Latin American Caravan(s) Headed for Southern U.S. Border

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Dare I say we seem a little full at the moment?
We can't take care of ourselves. How can we help someone when we can't help ourselves?
I get @Liquid point. They see it as a better life. But the grass isn't exactly greener.

Typically when I see people make this argument it tends to the thought process of reflecting on what they see around them at times and think "not everyone in America is making it". Simple answer to that is who's fault is this? I wouldn't blame the system (you know that same thing you've argued like I am here in the white privilege thread). If people want to succeed in the U.S. they do so by their own means. I find it interesting that people who move here often from other areas of the world take more pride in being successful and learning how to cope with American life and what not at time better than natural born citizens. So this feeling of people thinking they're owed because they're American and thus letting others in like immigrants from the South, takes away potentially what is "owed", seems to be an issue.

We can help ourselves just fine there is a pretty good understood system of how to do such things, again it's up to those who want to improve life to act on it and make it work.

 

[McLaren]

I'm asking the members of the board to take a hard honest look at the situation and tell me the answer to a simple question... what would you do?

You're living in Guatemala with a kid. Gangs violently control and extort the population. You have trouble finding food for your kid, and there's little sense in owning or building much of anything toward a better future because it will be stolen or destroyed. Rule of law is non-existent and you fear for your safety and your child's safety every day.

There is a chance that America will grant you asylum. You don't even know what that is or what it means, but you know enough - that it means you'll get to be in the US where gangs cannot do the things you've seen them do. Where you can work, and you actually get to keep the results and build toward the future. Where your child has a chance at happiness.

Honestly, what the hell would you do? I know what I would do. I would walk across central America and Mexico and beg at the US border for safety. I would not want to stay in Mexico, which suffers many of the same problems. I would risk my life and my child's life for that chance.

I know, not every person's story in that mob is so sympathetic. But how much would you bet me that not one story is so sympathetic? How about two? How about 10? And what exactly is the harm that they represent by coming here? Crime? Hopefully the case workers can find people who are already criminals and weed them out. But suppose they're willing to commit crime. What happens when you a commit a crime in the US and get picked up by law enforcement - you get kicked out. You lose that thing that you risked your life to get. How many of you on this forum have thrown away something you risked your life or your child's life to get?

What other harm do they pose? Cultural differences? What a scary concept that their culture is different. But we're not making them citizens. They can't vote. Taking up jobs? Jobs create wealth. Someone who is productively employed creates wealth out of thin air. That wealth is reinvested into more jobs.

If you're worried about them ending up on the government dole, vote against the dole. The dole is the problem, unskilled workers aren't. If you're worried that they'll end up unemployed because automation will destroy their jobs, that's the perfect reason to welcome unskilled workers with open arms. Cheap labor makes automation unattractive. Reduce minimum wage, don't force companies to buy healthcare, and every unskilled worker will have a job that they can use to better themselves.

The truth is that a peaceful immigrant, even one who is qualified to do nothing but dig ditches, clean toilets, or pick marijuana (I actually don't know if pot gets "picked", probably not, but you get the point), a peaceful immigrant does no harm to you, and in fact, will ultimately benefit the economy as a whole.

Do it the proper way and not bum rush a border that has armed guards watching it.

Seems to be the common acceptance in the thread. They're more than welcome, just as they were in Mexico. Just be patient and wait to be processed. And if you're not granted asylum, take Mexico's offer if available. Yes, Mexico has issues, but problems are much more severe in the area between Mexico & Costa Rica. El Salvador has been notorious for violence for years; my buddy is 30 and came here with his mother from there back when he was 3 to escape the turmoil.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm asking the members of the board to take a hard honest look at the situation and tell me the answer to a simple question... what would you do?

This is what I always want to ask as well. Demonizing people for doing what anybody who cares for their family should do in the situation these folks are coming from makes no sense at all.

 

[Danoff]

Do it the proper way and not bum rush a border that has armed guards watching it.

Seems to be the common acceptance in the thread. They're more than welcome, just as they were in Mexico. Just be patient and wait to be processed. And if you're not granted asylum, take Mexico's offer if available. Yes, Mexico has issues, but problems are much more severe in the area between Mexico & Costa Rica. El Salvador has been notorious for violence for years; my buddy is 30 and came here with his mother from there back when he was 3 to escape the turmoil.

