Canadians, will you take the illegal immigrants?

[Forty Two]

Indeed, that's why the US accepts more immigrants per capita and total than any other country in the world, and we have had for decades now about 1,000,000 new immigrants AND 1,000,000 new naturalized citizens per year, on average.

You've asserted the first part ("more immigrants per capita") before without citing any sources. At the time, I asked for evidence in support, while pointing out that what I had found directly contradicts your "more immigrants per capita" line. In response, crickets. I will not be surprised if you do the same here. As long as you don't acknowledge that your bullshit has been refuted, you think you're free to repeat it.

There are a lot of stats out there - but, I will acknowledge my mistake here in the "per capita" issue - we take the most immigrants, but not necessarily the most "per capita" due to our fairly large population (according to OECD stats). Canada, for example, with 1/10 of the population of the US and a lot more land mass, does take more "per capita." So, I'll eat that crow - my apologies for claiming per capita.

That being said, however, there is a bit of a disconnect, however, as to what is counted as an immigrant. Most countries in the world do not have the generous "permanent resident" category for immigrants - granting permanent residence, without renewals, with a clear path to citizenship, to entering foreigners. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have comparable "green card" style permanent residence. Most other countries do not, opting for temporary residence permits which have to be renewed periodically. So, the OECD categorizes them as "permanent type" immigrants because even though they are technically temporary residents subject to renewal, they are considering them permanent residents anyway.

While the U.S. annually issues around 1 million green cards for permanent residence, Canada typically issues between 250,000 and 300,000. Australia reports “net overseas migration” at 212,695 in 2014. And New Zealand is reported as admitting around 50,000 permanent residents annually.

According to OECD numbers, the US is at the top, with its million, or more, immigrants per year. Also, incidentally, the US settles the most refugees, for example - more than any other country. So, while the US is accused of not caring about refugees and not doing enough, we settle more than any other country - - https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/20 ... n-refugees

My overall point, though, that the US is friendly to immigrants still stands, and the notion that the US is somehow "racist" as a matter of policy is ridiculous.

The US has almost 50 million foreign born residents.

It's not necessary for the US to be number 1 in every category for the point to be made, which is that the US is friendly to immigrants. Most US legal immigrants, moreover, in recent years, have come from Asia, Africa and Latin America. If the US was a racist about it, we'd certainly prefer European immigrants.

In addition to legal immigrants, the US illegal immigrant population is increasing at a rate of about 700,000 per year. Seven hundred thousand new illegal immigrants annually. That's like adding a city the size of Indianapolis, Indiana to the US every year, just in illegal immigrants.

The United States, with about 45 to 50 million immigrants residing here, has far more than the entire European Union - which has about 35 million. The US has more immigrants residing here than all 21 latin American countries and 27 European countries combined. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.- ... le/2572756

A report from a Senate Judiciary subcommittee issued Thursday said: "The total migrant population in all of Latin America is 7.75 million (many being regional migrants), meaning that the U.S. has admitted more people from outside its boundaries than 21 different Latin American countries put together and the E.U, combined."

And because the EU has a far bigger population than the United States, the immigrant-to-native born ratio is higher in the U.S.

So, I will accept the issue with "per capita" and I withraw my statement in that regard, but I stand by my overall point that the US is not racist and has a generous, exceedingly generous, immigration system which does not discriminate against "brown" people or any other color. And, by any measure, we are at least among the most immigration-friendly countries in the world.

[Forty Two]

Trying to clarify this pErvin thing --

1. pErvin, if you've clarified that your allegation is not that Trump's statement was racist (or showed he was racist), and you're only claiming that it "could be" racist - then I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that. We all know that quite a wide array of statements, even those not patently or literally racist, can be racist depending on context and intent/motive of the speaker, etc.

2. pErvin, I thought, and I think Hermit thought, your initial statement - "I think it's when your Prez calls Mexicans rapists that you (actually him) get castigated as racist assholes." - was an assertion that what Trump said showed he was a racist. If all you were asserting was that the statement "could" be racist, then I don't think anyone disagrees with you. If Trump was using Mexican as a race, and if he meant imply that the Mexican race tends to be rapists, then that would be rather racist. So, it COULD be, if that was his intent. The question is, what proof is there that it was his intent/motive? Or that he was using the word Mexican as a race?

