Ben Carson refers to slaves as "immigrants"

[paperview]

You keep up that good trumpsplainin', Pinnochio.

And once again, lefties dismiss dictionary definitions as valid.


Your outrage is bullshit.

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[sealybobo]

You would think that the term "immigrant" would infer a person acting on their own, without coercion.

But no. Now that words really no longer mean anything, "immigrant" can be pretty much anything.

Holy crap, this just continues to get worse.
.

You are the one struggling with the real meaning of this word.



Definition of immigrant

1. : one that immigrates: such asa : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

Ben Carson was NOT trying to downplay slavery.

His point, whatever it was, was something else, and that has been buried by manufactured outrage.

Let's overlook words like "fascist", "fascism", "democracy", etc., that so many twist tortuously. Let's just look at the above 'definition' of the word that has been put falsely forward for purposes of obfuscation. First, slaves were not 'persons' and had no standing in court; they were chattel. They did not 'come' to America, they were delivered against their will. And whatever will they had was certainly not to stay in a hostile foreign land. It is devoid of understanding and humanity to defend such a laughable proposition as calling them 'immigrants'.

So, you accept as correct and support the arguments of the most extremist slavery supporters, got it.

You lefties will do or say or believe ANYTHING, regardless of contradictions or vileness, if it allows you to smear your enemies.

It's hard to side with you because ever since slavery ended, you guys have claimed things were fair for blacks even though it was obvious things weren't fair for them. You did this during the civil rights too. Then you did it during Affirmative Action. You never understood things weren't fair for blacks.

So maybe you are right now that they need to get over it. That basically nothing is fair for anyone anymore. Blacks need to just learn to accept it and deal with it like the rest of us. Life isn't fair. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich control the government. Always have and always will.

Today I figured it out. Our best payed workers are going to take a huge step back so we can bring manufacturing jobs back home. So union workers who made $30 hr and got pensions are going to lose all that. That way $10 walmart workers can go work at factories that come back home after the unions are broken. And they will pay $15 hr. So the losers that voted for Trump will be happy but labor/the middle class will take a step back. I see clearly now.

 

[Correll]

You would think that the term "immigrant" would infer a person acting on their own, without coercion.

But no. Now that words really no longer mean anything, "immigrant" can be pretty much anything.

Holy crap, this just continues to get worse.
.

You are the one struggling with the real meaning of this word.



Definition of immigrant

1. : one that immigrates: such asa : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

Ben Carson was NOT trying to downplay slavery.

His point, whatever it was, was something else, and that has been buried by manufactured outrage.

Let's overlook words like "fascist", "fascism", "democracy", etc., that so many twist tortuously. Let's just look at the above 'definition' of the word that has been put falsely forward for purposes of obfuscation. First, slaves were not 'persons' and had no standing in court; they were chattel. They did not 'come' to America, they were delivered against their will. And whatever will they had was certainly not to stay in a hostile foreign land. It is devoid of understanding and humanity to defend such a laughable proposition as calling them 'immigrants'.

So, you accept as correct and support the arguments of the most extremist slavery supporters, got it.

You lefties will do or say or believe ANYTHING, regardless of contradictions or vileness, if it allows you to smear your enemies.

It's hard to side with you because ever since slavery ended, you guys have claimed things were fair for blacks even though it was obvious things weren't fair for them. You did this during the civil rights too. Then you did it during Affirmative Action. You never understood things weren't fair for blacks.

So maybe you are right now that they need to get over it. That basically nothing is fair for anyone anymore. Blacks need to just learn to accept it and deal with it like the rest of us. Life isn't fair. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich control the government. Always have and always will.

Today I figured it out. Our best payed workers are going to take a huge step back so we can bring manufacturing jobs back home. So union workers who made $30 hr and got pensions are going to lose all that. That way $10 walmart workers can go work at factories that come back home after the unions are broken. And they will pay $15 hr. So the losers that voted for Trump will be happy but labor/the middle class will take a step back. I see clearly now.

If you want to consider what Republicans and/or Conservatives will do, don't start out by dismissing everything they say they will do, AND assuming the worst about their intentions and capabilities.

 

[paperview]

You keep up that good trumpsplainin', Pinnochio.

And once again, lefties dismiss dictionary definitions as valid.


Your outrage is bullshit.

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Quick question for all you people who think that slaves were immigrants.......

If they were truly immigrants, then why did they amend the Constitution to say that slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person, and were not allowed to vote?

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[2] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

If slaves were "true" immigrants, then why did they only count as 3/5 of a person?

It was a strategic move by Abolitionists trying to limit the Political Power of the big Slave States.

That political strategy in no way disputes or undermines the dictionary definition of an immigrant.


Unless you are making the argument of the hard core bigots that blacks are not people?

Actually, the 3/5th's solution in and of itself makes the argument that blacks aren't people, because it says they are only 60 percent people, and it was that way from 1789 until 1864 when the slaves were freed.

Are you agreeing with that argument?