Yea I wouldn't rush the border either. But 6 weeks to accept asylum requests, and over a year to reach a decision is a broken system. I don't condone the behavior of the portion of that mob that tried to cross on their own. But I'm saying that I'd be in that mob, desperate, and waiting indefinitely in northern mexico with nothing. We should hurry up and process their requests, and we should grant to all peaceful people who are fleeing violence.

Yes you'd take Mexico's offer rather than go back. I would too. But I would hope for better because Mexico is not an answer. If I did take Mexico's offer, my plan would not be to stay, but to find a way to make it to the US.

Edit:

They're not going to make it 6 weeks. Disease is already spreading through their camp, they're practically sleeping on sewage. Although, some of them say it's better than what they left.

I'm still just wildly disappointed that this was our plan to receive them.

Edit 2:

When there's a massive earthquake in Indonesia that kills many thousands of people we send an aircraft carrier and mobilize our military to give aid to those in need. Americans take pride in that response because we're a generous nation that wants peace, prosperity, and safety for all.

What do we do in response to a caravan of thousands fleeing violence desperately seeking aid? We man the border with more troops and make sure we have tear gas at the ready. Why did we not mobilize our military to set up some kind of well-thought-out camp. I'm sure mexico would have let us use some space. We drop food on Africa but we can't lift a finger at our own door? It's not like an earthquake, we had forewarning that a humanitarian crisis was slowly mobilizing toward us and would take months to arrive. We knew damned well that they would sit there for at least 6 weeks doing nothing and we couldn't be bothered to take the slightest measure to do something that we can take pride in.

Mexico did their part to the best of their ability, offered blanket asylum to the whole caravan. The US can't even be bothered to receive the caravan. Unbelievable and shameful.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea I wouldn't rush the border either. But 6 weeks to accept asylum requests, and over a year to reach a decision is a broken system. I don't condone the behavior of the portion of that mob that tried to cross on their own. But I'm saying that I'd be in that mob, desperate, and waiting indefinitely in northern mexico with nothing. We should hurry up and process their requests, and we should grant to all peaceful people who are fleeing violence.

Yes you'd take Mexico's offer rather than go back. I would too. But I would hope for better because Mexico is not an answer. If I did take Mexico's offer, my plan would not be to stay, but to find a way to make it to the US.

Edit:

They're not going to make it 6 weeks. Disease is already spreading through their camp, they're practically sleeping on sewage. Although, some of them say it's better than what they left.

I'm still just wildly disappointed that this was our plan to receive them.

Edit 2:

When there's a massive earthquake in Indonesia that kills many thousands of people we send an aircraft carrier and mobilize our military to give aid to those in need. Americans take pride in that response because we're a generous nation that wants peace, prosperity, and safety for all.

What do we do in response to a caravan of thousands fleeing violence desperately seeking aid? We man the border with more troops and make sure we have tear gas at the ready. Why did we not mobilize our military to set up some kind of well-thought-out camp. I'm sure mexico would have let us use some space. We drop food on Africa but we can't lift a finger at our own door? It's not like an earthquake, we had forewarning that a humanitarian crisis was slowly mobilizing toward us and would take months to arrive. We knew damned well that they would sit there for at least 6 weeks doing nothing and we couldn't be bothered to take the slightest measure to do something that we can take pride in.

Mexico did their part to the best of their ability, offered blanket asylum to the whole caravan. The US can't even be bothered to receive the caravan. Unbelievable and shameful.

I believe the average american is compationate and willing to help someone in need. The problem is that Trump and Co have been demonizing foreigners from certain countries since the start of his election campaign. The same people who normally are compationate, become scared and believe all the rhetoric of an invasion of criminals, freeloaders, terrorists etc. Creating a nonexistent threat and convince the people he is the only solution from this nonexistent threat.

