Ben Carson refers to slaves as "immigrants"

[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.
.

Simple fact; when people move from one country to another they are either immigrants or emigrants.

Whether they do it voluntarily or not is not part of that definition.

You keep up that good trumpsplainin', Pinnochio.

And once again, lefties dismiss dictionary definitions as valid.


Your outrage is bullshit.

 

[paperview]

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.
.

Simple fact; when people move from one country to another they are either immigrants or emigrants.

Whether they do it voluntarily or not is not part of that definition.

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.

 

[Moonglow]

is ben carson really black? (i, like colbert, don't see race)

Samuel L. Jackson, NAACP Criticize Ben Carson for Deeming Slaves as "Immigrants"

What does that have to do with HUD operations?

 

[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.
.

Simple fact; when people move from one country to another they are either immigrants or emigrants.

Whether they do it voluntarily or not is not part of that definition.

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).

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

 

[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?

 

[Correll]

is ben carson really black? (i, like colbert, don't see race)

Samuel L. Jackson, NAACP Criticize Ben Carson for Deeming Slaves as "Immigrants"

What does that have to do with HUD operations?

Don't know. What every he was trying to say has been buried under the manufactured outrage of the LEft.


That hints that it was likely something really good.

 

[Moonglow]

is ben carson really black? (i, like colbert, don't see race)

Samuel L. Jackson, NAACP Criticize Ben Carson for Deeming Slaves as "Immigrants"

What does that have to do with HUD operations?

Don't know. What every he was trying to say has been buried under the manufactured outrage of the LEft.


That hints that it was likely something really good.

Just because he is a genius, doesn't mean he is smart..

 

[Correll]

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?

 

[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.

 

[paperview]

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.
.

Simple fact; when people move from one country to another they are either immigrants or emigrants.

Whether they do it voluntarily or not is not part of that definition.

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.

 

[there4eyeM]

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'.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Simple fact; when people move from one country to another they are either immigrants or emigrants.

Whether they do it voluntarily or not is not part of that definition.

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.

Don't forget, that from 1787 until 1864, slaves only counted as 3/5ths, or only 60 percent of a person. That's just over half.

 

[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.

Don't forget, that from 1787 until 1864, slaves only counted as 3/5ths, or only 60 percent of a person. That's just over half.

Yes, it was done for enumeration purposes.

Gave the south overwhelming domination in Congress, and the presidency for nearly the entire first quarter of our country. Property as representation. With no representation.

Though our Founders called them "such persons" in our Constitution, admitting they were "persons" - they still considered them property, as one would a horse or cow.

 

[Correll]

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?

 

[Correll]

Simple fact; when people move from one country to another they are either immigrants or emigrants.

Whether they do it voluntarily or not is not part of that definition.

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?

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Correll]

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.

 

[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'.

And don't forget what Ben actually said:
'There were other immigrants who came in the bottom of slave ships, who worked even longer, even harder, for less'

So he's saying that there where white immigrants on the Amistad who also came to America at the same times slaves were shipped in. And he's saying some of those whites worked long and harder and for less than slaves. Forget the fact they were free Ben.

HUD spokesman Brian Sullivan attempted to clarify Carson's statement, saying, "Nobody here believes he was equating voluntary immigration with involuntary servitude."
Critics quickly decried his comment.
"Ben Carson is also the guy who once compared Obamacare to slavery," tweeted Keith Boykin, a CNN political contributor. "I'm starting to think he may not understand the word 'slavery.'"

Ben Carson appeared to liken slaves to immigrants who choose to come to the United States

No one is picking on Ben. It's hard being a black racist who hates blacks.

 

[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'.

And don't forget what Ben actually said:
'There were other immigrants who came in the bottom of slave ships, who worked even longer, even harder, for less'

So he's saying that there where white immigrants on the Amistad who also came to America at the same times slaves were shipped in. And he's saying some of those whites worked long and harder and for less than slaves. Forget the fact they were free Ben.

HUD spokesman Brian Sullivan attempted to clarify Carson's statement, saying, "Nobody here believes he was equating voluntary immigration with involuntary servitude."
Critics quickly decried his comment.
"Ben Carson is also the guy who once compared Obamacare to slavery," tweeted Keith Boykin, a CNN political contributor. "I'm starting to think he may not understand the word 'slavery.'"

Ben Carson appeared to liken slaves to immigrants who choose to come to the United States

No one is picking on Ben. It's hard being a black racist who hates blacks.

It is sad to see you playing dumb like this.