So are you just against it because they are breaking the law? That's really what is behind it? Is it because they are a "drain" on society? If so, we have discussed potential ways to fix that. If those ways aren't viable to you, why not?

Here's what is behind my thinking. My baseline thinking is that we are at the core a nation of immigrants. But throughout our history, we have had various groups come out strongly against immigration, or against minorities for whatever reason. People keep trying to draw the line to basically say "alright, I know we were founded as a nation of immigrants, but you know what? We're good now." Almost as if we are saying, we need to keep what we have for the white people now, we don't need anymore.

Why? Why do we turn away people who believe that America is the greatest country in the world? Why do we turn away people who continue even now to try to escape oppressive, violent circumstances. Why is it that NOW we draw the line?

It seems (and I emphasize SEEMS) to me that the answer is a little racist, because those people tend to be non-white, and those that are very against it tend to be white. Many generalize that people want to come here and steal and freeload. Maybe that is the case for some, but I would argue not for the vast majority.

I say that it is that immigration that made us the greatest country in the world, and the more we encourage it, the greater we become. Yeah, it's not without its financial struggles, and I'm not denying that there are some. But there are ways around that. Some people seem to absolutely refuse that there are potential solutions that are not "keep 'em out".

Let's let 'em in. And maybe change our thinking a little. Letting 'em in VERY MUCH threatens the existing power structure, so there is a big incentive to keeping that dividing line and keeping people afraid of "them". It's old, tired thinking. It should stop.

You are correct FICA comes put no matter what.


This employer isnt breaking a law there, I guarantee that. I use one of the largest payroll processor in the country to make sure all that's covered.


No he isnt contributing that much. I as the employer pay 7.65% regardless of who I hire and he pays 7.65%. So if he is making $60k he is contributing $4,590. But that's a fun manipulation to make it look like a net gain.

And the other thing is, it was framed in just that way to prevent the sort of "grandfather clause" chicanery that the South later engaged in over the right to vote.

Not that the states would have had that right, but in the event a Congress sympathetic to Southern aims repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which had comparable language establishing birthright citizenship), the Constitution would ensure that freed blacks would retain citizenship by virtue of having been born on American soil.

There was some debate about the language used granting birthright citizenship to "undesirable" immigrant groups, but the broader language is what was passed. The existence of the debate and the ultimate language codified is going to make it difficult for the Administration to argue convincingly that the Fourteenth was only intended to apply to freed blacks.

Cynically, though, I have a feeling that McConnell's fuckery with Merrick Garland is going to mean that the plain text interpretation of the Fourteenth is only going to survive if John "The Voting Rights Act has done such a great job of preventing racially-based vote suppression in the last 50 years that it isn't necessary for it to continue to prevent racially-based vote suppression any longer" Roberts sides with the liberal minority in ruling against the Administration when the lawsuit inevitably reaches SCOTUS.

I have no confidence in Thomas, but I'm not sure I'd believe even Alito would go this far, and certainly not Gorsuch or Roberts.

Man I would have to type a book, and honestly this is a better conversation over a beer than a long type fest. I dont do my best work with the written word.


But let me say it this way. The single human being I respect more than any in this world besides my 2 kids is my maternal grandmother. She passed away this past May and I still miss her daily. All that said her parent emigrated to the US from Sicily. She was literally born on the boat and processed through Ellis Island and grew up in Brooklyn. So I am very very much sympathetic to the immigrant plight and value the diversity.



What makes it a tad different, she would tell stories - they were proud to be American. They came here for a better life. Her dad worked on the docks and later opened a small sandwich shop and deli. He was proud of his Sicilian/Italian heritage but he was more proud of his American citizenship. He stressed to his kids (Grandma was the baby of 5) the importance of assimilation and adapting. The oldest boy was 13 when they arrived and they would tell me about this when I was little 40 years later.


I have endless open arms for those people, for that mentality today.


But when people dont want to assimilate. When they openly and brazenly fly the flag of the nation they fled, while living in this country, that to me is a direct and unassailable attack on the American way. I dont know how else to say it. I dont know how better to express it. I dont care if they are black skinned Kenyans, brown skinned mexicans or pasty white swedes

..ts not a racist thing. Its about an embrace of the American way of life and a desire to be an American as opposed to a desire to be a XYZ-ican and live here and reap the benefits this country affords.


Final point...and I have to get some work done Ive spent more time here today than in the past 2 years combined...People that come here with nothing. With no money, with limited clothes, with no plans. How do they intend to survive? Their very plan is dependent upon freeloading. Unless they have friends/family/contacts who are going to assist them. To give them a place to stay. I dont think we have an obligation to provide shelter/food/clothes to folks who want a batter life.

I live in the northeast and I have multiple homes in my neighborhood that fly the Irish or Italian flag. They even celebrate their own holidays and saints.

Every reputable economist includes the employer share in employee costs.

Yeah, coming from New Jersey, I found that to be a very strange comment. I mean you'd have to argue that something like half of certain towns are attacking the American way on St. Patrick's Day or Italian festivals.

Also, there are other countries that have this policy, Trump is lying about it only being the US.

But hey, he’s allowed one mistake, right? :rolleyes:

So after Trump and Republicans pretty much ignore any attempts to discredit them with sexual harassment, some conservatives tried to get woman to come forward with allegations against Mueller. Only problem is that they offered them money to do so and to make them up...which got them in trouble with the FBI:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/muel...about-him.html


And I'm still reading the details, but it seems one of Trump's biggest supporters on Twitter might have been behind it. And maybe turned in by some of the biggest Anti-Trump tweeters out there.