Pre-Trump I have always admired the USA as a country built upon the shoulders of immigrants. The country is only 250-400 years old and it is amazing how ships full of immigrants have been able to build a country with such wealth, industry and knowledge in such a short period of time from virtually nothing. Even eclipsing cultures and countries who are 1000's of years old. That is what made america great in the first place and nothing else.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I believe the average american is compationate and willing to help someone in need. The problem is that Trump and Co have been demonizing foreigners from certain countries since the start of his election campaign. The same people who normally are compationate, become scared and believe all the rhetoric of an invasion of criminals, freeloaders, terrorists etc. Creating a nonexistent threat and convince the people he is the only solution from this nonexistent threat.

Pre-Trump I have always admired the USA as a country built upon the shoulders of immigrants. The country is only 250-400 years old and it is amazing how ships full of immigrants have been able to build a country with such wealth, industry and knowledge in such a short period of time from virtually nothing. Even eclipsing cultures and countries who are 1000's of years old.

Pre-Trump eh? Did you know one of Obama's nicknames was Deporter-in-Chief because he deported more people than any POTUS in history? According to Pre-Trump data, aka the Obama era, tear gas was used 126 times from 2010-2016. Pepper spray was deployed at the border more than 300 times from 2012-2014 alone. This border skirmish is nothing new under the sun. It's being whipped up by the MSM to goad the gullible and soft headed types into thinking this stuff only started with the Trump Presidency and that is definitely not the case.

That is what made america great in the first place and nothing else.

It's America. If you think this is true then you truly have not been paying attention these last few months.

 

[PocketZeven]

Pre-Trump eh? Did you know one of Obama's nicknames was Deporter-in-Chief because he deported more people than any POTUS in history? According to Pre-Trump data, aka the Obama era, tear gas was used 126 times from 2010-2016. Pepper spray was deployed at the border more than 300 times from 2012-2014 alone. This border skirmish is nothing new under the sun. It's being whipped up by the MSM to goad the gullible and soft headed types into thinking this stuff only started with the Trump Presidency and that is definitely not the case.

It's America. If you think this is true then you truly have not been paying attention these last few months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

1. Obama didnt demonize immigrants. And I mean legal immigrants.
2. I never criticised deporting illegals
3. I never criticised the use of pepper spray/mace in escalating situations. Its effective and fairly safe.
4. I never claimed the use of teargas started with Trump. MSM also didnt make that claim

You are deflecting like your Sarah Sanders. So stop trolling me again.

 

[Danoff]

This border skirmish is nothing new under the sun.

The size of this caravan is at least unusual, if not the largest in history at the US border. If it's so normal, how are we so bad at it?

 

[TexRex]

Did you know one of Obama's nicknames was Deporter-in-Chief because he deported more people than any POTUS in history? According to Pre-Trump data, aka the Obama era, tear gas was used 126 times from 2010-2016. Pepper spray was deployed at the border more than 300 times from 2012-2014 alone.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

1. Obama didnt demonize immigrants. And I mean legal immigrants.
2. I never criticised deporting illegals
3. I never criticised the use of pepper spray/mace in escalating situations. Its effective and fairly safe.
4. I never claimed the use of teargas started with Trump. MSM also didnt make that claim

You are deflecting like your Sarah Sanders. So stop trolling me again.

Wow, the guy claiming trolling when that's what several members of varying opinions thought and probably still think on a overlapping different OCE thread. And the fact your using whataboutism to make a defense is interesting. I don't fully agree with where Penso is coming from, but he isn't deflecting the current media storm does give this indirect blame to Trump and the entire admin in regards to all of this. Trump I agree didn't help himself or people working for him by making Immigrants sound sub-human at times. On the same measure the MSM doing wrongs as well doesn't all of a sudden make that right.

Also before you respond which I'm sure you will, Penso never made the claim that you said of what you're defending yourself against. Again just like in the white privilege thread you're getting worked up personally. When he is just making a leveled argument at the general topic and certain general ideas being shared here. I mean you brought up Pre-Trump and this idealized view you had of the U.S. that is pretty inaccurate so it's easy to see why certain people responded the way they did. Disappointing to see @TexRex respond the way he did because I'm pretty sure he could have given a leveled response too, but perhaps he's tired of that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Allegedly this is the mayor of Tijuana. I know the hat is legit because I've seen one in a video. I have no way to verify if this picture is legit but if it is, it's not good news for the Caravaners:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

1. Obama didnt demonize immigrants. And I mean legal immigrants.
2. I never criticised deporting illegals
3. I never criticised the use of pepper spray/mace in escalating situations. Its effective and fairly safe.
4. I never claimed the use of teargas started with Trump. MSM also didnt make that claim

You are deflecting like your Sarah Sanders. So stop trolling me again.

