Finally, Truth From Chris Mathews.

I'll offer you the same challenge as FF. IIRC, you don't even know where your people came from, much less whether or not they snuck in through a hole in the backyard fence. I'd invite you to prove otherwise.

Not relevant G.

When my ancestors that were of European descent came to the United States I'm reasonably certain current immigration laws were not in effect.

So how could it possibly matter whether my ancestors of hundreds of years ago would've conformed to modern immigration laws?

Exactly.

Nobody is suggesting that non-citizens get to vote, because voting is one of the perks of citizenship. Regardless, if you come here to work, pay taxes, and are involved enough that you want to be able to vote, aren't you already better than actual citizens who don't care and don't vote?

So is your argument garamet that

"we shouldn't hold modern immigrants accountable for obeying the law today because our own ancestors were not subject to the same"

No. It isn't a matter of "being better". It is a matter of the law and loyalty.

Wouldn't you call someone who is "loyal" better than someone who is not? I'd call being interested and invested in the political process better than not.

I would prefer persons with a sense of history and long term commitment.

My argument is against the "I got mine and fuck the rest of you" attitude that's so intimidated by anyone who isn't just like them that they need to kick the ladder out from under them once they get to the top.

Sez the guy who doesn't even know where his people came from...

So you're saying the citizenship test/process is too easy?

Y'know who wouldn't put up with this amnesty stuff?
Ronald Reagan.
Wait, what? You don't say...

But many of these immigrant's ancestors had already immigrated - to the countries they're now fleeing.

Only one immigration per family line.

THERE ARE NO DO-OVERS.

Yes.

Actually Garamet, I know where most of my ancestors came from thank you very much.

But you are doing something I've never agreed with.

Implying that just because someone (or in this case someones ancestors) benefited from a certain program or situation that we today are endlessly obligated to support that program or replicating that situation in the future.

But where you get this idea about "intimidation" Garamet I don't know. But in case you never considered it, there are many perfectly good and decent people who prefer their neighbors, communities, cities, et cetera be as much like them as possible. You can see this in America where the resegregation of American public schools has basically occurred with people voting with their feet.

He tried, but it turns out he couldn't spell IQ.

That latter half of that sentence pretty much sounds like a a good, working definition of bigotry to me, which immediately invalidates the former half, describing such bigots as "good and decent".

Oh, I've considered it. There are few bigots who are honest about their bigotry. You get points for that, at least.

Yet your religion does.

How?

Unless you're one of these "all people are born stained with the sin of Adam" stuff which my church does not believe.

I'm an atheist, remember, so I don't subscribe to any of that. Regardless, however, if there's no "Original Sin," there's no need for a human sacrifice to somehow redeem all mankind.

Yup, Church of Christ thinks that "original sin" and "He punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation", and everything else of that nature, are parts of the Bible that can be safely ignored, cause the Bible is chock full o' lies and mistakes, though somehow still the unadulterated Word of God.

"all of mankind" does not "get redeemed" at least in terms you think of.

Christians get redeemed. Not the vast, vast majority of mankind. All people have an opportunity for redemption, but most will never take it.

Their choice.

Where in the New Testament is what you claimed?

Did I even hint at such a notion? No.
So...

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. And. Kill. Yourself. For. Jesus.

​

the cowardly Chardman made the following claim.


Yup, Church of Christ thinks that "original sin" and "He punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation", and everything else of that nature, are parts of the Bible that can be safely ignored, cause the Bible is chock full o' lies and mistakes, though somehow still the unadulterated Word of God.

So cowardly Chardlman either was lying then.....or now.

How do ya figure?

Given that the vast majority of mankind has never heard of Jesus (since estimates for the total number of humans who've ever lived put the total at around 100 billion, if you assume that 50% of them either lived before Christ or in areas where no one preached to them), its hardly "their choice." Factor in the number of people who were taught the "wrong" interpretation of the Gospels (because they were born to a family which was Catholic or what have you, in an era when literacy and access to the Bible was uncommon, the number of people condemned through no fault of their own is even higher.

Regrettable.

Where's @Federal Farmer? Rummaging through the papers in the attic trying to find proof his people came here legally?