Edit: More on this including the Trump supporter Jacob Wohl here:


https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside...eller?ref=home

Or he's making it up as he goes along, based on what snippet he picked up from whoever happens to utter in in one of his more receptive periods. Might be more realistic based on his track record in every other topic/area.

The 7.65% you put in is an employee cost. It's part of their overall compensation.

No manipulation, it's basic economics.

And if you somehow didn't view it that way, it's still $9,540 going to the federal government that someone cannot collect on later. Much more than the income taxes they would have to pay. There's no way to argue that the government isn't ahead on this one (and also why governments aren't in a huge rush to fix this).

Meanwhile: The Treasury is going to issue $1.338 trillion in new debt this year--that's trillion with a T--more than double the amount in 2017. https://t.co/vWrYzSM6K0 via @WSJ

— Gerald F Seib (@GeraldFSeib) October 30, 2018

I had heard the name before. Seems like a con artist who latched on to the Trump wave. There's some weird stuff out there on fraud and stuff.

Family gives off a weird "balloon boy" vibe where they are desperate for fame.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

Anyone following the Mueller/Jacob Wohl sexual assault stuff? F'ng comedic gold 100%. Been laughing my ass off for the past hour. Twitter roastings are the few good things remaining about the Interwebs.


Jane Mayer on Twitter: "Odd. Jacob Wohl says he doesn't know nuttin' about Surefire Intelligence, the firm tied to the bizarre Mueller allegations. Take a look at the photos below of Mathhew Cohen, head of 'Surefire,' and of Jacob Wohl.… https://t.co/5RlRHXQsTf"


Aric Toler on Twitter: "Sure looks like this weird "private intel agency" is the one that made the dodgy Mueller accusation. They claim to have been founded by ex-Mossad lol… https://t.co/xGswItvXia"

This is a nice compilation of the pile of BS that Wohl was trying to sell.

bellingcat - The Unintelligent Design of SureFire Intelligence - bellingcat

It didn't mention that the number for the company went to Wohl's mom's cell phone.

The threshold of becoming a political celebrity has gotten really low.

Nope not following it all (points up five posts or so) :D

Hey.....don't you worry, because those Baby Boomers are doing ALRIGHT!

yeah like father like son I guess. Hope he gets arrested for this latest stunt.

How did I miss that Gary Johnson is running for Senate in New Mexico as a libertarian? What is the better spin that a Libertarian might get 25% or more of a US Senate vote or that the Libertarian candidate for president can only get 25% of a small states vote for Senate? I choose the former. :)

I don't mean just build a wall and see how it goes. With building a wall, an assumption is that the wall will be staffed & monitored properly (whatever that means and including immigration reform).


Using that assumption ...

The border with Mexico is about 1,954 miles. Right now there are approx 700 miles that are "walled/fenced/barb wired" (I've seen different nos. but this gives you the general %).

I don't see how you believe that a wall across all 1,954 miles that is "staffed & monitored" would not "stop anything".

Now if you want to debate that it won't work because the wall will never be built completely, staffing and monitoring won't be fully funded, the cost does not justify the benefits etc. those are different angles but to just say the wall won't "stop anything" isn't correct in my mind.

Earlier arguments from a while ago said no wall has ever worked. I present you the wall that Israel built, it's worked pretty well. (... and we all know it stopped the zombies pretty well until security broke down). Great Wall of China worked pretty well. There are likely other examples. Will it work forever? Probably not but better than 1,200+ miles of open space.


Mexico–United States border - Wikipedia

FWIW, see my #13773 response to Lathum.

Wall + immigration reform would.

As a note for the future, whenever I say Wall I will try to prefix it with "properly staffed & monitored wall" and suffix it with "+ immigration reform". If I forget, please just make the assumption.

Just so I make sure I understand ... so you would allow travel, living, working with no restrictions at all between the US and south of the border?

Not sure about what you are referring to but you are not going to get any disagreement from me about his BS'ing all the time.

Yup, don't disagree that is a real possibility.

Again, there's a majority for something like the Bush immigration reform package right now, but the far right won't let it be brought up because they don't want reform, they want reduced immigration(illegal and legal).

I have zero confidence that either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would smack this down. Like, none. They were nominated by a President who prizes personal loyalty over the rule of law - like, literally, the dude thinks the job of the Attorney General is first and foremost to protect the President. You and I both know he picked those two to be cover for his Administration first, and Supreme Court justices second. Will they assert an independent judiciary if this executive order comes before them? Maybe. Am I confident? Not even a little.

Thomas and Alito aren't Trump picks, but I do expect them to toe the line on Republican orthodoxy.

I would expect all four liberal justices to say "aw HELL naw."

So I'd expect a 5-4 decision one way or the other that rests on whether Roberts sides overtly with the liberals, overtly with the conservatives, or with the liberals while assigning himself the majority opinion and using it in a way that both smacks down the Administration and also drags case law to the right.

Yes

Your last point first, I would assume they intend to get jobs. Even crappy "illegal" jobs. Average Mexican salary is about $9000 a year. You are easily doing much better than that by somehow getting a minimum wage job. Many of these people are literally in search of the American Dream or the American way of life. So those people are "owed nothing"? Sure, I guess. I think the panic position is always that there will end up being millions upon millions. The reality is much less. Many people don't even have a way to get out of their current situation, so this flood of immigrants just isn't going to happen.

I would ask you this: What is your stance on those that fly the Confederate flag? There are a fuck of a lot more of them in South Carolina than those that I have ever seen flying a different nation's flag around. That's pretty much the same thing you're talking about. The Confederacy doesn't exist anymore, and more than any other nation except England and Russia in world history, was a direct enemy of the United States. But let's just fly that around and it's fine because it's some rednecks celebrating their "heritage"?