3. This is what you do a lot. You made a statement, and it appears to any reasonable reader that you are making an affirmative assertion -- that the statement trump made is why he is castigated as a racist. It stands to reason that people are castigated for being racists for things they say, if those things they say are, in fact, racist. We aren't normally castigated as racists for things we say that merely "could be" racist. So, it's not really reasonable to accuse people of not being able to read basic English in this case, because it's not reasonable for you to argue that everyone should have known that all you were doing was saying Trump "could be" using a racist phrase when he said the blurb about Mexico not sending their best, etc.

I think you do this kind of as a tactic to reverse the burden of proof, and I've seen you use this tactic before. You make great efforts to constantly demand evidence from the other side, but you try to fit yourself into a position where you're just the default position requiring no support. Here, you're doing it by asking for proof that the statement or Trump "couldn't be" racist. I think everyone can see what you're doing there, and it's not really a fair or honest debate tactic.

4. If you want to argue this fairly and honestly, take a position, and refrain fro asking people to prove a negative, particularly one nobody asserted. Why do you keep asking people to prove the statement "couldn't be" racist? How can they prove that? They can't. And, why is it even relevant? What do we conclude if we acknowledge that the statement "could be" racist or that we can't prove it "couldn't be" racist?

To argue fairly, adopt a position. Was the statement Trump made "racist?" If so, why? It's o.k. for you to adopt the position "that statement COULD BE racist." In that case, you could explain how it could be based on usages, intent, mistaken definitions of words, motive, context, whatever the case may be. But, it's not really a fair position to try to divert the burden of proof onto others to prove why it COULDN'T BE racist. Don't you agree?

5. Anyway - yesterday got a bit heated, again, and for my part, I shouldn't get into that, but you are just so disagreeable in your posting matter, constantly peppering your posts with little insults - poke poke poke - like you're doing with hermit. You almost invariably insult people with little things like attacking them for not being able to understand written English, as you did to Hermit. And, you keep doing it. You've previously admitted that you do stuff like that on purpose, and you purposefully troll people in that way, and others. For some reason, you get away with it. Seth gets suspended for doing hardly more than what you do almost constantly. I think the moderators should take note, for what it's worth. I mean, Seth got taken to task for insulting amorphous groups of adherents to an ideology, because some people here might adhere to that ideology and be insulted by the group insult. But, here you're insulting hermit directly, in a way you often do, and nothing much comes of it.

Anyway -- that's my thoughts on it. Go ahead and do your usual dance. Hurl an insult, and deflect. Bracing myself....3.....2.....1.....

[Forty Two]

I never meant to suggest it was definitively racist. I reasoned that it could be racist and that's why many people consider him racist. It's obviously impossible to "prove" whether what goes on, if anything, inside Trump's head is racist, despite Hermit and you disingenuously asking for proof. We can only make a reasoned determination from his behaviour.

Is your reasoned determination that he "could be" racist, or that he is racist?

If you are making either of those assertions, please summarize your reasoned determination for coming to either of those conclusions.

If you are making neither of those assertions, please state that explicitly.

[pErvinalia]

Jayzus, tl:dr. Will get to it eventually. But Hermit did say that the Mexican immigrants comment couldn't be construed as racist.

[Forty Two]

That he wasn't referring to all Mexicans is irrelevant.

Why not? Don't you see that labelling a subset of Mexicans as rapists means Trump is not labelling Mexicans as a rapist race?

Pervin responded "I just fucking explained it to you. Are you being purposefully dense?" Adding his typical personal attack to an angry retort.

Here was pErvin's explanation for why not referring to all "Mexicans" , but only a subset of Mexicans supposedly being sent to the US, does not mean Trump wasn't labeling all Mexicans as a race: pErvin wrote "That he wasn't referring to all Mexicans is irrelevant. If I said all the black people in the ghetto are niggers (or rapists), it would be retarded thinking of the highest order to suggest that wasn't racist. Are you purposely engaging in retarded thinking?"

