Now A Census Question Is Evil...

[seer]

If you read carefully, you won't find any of those words in my post.

No, by the tenor of your posts you don't seem to have a problem with people who break our laws by coming into this country illegally.

[carpedm9587]

No, by the tenor of your posts you don't seem to have a problem with people who break our laws by coming into this country illegally.

You are "doing a Sparko" and attempting to read my mind. If you want to know what I think - just ask.

[QuantaFille]

I think legal immigration should be easier. I think they make it way too difficult for people who genuinely want to come here and make a living. On the other hand, they seem to welcome in "refugees" in a flood from dangerous parts of the world without proper checks.

I think they need more security, but if people pass that then have less regulations on who is allowed to immigrate. RationalGaze one of our members, lived in the UK and married another member here, Quantafille. It was very difficult for him to get permission to immigrate to the US. He had to have a job, and all sorts of checks and paperwork. I think someone who is married to an American should at least get a green card after making sure it isn't a sham wedding.

I started reading your post and decided to reply with my own immigration nightmare story, and then I kept reading and saw that you mentioned it yourself. Thanks.
I do think that immigration that is only obtainable if you already have a lot of money or a lot of talent is discouraging for those of us who just do scrape by from paycheck to paycheck. All the problems we encountered in trying to get RG over here were financial in nature.

[One Bad Pig]

Since my experience is that denying it just gets me further accused of doing it, I don't see a point in responding, beyond this observation.

Note that I did not accuse you of doing so in this instance, merely provided it as a possibility. Your response appears to indicate that it was more than a possibility.

Hint: If you tried occasionally responding, "yes, that IS the implication of what I"m saying," you'd find the accusation wouldn't come up so much.

[carpedm9587]

Note that I did not accuse you of doing so in this instance, merely provided it as a possibility. Your response appears to indicate that it was more than a possibility.

Hint: If you tried occasionally responding, "yes, that IS the implication of what I"m saying," you'd find the accusation wouldn't come up so much.

Actually - if you read my response, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me.

When people ask me a question, and I answer honestly, and I am then accused of answering dishonestly, or dodging, or all of the rest some of you folks like to use as a discussion tactic, I find it gets a bit old. When the conversation starts with a suggestion that may be possible, I've come to the conclusion the conversation is already lost - why spend the time?

[Jedidiah]

I don't waste time being afraid of "unlikely" things when there are far more "likely" things that need my/our attention.

This is simply not true. Shooting deaths are statistically a very small percentage of overall deaths in this nation. Yet you do "waste time" on that topic.

[carpedm9587]

This is simply not true. Shooting deaths are statistically a very small percentage of overall deaths in this nation. Yet you do "waste time" on that topic.

Actually - "shooting deaths" are reasonably high on the list. The 12th leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2017 was liver disease (40K+ dead). Since we have death by gunfire at 32K+ in 2017 (including suicides), it is a fairly significant problem. And since we have 320M guns in the U.S., the probability that I am in the company of someone carrying a gun or able to secure a gun is pretty high, again, depending on where I am. But I am also concerned with gun-related violence because I have been directly impacted by it. I have experienced the impact of shooting deaths both in our community and our local high school. I also travel extensively to cities where shooting deaths have a significantly higher incident rate.

On the other hand, I don't spend time on my possible death by meteor strike, or at the hands of a refugee or immigrant (legal or otherwise). The incident rate is microscopic.


I should be straight with you, Jedidiah. If you have not been following the other gun thread, an exchange I had with several people here has convinced me that my position on guns and gun control was too moderate. I no longer hold those positions, and I have shifted significantly to the left as a result. Since you and I had had some reasonable exchanges on the topic in which I expressed other views, and I pretty regularly get accused of being disengenuous or even dishonest (on this forum), I thought I would let you know.

Michel

[Sparko]

I have not seen any indication that checks are omitted. It is true that they are often more difficult to do, and refugees do pose a greater risk. I'm not afraid of it. We've taken in thousands of refugees and they statistically pose an extremely low risk. I don't waste time being afraid of "unlikely" things when there are far more "likely" things that need my/our attention.



I reviewed the security that was in place (what I could find about it) before Trump started his "extreme vetting." It had already been through several rounds of tightening up and was pretty tight already, and the testament to that, IMO, was the results. Trump threw a lot of anti-immigrant smoke into the air and generated a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment that i just don't buy in to. The "lottery" system is unfortunately named, but as safe as the rest. I certainly have no problem with trying to increase immigration of upper talent, but I don't think we should do so at the expense of the rank-and-file. We have work to be done across the spectrum.

I agree with your observation about married couples, after reasonable efforts to weed out sham weddings. I would go beyond green card and, assuming they so desire, make sure there is a reasonable path to citizenship.

My mom came back with a green card after my dad married her in the 1960's in Germany. It was easier for soldiers to do that (might still be). But she didn't get her citizenship until the 1980s. She was very proud of that.

[Sparko]

I started reading your post and decided to reply with my own immigration nightmare story, and then I kept reading and saw that you mentioned it yourself. Thanks.
I do think that immigration that is only obtainable if you already have a lot of money or a lot of talent is discouraging for those of us who just do scrape by from paycheck to paycheck. All the problems we encountered in trying to get RG over here were financial in nature.

Yeah. I think it is horribly hard for people to legitimately come to the USA, but then they turn around and want to let those who sneak in illegally stay and live off of welfare. That's not right. Heck I bet it would have been easier for RG to fly to Mexico and then sneak across the border!

