Will the "Caravans" help to get the Wall built ? ...

[dogtag]

Seems like it. Apparently another 7,000 group is getting
ready to invade. That's in addition to the 4,000 plus
already approaching our border. And I'd guess these groups
will keep forming as long as hope exists of their gaining access
to our welfare system.
Dribs and drabs creeping across the border is one thing, but
numbers emulating Ghengis Kahn's Mongol hordes is something
else again and could cause some re-thinking in the minds of
even the liberals.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-000-honduran-migrants-break-guatemala-police-cordon-011019246.html

[clintonhater]

Certainly not if Dems take control of the House as expected; welcome back, Nancy you bitch. But Dems can't be blamed for failure of Repubs to take action when they had the chance...which will probably never come again. Dems lost the White House, but they won the more important battle, the one to control our borders; or rather say, the Invaders, backed by the Dems, won that battle.

[Roadkingtrax]

Who's bringing the check from Mexico?

Maybe we can just pile up F-35 fuselages and Zumwalt Class warship hulls.

[togor]

Can we build a wall high enough around this country, so as to keep out these cheaper races, or will it only be a feeble dam which will make the flood all the worse when it breaks?

Charles B. Davenport, 1915

Jews were of course kept out for being genetically inferior.

[dogtag]

The damn would not be likely to break if someone took their finger out.

[togor]

Eugenics fell out of favor in this country right about the time that it picked up steam in Europe. Strange as it sounds, the idea of a wall around the US and the Final Solution in Europe are both are rooted in the US eugenics movement.

[clintonhater]

Eugenics fell out of favor in this country right about the time that it picked up steam in Europe. Strange as it sounds, the idea of a wall around the US and the Final Solution in Europe are both are rooted in the US eugenics movement.

Fantastic preposterous nonsense! Yet again, Togor invokes Godwin's Law as a substitute for anything rational to say. And if I'm not mistaken, he'll next invoke Togor's Law.

[Vern Humphrey]

Fantastic preposterous nonsense! Yet again, Togor invokes Godwin's Law as a substitute for anything rational to say. And if I'm not mistaken, he'll next invoke Togor's Law.

I'd like to see documentation that the wall is rooted in the US eugenics movement. He'd have to prove that Planned Parenthood is behind the wall.

[togor]

Fantastic preposterous nonsense! Yet again, Togor invokes Godwin's Law as a substitute for anything rational to say. And if I'm not mistaken, he'll next invoke Togor's Law.

Actually I was watching the PBS program American Experience tonight and it was about the eugenics movement. Yes, true fact, after WW1 the movement was successful in getting the immigration gates shut. That "wall" quote was from one of the leaders. Also, true fact, some Europeans in the 1930s picked up where some US states left off, particularly with respect to forced sterilization of so-called defectives, and then later taking it to another level. But you know this history because you've posted on it.

Much of the language of Trump's wall mirrors the language of a century ago. And the European connection to the US eugenics movement is iron-clad. So yes, a common point of origin. All correct and historically accurate to state. I don't see the problem here. If the intersection of the two ideas makes people uncomfortable, well that's as it should be in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd like to see documentation that the wall is rooted in the US eugenics movement. He'd have to prove that Planned Parenthood is behind the wall.

According to the program, the woman pushing birth control did indeed latch onto the eugenics movement as a way of making her ideas appear more reasonable at the time. A devil's bargain, indeed!

[Vern Humphrey]

Whoop! Whoop! Smoke attack, smoke attack!

Show where Margaret Sanger proposed a WALL -- and trace its history since to show continuity of thought.

[S.A. Boggs]

Whoop! Whoop! Smoke attack, smoke attack!

Show where Margaret Sanger proposed a WALL -- and trace its history since to show continuity of thought.

Vern consider "our" source and "their" version of reality.
Sam

[togor]

Whoop! Whoop! Smoke attack, smoke attack!