I vote we get rid of that flag long before we make people who came here from Mexico quit flying the Mexican flag. I always viewed it like people who are really proud of their sports team. Yeah, you may like the Cowboys and I may like the Bengals, but at the end of the day we're both NFL fans and we don't hate each other for it.

I get that. And I support that whole heartedly, I am more than fine with that. Im not even extrapolating to the millions.

But look more granular. The very day they show up. When they dont have a job. When even if they find a job day 1 they are at least 1 week if not 2 or 3 from getting their first paycheck. How do they eat, sleep, survive until they get "situated".



Going back to my great grandparents. To hear my grandmother, aunts and uncles (well mostky the uncles since they were old enough to remember) The family talked about moving and saved for 5 years. They told stories of not getting winter shoes for 2 years because they had to save every dime. They came with a plan to survive. Im not sure that is the casee with the "caravan" folks. If it is, good, But when I hear "all they own on their backs"...I do wonder how they will eat if not for a handout or theft. Again f they ave a network here to privately support them. All good. Just dont come here expecting the .gov to support them





I oppose both. The flag of another Nation has no business being flown. I have 2 flag poles on opposite sides of my porch. The united States Flag and the State Flag of SC fly. No others.


Now in my game room/bar. I have a Bonnie Blue, A Gadsden Flag and a Democratic Republic of Congo Flag...as well as a Clemson 2016 National Champs Flag. I see no issue with decorating using these symbols inside ones home. Flying them outside, again to me, is a bit of a declaration.


Frankly if you want to fly a Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo (thats tongue in cheek) or an Irish flag on St Pattys Day..I have less of an issue with that. Celebrating a Holiday, decorating around a day...that's difference than pledging allegiance to the symbol of another country.


I don't want to go too far to extremes here, but I personally (and again I don't expect everyone or really anyone to share my beliefs - Im just expressing my beliefs) find flying of a rival nations flag to be borderline an act of aggression act of declaration or war. I take it, personally again, that serious.


I consider myself blessed and fortunate to have been born here. For those reasons I can understand others wanting to come here. If they are blessed and fortunate to make it here they should then take pride in being here. That's my flag issue.


Now to be more confusing. I think it is 100% their right as a US Citizen, if they are in fact a US Citizen, to fly whatever flag they want under Freedom of Speech protection. however if they are an illegal here and flying the flag of a rival nation - I am not sure how to consider them anything but an invading force.

hahaha - my bad. Got such a kick out of this that I forgot where I saw it. It still makes me laugh.

Me too, and I couldn't resist tweaking you on it :)

I'm so glad the President was treated so warmly and with respect and never saw the protests-and not one word of respect for those who died.

1. 
   Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 49m49 minutes ago
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Melania and I were treated very nicely yesterday in Pittsburgh. The Office of the President was shown great respect on a very sad & solemn day. We were treated so warmly. Small protest was not seen by us, staged far away. The Fake News stories were just the opposite-Disgraceful!

IMO, continually pointing inconsequential things like this out is basically anti-Trump people shooting themselves in the foot. We all know he's a POS and everything is about him. There's no need to keep adding fuel to the fire for his supporters that he is treated unfairly with this kind of nitpicking. There are plenty of bigger, more important issues to slam him on.

I don't understand this at all. If you're a citizen of this country you can fly another country's flag, but if you're a citizen of another country you can only fly the American flag?

Hey Ksyrup, this was in response to my post about Trump's tweet about Pittsburgh? I think we can agree to disagree about how inconsequential it was. He comes to Pittsburgh to honor the dead and their families and then the tweet is all about him and his enemies in the "fake media" and people showing him respect. I was more posting it for the Democrats/Liberals on this board than I was trying to change their minds of/anger Trump voters/supporters. People need to be kept reminded he's a POS at least until the midterms are over.



I know that when the 2016 election was over, I had to ask my family who were Trump voters to stop posting Trump propaganda on Facebook because they were just rubbing it in at that point. So I will take my cue from that, and tone down on these kinda posts unless something major happens.

Again I'm expressing my feelings. You are free to disagree.


If you are a citizen of this country you have rights, protected by our Constitution. I dont think you SHOULD fly another country's flag in this Country but I accept that you have the right to.


If you are not a citizen then you are not afforded those same guarantees. Now I think not only shold you not fly another fag I think you should not have the right.


An analogy. An American citizen burning the flag is entitled to that as an expression of free speech. A non citizen burning the flag is a declaration of conflict. In my opinion both dont deserve another breath of oxygen . But 1 has a legally established right to his behavior and is afforded my tolerance

the other does not and is not.

Non-citizens are absolutely afforded 1st Amendment rights in this country.

To be honest, I personaly think these citizen, non-citizen dichotomies on rights are abhorrent. While I agree that the particular rights are government given, I ascribe to a higher level of rights that, to me, trump (no pun intended) those government given rights. My faith demands that non-citizens and citizens be treated equally. Once again, I am speaking personally, just as you (CU) are. I think denying rights to speak on the basis of citizenship is utterly unchristian, and that's where my primary loyalties lie.

Better to say that the 1st Amendment is a limit on what Congress can do, not a grant of what citizens or non-citizens can do. Congress cannot make a law "...abridging the freedom of speech...". It doesn't condition that for citizenship.

It's not just that I disagree, I honestly don't understand how this would work. Are you talking about rounding up thousands of foreigners during the Olympics if they were held in the U.S.? What about students with flags in their dorm rooms?

I always find patriotism tests fascinating.