Actually, no I don't agree with that argument as you put it, but I'm not the one that wrote it into the Constitution, the First Congress did. And, like I said, I don't have to make the argument fro the 3/5ths solution being racist, because it is by it's very nature of only counting black slaves as 3/5ths of a person. And, like I said, if they are considered to be only 60 percent of a person, how does that make them an immigrant if they are just over half a person?

Except you just stated that you don't agree with that argument. And neither do I.

So, your question on them being "half a person" is thus, nonsense. To both of us.

So, why did you ask it?

Oh, right. It is something you have to believe, even though you state you don't believe it, in order smear the REpublican.

He does not believe it is true, it is grade school sarcasm.

That slaves had FEWER rights does not mean that they were not immigrants and only property. Under the legal system of slavery a person could be both property and a person, until radical Democrat judges in the Dred Scot decision claimed that they were nothing but property, a decision rightly rejected by every Republican at the time and spurred the growth of the GOP.

What is so amazing to me is that today Democrats are going back to those old slaves=property only arguments in a ridiculous attempt to try to undermine Carson who is three times as smart as any of them, lol.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question for all you people who think that slaves were immigrants.......

If they were truly immigrants, then why did they amend the Constitution to say that slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person, and were not allowed to vote?

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[2] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

If slaves were "true" immigrants, then why did they only count as 3/5 of a person?

It was a strategic move by Abolitionists trying to limit the Political Power of the big Slave States.

That political strategy in no way disputes or undermines the dictionary definition of an immigrant.


Unless you are making the argument of the hard core bigots that blacks are not people?

Actually, the 3/5th's solution in and of itself makes the argument that blacks aren't people, because it says they are only 60 percent people, and it was that way from 1789 until 1864 when the slaves were freed.

Are you agreeing with that argument?

Actually, no I don't agree with that argument as you put it, but I'm not the one that wrote it into the Constitution, the First Congress did. And, like I said, I don't have to make the argument fro the 3/5ths solution being racist, because it is by it's very nature of only counting black slaves as 3/5ths of a person. And, like I said, if they are considered to be only 60 percent of a person, how does that make them an immigrant if they are just over half a person?

Except you just stated that you don't agree with that argument. And neither do I.

So, your question on them being "half a person" is thus, nonsense. To both of us.

So, why did you ask it?

Oh, right. It is something you have to believe, even though you state you don't believe it, in order smear the REpublican.

There are lots of things in the history of this country that I don't agree with. The way we treated Native Americans is one of them, slavery is another. And, just because we both agree that slavery was bad, it doesn't change the FACT that from 1787 until 1864, it was in our Constitution that slaves were only counted as 3/5ths of a person, so that wouldn't make them immigrants but rather slaves who are only 60 percent of a person. I'm not the one that wrote it in, the First Congress did, and yeah, it's a racist policy that shouldn't have been enacted IMHO, but it was because of the way things were done at that time.

No, slaves weren't immigrants. They weren't even considered complete people.

 

[Correll]

And once again, lefties dismiss dictionary definitions as valid.


Your outrage is bullshit.

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

 

[Correll]

It was a strategic move by Abolitionists trying to limit the Political Power of the big Slave States.

That political strategy in no way disputes or undermines the dictionary definition of an immigrant.


Unless you are making the argument of the hard core bigots that blacks are not people?

Actually, the 3/5th's solution in and of itself makes the argument that blacks aren't people, because it says they are only 60 percent people, and it was that way from 1789 until 1864 when the slaves were freed.

Are you agreeing with that argument?

Actually, no I don't agree with that argument as you put it, but I'm not the one that wrote it into the Constitution, the First Congress did. And, like I said, I don't have to make the argument fro the 3/5ths solution being racist, because it is by it's very nature of only counting black slaves as 3/5ths of a person. And, like I said, if they are considered to be only 60 percent of a person, how does that make them an immigrant if they are just over half a person?

Except you just stated that you don't agree with that argument. And neither do I.

So, your question on them being "half a person" is thus, nonsense. To both of us.

So, why did you ask it?

Oh, right. It is something you have to believe, even though you state you don't believe it, in order smear the REpublican.

There are lots of things in the history of this country that I don't agree with. The way we treated Native Americans is one of them, slavery is another. And, just because we both agree that slavery was bad, it doesn't change the FACT that from 1787 until 1864, it was in our Constitution that slaves were only counted as 3/5ths of a person, so that wouldn't make them immigrants but rather slaves who are only 60 percent of a person. I'm not the one that wrote it in, the First Congress did, and yeah, it's a racist policy that shouldn't have been enacted IMHO, but it was because of the way things were done at that time.

No, slaves weren't immigrants. They weren't even considered complete people.

Oh, wait I see what you are doing here.


YOu are, or are pretending to be, one of those people that think that words trump reality.


Are you a lawyer or just autistic?

Actually don't care.

The point is that slaves were people, no matter what sophist games you manage to play.

They were people that came to this nation to live permanently.

THat makes them immigrants.

Ben Carson was completely right to refer to them as immigrants.


That you lefties pounced on this as a rationalization for a smear campaign is just a manifestation of lefties being what you are.

 

[paperview]

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

off-topic.

