Nigerians live in huts and all Haitians have HIV????!

LOST said:

I guess this guy didn't think it important to tell anyone about this before the election.

It was out there during the campaign. Mark Burnett threaten to sue anyone who worked on the show.

given what we know Trump has said on the record it would be a lot harder to believe he DIDN'T say those things. 

drummerboy said:

Actually, quoting someone who was there is, I think, the exact definition of hearsay.

Read this and tell me what I'm missing.

You cited the way the word is used in court, which is different. The word does not mean "hear say," i.e. I hear it, I say it. I suspect it did, long ago.

Merriam Webster defines it as rumor.

"Sh!thole countries" as he allegedly said today. He'd prefer Swedes, because, hey, they're white, affluent and have free health care financed by their tax system. Oooops...can we mention that? 

thedailybeast.com:  Trump Opens his $h!thole and Again Disgraces America

"And for many decades, many of the people across the globe who wanted out wanted to come here, to America, to make a better life. Now I ask you: Who wants to come to Donald Trump’s America? Who?

Not the good people of Norway, to whom Trump opened the door with his comments Thursday. Why would they? They have health care, they have free college, they have many weeks of family leave and vacation. They want to visit, sure, because who doesn’t want to visit? But move here?"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-opens-his-shthole-and-again-disgraces-america?ref=home

kibbegirl said:

"Sh!thole countries" as he allegedly said today. He'd prefer Swedes, because, hey, they're white, affluent and have free health care financed by their tax system. Oooops...can we mention that? 

Canada is probably thanking Trump right now.  All the best and brightest scholars, scientists, writers, etc. who want to emigrate from their countries are probably thinking Toronto and Vancouver seem like nice places to live.

ml1 said:

Canada is probably thanking Trump right now.  All the best and brightest scholars, scientists, writers, etc. who want to emigrate from their countries are probably thinking Toronto and Vancouver seem like nice places to live.

I know that's what my wife and I have been thinking...

By no means do I want to defend Trump's vulgarity or probable racism, but as I thought about this latest Trump fiasco, I found myself pondering just what is the purpose of an immigration policy and what is (or should be) the basis for the United State's immigration policy?  Not questions of "how" the process does/should work...rather questions concerning "why" a nation should or shouldn't admit immigrants; the underlying purpose and values.  Frankly, I realized I hadn't really thought much about it before despite the fact that two members of my own family are married to immigrants.  Okay, I am aware of the "give me your homeless...."  inscription on the Statue of Liberty but that hardly constitutes a formal policy.  So, I did some basic googling starting with the homepage of the US Customs and Immigration Service at https://www.uscis.gov/ .  Maybe I didn't look closely enough but I couldn't find any sort of policy statement, just information about various steps to a green card, citizenship, etc. After 30 minutes of googling, I still couldn't find a clearly stated national policy on the purpose of immigration.  However, based on my reading of various websites, I did find the following broadly argued positions on immigration: 

Position #1:  As an advantaged nation, the US has a moral obligation to take in - and care for - immigrants by serving as a place of refuge for those suffering persecution or hardship in their own land, regardless of where that is occurring.  It's the right thing to do. 

Position #2:  The US has a moral or legal obligation to take in immigrants by being open to anyone who has family members already legally living here and seeking to join them.  We should not separate families.

Position #3: The US doesn't have any sort of moral or legal obligation to take in or care for immigrants - regardless of whether they have family already living here - but should be open to anyone seeking personal, political, or financial opportunity...no other reasons are necessary.  Immigration brings "new blood" that benefits all of us as a nation.

Position #4: The US has no moral or legal obligation to take in immigrants and we already are getting kind of crowded.  In fact, we should move to slow immigration.  However, the US should engage in limited immigration by being open to people from anywhere who have a discernible knowledge/skill set that will benefit the US economy because they will fill needed positions in the workforce, etc..

Position #5: The US has no moral or legal obligation to take in immigrants at all. The time for open immigration has passed and we cannot be the caretaker to the world.  So, we should only consider allowing in a few people from friendly nations who have a discernible expertise that will add to the nation's economic or business interests. 