Building on my last post, I sometimes enjoy telling people (God forgive me!) that because I am a Christian and believe that all are children of God, I can't possibly believe patriotism is compatible with the Christian faith or the teachings of Jesus Christ. I get some interesting looks back in that conversation.

TBH the basis of treating everyone equally, treating everyone as you would hope to be treated yourself, is about as good a life guide as I can think of.

It cuts through everything: politics, religion, nationality, gender, race, physical ability.

I'm mostly here, but I do think it's possible to be a patriot, in that I'm proud of things the US has done. For example, I'm proud that the country liberated and rebuilt Europe. I'm proud that we sent a ton of money to Africa to fight AIDS. I'm proud that we have traditionally given more to charity than other nations.

I think that pride is patriotism, and it doesn't rely on nationalistic, USA #1, thinking.

Actually I covered my feelings on that earlier. There is a difference between decorating inside one's home or waving a flag at a competition as opposed to staking a flag over your house. To me that flag symbolizes your intent to claim that property for that entity. Inside a home as a decoration has a entirely different intent.




I understand that POV and share it to a point.
Where we diverge, is I feel like the displaying of the alternate country flag on our soil is a direct implication that your homeland is superior to your current locale.


I'm not suggesting that because they choose to fly that flag they deserve food and water. Or deserve any restrictions over others who dont fly a particular banner. I didnt suggest they deserve to die or be treated any certain way.


I just think the act itself is inappropriate.


A stretch analogy....Ive been accused of those before right?


If you are a huge Manchester United soccer fan. And you attend a match between Barcelona and Real Madrid...and you carry a MU flag and where their jersey. I guess Im not suggesting you dont have that right. Im just saying that when you make that choice you should expect and accept the consequences of poor treatment. We can all hope everyone would be welcoming and accommodating but history suggests it wont work out for ya.



Thats more the tone I feel with the rival country flag.


Now if your team is playing on the field across the street and you choose to come to this game and wave the flag and wear the jersey. I dont think its a stretch to suggest that you are looking for trouble.

To a point. But while I can see being proud of the actions that people in your country have done, I don't necessarily see how that leads to a general pride of simply where you had the luck to be born. And for all the pride in what people in your country have done, you also have to be willing (IMO) to take on the shame - the shame of slavery, colonialism, etc. And the later seems to be to be minimized or reduced by folks in the name of patriotism.


But no one actually cares about this and you won't suffer adverse consequences :D. Another anology may have been better. I'm an Atlanta United season ticket holder and I've seen loads of European jerseys in the stands. No one even remarks on it.

I asked for clarification re: your/my post #13776 because your "want no immigration control at all" mean drug dealers, gang bangers, terrorists and other bad guys will free access to "travel, live, and work" in the US.

I'm going to assume you really mean we need to keep the bad guys out and therefore some immigration control is needed.

If this is not correct, can you explain your rationale re: allowing bad guys?

Wow, move the goal posts much?

"Can I see your papers? Oh, I'm sorry sir - this here says you're a gang banger, I won't be able to let you through."

Trump tonight:


It's impossible to parody this guy.

Hmmmm, maybe I'm wrong. Let me re-read the posts ...



Nope, some pretty "absolute" statements so I don't think I mis-read.

1. "Do drug dealers, gang bangers, terrorists and other bad guys" have free rein to operate in the US, regardless of national origin?

2. If "want no immigration control at all" means that his argument is that those groups DO get free rein, it stands to reason that someone arguing against any gun control is giving a pass for any drug dealer, gang banger, terrorist, white-supremacist, misogynist, or mentally imbalanced person to possess a full arsenal, yes?

No, we would ideally stop them. But it seems he is supportive of letting them get in. Doesn't "no immigration control" mean they can come in freely? Sure they may be caught but (1) the criminal element in the US will increase significantly (2) we know not all criminals get caught ... therefore isn't it bad to not have any "immigration control at all"?


Sorry, can you reword. I truly don't understand this point.

No.

If offered universal background checks, waiting periods, and mental health evals prior to purchase of a firearm, would you in return support the immediate deportation of anyone here illegally and the efforts to prevent illegal border crossings?

There is no doubt there are white folks that feel "we're good now" and "keep what we have for the white people now" and you are bringing up the "racist" element, and there is some validity to that.

But can we at least agree that significant amount of US minorities do not want unauthorized immigration also? See link below.

So its not just the white dudes. I guess you can call 47% of blacks "racist" also but it kinda loses its impact with the context that many US minorities are also against unauthorized immigration.

Attitudes Toward Immigration: In Black and White | Pew Research Center

Okay, np. I'll let my statement stand then.

FWIW, definition of "assimilation" is difficult. I did some research on what others say it is (when we were discussing burqas) and came up with the below proposed definition. Admittedly it was not unanimously accepted by others on this board but IMO its much harder to define what it is vs what it isn't.


You brought up the flag example and have gotten a lot of flak for it. I personally don't agree that the flag example is a standard bearer for assimilation - its one aspect but not a key to me. I bring up my prior "proposed" definition as food-for-thought.

Also, I've used the analogy of US being more of a "salad bowl covered with the special US sauce" vs melting pot. I don't think we should expect a melting pot, I don't think we should have immigrants assimilate where they lose out on their culture, but IMO anyone that immigrates should assimilate (with some exceptions here and there e.g. older folks from non-English speaking countries will likely not learn English in their remaining years).

This seems like a personal problem to me. That someone else expressing themselves in such a benign way would bother you. People flying or adorning their nation's flag aren't trying to stake a claim for that country. They're showing pride in their homeland.