And, here is why pErvin is way off base with this "explanation." One, black is a race, so if you're referring to a population of black people you are by definition referring to a race of people, whereas even referring to all Mexicans is not referring to a race. At most, the person using the word Mexican might think, wrongly, that Mexican is a race and not a nationality, and be subjectively racist. That could be, of course, the case, but we would need some evidence that the person speaking is, in fact, of the mistaken notion that Mexican is a race.

Further, the word "nigger" is a literal racial slur. So, using that word would be a give-away, because one is literally calling someone a nigger which is a derogatory term for black people.

If one said, however, that "all blacks in the ghetto were rapists" then one is still referring to a general population of a particular race and saying they are all rapists. Trump's comment does not refer to an entire subset of Mexicans as rapists. Trump is referring to a subset of Mexicans - those being sent to the US -- mexico is not sending their best. Why? Because they tend to include higher amounts of criminal elements. The Mexican government is sending undesirables to the US. The comment didn't say that all of those people were rapists, just that rapists were among those being sent, along with other undesirables, and some being good people. He didn't say "all Mexican illegal immigrants are rapists..." so, pErvin's explanation makes no sense in a variety of ways.

The notion, wrong or not, that the Mexican government is sending undesirables over is something Trump has said several times -- Trump cited conversations with "border patrol people" who told him that it was true: "Our leaders are stupid, our politicians are stupid, and the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning, and they send the bad ones over because they don't want to pay for them, they don't want to take care of them. Why should they, when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for them?And that’s what’s happening, whether you like it or not." Trump told interviewer Katy Tur, "The Mexican government forces many bad people into our country because they're smart. They're smarter than our leaders, and their negotiators are far better than what we have, to a degree that you wouldn’t believe. They're forcing people into our country. … And they are drug dealers and they are criminals of all kinds. We are taking Mexico’s problems."

While Politifact says there is no evidence the Mexican government has tried to do this, The Mexican government was criticized in 2005 for publishing a written pamphlet that instructs migrants how to safely enter the United States illegally and live there without being detected. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world ... .html?_r=0 The Mexicans said that it was just a pamphlet to try to keep illegal immigrants safe who are going to the US, but, of course, it instructed them how to lay low and keep out of sight once they are in there, and how to make it across the border. And, just recently, Mexico launched a $50 million program to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants in the US. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/04 ... portation/

Trump was asked, “Do you believe that Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers?” He said, “Illegal immigrants are causing tremendous problem coming in. I want legal immigrants, illegal immigrants are causing tremendous problems, Mika. There’s crime. It’s a crime wave. It’s a disaster. Do I believe many people — I mean, look, as far as I’m concerned, I hire, I have hundreds and hundreds of Mexicans working for me. I love Mexican people. I love their spirit. The problem we’re having with Mexico is that their government officials and negotiators are far smarter than ours, like from a different planet. And they are negotiating deals, trade deals, the border, everything else. We are getting the short end of the stick in every single instance. And we are having a big problem. Let me just tell you just to finish, Mexico is sending a lot of their people over that they don’t want. And that includes people that should be in Mexican prisons and you know it and I know it and nobody wants to talk about it.”

Trump was then asked how he knew the Mexican government is sending people to the US, he said, “Because I heard from five different sources. And if you speak to the border guards, who I’ve spoke to many of, if you speak to border guards, and these guys are terrific. They’re almost crying, they’ve almost got tears in their eyes when they explain that they’re not allowed to do their job.”

