You're seriously asking me that? My goodness, of course I agree that a nation (or a union of which a nation is a member) should set and enforce standards to foreigners willing to apply for citizenship. The contrary would be an extreme position. Why would you assume that I am of such an extreme position? Is that charitable?

(Your link is dead, by the way).

No. This is an example of racism. It's a fitting word to use. — S

Why is it racist to observe that in-group preferences exist?

Why is it racist to observe that in-group preferences exist? — Inis

Wrong question. The question would be: why was it racist to claim that the judge had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation, given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association (which Trump wrongfully casted as strongly pro-Mexican)? It was racist, because the evidence suggests that it was a judgement based on prejudice more than anything else. His Mexican heritage is irrelevant. It's not, in itself, by any means sufficient grounds for accusing the judge of not only having a conflict of interest, but an "absolute" conflict of interest. And his other excuse has been found to be a weak basis for that judgement.

And we shouldn't just take this in isolation. Look at what else he has said and done. Remember, "They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"? Remember, "shithole countries"? Remember his involvement in the birther conspiracy?

Wrong question. — S

Do in-group preferences exist?

I don't have to answer irrelevant questions.

I don't have to answer irrelevant questions. — S

So, you think questioning loyalty in general, is racist?

Stop trying to troll me with loaded questions. It won't work. Next time, I think I'll just ignore you instead of responding.

Stop trying to troll me with loaded questions. It won't work. Next time, I think I'll just ignore you instead of responding. — S

Sure, because they give the Ellis Island Medal to racists.

Sure, because they give the Ellis Island Medal to racists. — Inis

Sure, because they give the Nobel Peace Prize to... wait... :chin:

Evangelical support for Trump was [April, 2018] at an all-time high: 75%. Disturbingly, as he left the White House, President Barack Obama enjoyed the favorable view of only 24% of white evangelicals.
Obama, a man who had no sex scandals, was never accused of sexual harassment, had two children with the same woman, couldn't crack 25% white evangelicals. — “CNN”

Perhaps you mean Trump wants to filter out people who don´t have the level of civilization (democratic values, respect for secular Law, respect for human rights, and the abstract thinking skills required to understand those notions) — DiegoT

Wait. People from certain countries don't want/believe/share democratic values, respect law, human rights and in top of that don't have abstract thinking skills? Which countries are those?

Evangelical support for Trump was [April, 2018] at an all-time high: 75%. Disturbingly, as he left the White House, President Barack Obama enjoyed the favorable view of only 24% of white evangelicals.
Obama, a man who had no sex scandals, was never accused of sexual harassment, had two children with the same woman, couldn't crack 25% white evangelicals. — “CNN”

Evangelicals are cynical hypocrites, what's new?

At least the Mormons don't like Trump as much.

Among Mormon voters in Utah, 76 percent preferred Republican congressional candidates, but only 56 percent said they approved of Trump.

(Of course that may be thanks to one Mormon Republican politician being against Trump.)

Evangelicals are cynical hypocrites, what's new? — ssu

Maybe it was Obama's other scandals, failures, debt, and wars that the *White* evangelicals disapproved of?

At least the Mormons don't like Trump as much. — ssu

Perhaps when their children are brought back from war in Syria, they might like Trump more.

Wait. People from certain countries don't want/believe/share democratic values, respect law, human rights and in top of that don't have abstract thinking skills? Which countries are those? — Benkei

Welfare provision acts as a magnet for poorly educated, low IQ migrants, and if they are illegal immigrants, they by definition don't respect the law. USA has over 10 million illegal immigrants, which costs the country in the order of $100billion, though Trump may be right and the figure could be $250billion annually.

USA has over 10 million illegal immigrants, which costs the country in the order of $100billion, though Trump may be right and the figure could be $250billion annually. — Inis

Please provide a source for this claim.

Here's a relevant link to an article from The Washington Post on Trump's made up figures.