Then again, I don't think I've ever seen what you're talking about. People flying foreign flags on their flagpole outside their house that is. And I live in a city that is filled with immigrants from all over the world. Is this really that common by you? I think I've seen some Puerto Rican flags and occasionally someone will put a foreign flag in their window to show solidarity after a terrorist attack (people did this with French flags a couple years ago).

What I have seen is your state's infatuation with the flag of a group of insurrectionists. Something that is prominently displayed in many homes and even a top your state capital till a couple years ago. I'd consider that much worse than someone flying the flag of a country that is an ally of the United States.

Assimilation gives off a weird authoritarian communist type to me. Stuff we've seen out of China for almost a century. People who want to control the lives of others for some reason. Perhaps it's a power thing or perhaps it's insecurity.

Maybe it's a libertarian side of me but I never really cared what others did. Dress how you want, talk how you want, eat what you want, whatever. Seeing someone in a burqa or a shtreimel or an ill-fitting top doesn't bother me. I garner joy from my own life, not living vicariously through others.

It's also impossible to assimilate into such a varied populace. Are they supposed to assimilate like a rural Texan or like someone living in Manhattan? The way of life of someone in Wyoming is going to be much different than someone in Los Angeles. If there is some form of assimilation, it would be local, and I think there is already social and economic pressures to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-...=.9c3e8bdcf0ff

This is why no one takes CNN seriously anymore.

He is technically right, but in a very dumb and ill-stated broad sense.

Perhaps better communicated as "The biggest terror threat in this country are those that practice right wing extremism" and leave it at that, instead of paint with such a broad brush. He says some stupid shit sometimes and would have been the first one to lead the outcry had someone else said it about a different group or ethnicity.

I used to like CNN, but now it seems they're so focused on being anti-trump that they lose focus on actual news events. They give 80% percent of their air time to panels who spins stories in such a predictable way. I can never watch CNN anymore and feel like I've learned something.

Yeah it's a crass and odd way of putting it, but he's technically right. Terrorism is up in this county. It's predominately right-wing. And of that it's almost exclusively white men.

Global Terrorism Database

I agree.

Yes, I stopped the discussion on my side, because this doesn't make any sense to me. I can't identify with it, and there is no real discussion that can take place on it, I don't think. It's an unchangeable personal belief that I disagree with. At that point, there is no argument, unless you want to do this: :banghead:

Who is in power making the immigration laws? It's not the black folks. We can also agree that a significant amount of US people think that Donald Trump is an effective president, when he is actually batshit fucking crazy, so you'll have to forgive my stock taken in such a poll.

But sure, black people can be racist against Latinos, if that's what you want to hear.

Sure, you are correct. We should prevent known criminals from entering the country. So yes, VERY MINIMAL immigration control should be in place.

I agree that assimilation can give off that vibe. Change a couple words in my 3 bullets and you can say its almost the same as authoritarian NK. But i certainly don't mean that nor anything close to a Borg assimilation.

Use the additional context of "salad" bowl vs melting pot". Some are regular lettuce, some are romaine, some are spinach, slivers of carrots, some tomatoes, a weird broccoli once in a while etc. covered with the special sauce. Plenty of "retaining" one's culture which is important but also accepting the US culture, changing it some, and making much effort to live it.

Some notes.

Lack of assimilation is a problem in other countries. There are plenty of reasons for the lack of assimilation and its not necessarily just the immigrant, its also the native-born not accepting and/or the government not doing a good job. Nevertheless, lack of assimilation can be a problem and that's why I believe immigrants should assimilate.

Others have said its not a big big problem in the US. I agree its not a problem now but as other countries have shown, it can grow to be a problem. There are a ton of others that would-love-to-be-immigrants that would-love-the-opportunity-to-assimilate based on my general definition.

TBH, your post was focused on white people and I was reacting to that. I don't want to hear that black people can be racist against Latinos, I just want folks on this board that think its just white folks against unauthorized immigration to keep in mind that a bunch of blacks are also against it, its not just white dudes.

I do disagree with your statement but thanks for the clarification.

But it is just white folks against unauthorized immigration, mostly. They are the ones that get to vote without being hassled and they are the ones that make public policy, period. Immigration policy is well down the list of things people care about in the Democratic platform, unless you are an immigrant. I would argue it is top 3 for the GOP.... because it is easy to scare people and the scariness emanates from a racist place.

I get it - this wasn't directly a shot at you, just an observation about continually pointing out this kind of minutia in general - but I'm just telling you that stuff like this is exactly what Trump supporters use as fuel for the fire. He uses twitter like it's some dettached third party arm that has nothing to do with reality. In context, he attended a ceremony and acted reasonably under the circumstances. You may be tweeting this for your own group, but it is used to demonstrate how petty the left is about things Trump does, while the "MSM" refused to apply this level of scrutiny to anything Obama or other Democrats did or still do.

And, IMO, this is exactly what Trump wants. He throws so much ammunition out there for his opponents, that they are tripping all over themselves to make sure everyone sees every little wrong/inappropriate thing he does. It becomes white noise or impossible to keep up with, and to his supporters, the volume of attacks becomes justification for why Trump is being unfairly treated. It's a game that unfortunately he is masterful at and that works way too well.

Yes. We have pockets. Rural area, lots of farming/agriculture/nursery type manual labor jobs. Its been a large draw for migrant worker populations. Then we are smack between 2 of the faster growing metros in the Country (Charlotte and Greenville, SC) so that opens up a lot of construction/trade jobs. Anyway we have an area a "little Mexico" you could call it, where these migrants largely congregate and live. Every house there has a Mexican flag on the front porch or yard. It is an older previously partially abandoned part of town.