After he was asked by panelist Mark Halperin what these five sources were, Trump stated, “I’ll reveal my sources when you reveal your sources, Mark. I have a lot of information on it, and so does everyone else. And you probably do, too. And for some reason they don’t want to put out this information. Mexico — and if you remember, many years ago when Fidel Castro opened [his] prisons and sent the people over, and everybody knew it. We never sent them back. We took these — all of these prisoners. Mexico, in a far more sophisticated way, is doing something very similar. They’re sending tremendously — you look at the man that killed Kate. You look at Jamiel, Jamiel Shaw, you look at so many — thousands of instances where illegals are coming in, and it’s a crime wave. And, frankly, Mexico doesn’t care, from the standpoint that they don’t want to house these people for a long period of time in their prisons. They say, ‘Let the United States take care of them. Let the United States put them in their jails. Why should we pay for it?’ And believe me it’s happening, and it’s happening big league, and this country doesn’t know.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/ ... to-the-us/

So, he thinks this. A lot of people say he's wrong. As of now, I don't know what his evidence is, but his comments on the subject provide context that what he's talking about is not literally racists. One has to surmise that he's using code, considering Mexicans a race, or otherwise has a subjective intent/motive to be racist here. If that is the assertion, then it requires evidence. It's not enough to simply demand evidence that what he's saying "couldn't be" racist.

[pErvinalia]

I never meant to suggest it was definitively racist. I reasoned that it could be racist and that's why many people consider him racist. It's obviously impossible to "prove" whether what goes on, if anything, inside Trump's head is racist, despite Hermit and you disingenuously asking for proof. We can only make a reasoned determination from his behaviour.

Is your reasoned determination that he "could be" racist, or that he is racist?

My personal opinion is that he is a bigot (including being racist to a degree). My post above addresses the "could be" question.

If you are making either of those assertions, please summarize your reasoned determination for coming to either of those conclusions.

Lard give me strength. I've spent much of the thread doing just that. In brief, the fact that he seems almost certainly to be lying about Mexico "sending" anyone, let alone rapists, suggests that he is engaging in racist rhetoric to tap into the racist demographic in his support base.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding your post above, both Hermit and I explained why you are wrong about racism against Mexicans being impossible because they aren't a race.

[pErvinalia]

And a subset of blacks being labeled as degenerates (while not labelling whites as such) is exactly analogous to the subset of Mexicans illegally immigrating. I dont even want to begin to work out how you think they aren't analogous.

[Woodbutcher]

So, yes or no?

[pErvinalia]

[picture of J-Boy Trudeau]

[Forty Two]

Regarding your post above, both Hermit and I explained why you are wrong about racism against Mexicans being impossible because they aren't a race.

Of course, I never said that racism against Mexicans was "impossible" because Mexicans aren't a race, and I have a post above where I acknowledge that someone might erroneously think that Mexican is a race and therefore be racist in their own mind because they think Mexican is a race.

I have said, more than once, that almost anything can be racist, depending on the subjective intent/motive of the person making the statement, even literally benign statements. A person might say "I hate French food" and be under the mistaken impression that French is a race, and he may hate French food not because it's bad but because it's French. Sure, it's "possible" it's a racist statement. However, for it to be a racist statement we'd need evidence that the guy thinks French is a race and that his mindset is to hate French food because of it is racially French.

Here, we have a statement that is facially not racist - literally, not racist -- because he's talking about Mexican, a nationality, not a race. Even if he hates Mexicans, he's not racist unless he thinks that Mexican is a race. Do we have any evidence that Trump thinks Mexican is race? There are a race of mexicans, in his mind, and he doesn't like the Mexican race? The evidence that he thinks that is........... ?

Also, even if Mexican was a race, his quote expressly, literally refers to people he says Mexico is sending - not their best - criminals. He's not literally saying Mexicans are criminal by nature, that all Mexicans are criminals or racists, etc. He is literally saying that Mexico is acting to send their bad guys to the US. It would be no different than saying, if the US was channeling its ex-cons to the border and trying to get them to go to Mexico, for the Mexican President to say, "The United States is not sending its best. They're sending criminals. They're sending rapists. And, some good people" -- that's not a racist statement, facially or literally. Could it be? Sure, if the Mexican President thinks American is a race and hates Americans because of their perceived race.

That's the problem with shifting around among - it's a racists statement - it "could be" a racist statement - it's "impossible" for it to be a racist statement (which I never said) - and prove to me it "couldn't be" a racist statement.

[Hermit]

Do we have any evidence that Trump thinks Mexican is race?

