U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

by Ben Reilly Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:16 am

Why can't we own people as property?

A conservative radio host in Iowa said that instead of deporting undocumented immigrants, state officials should push to make them “property,” Media Matters reported.

Jan Mickelson said he took inspiration from Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for the idea, which would involve putting immigrants into “tent cities” if they did not follow a deadline to leave the state.

“If you are here without our permission, and we have given you two months to leave, and you’re still here, and we find that you’re still here after we we’ve given you the deadline to leave, then you become property of the State of Iowa,” he argued. “And we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who are here illegally would therefore be owned by the state and become an asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for them to do.”

Mickelson insisted his idea was justified even after a caller said it “sounds an awful lot like slavery.”

“Well, what’s wrong with slavery?” he asked the caller.

“Well we know what’s wrong with slavery,” the caller replied.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/whats-wrong-with-slavery-iowa-radio-host-wants-to-turn-immigrants-into-us-property/

Hating immigrants enough to want to change the Constitution:

Donald Trump has singlehandedly changed the standard for what it takes to be considered conservative on immigration, as one GOP presidential contender after another joins his call to end birthright citizenship.

Seemingly settled more than a century ago with the passage of the 14th Amendment and an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, the policy that automatically grants citizenship to basically anyone born on U.S. soil is suddenly driving a rift through the 2016 GOP presidential field — and triggering heartburn among conservative figures concerned about a backlash from Latinos in the general election.

Though some of Trump’s more mainstream Republican opponents, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have quickly distanced themselves from the business mogul’s stance, several other prominent candidates, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have embraced it.

And that’s distressingly bad news to conservatives who say the spectacle is setting up the party for a repeat of Mitt Romney’s dismal showing among Latino voters in 2012. The division within the GOP over whether to provide immigrants here illegally with a pathway to citizenship has given way to a new litmus test on the right.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-sets-new-immigration-litmus-test-121537.html

by veya_victaous Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:24 am

this guy need to be treated like ISIS
he just openly promoted slavery why is he not in jail or dead

by Guest Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:25 am

Yes, why isn't he!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Ben Reilly Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:44 am

He's not going to face any real consequences for this -- his employer pays him to say things like that, his audience loves it (or hates it and tunes in to get their blood pressure up) and the FCC will be too afraid of a conservative backlash. Conservatives are all about fear, whether it's the basis of their opinions or their go-to political tactic.

by Ben Reilly Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:43 am

Oh, and Trump -- I just wanted to point out for non-Americans the implication of his plan. He would retroactively revoke the U.S. citizenship of anybody who was born here to two illegal immigrants. People who have been legal Americans their entire lives, a good number of whom have had legal American citizen children of their own, or even grandchildren, would suddenly become criminals.

This isn't any longer a war on illegal immigration -- if it ever really was -- it's a war on Americans of Latino heritage. Even people who were born of legal citizens could potentially be subjected to the humiliation of having to prove that at least one of their first ancestors in the U.S. had legal citizenship.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:53 am

Because this country, unlike many European nations, has a Constitutional provision protecting freedom of speech: The First Amendment.

Mickelson is advocating slavery, which is a violation of the 13th Amendment. Trump is advocating against "birthright citizenship", which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment.

You can argue against the Constitution all you want...it's just talk. But neither Arpaio nor Mickelson are going to get anywhere with schemes of slavery.

And Trump's claims that there are legal avenues around birthright citizenship will be treated as any other Republican, should (god forbid) he ever be elected: "I've been advised you can't do that."

He's bullshitting. Duh, that's what Republicans do. Especially Trump...he was the father of the birther movement.

by veya_victaous Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:08 am

freedom of lies...
we have freedom a speech but not freedom to lie, like the USA has Wink

small but critical difference is that if it can be shown you knew you were deceiving you will be in trouble.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:28 pm

veya_victaous wrote:freedom of lies...
we have freedom a speech but not freedom to lie, like the USA has

small but critical difference is that if it can be shown you knew you were deceiving you will be in trouble.

A difference without a distinction, since the liar will typically call the other side liars. Then the competition shifts to who is a liar about the other side lying?

Better to recognize that speech is not what hurts; the response is what matters.

The only valid criticism of free speech that I have heard is the one raised by Herbert Marcuse, in his essay on "Repressive Tolerance," contained in Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore, jr., and Herbert Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 95-137. In it, Marcuse argues that in the marketplace of ideas, the established thoughts and ideas have an advantage. Advertisers have known this for years; take, for example, name brands in the super market, and how they get to charge more because of name recognition. Ergo: repress the established idea and create space for the newer or emerging idea in the competition.

The idea is something like proportional equality for thoughts and ideas.

by veya_victaous Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:09 pm

huge difference
Trump would already be before the courts for blatant lies, 90% of things he says he would be asked to provide evidence for or publicly retract the statement, failure to do so would open him up to prosecution.

If something is not true it is not true.
It is not either side calling the other a liar, Yes they do that, but it is not the other side that takes legal action it is independent bodies that call either/both sides out if they blatantly lie, you can stretch the truth but not straight up lie.