As an aside one of the more interesting things Ive ever seen. There is an old gas station that has (had) been closed since at least 1985 and just stood an empty relic to the past. A road widening project in the 90s led to the state/county owning the property. Without any legal right or questioning some folks just kind of took it over and opened up a Mexican grocoery store there. I mean they literally knocked the boards of the windows, broke in, cleaned the plae up and then started stocking merchandise. Since they didnt own it they could get power turned on so they bought a large generator (Like spent $20k on a generator) and run the store on generator power for over 2 years, eventually the city gave them power and started charging them rent.


When I mention assimilation above, what I am thinking of most prominently is this example. This is a small town. The restaurant choices are a small local diner that opens for breakfast around 8 or 9 am. A McDonalds and a Bojangles. For whatever reason Bojangles is the almost exclusive breakfast choice. Im talking 10-15 minute wait in the AM while the McDonalds across the street is empty/no line. That Bojangles franchise is owned by a friend of mine. The patrons refuse to flush their toilet paper when they use the restroom. Signs have been put up in English and Spanish but still to no avail, used toilet paper is thrown in the corner. My friend has been fined now 5 times by DHEC (Dept of Health and Environmental Control) for unsanitary conditions. (Full disclosure he at one point installed a trash can in the stall and it was used, but that didnt not meet DHEC's approval)


He is on the verge of shutting down and losing his business because of this behavior. (The fines have exceeded $50k. I dont now how much they are but he said they started at $10k and have increased each time)



Others would know better than I but apparently in much of Mexico the sewer system cant handle paper so they have waste baskets in their bathroom. And the behavior just carries over.











I have already spoke my piece on the confederate flag, so no real reason to rehash it.



But lets not re-write histroy here either. It was removed from atop the state house in 2000. 18 years ago. Now we can agree that it shouldnt have flow there at all, well at least since the 1860s, but lets not pretend it was "just a couple years ago it was atop the Capital". It was removed from a war memorial adjacent to the state house in 2015, but that flag was 12 foot off the ground not above the state house.


Frankly we could de-rail this whole thread with this topic so let's not. Just understand that it is a complicated legacy for many southerners. But I agree it has no place displayed in a public venue.

Now you know how liberals have felts for at least 15 years watch Fox News. Finally, we have some common ground to share:-)

I gotta ask the real questions... did you sell them the generator?

Like what

On the assimilation issue, I agree this is incredibly tricky. I'm not really sure how we can effectively police this on the front-end without some bright-line requirements that probably go too far. When I think of assimilation, I think more broadly about engaging in the broader community and having (or adopting) general principles/beliefs that fit within the American belief system.

A good example is the treatment of women. There are some cultures that severely restrict what women can do or say and should not become part of what it means to be an American. If you believe so strongly in your culture or extreme religious beliefs that you would continue to treat your wife and children in ways that are inconsistent with American values, and you segregate yourself from the broader American community, then please don't come to the US. Those people, IMO, are only using America for its economic opportunities and have no real interest in being "American."

There are horror stories across the US of incidents of beheadings and other killings,fathers running down daughters in the street because they are wearing makeup or dating someone outside their ethnicity, etc. And while those obviously can be dealt with on a criminal level, it goes beyond that. It's bad enough that we have natural born Americans who take extreme views, we don't need to give citizenship to immigrants who bring in their extreme views and don't have any interest in accepting American ideals.

Now, how you effectively determine that... there's probably no way to do it. But when people talk about assimilation, that's what I broadly think of.

As far as the flag goes, I think the importance the Right has placed on the flag borders on silly and has become an easy symbol used to shut down legitimate discussion of issues. The flag doesn't equate to military (and now expanded to first responders) - it's a symbolic piece of cloth. I'm so sick of seeing people using the flag as an attack - "Oh, you're OK with kneeling? I guess that means you hate firefighters." Yep, you got me!

I have no issue with someone using the flag to express pride in where they come from. None. If a flag is clearly being used in some way to express hostility or claim land, then yes, that's something different. But a Mexican flying a flag in support of his homeland before a big soccer match is no different than some white guy wearing a "kiss me I'm Irish" shirt on St. Patrick's Day.

Openly excluding certain journalists hostile to the administration from participating in events, for one. Using the Justice Department to secretly obtain information about Fox and AP journalists under what appears to me to be pretty dubious circumstances.

The difference is they weren't stupidly and brazenly flaunting this, but it was something that was out there, known (they made statements about), and mostly ignored by the press or explained away, the way the media does these days depending on whose side they are sympathetic to.

I think Fox News is a joke, but they are not much different in the Obama era to what much of the MSM is to Trump now. He's been more vocal about it, bringing the "fight" directly to the people in order to delegitimize truthful (even if slanted) stories, which the MSM has been all too happy to oblige. But t the Obama administration acted in ways that were just as threatening to freedom of the press, but got a free pass.

No, sir. I did not. They wanted to purchase in cash I don't do cash transactions. They didnt have an electrical permit, I require one prior to sale.


I pissed off one of my employees because I wouldnt let him sell it to them.



But that is how I learned about the whole story

Not trying to be a dick, but do you have more details? Were there stories about this?

I think that's kinda the point...?

I just quickly googled something about the Chris Wallace incident, and this came up from a conservative "watchdog" group which has enough general facts tied to official documents and quotes in it that I think it fairly summarizes the issue, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the slant.

Documents Show Obama White House Attacked, Excluded Fox News Channel

Here's an article from the AP regarding seizure of records regarding telephone communications for its journalists.

Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe

Regardless of the slant you can put on these stories, pro or con depending on whose side you're on, this stuff was barely covered by the MSM. And, if compared to some of the stuff Trump has done - not just said - should have been rightly criticized in general the same way Trump's actions have been. Regardless of whose side you're on, excluding a major news organization from interviews or press conferences because they negatively report on your administration is not appropriate. And on the AP issue, it's not like the AP is Fox News, so I would hope their concerns would be taken seriously by other news outlets. Again, regardless of slant freedom of press should be supported among all the press, but in that case, it's not even a right-leaning news organization that is raising concerns.

My memory is hazy on this, but far-right news sources like Breibart were not given press access. And I'm sure he and his staff were on MSNBC and CNN far more than they were on Fox. But they did go on/have interviews with Fox.



To be honest I can't say I blame them. The far-right was NEVER going to give a positive story about the left, and probably vice-versa. And used their slant to "fudge" facts or start conspiracies about Obama and then Clinton. (see Seth Rich, Pizzagate, and more)

While it's true that Obama did have issues with Fox News, and did, on occasion, limit them. They were peddling birther stories about him, and still taking fringe news and making it mainstream. The way that Fox covers things hasn't changed now from then. It's not like they were reporting that Obama broke laws and he was trying to silence them. They were turning things like Lattegate into "real American Crisis" with red banner and everything.



Yes, without question, news outlets like CNN and MSN take things to extremes and waste their time beating stupid stories into the ground. trump has surrounded himself with scandal and scrutiny. Take his taxes as a clear example of not doing something that is completely accepted as a need item for transparency, then flaunting the fact that he won't.



If we were still talking about piss tapes and whether or not the president farted and laughed about it in front of high military leaders I would agree that terms were level, but we're talking about actual physical attacks on people, massive financial fraud in his businesses, surrounding himself with people, left and right, who have broken rules and have been indicted. I don't think, that given the comparisons in deciding to push back on unfair media coverage that there is any equality in the argument at all.

On the Chris Wallace incident, to give credit to the other news organizations, they essentially forced Obama's hand by standing with Fox when Obama refused Fox the right to interview Feinberg.

I am curious though KSyrup what stories should the likes of CNN and MSNBC should be covering in more detail about Trump and his adminstration and what ones less? Should they just not show his rallies/tweets/gaggles at the helicopter at this point? Isn't that irresponsible journalism too?

For what it's worth, I'm not defending Fox at all on this, just pointing out - going back to the original point - that there are plenty of issues the MSM ignored, downplayed, or explained away back then that look an awful lot like some of the stuff Trump is doing now and are being blown up as major news stories. And that's the source for fueling Trump support when every little thing Trump does is being blown up into headline news, and people know of legit issues during the Obama administration were barely covered.

But that's not to say Fox covers the news fairly - or covers the news at all, frankly. I think there are pockets of people there who try to cover news from a conservative viewpoint (you will occasionally hear about some crossfire over certain issues), but the bigger issue is that Fox - and all MSM outlets, to an extent - have blurred the lines between opinion and news reporting. The 24 hour news cycle coverage started it, and now it's all about opinion dressed up as fact and leading (or misleading) viewers to a particular viewpoint based on the mixture of opinion and fact.

I'm talking about stuff like waving to the crowd before he gets on a helicopter to go to 911 service. Stuff like him simply dropping his umbrella for someone else to pick up as he boards Air Force One. Look, we all know he's a piece of shit, and certainly, there are incidents that should be documented that prove that, but blowing these things up as legit news stories is ridiculous, IMO. We don't need instant anti-Trump op-eds and trivial news stories for every single thing Trump does.

I just think it's having the opposite effect people want. It's making Trump supporters love him more, not less. It's no longer about any specific incident, it's simply another anti-Trump story that must not be true because all the MSM does is run anti-Trump stories. And if 99.9% of the coverage is anti-my guy, then you aren't being fair. And if you're not being fair, you're probably lying or blowing things out of proportion or taking things out of context, so I don't need to listen to you anymore. I mean, that's where we are now.

In looking this incident up on Google myself, I would take issue with it being "barely covered'. I wasn't paying much attention back then, because things weren't crazy on a regular basis, but I found a fair bit of coverage.

I feel like you are looking at things through a conservative lens here.

Can we at least agree that Trump is doing a number of unprecedented things that warrant news coverage, like claiming he can "executive order" away a Constitutional amendment and calling the press "enemies"?

I think we can all also agree that Obama wasn't perfect. But that to continue to complain that "yeah, Trump is bad, but so was Obama" doesn't get us anywhere?

I was thinking about this last night regarding "main stream media" and the insult attack thread here. And admittedly this is a bit different than news coverage.


I think there is a very clear difference in how the entertainment industry has presented R Presidents vs D Presidents. Im thinking of Late night tv talk show and Saturday night live as the first two to come to mind. Now in both cases they "pick on" satirize (is that the right word?) the sitting President for comedic relief.


But going back to HW Bush whether it was broccoli or Dan Quail mis-spelling potato the joke was beaten to death that these guys were idiots. Not just they screwed up but they personally were idiots.

Clinton surely got his ribs. But they were about "I didnt inhale" or about Monica. It seemed like the jokes or portrayals always presented him in this cool positive light but made fun of his choices.

Then W - I mean all we heard for 8 years was that he was so dumb it was a miracle he tied his shoes properly. I'm not denying he said some goofy things but there were constant viscious personal attacks.

Obama - again if we got anything at all it was about his smoking or about his wife calling the shots.