Show where Margaret Sanger proposed a WALL -- and trace its history since to show continuity of thought.

I never made that claim and you know it. I said that anti-immigrant legislation of the 1920s was rooted in the eugenics movement (true), and that European governments picked up on the idea and took it to a whole new level (true), and that the birth control movement associated itself with the eugenics movement at its peak popularity to enhance its legitimacy (also true).

Truly an interesting program. Another one of those utopian schemes that our country has seen, coming from the usual source, white protestants. Not trying to be inflammatory by describing the source this way. It's literally true and moreover central to the identify of the movement. Are there eugenicists still alive and well today? CH talks like one, but that might just be the online persona he constructed for the mission.

[clintonhater]

And the European connection to the US eugenics movement is iron-clad. So yes, a common point of origin. All correct and historically accurate to state. I don't see the problem here. If the intersection of the two ideas makes people uncomfortable, well that's as it should be in my opinion.

The "problem" is your refusal to let go of Godwin's Law! "Guilt by association" is the argument used when you have no other! SO WHAT if Europeans, including Nazis, recognized & accepted the scientifically sound principals of human heredity incorporated into the Eugenics Movement ?

Where's the proof of the principals of eugenics? 14% of all federal disability payment go to mental retardates (except they can't be called that anymore, it's un-PC, so the feds came up with a newer euphemism: "intellectual disability"). (And this 14% doesn't include a larger number receiving disability for mental illness such as "anxiety.") Why doesn't society--which has to provide for their medical & financial needs--have the right to say, "no, you can't breed any more of your kind if you're unable to care for yourself"? Who decides? The same doctors who certify their eligibility for the disability program.

And WHO is so credulous as to believe that any PBS production is not slanted to endorse the most extreme liberal positions? CNN's left wing slant is amateurish by comparison.

PS, You're dead wrong about Margaret Sanger, too. She supported eugenics (as I do) because it made sound scientific AND civic sense, but at the same time denounced what the Nazis were doing as soon as she found out about it. Her only "mistake" was in OPPOSING abortion! The whole point of her birth-control program was to make abortions unnecessary.

[togor]

So eugenics is verboten as an online topic because of certain ends to which it led? Notice I never used any inflammatory language, which is the causality referenced in Godwin's law. In plain terms calling someone a Nazi ends useful discourse and as you see I stayed well clear of that.

Ok, so a couple of points. First, eugenics was discredited long before the program The American Experience did their segment. Second, the premise was that by culling selected undesirables from the breeding pool in a given generation, one could expect fewer undesirables in future generations specifically because of heredity. Do you literally believe this to be true or do you just like the idea of beating up on poor people and/or those who make bad decisions or who might contaminate your race? I notice you did no breeding of your own and wonder where that plays in all of this. Or maybe it is just back-story. So hard to tell.

[clintonhater]

Notice I never used any inflammatory language, which is the causality referenced in Godwin's law. In plain terms calling someone a Nazi ends useful discourse and as you see I stayed well clear of that.

Your "taking to the next level" statement clearly implied what you refrained from saying only because you've been called on it before.

Ok, so a couple of points. First, eugenics was discredited long before the program The American Experience did their segment. Second, the premise was that by culling selected undesirables from the breeding pool in a given generation, one could expect fewer undesirables in future generations specifically because of heredity. Do you literally believe this to be true...

It IS literally true, & proven beyond dispute, with respect to intelligence! The only mistake made by the early eugenicists was accepting the widely held scientific belief that acquired character defects, such as chronic drunkenness, criminality, moral turpitude, etc., could be passed on genetically. Such traits ARE often passed on from parent to child (such as teenage girls raised on welfare who look at getting preggo & going on welfare as a legit lifestyle) but not genetically as was commonly believed then. What's crazy in the belief that humans are exempt from the same laws of genetics that animal breeders have been applying (even when they knew nothing of the biological mechanism) since time began.