Please provide a source for this claim. — Wallows

It's not a secret, and there are many sources. The number of illegals is 10 million:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

https://www.statista.com/topics/3454/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/

They are a huge burden on USA, costing $70,000 per illegal during their lifetime according to this:

https://cis.org/Camarota/Enforcing-Immigration-Law-Cost-Effective

An annual cost of $135billion according to this.

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization...

Center for Immigration Studies - Low-immigration, Pro-immigrant.

What part of "non-partisan" do they not understand?

Pew Research is a credible source. That covers the 10.7 million in 2016. As for the rest...

Federation for American Immigration Reform? Gee, that sure sounds impartial. Oh, look what I found. What a surprise. :meh:

Such calculations are curious. It looks like the main cost to government is the education of children. If one did a calculation for other groups on the same basis, it would surely turn out that poor people are always a cost to government. One wonders how the rich can afford them?

But a little thought reveals that most of the education budget goes to wages for teachers. Indeed most government expenditure is wages, and what is not spent on wages is spent on products of waged work.

But all these payments are billed in these estimates, not to the people who receive them, but to the people who 'should' pay for them. People who work for government are not the beneficiaries of government. Really?

The calculation of who is a net contributor or a net drain on society needs a little more care, and a lot less smug complacency on the part of the :- well are they the well off because they work so hard and contribute so much, or are they privileged beneficiaries?

What part of "non-partisan" do they not understand? — unenlightened

Sure, everyone who wishes to promote illegal immigration will rely on their favourite fallacy, but the problem could be much bigger than official figures suggest.

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates

Now pull the genetic fallacy on Yale.

Such calculations are curious. — unenlightened

The figure is $18billion a year on healthcare for illegals.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/

Regarding mention of the genetic fallacy, not all of us have the time or the effort or the will power or the resources to fact check claims from a questionable source. If he's going to link to an untrustworthy source, then the burden is on him to make the case regarding their claims, given that an appeal to authority in this context would be fallacious, as would be an attempt to shift the burden.

We've thus far been provided with a mixture of credible and highly questionable sources. How do I know that he's not just cherry picking? Is it really worth the bother of further investigation, when he has already given us good reason to be suspicious of what he's bringing to the table on this topic?

but the problem could be much bigger than official figures suggest. — Inis

The problem is the exact opposite of what the official figures suggest, because the officials take care to make the figures show them in a good light, and load their own benefits onto the poor as cost that they, the poor, fail to make.

Imagine a wonderful country where all the poor are somehow disappeared. Plenty of tax-paying bankers, teachers, policemen, politicians, entrepreneurs, and so on, and none of the terrible drain on society of cleaners, fruit-pickers, packers, and so on. It wouldn't last two weeks. Who suffers when the government shuts down?Is it the illegal immigrants, losing all those benefits they are getting?

USA has over 10 million illegal immigrants, which costs the country in the order of $100billion, though Trump may be right and the figure could be $250billion annually. — Inis

So if the number $100 billion is inaccurate, as you imply, why the arbitrary raising of it by $150 billion, instead of lowering it by that amount?

So if the number $100 billion is inaccurate, as you imply, why the arbitrary raising of it by $150 billion, instead of lowering it by that amount? — Metaphysician Undercover

I provided a link to a study that the annual cost of illegals is £135 billion. There was a study in 2013 that put the cost at $54 billion. A lot will depend on what is included in the estimate. But if you accept the study which found that illegals cost $70,000 per head in their lifetime, excluding costs of their children, then a figure of $100 billion is of the right order of magnitude.

The cost of a wall is a drop in the ocean compared to these costs.

You haven't made the case for why we should accept these "studies" from highly questionable sources.

Howdy guys, here's a link to a random article relating to Trump, which I haven't even read, from Fox News, a source known for its strong right-wing bias. You should accept what it says, 'cause otherwise the genetic fallacy or somethin'. I don't know, don't ask me. I'm just here to spread propaganda.

Howdy guys — S

But notice that you repeatedly overlook the illegal part of illegal immigration and respond to just immigration. Why should we all be in favor of completely open borders the way you apparently are?

With all due respect and stuff.

That's only one factor in the equation.
This Wikipedia article provides a balanced analysis.