Holy shit. YOU called them immigrants. You most certainly KNOW if you have two brain cells to rub together, the ones that were imported here, per our Constitution - were here legally.

So you don't know if they were legal or illegal immigrants.

??

 

[Correll]

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

off-topic.

Holy shit. YOU called them immigrants. You most certainly KNOW if you have two brain cells to rub together, the ones that were imported here, per our Constitution - were here legally.

So you don't know if they were legal or illegal immigrants.

??

I know that the laws changed over time, regarding the importation of slaves.

I don't know the details nor anything about any number that might have been brought in, in violation of that or any other laws.

NOr do I care.

NOr does it matter in the context of the topic.


If you have a point to make, with this, go right ahead.


Cause it looks like you are just desperately trying to distract from the fact that your latest lefty "outrage" is nothing but sophist garbage.

 

[paperview]

....They were people that came to this nation to live permanently.
THat makes them immigrants.

 

[bodecea]

You keep up that good trumpsplainin', Pinnochio.

And once again, lefties dismiss dictionary definitions as valid.


Your outrage is bullshit.

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

"So, what if the slaves were denied their god given rights? What does that have to do with anything?"

Thus, the problem (blind spot) with RWrs.....in a nut shell.

 

[Correll]

....They were people that came to this nation to live permanently.
THat makes them immigrants.

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
   synonyms: newcomer, settler, migrant, emigrant; More

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

off-topic.

Holy shit. YOU called them immigrants. You most certainly KNOW if you have two brain cells to rub together, the ones that were imported here, per our Constitution - were here legally.

So you don't know if they were legal or illegal immigrants.

??

Yeah, and per our Constitution, from 1787 until 1864, slaves were only 3/5ths of a person.

 

[Correll]

And once again, lefties dismiss dictionary definitions as valid.


Your outrage is bullshit.

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

"So, what if the slaves were denied their god given rights? What does that have to do with anything?"

Thus, the problem (blind spot) with RWrs.....in a nut shell.

The fact that slaves were denied their rights does not mean that they were not forced migrants, you smug ass.

 

[paperview]

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

off-topic.

Holy shit. YOU called them immigrants. You most certainly KNOW if you have two brain cells to rub together, the ones that were imported here, per our Constitution - were here legally.

So you don't know if they were legal or illegal immigrants.

??

I know that the laws changed over time, regarding the importation of slaves.

I don't know the details nor anything about any number that might have been brought in, in violation of that or any other laws.

NOr do I care.

NOr does it matter in the context of the topic.


If you have a point to make, with this, go right ahead.


Cause it looks like you are just desperately trying to distract from the fact that your latest lefty "outrage" is nothing but sophist garbage.

There was only ONE period of time there were importation of slaves in the US - that is 1801 to 1808.

Only two states allowed it. A few hundred thousand is the number we are talking about in this whole fucking discussion.

THEY WERE BROUGHT HERE LEGALLY.

So, according to your fucked up metric, they were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Legal immigrants have rights. You ponder that for a moment, Mr. KnowNothing

 

[bodecea]

OK. Let's pretend you stupid definition is valid. (it's not, but let's say...)

A couple hundred thousand were "immigrants" to the US, of which were about 1% of the total of what would be 4 million by the time of the Civil War.

1%. Woop de doo.

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

Ok....how is the slave trade "off topic" when it is at the core of Carson's remarks?

 

[Correll]

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

off-topic.

Holy shit. YOU called them immigrants. You most certainly KNOW if you have two brain cells to rub together, the ones that were imported here, per our Constitution - were here legally.

So you don't know if they were legal or illegal immigrants.

??

Yeah, and per our Constitution, from 1787 until 1864, slaves were only 3/5ths of a person.

People are not a legal construct. People are real. Their reality exists regardless of what a political strategy says they are.


I can call my cat a dog. That does not make it so.

 

[Correll]

It is not my definition.

Republicans don't play that game of trying to twist words to advance our agenda.

It is the accepted DICTIONARY definition of the word(S).

No. It's not. US Immigrants have rights. Slaves did not. They were imports, GOODS. Property. According to our Founders. Imma go with their definition. Theirs is the one that counts in that brief period the US imported a couple hundred thousand as goods, from 1801 to 1808.

"What point are you trying to make about the native born slaves?"

They accounted for 99%, as described earlier, and were not imported, nor, as you like to say immigrants.

Nor were they citizens.

Yes, it is the dictionary definition of words.

Your citing of historical political strategies are arguments for the idea that black people are not people, does not change that.

And your point about native born slaves, is still not clear in the context of this thread.

SO, what if the slaves were denied their God Given Rights? What does that have to do with anything?

The 1790 Dictionary doesn't even contain the word "immigrant."

A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning

Nonetheless, Q for you: Were these "immigrants" legal or illegal?

I've never considered, cared or researched the varying legalities of the slave trade.

And it is all off topic anyways.

Ok....how is the slave trade "off topic" when it is at the core of Carson's remarks?

Nothing in the definition of the world Immigrant is effected by legality or illegality.


Thus it is NOT at the core of Carson's remarks.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some of these people cold put Jesuits to shame with their sinuous twisting of terminology.