Nope, no deflecting. You opened up the "pre-Trump" avenue for me to explore and I walked right in. @LMSCorvetteGT2 pretty much hit the nail on the head. Trump's rhetoric is over the top and unnecessary and deserves criticism and I've mentioned that more than once before, but the focus of the MSM these last few days is almost entirely on the actions of the Border Patrol and the recent rush of the border. Watching their coverage one would think this use of tear gas and pepper spray was entirely a Trump concoction against the poor immigrants when that very clearly isn't the case. You brought up the "pre-Trump" era and so it's fair for me to introduce what happened at the border pre-Trump.

The MSM is simply the opposite of Trump, alt-Trump if you will. They exaggerate, leave out important details, pick sympathetic victims out in order to create sympathy, instead of doing some actual research and reporting on the facts and providing balanced coverage. Sounds familiar right? Your apparent idolization of the U.S. prior to Trump is misplaced. It's a flawed country with some flawed people that also has a lot of great people who do incredible things. It was the same in 2004, 2012 and 2018. I try not to see it with rose coloured glasses and but that doesn't mean that bifocals are better.

 

[TexRex]

Disappointing to see @TexRex respond the way he did because I'm pretty sure he could have given a leveled response too, but perhaps he's tired of that.

My response was intended to highlight the frequency with which the individual at whom it was directed plays that particular card, its condition reflecting that frequency, and was offered in lieu of a levelled response because those get disregarded completely by that particular individual at best, and misappropriated at worst. That individual likes to play act at being objective, especially while denigrating others for their bias, but abandons that objectivity when such a stance doesn't aid their cause. So yeah, I'm tired.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

My response was intended to highlight the frequency with which the individual at whom it was directed plays that particular card, its condition reflecting that frequency, and was offered in lieu of a levelled response because those get disregarded completely by that particular individual at best, and misappropriated at worst. That individual likes to play act at being objective, especially while denigrating others for their bias, but abandons that objectivity when such a stance doesn't aid their cause. So yeah, I'm tired.

I mean it's obvious he leans right quite easily. Just as I'd say Pocket is the opposite of it, I don't care for either bias to be honest. With that said, he does have a point and a justifiable reason to bring up those stats and figures, because said member he responded to segued to that. Now could he have meant an era even before Obama, like Bush...god I sure hope not cause that was pretty bad in its own merits for immigration measures.

As for the leveled response comment you basically confirmed what I said, that being it gets old and tiring to do that especially if gets majority ignored. So I totally understand being tired. I just found it interesting that a certain other user decided to claim he was being trolled when he clearly wasn't and that term was being thrown about to be thrown about.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The size of this caravan is at least unusual, if not the largest in history at the US border. If it's so normal, how are we so bad at it?

The size is unusual and apparently the speed of processing applications is pretty slow and definitely unable to handle a single mass of applicants but I was more referring to the use of pepper spray and tear gas which isn't unusual.

 

[Danoff]

The size is unusual and apparently the speed of processing applications is pretty slow and definitely unable to handle a single mass of applicants but I was more referring to the use of pepper spray and tear gas which isn't unusual.

Fair enough, although I will point out that the number of applications for aslyum monthly for the US averages about 8000. So the caravan itself isn't overwhelming the process, it was already overwhelmed.

 

[PocketZeven]

Wow, the guy claiming trolling when that's what several members of varying opinions thought and probably still think on a overlapping different OCE thread. And the fact your using whataboutism to make a defense is interesting. I don't fully agree with where Penso is coming from, but he isn't deflecting the current media storm does give this indirect blame to Trump and the entire admin in regards to all of this. Trump I agree didn't help himself or people working for him by making Immigrants sound sub-human at times. On the same measure the MSM doing wrongs as well doesn't all of a sudden make that right.

