Andy writes:

Roger asks, "Suppose immigration could be reduced by a few strokes of the pen in DC. No denial of liberties to anyone -- just reducing some arbitrary quotas. Would Andy be in favor?"

Fine with me, but that's not the full anti-immigration agenda.

Re: "reprobate", the real definition is "person hardened in sin." The new definition for school is "morally unprincipled," which would include young children and the insane. John says that's OK because we don't want the Calvinist definition, which is "One who is predestined to damnation. . . . Rejected by God and without hope of salvation."

But John's argument is another strawman. It is unnecessary to go nearly as far as the Calvinist definition. The traditional meaning of the word, quoted above, is descriptive, as in the case of the Columbine killers.

Modern school is increasingly based on the fiction that it can advance knowledge while denying basic truths. Bit by bit, school redefines basic terms to appease the politically correct denial of good, evil, salvation, redemption, sin, forgiveness, etc. Nothing meaningful is left.

John's alien ID plan might not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from getting on the plane. I think that the idea is to keep them out of the country in the first place, or to kick them out when they violate their visa conditions. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were staying in the USA illegally.

Andy says he agrees with cutting immigration, but that's "not the full anti-immigration agenda." It sounds like he has some straw man in mind. Seems to me that you either want more immigration, or you want less. It's not real complicated.

As for "reprobate", it sounds like Andy wants to change the traditional definition to match his agenda, but doesn't like it when others do the same.

Andy writes:

Roger wrote, "John's alien ID plan might not have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from getting on the plane. I think that the idea is to keep them out of the country in the first place, or to kick them out when they violate their visa conditions. ..."

It doesn't add up. If the plan wouldn't stop terrorists boarding an airplane, then how would it catch other violations of visa conditions? Terrorists could simply live double lives, using their alien card ID only for lawful activity and an alias for unlawful deeds. A national citizen ID would result from an alien ID plan, as surely as night follows day.

Roger adds, "Andy says he agrees with cutting immigration, but that's 'not the full anti-immigration agenda.' It sounds like he has some straw man
in mind."

Not at all. As the above example illustrates, I oppose the national ID part of the anti-immigration agenda. I also oppose the other four enumerated points, which are also part of the anti-immigration agenda.

Roger adds, "Seems to me that you either want more immigration, or you want less. It's not real complicated."

Sounds like the gun control argument that always follows school shootings.

Roger concluded, "As for 'reprobate', it sounds like Andy wants to change the traditional definition to match his agenda, but doesn't like it
when others do the same."

The banning of several dozen key terms from schools, such as evil and sin and salvation and morally wrong, is well-known. But I'm realizing that hundreds of additional words are being altered in meaning to conform to the ban on the core words. "Reprobate", the perfect word to describe the Columbine killers, is merely one example. Here's another: retribution. I was shocked when my criminal law course completely omitted it from the list of justifications for criminal punishment. It's the main reason for criminal punishment, but it is meaningless to an educational system that pretends evil does not exist.

Joe and Gumma write that the words discrimination and tolerance have had their meanings altered in a major way.