America's idea of 'free speech' is just stupid.
We have free speech, you have KNOWINGLY Lie and deceive without consequence.

by Original Quill Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:41 am

veya_victaous wrote:huge difference
Trump would already be before the courts for blatant lies, 90% of things he says he would be asked to provide evidence for or publicly retract the statement, failure to do so would open him up to prosecution.

If something is not true it is not true.
It is not either side calling the other a liar, Yes they do that, but it is not the other side that takes legal action it is independent bodies that call either/both sides out if they blatantly lie, you can stretch the truth but not straight up lie.

America's idea of 'free speech' is just stupid.
We have free speech, you have KNOWINGLY Lie and deceive without consequence.

What on earth are blatant lies? "Oh right, your honor, he could walk if he just lied, but these are blatant lies!!" Could you be prosecuted for blatantly telling your kid the Easter Bunny brought that basket? Or let's be serious, if you tell your wife the lipstick on your collar was from a crowed elevator, is that blatant enough? Jesus of Nazareth told a lie when he said everybody was drinking wine; was it blatant? Haha...If he drank at my old pub he would be called a blatant liar, but not at the Maiden Lane tea room.

The remedy for liars is not to believe them. Perhaps you might shame them...or sue them in a civil court for liable/slander if the damages are there. But a tribunal for just telling a lie? Ridiculous. Next there'll be a tribunal for farting...but only if it's blatant.

U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration Smiley-fart005

by veya_victaous Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:23 am

Blatant lies = things that can be proven to be Obviously wrong and considered common knowledge to be wrong.

Normal lies = reasonable person could have that mistaken opinion.

see retarded American thinking, Easter bunny Yeah cause that is the same Rolling Eyes

rather than being stupid you could just use logic and go someone selling an object making profit or running for political office need to tell the truth BECAUSE IT AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLES LIVES as opposed to a parent telling a kid that the chocolates came from a magic rabbit.

Typical US thinking forget logic, forget fairness for the majority, we need to protect the riches ability to lie to maximize their personal profit. let take an innocent minimal impact example and use that to justify someone PROMOTING SLAVERY!!!

the remedy for liars is to remove them from the public. the State should not be ignoring blatant liars that is why the USA is fucked up. You literally let people be killed by faulty products Until it can be proven the claims the company makes are lies as opposed to the company havi9ng to show that is it is true before making the claim..
Much like gun control the proof is in disproportionate amount of the DEAD US CITIZENS.

by Original Quill Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:Blatant lies = things that can be proven to be Obviously wrong and considered common knowledge to be wrong.

Normal lies = reasonable person could have that mistaken opinion.

see retarded American thinking, Easter bunny Yeah cause that is the same rather than being stupid you could just use logic and go someone selling an object making profit or running for political office need to tell the truth BECAUSE IT AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLES LIVES as opposed to a parent telling a kid that the chocolates came from a magic rabbit.

Typical US thinking forget logic, forget fairness for the majority, we need to protect the riches ability to lie to maximize their personal profit. let take an innocent minimal impact example and use that to justify someone PROMOTING SLAVERY!!!

the remedy for liars is to remove them from the public. the State should not be ignoring blatant liars that is why the USA is fucked up. You literally let people be killed by faulty products Until it can be proven the claims the company makes are lies as opposed to the company havi9ng to show that is it is true before making the claim..
Much like gun control the proof is in disproportionate amount of the DEAD US CITIZENS.

But guns actually hurt people. Whether something is true or not just creates an image (false or true) in the listener's mind. The image may have consequences, but go after the consequences and leave speech alone. The lie is just a breach in sound waves.

The reason why the US has freedom of speech is the history of use to which censorship has been put. Censorship has simply been responsible for more harm than has open speech. Truth is perverted by some, yes. But mark my word, just as soon as you pass a law that allows for censorship in some area or other, or throughout, it will be twisted by someone to his own ends.

At least when everyone is free to communicate openly, it sets up an adversarial system in which countervailing arguments can be made...and, most importantly, listeners can make up their own mind. Remember, it's not the speech that harms, if at all, but the consequences of speech.

Imposing rules of censorship is like ruling by the sword. Trust in the pen (truth) to be mightier than the sword (censorship). Have some faith in your fellow man.

by veya_victaous Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:04 am

LIES quill everything you just posted is BULLSHIT propaganda not based on truth

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-trump-inspired-hate-crime-in-boston/401906/

HATE CRIME ALREADY COMMITTED FROM TRUMPS LIES
So yeah like i said the Suffering of Americans Is PROOF that you are wrong and the system you live under is wrong

by Original Quill Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:37 pm

veya_victaous wrote:LIES quill everything you just posted is BULLSHIT propaganda not based on truth

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/a-trump-inspired-hate-crime-in-boston/401906/

HATE CRIME ALREADY COMMITTED FROM TRUMPS LIES
So yeah like i said the Suffering of Americans Is PROOF that you are wrong and the system you live under is wrong

It's Republicans. This is the way they behave. This is par for all conservatives.

All the decent folks have gone over to the liberal side. Thank god for Barack Obama.

by Sponsored content

U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration

Re: U.S. conservatives getting conservative-er on immigration