and it is the rule of law and national sovereignty. Do you believe in the rule of law? Are you a US citizen? Do you believe in the US Constitution? If you answer in the formative then except for being a citizen you disagree with GWB.

A utility argument is the argument many are making to justify their position on immigration and it goes like this, the immigrants are just bettering their lives, or the immigrants are doing jobs nobody else wants, so let's let them in and allow criminals legal status. Well, it would be the same as finding a person watching your television after breaking into your house and when he is arrested some do-gooder defends him by saying that he was bettering himself by watching the Discover channel, or, a year after your car is stolen they find it and the thief, a public defender comes to his defense and argues that with the car he was able to find work, feed his family, and be a good citizen. Well in all these "utility" defenses the person apprehended was indeed engaging in criminal behavior and indeed was a criminal and indeed harm was done to a victim. No difference with respect to criminal aliens.

[Poohbah]

I will explain something to you:

If the military is allowed to employ deadly force against these persons, then you are as well.

So, this leads to a question:

Why are you posting away on Free Republic instead of shooting illegal aliens?

If the answer is "because they will throw me in prison for murder," then you've just explained why your argument is a load of hooey.

[CWOJackson]

Hi Guy,

I didn't know we had such ardent fans. LOL! Hope you had a nice day, I know I sure did. Be talking to you later.

[Final Authority]

You may have a problem with the English language because I never said I would use deadly force, I never wrote that anybody "should" use deadly force, I said criminals are subject to destruction as would be invaders. The key word here is "subject" so please retract what you said that I said or please do not bother to write me for it appears you are not of interest to me to have a constructive dialog.

Is an airplane flying outside of a prescribed flight plan over our nation "subject" to destruction? Are we at war with that plane? Of course it is and we are not at war. I answered the question for you because I do not expect any replies in the future from you.