Also before you respond which I'm sure you will, Penso never made the claim that you said of what you're defending yourself against. Again just like in the white privilege thread you're getting worked up personally. When he is just making a leveled argument at the general topic and certain general ideas being shared here. I mean you brought up Pre-Trump and this idealized view you had of the U.S. that is pretty inaccurate so it's easy to see why certain people responded the way they did. Disappointing to see @TexRex respond the way he did because I'm pretty sure he could have given a leveled response too, but perhaps he's tired of that.

JohnnyP has made things quite personal in the recent past, but even then I think my response was not wrong. A lot of statements I make or support are often countered by what about Clinton or what about Obama, assuming I am a democrat (which I am not). Like I stated before I am anti-Trump and not democrat or republican. I also do not represent MSM.

An argument should not be countered with whataboutisms, but with relevant arguments. If he agrees with Trumps vision on his immigration policies, just say so and explain why. He responded directly to my post, suggesting an opposite position to his.

My statement:
- Trump demonizes immigrants (both legal and illegal)
- Pre-Trump no other modern POTUS has professed nationalism. Most Potus have always recognised that the strength of the USA is diversity and that it was built upon the shoulders of immigrants. Trump has never acknowledged that/

JohnnyP counter:
- Obama deported more people then Trump
- Obama used teargas

If he made the same statement without quoting my post, I would have not reacted the same way.

I mean it's obvious he leans right quite easily. Just as I'd say Pocket is the opposite of it, I don't care for either bias to be honest. With that said, he does have a point and a justifiable reason to bring up those stats and figures, because said member he responded to segued to that. Now could he have meant an era even before Obama, like Bush...god I sure hope not cause that was pretty bad in its own merits for immigration measures.

As for the leveled response comment you basically confirmed what I said, that being it gets old and tiring to do that especially if gets majority ignored. So I totally understand being tired. I just found it interesting that a certain other user decided to claim he was being trolled when he clearly wasn't and that term was being thrown about to be thrown about.

I understand you view, but from my point of view, you have to understand I am not against deportation of illegals or the use of teargas in escalating situation or riot control. But the way JohnnyP reacted was to insinuate I am against deportations and against the use of teargas. That was not even what my post was about.

Allegedly this is the mayor of Tijuana. I know the hat is legit because I've seen one in a video. I have no way to verify if this picture is legit but if it is, it's not good news for the Caravaners:

Nope, no deflecting. You opened up the "pre-Trump" avenue for me to explore and I walked right in. @LMSCorvetteGT2 pretty much hit the nail on the head. Trump's rhetoric is over the top and unnecessary and deserves criticism and I've mentioned that more than once before, but the focus of the MSM these last few days is almost entirely on the actions of the Border Patrol and the recent rush of the border. Watching their coverage one would think this use of tear gas and pepper spray was entirely a Trump concoction against the poor immigrants when that very clearly isn't the case. You brought up the "pre-Trump" era and so it's fair for me to introduce what happened at the border pre-Trump.

The MSM is simply the opposite of Trump, alt-Trump if you will. They exaggerate, leave out important details, pick sympathetic victims out in order to create sympathy, instead of doing some actual research and reporting on the facts and providing balanced coverage. Sounds familiar right? Your apparent idolization of the U.S. prior to Trump is misplaced. It's a flawed country with some flawed people that also has a lot of great people who do incredible things. It was the same in 2004, 2012 and 2018. I try not to see it with rose coloured glasses and but that doesn't mean that bifocals are better.

I did not refer to the MSM rhetoric you are referring too in my post. I was using my own opinion and observation albeit from the point of view from where I live. I never said I idolized the USA, but am a student of history and its very impressive what a nation of immigrants has accomplished from any neutral point of view. Trump is using a nationalis rhetoric that clearly is the opposite what made america great. Am i wrong in this statement?

Fair enough, although I will point out that the number of applications for aslyum monthly for the US averages about 8000. So the caravan itself isn't overwhelming the process, it was already overwhelmed.

It is just a shame the Trump administration chose to allocate military resources to the border, while he could have arranged more resources to more quickly process the asylum applications.

 

[Johnnypenso]

My statement:
- Trump demonizes immigrants (both legal and illegal)
- Pre-Trump no other modern POTUS has professed nationalism. Most Potus have always recognised that the strength of the USA is diversity and that it was built upon the shoulders of immigrants. Trump has never acknowledged that/

America is a welcoming country. And under my leadership, it's a welcoming country. We lead the world in humanitarian protection and assistance, by far. There's nobody even close. We have the largest and most expansive immigration programs anywhere on the planet.