Position #6.  Close the borders.  We're done here.  Too many risks in taking in immigrants we don't need.

That's a lot to read but if anyone does know where the official US policy on immigration can be found, I'd be interested.  Seems to me that without such a policy to serve as a foundation, there will always be a debate on who should be admitted and why, essentially conflicts among the above positions. (e.g Trump et al taking positions 4-6 while others are on 1-3) To what extent does the US have a moral/legal obligation to be open to immigrants or should our position be based strictly on what is in the economic interests of the nation?   

Again, this is prompted only by the situation.  Not at all meant to defend Trump's asinine approach and likely underlying stereotypes and racism.   

jamie said:

unfortunately his base is on the side with this one 

There's yer bottom line on this and so many other issues. People from "Sihthole countries" and millions of "Sihthole-Americans" have no worth to these folks. 

Norway? Really? I'm picturing the Statue of Liberty welcoming the tired and oppressed Norwegians trying to flee socialized medicine, great education, and other awful conditions. 

RIGHT???  Compared to Norway, the USA is the "shithole" country!!

GL2 said:
Norway? Really? I'm picturing the Statue of Liberty welcoming the tired and oppressed Norwegians trying to flee socialized medicine, great education, and other awful conditions. 

Norman_Bates said:

By no means do I want to defend Trump's vulgarity or probable racism, but as I thought about this latest Trump fiasco, I found myself pondering just what is the purpose of an immigration policy and what is (or should be) the basis for the United State's immigration policy?  Not questions of "how" the process does/should work...rather questions concerning "why" a nation should or shouldn't admit immigrants; the underlying purpose and values.  

Without immigration the only people here would be the Native Americans a.k.a. Indians.

Should we all go back home?

Norman_Bates said:

By no means do I want to defend Trump's vulgarity or probable racism, but as I thought about this latest Trump fiasco, I found myself pondering just what is the purpose of an immigration policy and what is (or should be) the basis for the United State's immigration policy...

 

Get rid of Trump and we, as a nation, could have a discussion about all of this. 

Norman_Bates said:

To what extent does the US have a moral/legal obligation to be open to immigrants or should our position be based strictly on what is in the economic interests of the nation?   

I think you are looking at it backwards. The US has achieved its success and status because of its open policy toward immigrants, not despite it. There is no "or." Whether or not we have a moral/legal obligation, it is in our economic interests to welcome people who want to work hard to build better lives for themselves and their progeny.

Here's the thing about the U.S. immigration policy. The only people who ever question it do so for racist reasons. End of story.

(I'm not talking about fiddling around with the margins of the policy.  You need controls obviously and they should be adjusted from time to time.)

The US has only benefited from its immigration policy. It has never suffered from it.

dave23 said:

Norman_Bates said:

To what extent does the US have a moral/legal obligation to be open to immigrants or should our position be based strictly on what is in the economic interests of the nation?   

I think you are looking at it backwards. The US has achieved it's success and status because of its open policy toward immigrants, not despite it. There is no "or." Whether or not we have a moral/legal obligation, it is in our economic interests to welcome people who want to work hard to build better lives for themselves and their progeny.

Dave 23 -  You could be right.  I agree that immigration was a great strength in the development of this nation and assume there are many who might contend the US should encourage immigration to continue through an open policy and practices because it benefits the nation to do so.  However, I also strongly suspect there are those who might not agree and take the position that things have changed in the past 50 years or so and immigration should either be curtailed or eliminated because that is no longer in the interests of the nation. I don't claim to know what is right nor am I trying to challenge or affirm the virtue of either position.  Just wondering what the official US position might be....or should be.  Should there be any sort of moral basis for our immigration policy? (e.g.  given our advantaged situation, do we have a duty of some sort to serve as a refuge as the Statue of Liberty states?) or should our policy be based strictly on what's good for the economy or to further some other outcome?  What Trump may think is another matter entirely.  

Still, it does make sense to have a policy with a mind toward who will be useful and self-sufficient. We should let in a certain number of people out of mercy, but we should not let it inundate our economy. Canada has had a policy like this for a while, and it works.

