Probably the avg immigrant-candidate from a shithole is a better risk for the right values (hard-working, honest, job-seeker, fit into America) than their non-shithole counterparts. Anyway, awarding an extra point to those originating from shitholes makes more sense (or at least as much sense) than criteria like awarding an extra point just for being non-white. [if I understood the "diversity" visa program correctly.] But the US of today is vastly different than the US that welcomed anyone to Ellis Isle under the watchful eye of ms liberty with those inspiring words by Lazarus in her book that Lanz part-quoted. We had ultra-growth during the heydey of euroland immigration a century ago and an economy that was starved for labor - and now it's a different country, over the intervening century we established and then lost a manufacturing economy, we have a huge chunk of labor ill-equipped with skills actually in demand (tech, health, etc.) that need retraining, and we hate our history so push as hard as possible in any direction so as to repudiate any path previously taken, with despite. [personally, I favor a more liberal immigration policy because I think we still have jobs for the bottom rung and find e.g. my employees of mexican descent far superior to the second-gen "americans" and gringos that apply and never last long because they suck, albeit a bigoted view it's based on observation.]
Agree with 90% of this. Thank you for providing the historical context that Dimmer and others keep ignoring.
Still following the script, I see. "If you call me a racist for my racist statements then you're the racist!!11!!" Vintage John Castle. Try being an original troll for a change.
Eehhh, not so much lighten up as completely overhaul our immigration laws. They're old, clunky, conflicting, and pretty much irrational. The whole thing needs to be modernized, rationalized, and streamlined.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098 Turns out Haitians don’t really like the Clintons. That couple really knew how to exploit a country.
So you are interested in learning some history. Now see if you can fill in the gap between @Dinner's "200 years ago something happened and nothing's happened since" and the Clintons.
Ridiculous. The countries are poor, thus the people are. Why should we take them in here simply to add to our own debt? Nothing to do with race at all.
So if they came here they wouldn't try to improve their situation? Are you as poor as your immigrant forebears?
Fun fact, until discovery of oil Norway was actually pretty poor. The 'shithole' of Western Europe if you will. Many Norwegians came to America where initially they were one of the worst groups when it came to assimilation and employment.
He didn’t say “poor people.” He said “people from shithole countries.” Rich or poor, young or old, well-educated or barely literate, if you’re from a “shithole” country, Trump doesn’t want you here. It strains credulity to put it down as coincidince that the countries singled out happen to be mostly populated by non-whites.
Not even close. I acknowledge that the countries singled out by Trump as shitholes are mostly populated by non-whites. That’s not the same thing as agreeing with him.
I have few doubts Trump used the word "shithole" if that what's being reported. But he refutes he even said that. I wouldn't put so much stock in a claimed statement (the precise quote which varies depending on source), in a claim made by a political enemy while in the midst of a divisive debate on contended legislation. And color me not a bit surprised that every single trump hater assumes that it must have been the worst possible language and worst possible intent behind it, and that he just got caught up in a candid moment of what he really thinks - it's a self-fulfilling conclusion, since they already "know" he hates everyone non-white.