We've issued 40 million green cards since 1970, which means the permanent residency and a path to citizenship for many, many people. But we will not allow our generosity to be abused by those who would break our laws, defy our rules, violate our borders, break into our country illegally. We won't allow it.

Mass, uncontrolled immigration is especially unfair to the many wonderful, law-abiding immigrants already living here who followed the rules and waited their turn. Some have been waiting for many years. Some have been waiting for a long time. They've done everything perfectly. And they're going to come in.

At some point, they're going to come in. In many cases, very soon. We need them to come in, because we have companies coming into our country; they need workers. But they have to come in on a merit basis, and they will come in on a merit basis.

It looks like it's written by a 12 year old but the basic message is no different than it has been in the past from both Clintons, Obama, Bush etc.

Back in the days before the MSM went full lunatic we had at least some impartial journalism to fall back on. You'd get pieces like this from NPR on nationalism. No hyperbole, no partisan politics, just journalism and a seemingly impartial take on the good and bad of the storied tradition of American Nationalism from one man's perspective.
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140869378/americas-love-affair-with-nationalism

Inside of it you find little gems like this:

But for the sake of argument, the terms "nationalism" and "patriotism" are pretty much interchangeable, Rutland says. He studies this instinct on a global level and posts observations on his NationalismWatch blog.

Rutland, Kramer and others who track nationalism point out that U.S. nationalism has swelled since 2001. Countrywide concerns about a faltering economy and a flood of immigration only intensify the notion of nationalism.

Both liberal and conservative politicians have been adapting their language, Rutland says, "to try to appeal to the patriotic median voter."

Rutland says that in light of that quest for the patriotic center, Obama's language has been particularly striking. "If you read his speech announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., or his inaugural address, you see a heavy emphasis on the common national narrative — the sacrifices of Gettysburg, the legacy of past generations, etc. — classic nationalist/patriotic imagery."

That nod toward nationalism served Obama well in the 2008 election

 

[PocketZeven]

America is a welcoming country. And under my leadership, it's a welcoming country. We lead the world in humanitarian protection and assistance, by far. There's nobody even close. We have the largest and most expansive immigration programs anywhere on the planet.

We've issued 40 million green cards since 1970, which means the permanent residency and a path to citizenship for many, many people. But we will not allow our generosity to be abused by those who would break our laws, defy our rules, violate our borders, break into our country illegally. We won't allow it.

Mass, uncontrolled immigration is especially unfair to the many wonderful, law-abiding immigrants already living here who followed the rules and waited their turn. Some have been waiting for many years. Some have been waiting for a long time. They've done everything perfectly. And they're going to come in.

At some point, they're going to come in. In many cases, very soon. We need them to come in, because we have companies coming into our country; they need workers. But they have to come in on a merit basis, and they will come in on a merit basis.

It looks like it's written by a 12 year old but the basic message is no different than it has been in the past from both Clintons, Obama, Bush etc.

Back in the days before the MSM went full lunatic we had at least some impartial journalism to fall back on. You'd get pieces like this from NPR on nationalism. No hyperbole, no partisan politics, just journalism and a seemingly impartial take on the good and bad of the storied tradition of American Nationalism from one man's perspective.
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/28/140869378/americas-love-affair-with-nationalism

Inside of it you find little gems like this:

But for the sake of argument, the terms "nationalism" and "patriotism" are pretty much interchangeable, Rutland says. He studies this instinct on a global level and posts observations on his NationalismWatch blog.

Rutland, Kramer and others who track nationalism point out that U.S. nationalism has swelled since 2001. Countrywide concerns about a faltering economy and a flood of immigration only intensify the notion of nationalism.

Both liberal and conservative politicians have been adapting their language, Rutland says, "to try to appeal to the patriotic median voter."

Rutland says that in light of that quest for the patriotic center, Obama's language has been particularly striking. "If you read his speech announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., or his inaugural address, you see a heavy emphasis on the common national narrative — the sacrifices of Gettysburg, the legacy of past generations, etc. — classic nationalist/patriotic imagery."