Yes.

[Forty Two]

Do we have any evidence that Trump thinks Mexican is race?

Yes.

It doesn't sound like he's referring to Curiel by his race. Tapper is using the word "race" but Trump isn't. Trump said he was Mexican and I want to build a wall between Mexico and the US.

He said "I have had horrible rulings, I have been treated very unfairly by this judge."

He said "this judge is of Mexican heritage, and I'm building a wall between Mexico and the US"

Tapper says "So no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you..."

Trump answers "Hes a member of a society that's very pro Mexico, and that's fine, but I think he should recuse himself." He does not say that no Mexican heritage judge can be involved - he says that this judge has a Mexican heritage AND is a member of the La Raza Bar Association group. La Raza means "the race." The idea comes from the notion that the people in the countries of the former Spanish empire would all mix together to form a new race. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a group that advances the interests of Chicano and Latino lawyers, and supports the general concept of La Raza. It, itself, is arguably racist, since the term La Raza is based on the notion that the Latino people are becoming or are a separate race.

Trump does not use "race" in that video clip -- when Tapper says "you're using his race..." Trump answers "he's of Mexican heritage..." -- Trump is being clear and not using the term race and not agreeing with Tapper that "race" is an issue. He's opposing Tapper's suggestions and pointing out the Mexican heritage.

So, I get that quote you highlighted, but in context, Trump is never using the term race, and is consistently fighting against it's use in that video. He is referring to the guy's heritage, and his beliefs as Trump says is evidenced by membership in the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the fact that Trump wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico which the judge apparently opposes due to him being pro-Mexican.

I think Trump's comments are off-base, but I don't think they are racist. I think Tapper was carefully asking questions constantly using the word race in order to draw that out.

[Hermit]

Do we have any evidence that Trump thinks Mexican is race?

Yes.

It doesn't sound like he's referring to Curiel by his race. Tapper is using the word "race" but Trump isn't. Trump said he was Mexican and I want to build a wall between Mexico and the US.

He said "I have had horrible rulings, I have been treated very unfairly by this judge."

He said "this judge is of Mexican heritage, and I'm building a wall between Mexico and the US"

Tapper says "So no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you..."

Trump answers "Hes a member of a society that's very pro Mexico, and that's fine, but I think he should recuse himself." He does not say that no Mexican heritage judge can be involved - he says that this judge has a Mexican heritage AND is a member of the La Raza Bar Association group. La Raza means "the race." The idea comes from the notion that the people in the countries of the former Spanish empire would all mix together to form a new race. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a group that advances the interests of Chicano and Latino lawyers, and supports the general concept of La Raza. It, itself, is arguably racist, since the term La Raza is based on the notion that the Latino people are becoming or are a separate race.

Trump does not use "race" in that video clip -- when Tapper says "you're using his race..." Trump answers "he's of Mexican heritage..." -- Trump is being clear and not using the term race and not agreeing with Tapper that "race" is an issue. He's opposing Tapper's suggestions and pointing out the Mexican heritage.

So, I get that quote you highlighted, but in context, Trump is never using the term race, and is consistently fighting against it's use in that video. He is referring to the guy's heritage, and his beliefs as Trump says is evidenced by membership in the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the fact that Trump wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico which the judge apparently opposes due to him being pro-Mexican.

I think Trump's comments are off-base, but I don't think they are racist. I think Tapper was carefully asking questions constantly using the word race in order to draw that out.

Explaining that Trump does not mean what he said keeps a lot of people busy. Race, wiretapps, databases of American Muslims... It's a never ending list. You are not the only one to indulge in reinterpreting him, so don't take it personally that I regard that pastime as pure spin-doctoring. Trump is a racist. He provides the very words to prove it.

[Forty Two]

Well, the people that call him racist are not going by the literal verbiage he uses, they're interpreting and gleaning his true meaning. Sure, I'm looking at what he says and telling you what I think he means. That happens a lot when people use imprecise verbiage. Like the Mexicans/rapists quote - he does not literally call Mexicans rapists as a people. Folks saying that's what he means are interpreting his verbiage.