This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
2020 US Presidential Election. (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 10 Dec 20 11.07pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
Yes I'm well aware when it was written. It's part of the citizen test. The link was merely where I think Stirling was aiming his argument. I am sure he appreciates your attempt at a defence but US immigration has a long history. It didn't begin in 1965. The claim was made about what appeared in the constitution. Which, so far as I can see, was silent on the issue. If you try to make an argument it's generally a good idea to get your facts right.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Badger11 Beckenham 11 Dec 20 7.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Well the love in has started. Biden and Harris names person of the year by Time magazine. What is it with these people. Biden hasn't even been inaugurated yet how can he be man of the year. Could they not find a better candidate for 2020 this is as pathetic as Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize for what he was going to do in the Middle East and then didn't. At least let the guy get his backside in the Oval office before you start proclaiming him as the new Messiah. I get the "anyone but Trump" however Times Man / Woman of the year used to be a prestigious award they're trashing their own award just to annoy Trump. Edited by Badger11 (11 Dec 2020 7.11am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Foxy82 11 Dec 20 7.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Trump also won when he was president elect in 2016. Other notable winners include Adolf Hitler, I seem to remember reading?! If you read further down, it states that Adolf Hitler was indeed given the 'prestigious' award in 1938. Edited by Foxy82 (11 Dec 2020 7.55am)
Red & Blue SInce 1982 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 11 Dec 20 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Foxy82
Trump also won when he was president elect in 2016. Other notable winners include Adolf Hitler, I seem to remember reading?! If you read further down, it states that Adolf Hitler was indeed given the 'prestigious' award in 1938. Edited by Foxy82 (11 Dec 2020 7.55am) Thanks, unbelievable
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 11 Dec 20 8.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Will be a major test for new regime
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 11 Dec 20 8.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Its perfect for them. A great chance to show how strict they to can be with the borders. No doubt already got an eye on 2024 and aware that Covid will not be around to give them the opportunity to 'game' the election in the same way. Especially since the jobs will start heading out of the US once more as they fall in line with what their globalist paymasters tell them to do. Never forget that all those photographs of migrants in cages that were blamed on Trump came about under the benevolent eye of Saint Obama and that it was Trump that actually signed off on a presidential decree to stop it happening.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Dec 20 9.28am |
 |
|---|---|
|
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Dec 20 9.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Pretty sure his argument was referring to the constitution (incorrect) rather than the 1920s immigration legislation (correct) That’s what is being debated here. It’s not in the constitution. Simple I'd already said I wasn't an expert on the US constitution in the original exchange. However, I was correct about the US immigration policy which existed on law and produced the demographic reality in the US leading to 65.....which was my point. The distinction between whether it was in the constitution or existed in law in practical terms is pedantry. This is how the US dealt with the matter. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2020 9.42am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Dec 20 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
That though was not the claim you made. You said it was in the constitution and I can find no such reference there. You might not care about them too much, but facts matter. I thought you took pride in admitting errors and disliked "pin dancing". I will admit my error as it appears I was wrong over that. Here is another fact that you seem to have either missed or ignored. It is silent about "Europeans"! What it actually says is "free white person[s] ... of good character". Its intention is more about excluding people than including them and clearly seems racist in character. Since then steady progress has been made in rolling back the legal discrimination, even if some people are slow to catch up.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 11 Dec 20 11.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'd already said I wasn't an expert on the US constitution in the original exchange. However, I was correct about the US immigration policy which existed on law and produced the demographic reality in the US leading to 65.....which was my point. The distinction between whether it was in the constitution or existed in law in practical terms is pedantry. This is how the US dealt with the matter. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2020 9.42am) mmm – I think claiming it was in the constitution gives it more weight though. As though it was a fundamental element of the constitution rather than just a piece of legislation. And interestingly there was another law passed in 24 that limited immigration via a quota system, completely excluding asians, but also limiting immigration from most countries including Europe rather than favouring it. 'The restrictive principles of the Act could have resulted in strained relations with some European countries as well, but these potential problems did not appear for several reasons. The global depression of the 1930s, World War II, and stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration policy served to curtail European emigration. When these crises had passed, emergency provisions for the resettlement of displaced persons in 1948 and 1950 helped the United States avoid conflict over its new immigration laws.'
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Dec 20 12.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That though was not the claim you made. You said it was in the constitution and I can find no such reference there. You might not care about them too much, but facts matter. I thought you took pride in admitting errors and disliked "pin dancing". I will admit my error as it appears I was wrong over that. Here is another fact that you seem to have either missed or ignored. It is silent about "Europeans"! What it actually says is "free white person[s] ... of good character". Its intention is more about excluding people than including them and clearly seems racist in character. Since then steady progress has been made in rolling back the legal discrimination, even if some people are slow to catch up. You are the king of pin dancing so I'll take no lessons in admitting errors from the likes of you. I'll repeat what you so obviously choose to ignore. My point, once again, was that the reason for the demographic reality of 90+ genetic Europeans in the US in 65 was expressly down to its laws prior to then. Your point about 'whites' and Europeans is moot, as that is what it meant and what its immigration policy did....if there were exceptions around the edges I don't know. I made an error stating that this was in the constitution when in fact it was immigration law.....big deal. Your fixation upon this is pure pedantry as it made zero difference to the outcome of any case. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2020 12.18pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Dec 20 12.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
mmm – I think claiming it was in the constitution gives it more weight though. As though it was a fundamental element of the constitution rather than just a piece of legislation. What difference does it make? Washington signed the naturalisation laws into existence himself. A fixation on the difference is just grand-standing when the constitution itself only came into existence one year earlier. I'm quite happy to change my statement to 'it was the immigration policy of the USA.' Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Dec 2020 12.11pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.