That nod toward nationalism served Obama well in the 2008 election

I am not talking about msm or even Fox. I am referencing to direct unfiltered quotes from Trump himself about immigration, when I talk about his rhetoric towards immigrants. (albeit from certain countries. He is welcoming to european immigrants)

I dont know what your problem is with msm, but Trump himself has demonized immigrants from the getgo. Nationalism and patriotism are apparantly interchangeable, (edited) but do have different characteristics. Nationalism in my language (translated by google):

"Strong predilection for their own people and their own state. This attitude is often accompanied by an aversion or disdain for other peoples. The concept has a negative charge, especially as a result of National Socialism in Germany, where political leaders manipulated nationalist feelings. See also discrimination, fascism and xenophobia ..."


Patriotism is a love for country.

edit: correction after post from @Rallywagon

 

[Rallywagon]

I am not talking about msm or even Fox. I am referencing to direct unfiltered quotes from Trump himself about immigration.

I dont know what your problem is with msm, but Trump himself has demonized immigrants from the getgo. Nationalism and patriotism are not interchangeable and have different charectaristics. Nationalism in my language (translated by google):

"Strong predilection for their own people and their own state. This attitude is often accompanied by an aversion or disdain for other peoples. The concept has a negative charge, especially as a result of National Socialism in Germany, where political leaders manipulated nationalist feelings. See also discrimination, fascism and xenophobia ..."


Patriotism is a love for country.

In english, not translated... notice the first word of the first definition and the first synonym.
na·tion·al·ism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
noun

1. patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
   synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, flag-waving, xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism
   "their extreme nationalism was frightening"
   • an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
     plural noun: nationalisms
   • advocacy of political independence for a particular country.

 

[PocketZeven]

In english, not translated... notice the first word of the first definition and the first synonym.
na·tion·al·ism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
noun

1. patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
   synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, flag-waving, xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism
   "their extreme nationalism was frightening"
   • an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
     plural noun: nationalisms
   • advocacy of political independence for a particular country.

I guess they are similar. However chauvinism , xenophobia are not synonisms of patriotism. I have edited my previous post after seeing my incorrect assesment.

 

[TexRex]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

Perhaps most pertinent here, however, is this bit:

A somewhat subtler difference between the two words may be found in their modifiers and the ideas to which each is connected. When we examine large bodies of recent text we see that patriotism is more often used in a general sense, often in conjunction with such words as bravery, valor, duty, and devotion. Nationalism, however, tends to find itself modified by specific movements, most frequently of a political bent.

So now that we’ve briefly looked over the history of patriotism and nationalismcan we draw any firm conclusions about whether one or the other is pejorative? The answer is: it depends. It seems certain that, at least with nationalism, it may mean different things to different people. Of the six different kinds of X nationalism cited just above, it is likely that most people would find some politically questionable, and others not. Patriotism is rarely used in these contexts.

In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations.

 

[Rallywagon]

I guess they are similar. However chauvinism , xenophobia are not synonisms of patriotism. I have edited my previous post after seeing my incorrect assesment.

I am curious what you think chauvinism is exactly, if not exaggerated patriotism. And while xenophobia may not by synonymous with patriotism, they do tend to go hand in hand.

 

[PocketZeven]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism


Perhaps most pertinent here, however, is this bit:

I have to add that nationalism has the same negative connotations as the US, because of Nazi's obviously.

I am curious what you think chauvinism is exactly, if not exaggerated patriotism. And while xenophobia may not by synonymous with patriotism, they do tend to go hand in hand.

Similar, but you cant use them interchangebly without changing the meaning of a sentence.

 

[Rallywagon]

I have to add that nationalism has the same negative connotations as the US, because of Nazi's obviously.



Similar, but you cant use them interchangebly without changing the meaning of a sentence.

Sure I can.
Patriotism is a terrible thing.
Chauvinism is a terrible thing.
See, the meanings are the same...

 

[PocketZeven]

Sure I can.
Patriotism is a terrible thing.
Chauvinism is a terrible thing.
See, the meanings are the same...

sorry that was my fault. I worded that incorrectly.

