Truths We Dare Not Speak

[sirs]

and i guess fire code building capacity restrictions are actually simply a fear of people.

touche'     

[Universe Prince]

and i guess fire code building capacity restrictions are actually simply a fear of people.

If I had said the support for restrictive immigration laws was a fear of immigrants, you'd have a point. I didn't, and you don't. Fire code building capacity restrictions are about fear of the results of too many people in a single structure. Not of people. And I said people are afraid of immigration, not immigrants.

[BT]

And I said people are afraid of immigration, not immigrants.

What's the difference?

[Universe Prince]

The fact you've applied your own "version" of immigration, to largely be cross our border pretty much anytime one wants, and to apply support of "legal immigration" as simply a massive reduction (if not abolishment) of current laws, and whaalaaaa, its "legal immigration" you support, simply promotes this discussion as one of twisting semantics.

You're doing all the twisting. You're implying here that I am not supporting legal immigration because I don't support the laws you want. Your argument is totally bogus and rests entirely on your attempt to use semantics to pervert what I'm saying.

Facts are on my side, as it relates to the massive amounts of financial drain to this country by the massive amounts illegal immigrants.

Actually, that is why the facts are not in support of your statement: "My version simply is more orderly and less problematic to the country."

And simply changing the term to so that its a massive amount of legal immigration, is hardly going to change that hardship on our country

That assumes that making crossing the border easier means nothing else changes, which is highly unlikely. Many of the people who come here and stay choose to stay because going back and returning when the work is available again has become too difficult. Relaxing restrictions on letting them come and go is far more likely to result in an overall reduction of immigration than is the obviously failing current attempt to keep them out.

Pre 911, you might have a leg to stand on, Prince.  Post 911, I'm afraid you don't

And yet you want people to believe you do not fear immigration. If you do not fear immigration, then why are all the arguments for restricting immigration based on fear of what will happen if we do not?

[Universe Prince]

And I said people are afraid of immigration, not immigrants.

What's the difference?

Don't be stupid. Look it up. http://dictionary.reference.com/

[BT]

I know the difference. Immigration is the act. Immigrants are the subject.

How can you fear one and not the other.

Commence the parse, smartass.

[sirs]

Prince may be completely out to lunch on the "fear of immigration" tact, but I understand his point on the difference between the act and the people.  For instance, I can, at best, tolerate the act of homosexualty, but can fully respect, and even care for someone who's a self proclaimed homosexual (my brother for instance).  I wouldn't use the term fear, but the idea's the same

[BT]

Immigration is to immigrants as incarceration is to prisoners.

One is the process, the other is the subject of that process.

[sirs]

Yes,....but.....you can enjoy/respect/love/support one while disliking/disrespecting/hating/afraid of the other

Or you can chose to hate both or support both.  The issue being you can choose to seperate the subject from the process, as I did with homosexuals & homosexuality.

In this case, we seem to all agree to support both immigrants and immigration.  The difference being in how we personally might twist immigration to fit our notions of what should be "legal".  I think we're on a similar path, while Prince wants a far more lenient, if not unrestricted path.  Neither of our versions have any notion of being scared of immigration.  If anything, I may be inclined to be scared of his version of immigration

[Universe Prince]

I know the difference. Immigration is the act. Immigrants are the subject.

How can you fear one and not the other.

I will start by borrowing (after a fashion) from one of your previous statements. How can one fear the result of too many people in a building in case of a fire, but not fear people? Can one oppose, say, mob rule, but not oppose people? Can one have an aversion to homosexual action but not be averse homosexuals themselves? Can one dislike abortion and yet have compassion for the women who chose to have abortions? Is there honestly in your mind no difference between the act and the person?

smartass.

Better that than to be a dumbass.

[Universe Prince]

Immigration is to immigrants as incarceration is to prisoners.

Um, no, but I'll guess for now you simply made a bad word choice.

[Plane]

Immigration is to immigrants as incarceration is to prisoners.

Um, no, but I'll guess for now you simply made a bad word choice.

Immigration is to immigrants as shoemakeing is to cobblers?

Immigration is to immigrants as wrestleing is to wrestlers?

[Universe Prince]

You're closer, Plane. At least the actions you describe are voluntary. How about this: immigration is to immigrants as interstate travel is to interstate travelers.

[Plane]

You're closer, Plane. At least the actions you describe are voluntary. How about this: immigration is to immigrants as interstate travel is to interstate travelers.

Would this be so if one of the states enacted tolls for out of staters just for crossing.......like Florida.

[Universe Prince]

I suppose that depends on how specific you want the comparison to be.