[Sparko]

Actually - if you read my response, I wasn't accusing you of accusing me.

When people ask me a question, and I answer honestly, and I am then accused of answering dishonestly, or dodging, or all of the rest some of you folks like to use as a discussion tactic, I find it gets a bit old. When the conversation starts with a suggestion that may be possible, I've come to the conclusion the conversation is already lost - why spend the time?

and yet, I am not the only person here who 'tries to read your mind' as you accuse. It seems a lot of people here 'misread' what you are saying or implying and think you are dodging and playing word games. Maybe it has something to do with your debate style or personality?

[carpedm9587]

My mom came back with a green card after my dad married her in the 1960's in Germany. It was easier for soldiers to do that (might still be). But she didn't get her citizenship until the 1980s. She was very proud of that.

She was proud of getting it - or that it didn't happen for 20 years?

[carpedm9587]

and yet, I am not the only person here who 'tries to read your mind' as you accuse.

No - you're not. There are others who do it as well.

It seems a lot of people here 'misread' what you are saying or implying and think you are dodging and playing word games.

I actually have no problem with someone misreading what I post. Happens all the time. The written word conveys no clear emotion and can be badly written. Life happens. I do find it odd, when I clarify what has been misunderstood, to be told what I actually meant. It's kind of like saying, "I need a belt," and having someone hand me a shot of whiskey. When I clarify that I was actually asking for something to hold up my pants, they continue to insist that what I actually meant was I needed a drink. The whole dynamic makes no sense to me whatsoever. If I have misunderstood someone, I want them to clarify it for me so I correctly understand them. For me to insist they meant X all along is ridiculous if they did not actually mean X. Around here, many people seem to take the approach that whatever was first understood is always what the author intended, and any attempt to clarify a miscommunication is a "dodge" or "disengenuous" or "dishonest." It's a very wierd dynamic.

Maybe it has something to do with your debate style or personality?

Possibly. However, as I have mentioned several times (and I realize folks don't believe me), but this is the only venue where that dynamic occurs. I'm sure from your side, it looks like it's all about me. But when I look for cause/effect, I look for commonality. From your perspective - several people have this opinion, so it must be me. From my perspective, it only happens on this forum - so I have to conclude there is something about how this forum functions. Perhaps a collective habit that has developed (I notice it is not only done to me - it is done to other posters as well). Be that as it may, I read, I think, and I respond as honestly as I can. If I find someone has a point that changes my mind, I let them know. If I find I have missed something, I acknowledge it and have done so several times. I have, in a flurry exchanges, missed some posts. It always amazes me when someone accuses me of "dodging" instead of considering the possibility that I may simply have missed the post. If someone shows me how my reasoning is off, I acknowledge it - and have several times. If someone is unconvincing, I let them know I am not convinced. If someone can show me where I have been rude or condescending, I try to own it and apologize for it. I have done so several times, a few times without even being prompted.

What people do with the exchanges on their side, and what they think of me, is beyond my control. Exchange with me if you find it interesting/engaging/enjoyable. Don't if you do not.

[Sparko]

She was proud of getting it - or that it didn't happen for 20 years?

[carpedm9587]

That was actually a serious question. Your statement was ambiguous and I was looking for clarification.

[Zymologist]

No - you're not. There are others who do it as well.



I actually have no problem with someone misreading what I post. Happens all the time. The written word conveys no clear emotion and can be badly written. Life happens. I do find it odd, when I clarify what has been misunderstood, to be told what I actually meant. It's kind of like saying, "I need a belt," and having someone hand me a shot of whiskey. When I clarify that I was actually asking for something to hold up my pants, they continue to insist that what I actually meant was I needed a drink. The whole dynamic makes no sense to me whatsoever. If I have misunderstood someone, I want them to clarify it for me so I correctly understand them. For me to insist they meant X all along is ridiculous if they did not actually mean X. Around here, many people seem to take the approach that whatever was first understood is always what the author intended, and any attempt to clarify a miscommunication is a "dodge" or "disengenuous" or "dishonest." It's a very wierd dynamic.



Possibly. However, as I have mentioned several times (and I realize folks don't believe me), but this is the only venue where that dynamic occurs. I'm sure from your side, it looks like it's all about me. But when I look for cause/effect, I look for commonality. From your perspective - several people have this opinion, so it must be me. From my perspective, it only happens on this forum - so I have to conclude there is something about how this forum functions. Perhaps a collective habit that has developed (I notice it is not only done to me - it is done to other posters as well). Be that as it may, I read, I think, and I respond as honestly as I can. If I find someone has a point that changes my mind, I let them know. If I find I have missed something, I acknowledge it and have done so several times. I have, in a flurry exchanges, missed some posts. It always amazes me when someone accuses me of "dodging" instead of considering the possibility that I may simply have missed the post. If someone shows me how my reasoning is off, I acknowledge it - and have several times. If someone is unconvincing, I let them know I am not convinced. If someone can show me where I have been rude or condescending, I try to own it and apologize for it. I have done so several times, a few times without even being prompted.

What people do with the exchanges on their side, and what they think of me, is beyond my control. Exchange with me if you find it interesting/engaging/enjoyable. Don't if you do not.

I've seen you do this as well, so the idea that it's unique to the "other" posters on this forum seems obviously wrong.