By definition chauvisnism is an extreme for of Patriotism, but Patriotism is not a "lesser"form of chauvinism.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I am not talking about msm or even Fox. I am referencing to direct unfiltered quotes from Trump himself about immigration, when I talk about his rhetoric towards immigrants. (albeit from certain countries. He is welcoming to european immigrants)

You really need to learn to distinguish between the various elements that I bring into trying to make a broader point, and something being attributed directly to you. And the quotes I gave you are from Trump and unfiltered.

I dont know what your problem is with msm, but Trump himself has demonized immigrants from the getgo. Nationalism and patriotism are apparantly interchangeable, (edited) but do have different characteristics. Nationalism in my language (translated by google):

"Strong predilection for their own people and their own state. This attitude is often accompanied by an aversion or disdain for other peoples. The concept has a negative charge, especially as a result of National Socialism in Germany, where political leaders manipulated nationalist feelings. See also discrimination, fascism and xenophobia ..."


Patriotism is a love for country.

edit: correction after post from @Rallywagon

I think it was quite clear the Trump's problem was with illegal immigrants and from a select few countries he wanted to issue a travel ban to. Can you provide some links to where Trump demonized immigrants in general? The quotes I gave you above say the opposite.

I have to add that nationalism has the same negative connotations as the US, because of Nazi's obviously.

Similar, but you cant use them interchangebly without changing the meaning of a sentence.

Does socialism have the same negative connotations because of Nazi's obviously? It's not hard to argue that the U.S. has been both patriotic and nationalistic from the get go.

 

[Rallywagon]

sorry that was my fault. I worded that incorrectly.

By definition chauvisnism is an extreme for of Patriotism, but Patriotism is not a "lesser"form of chauvinism.

That's all semantics. Chauvinism is extreme patriotism. The severity may be different, but the mechanics are the same.

 

[PocketZeven]

You really need to learn to distinguish between the various elements that I bring into trying to make a broader point, and something being attributed directly to you. And the quotes I gave you are from Trump and unfiltered.

I think it was quite clear the Trump's problem was with illegal immigrants and from a select few countries he wanted to issue a travel ban to. Can you provide some links to where Trump demonized immigrants in general? The quotes I gave you above say the opposite.

Trump quotes demonizing mexicans, muslims and others.:

- "these aren't people. These are animals."
- “Why are we having all these people from ******** countries come here?”
- "The US has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems. Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
- "Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers,"
- “Absolutely. I mean, I don’t notice Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center. There is a Muslim problem in the world, and you know it and I know it.”
- “Muslims can come in but other people can’t; Christians can’t come into this country but Muslims can. Something has got to be coming down from the top… the Muslims aren’t in danger but the Christians are.”
- President Donald Trump declared in the Oval Office that the incoming Haitian refugees “all have AIDS”
- During a campaign rally in New Hampshire, Trump does not correct a rally attendee who states that President Obama is a Muslim and “not even an American.” The attendee goes on to say, “We have a problem in this country; it’s called Muslims” and asks Trump, “When can we get rid of them?” Trump responds, “We’re going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.”
- “Refugees from Syria are now pouring into our great country. Who knows who they are — some could be ISIS. Is our president insane?”
- Claims he saw “thousands and thousands of people” cheering on 9/11 as the World Trade Centers came down.
- “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
- about muslims: “There’s a sickness. They’re sick people. There’s a sickness going on. There’s a group of people that is very sick. And we have to figure out the answer. And the Muslims can help us figure out the answer.”
- “Is it really a Muslim problem or is it a radical Islamist problem?” Trump responds: “Maybe its a Muslim problem, maybe its not.”
- “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”

That's all semantics. Chauvinism is extreme patriotism. The severity may be different, but the mechanics are the same.

You might be correct, but nationalism and potriatism can not be used interchangably in all instances.

 

[Rallywagon]

You might be correct, but nationalism and potriatism can not be used interchangably in all instances.

Well, at least your not using absolutes now.

 

[Northstar]

It is just a shame the Trump administration chose to allocate military resources to the border, while he could have arranged more resources to more quickly process the asylum applications.

As much as I agree it's a waste to use military resources on this, I'm not sure there is much they could do to speed up the processing. There's only so many judges and lawyers who are familiar enough with immigration law and I would be willing to bet they aren't in a position to drop everything and rush to the border.