Norman_Bates - US immigration policy does include your points 2,3 and 4. It adds a fourth - diversity. 

"Immigration to the United States is based upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity." 

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/reports/02-28-immigration.pdf

erins said:

RIGHT???  Compared to Norway, the USA is the "shithole" country!!

GL2 said:
Norway? Really? I'm picturing the Statue of Liberty welcoming the tired and oppressed Norwegians trying to flee socialized medicine, great education, and other awful conditions. 

STAVANGER, Norway (AP) — Norwegians generally live longer than Americans. There's a generous safety net of health care and pensions. And although it's pricey, the country last year was named the happiest on Earth.

President Donald Trump says the United States should take in more Norwegians, but is it any wonder that more Americans are going the other way?

The country of 5.2 million people that seldom makes global headlines awoke Friday to the news that Trump wanted to have more immigrants from Norway, rather than Haiti and countries in Africa that he disparaged with a vulgar term.

Norwegians Troll Trump     Ouch!

dailydot.com:  Norwegians Troll Trump over Shitehole Comment

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-shithole-twitter-norway/

GL2 said:

erins said:

RIGHT???  Compared to Norway, the USA is the "shithole" country!!

GL2 said:
Norway? Really? I'm picturing the Statue of Liberty welcoming the tired and oppressed Norwegians trying to flee socialized medicine, great education, and other awful conditions. 

STAVANGER, Norway (AP) — Norwegians generally live longer than Americans. There's a generous safety net of health care and pensions. And although it's pricey, the country last year was named the happiest on Earth.

President Donald Trump says the United States should take in more Norwegians, but is it any wonder that more Americans are going the other way?

The country of 5.2 million people that seldom makes global headlines awoke Friday to the news that Trump wanted to have more immigrants from Norway, rather than Haiti and countries in Africa that he disparaged with a vulgar term.

I've spent a lot of time in Stavanger. One time I had a boil that had to be lanced by a doctor. He prescribed an antibiotic and told me not to drink. I told him that I didn't drink that much to which he responded "That's your problem."  

Norman_Bates said:

By no means do I want to defend Trump's vulgarity or probable racism, but as I thought about this latest Trump fiasco, I found myself pondering just what is the purpose of an immigration policy and what is (or should be) the basis for the United State's immigration policy? 

[truncated for length -- scroll up for full quote]
 

I don't see it as a question of whether we have a "moral or legal obligation", but a question of what does our country mean?

To grossly oversimplify, I think you can look at a nation as two ways:

- It's just an oversized extension of the idea of a clan or tribe -- people at least distantly related and living in the same territory. The nation exists to promote and defend the interests of this extended "family," and all other talk about morality or whathaveyou is just window dressing.

- A nation is an idea, and membership is open to all who buy into the idea of the nation.

I think you see both in our country, often violently at war with each other. Consider for instance the Declaration of Independence - in one breath declaring a belief "that all men are created equal" -- as straightforward an example of the nation-as-an-idea POV as you'll find. On the other hand, even in this very phrase, there's the reference to "men" -- showing the limits of the collective imagination Jefferson spoke for here. Not _all_ people could be full participants in this nation after all.

Or take our actual actions. On the one hand, the vicious, murderous, and frighteningly thorough destruction and erasure of a continent's worth peoples and civilizations. Again, as straightforward an example of the idea that a nation is defined on the basis of an imagined kinship rather than an idea -- not even the Cherokee, who adopted so many of the beliefs of the new Americans, were spared. On the other hand, many of the very people who were engaged in this bloody work were themselves locked out of full citizenship in the nations of Europe -- only in crossing the Atlantic could they become "American" in a way that they never could be British or French or Russian.

Personally -- as you can likely guess from my newly added avatar -- I'm firmly in the nation-as-an-idea camp. I think America is at its most American when it lives up to the high ideals of the founders -- and indeed, when it goes beyond them, pursuing the logic of liberty and equality past the circumscribed vision of the 18th century landed elite.