Thread: Anti-immigrant discourse is 'un-American': Obama

Originally Posted by Nkosi

I have to agree with Obama on this one.

The anti-immigrant crowd is a stain
on the backside of civil discourse.


Now, the anti-illegal alien crowd are true patriots!

The key element is a limitation on all foreigners who are allowed to reside within our borders, temporarily or permanent, that is neither cruel nor racist; it is reality; it is the very definition of a country. There are 7 billion people in the world; most would prefer to live here. We can not survive as a viable nation and allow everyone to live here just because they want to.

Not just illegal immigration but also legal immigration without limits is a nullification of national sovereignty. There is no human right to live in the United States simply because somebody wants to live here. And the automatic acceptance of all foreigners wanting “refugee” statusis also a rejection of national sovereignty. Compassion can not be limitless. If you do not limit the number of people into a life boat it will be overwhelmed and sink and everyone will drown.

Currently the US allows over one million foreigners to live legally within its borders EVERY YEAR. How many is enough?

Originally Posted by csarbww

The key element is a limitation on all foreigners who are allowed to reside within our borders, temporarily or permanent, that is neither cruel nor racist; it is reality; it is the very definition of a country. There are 7 billion people in the world; most would prefer to live here. We can not survive as a viable nation and allow everyone to live here just because they want to.

Not just illegal immigration but also legal immigration without limits is a nullification of national sovereignty. There is no human right to live in the United States simply because somebody wants to live here. And the automatic acceptance of all foreigners wanting “refugee” statusis also a rejection of national sovereignty. Compassion can not be limitless. If you do not limit the number of people into a life boat it will be overwhelmed and sink and everyone will drown.

Currently the US allows over one million foreigners to live legally within its borders EVERY YEAR. How many is enough?

Yes, I agree with you. But the connotation connected to the word, anti-immigrant, is twofold. One is where a person dislikes immigrants so much that they would not even honor a government edict that a foreigner has been naturalized and is therefore a citizen. The second is deliberately conjoining the two types of immigrants into one type, whereby the illegal types share in the virtues of the legal, upstanding immigrant type.

Originally Posted by csarbww

The key element is a limitation on all foreigners who are allowed to reside within our borders, temporarily or permanent, that is neither cruel nor racist; it is reality; it is the very definition of a country. There are 7 billion people in the world; most would prefer to live here. We can not survive as a viable nation and allow everyone to live here just because they want to.

Not just illegal immigration but also legal immigration without limits is a nullification of national sovereignty. There is no human right to live in the United States simply because somebody wants to live here. And the automatic acceptance of all foreigners wanting “refugee” statusis also a rejection of national sovereignty. Compassion can not be limitless. If you do not limit the number of people into a life boat it will be overwhelmed and sink and everyone will drown.

Currently the US allows over one million foreigners to live legally within its borders EVERY YEAR. How many is enough?

You mean over one million more foreigners every year. Every ten years, the numbers add up to almost 14,000,000 of new green card and visa holders, who never leave, and 72% of them breed and sign up for welfare. In addition to those, we have even more illegal aliens who come in every year, who never leave, and 87% of them breed and sign up for welfare. So, that's a clear road to failure. That's losing, not winning.