Quote:
We have no obligation to let people in, yet you berate us for acting in our country's best interest. Quasi-moral, glass-half-empty-half-full criticisms of immigration policy do little good except increase your post count. The really substantial piece of information is WHY you favor this or that policy, and hopefully there is something more convincing then a general feeling of goodwill towards man.
When it comes down to it, the people who vote with vague notions are the onces who go for the politicians who are all bark and no bite.
|
Yeah, what? Is there something more convincing than a general feeling of goodwill toward man? My whole argument is that we should help non-citizens
even at cost to ourselves, so yeah, that's my whole argument.
I'm also
deathly curious about your 'glass half empty half full' comment. Please explain what that means. Also, how my criticisms are actually 'Quasi moral' instead of just 'my morals.'
Quote:
|
Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?
|
Yeah, I quoted myself. What? :p
It does sound more like socialism. It also sounds like the intent that was put forward in the declaration of independence...
But, thinking about it, these notes will receive the same arguments as all the others. The simple difference between me and those who disagree with me seems to be that your 'us group' is defined by your country and mine is defined by my species. We could get into
that difference but it seems to me that we'll continue to disagree based on our personalities.
My belief is that a human is more important than a countryman, and yours ('yours' being those who've disagreed about my immigration philosophy) is a countryman more important than a human. Sounds like an irreconcilable difference?