Trump - Well again we are back to the 'this idiot' narrative although I don't argue too much about it in this case.


it just seems like not just "media" but also the entertainment group makes it much more of a personal attack against conservatives and much less a friendly rib against liberals. Now I am not suggesting they dont have every right to tell whatever story they want. But, I know for me it gets sooo tiring that I have given up watching Fallen or Kimmel because its nightly the same tired joke. I mean there is rarely any creativity just low hanging fruit. I get the feeling like the writers dont think the general public is smart enough to realize they are hammering the guy and think they will eventually convince them...along with of course playing to their base. But there is a measure of fatigue. I think it played a role (how large I dont know) in the Trump "forgotten class" swell.



Anyway thansk for indulging my thoughts, wrong as they may be

I do wish CNN, MSNBC, etc. would stop covering every little gaffe by Trump. I saw the stupid TP on his shoe video so many times. Who cares? Sure, he looked doofy. It's happened to most of us at some point, we just didn't have cameras on us. It should not qualify as news. Melania refusing to hold his hand was another who cares moment. Latte-gate would be the same thing on the other side. I also don't think we need to breathlessly report on every little tweet. Or have extended live look-ins at his rallies. If he says something noteworthy, cover that. And by all means, give more coverage to important things such as his financial misdoings. Cover things that matter, not just things that make him look silly or stupid. Attack him on the substance of what he does, not on his casual ass-hattery.

The one skit I remember about Clinton (admittedly, I have never watched much SNL, even going back 20 years) was a couple of DC lifers sitting at a bar complaining about how Clinton gets away with things no one else can, and as I recall, at the end, Clinton was walking out of the bar with a hooker. And it was a funny skit, I guess, but to your point, it was essentially painting his "Slick Willie" persona as a virtue, or at worse, just kinda laughing off that he gets away with everything, no matter what he does.

It diminishes the important things and reduces the effectiveness of the overall message. Plus contributes to news fatigue, which I am dealing with right now.

Hundred percent agree on this and I've been ranting about this exact point for awhile now. It's hard to focus on the true issues when they are tripping all over themselves to cover complete non-issues with equal aplomb. I certainly don't consider CNN fake news, but has their quality decreased drastically since Trump took office? That's hard yes. Fox? Yeah, they have veered hard off into InfoWars land. I don't watch much NBC, but I assume they are suffering similar afflictions as CNN.

It's a sad state.

I wonder what impact it had on the primaries and general election that CNN/NBC/MSNBC/etc treated Trump as the only candidate that mattered on the Republican side as soon as the debates got going. I remember the stats about how much screen time he got, how many stories about him got relative to the other other candidates. I guess he was the most newsworthy candidate in a way but it was striking how heavily he was promoted by those networks. I also remember some commentators on the left loving the attention Trump was getting, believing it'd fuck up the Republican party and be good for them in 2016.

It's funny that their approach now is to obsess over trivial things about him - still treating him as just the biggest celebrity in history. When it really seemed like just a few years ago that his star power and noterity was on the downswing after it's mid-2000s peak when the Apprentice was hot and he was all over TV. The networks on the left managed to help build him back up into a superstar.

It was briefly covered as a specific incident. But there were a number of incidents where the Obama administration tried to limit Fox access, lied about it when called out, and then were shown to have been saying the opposite internally. The follow-up on those incidents, and the general theme of attempted suppression of free press during the Obama administration, was not widely covered, if at all. Not to mention using the Justice Department to go rooting around what and with whom AP journalists were communicating, for no explicable reason.

This isn't really about casting blame years later. It's about in-the-moment coverage of legitimate issues in a fair manner. That said, I absolutely agree that Trump is over the top and dangerous. I also know that both sides have engaged in some pretty bad rhetoric, and I've only heard lip service paid to some of the comments by Maxine Waters and Eric Holder - most notably, only mentioned to try to minimize what they said by contrast to Trump. I think it's that kind of one-sidedness that is giving people the excuse to ignore what Trump is doing because the MSM is ignoring similar things the "other side" is doing.

On your last point, I agree - it doesn't get us anywhere. But to someone who supports the side that's getting called out while the other side gets a free pass, I think they look at it and say, "Yeah, it's getting us to a place where my side loses public support because the same level of scrutiny is not being applied equally." So it's easy, on the Democrat side, to say, after the fact - "Yeah, I understand Obama wasn't an angel, but that's all in the past. Shouldn't we just be focusing on all the bad stuff your guy is doing now?" Because next time around, when a Democrat's in office, there's little to no confidence that if/when they do something that should be scrutinized or criticized, that the MSM is going to do their job fairly. And that's the bottom line. That's the loss of confidence, the willingness to buy all the lies Fox News and Trump tell, that has killed the MSM media's credibility.

I'll be honest about where I stand right now. I haven't voted for a Democrat outside local elections - perhaps one or two inconsequential state positions - in my life. I haven't always voted Republican, either. But right now, I'm leaning toward voting Democrat for House simply as a vote against the current GOP. I hate what they have become. They have taken the "C" conservative ideology and replaced it with a "c" conservative reactionary, scared, hateful platform. And although I probably don't support many of the positions the Democrat would put forward, and I don't necessarily have any issues on a personal basis with the Republican, I'm probably going to vote Democrat in at least this one race, on principle. The GOP is an embarrassment right now. I was already moving away from them, but Trump makes it fairly easy to want to stand apart from them. There's just not a party I want to vote with/for, right now. It seems both sides are headed toward extremes.

I don't think anyone thought HW was dumb. At all. The brocolli incident wasn't to highlight his intelligence (a lot of people thought he was right to refuse if he wanted to - just not brocolli growers ;) ). I will also point out that the media has not indciated that John McCain or Mitt Romney, or Paul Ryan are dumb either, even when made fun of them.

And Clinton got killed by SNL. I remember an early skit of him just slamming him for downing BigMacs and then a few of him womanizing (there was even a joke about him womanizing in the BigMac sketch).