Jump to content

Re: open borders


Guest MarkS
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder if a voter registration committee will be there to welcome them when they cross into USA?

 

They're too busy trying centuries-old tactics to suppress voters rights:

 

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a23945645/deb-haaland-north-dakota-supreme-court-decision-voter-suppression/

 

Voter suppression is as old as America, and the latest move by conservatives aligned with wealthy special interests is to suppress votes with “Voter-ID laws.” The North Dakota law specifically requires IDs to have a street address. Many Indian Reservations do not have street addresses, and under this law, a P.O. box is not considered a valid address.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup... Asking people to provide proper identification and proof of address is suppressing voters.... If you're too lazy to come up with two things as simple as this, that you more or less need on a regular basis, and weeks, months, and even years of advanced notice isn't enough time to get them, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. My guess is people that fall into this category more often than not are liberals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounded to me like they were Native Americans.  I have no idea how the political ideology of Native Americans skews.  I know they don't care for pipelines by and large, which aligns with "liberals."  Homeless people might skew liberal, but a lot of the homeless folks I have met recently are big Trump supporters.  So it could be that homeless people are more likely to vote republican, which seems counter-intuitive.

 

Yup... Asking people to provide proper identification and proof of address is suppressing voters.... If you're too lazy to come up with two things as simple as this, that you more or less need on a regular basis, and weeks, months, and even years of advanced notice isn't enough time to get them, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. My guess is people that fall into this category more often than not are liberals?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounded to me like they were Native Americans.  I have no idea how the political ideology of Native Americans skews.  I know they don't care for pipelines by and large, which aligns with "liberals."  Homeless people might skew liberal, but a lot of the homeless folks I have met recently are big Trump supporters.  So it could be that homeless people are more likely to vote republican, which seems counter-intuitive.

 

Yup... Asking people to provide proper identification and proof of address is suppressing voters.... If you're too lazy to come up with two things as simple as this, that you more or less need on a regular basis, and weeks, months, and even years of advanced notice isn't enough time to get them, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. My guess is people that fall into this category more often than not are liberals?

 

If it's Democrats or Republicans, I could really care less; if you can't get basic forms of indentification you shouldn't be able to vote. I gander Democrat only because it's typically them who I hear complaining about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed Greg that the open border advocates are desperate to change the subject, like LC wanting to talk about North Dakota voting regs.  Did you notice that North Dakota is about as far North as you can get in the contiguous US from the southern border?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup... Asking people to provide proper identification and proof of address is suppressing voters.... If you're too lazy to come up with two things as simple as this, that you more or less need on a regular basis, and weeks, months, and even years of advanced notice isn't enough time to get them, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. My guess is people that fall into this category more often than not are liberals?

 

Native Americans who live on reservations do not have street addresses. Previously they used PO Boxes, but this is now "unacceptable".

 

You obviously didn't read the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed Greg that the open border advocates are desperate to change the subject, like LC wanting to talk about North Dakota voting regs.  Did you notice that North Dakota is about as far North as you can get in the contiguous US from the southern border?

 

Not desperate at all. I've discussed my views on immigration. My opinion is that in the long-term, almost all immigration is a net positive.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. You posted about the Honduran gov't closing its border with Guatemala. OK? What point are you trying to make? That illegal immigration occurs? That these people are trying to move northwards into the US?

 

 

I am just guessing at what point you are trying to deliver because as usual you offer no commentary or analysis with your posts. Your lack of effort consistently astounds me. I'm sure the majority of these migrants work harder than you for far less.  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly not a net positive for California, where the largest population of illegal immigrants have gone.

They've flooded the state - overwhelming the schools and taxing all the social services. The California prisons are about

25% Mexican, which does not represent the makeup of the state. Even though college is almost "free" for many of

these immigrants - you have maybe 5% that end up with college degrees.

 

Immigration is only good if assimilation occurs - and it's not occurring in CA.

 

Immigration can be good if failed governments like Honduras, Mexico, etc - are not exporting people they discriminate

against and do not wish to take care of.

 

This is not the immigration of the early 1900's whereby Italian, Jewish, etc immigrants came into our country

and learned our languages, accepted our culture and totally assimilated into the "American Identity" which was

about common ideals. Many even brought valuable skills.

 

This illegal immigration is a disaster - and puts those immigrants (Indian, Asian, etc) who deserve to be here and

do it the legal way - totally to the back of the line.

 

There is nothing good about the open borders with Mexico when they overwhelm your country because

they feel "you have to take us", and you have no say in the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I agree and disagree.

 

I agree on the topic of integration. This usually does NOT occur in the first generation. The first gen is usually pretty bad - overwhelming social services, higher than average crime rates, etc. It gets better from there (logarithmically) - the second generation is one of the highest net contributors.

 

Where I disagree is your characterization of the Jewish/Irish/Italian diasporas. They were almost exactly like the current South American waves of immigration. Low-to-no literacy, very little integration (Chinatown? Little Italy?), poor employment (if any), high crime rates (the irish jewish italian mobs). I think you are doing a bit of selective recollection there in terms of what those immigrant waves were first like.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly not a net positive for California, where the largest population of illegal immigrants have gone.

They've flooded the state - overwhelming the schools and taxing all the social services. The California prisons are about

25% Mexican, which does not represent the makeup of the state. Even though college is almost "free" for many of

these immigrants - you have maybe 5% that end up with college degrees.

 

Immigration is only good if assimilation occurs - and it's not occurring in CA.

 

Immigration can be good if failed governments like Honduras, Mexico, etc - are not exporting people they discriminate

against and do not wish to take care of.

 

This is not the immigration of the early 1900's whereby Italian, Jewish, etc immigrants came into our country

and learned our languages, accepted our culture and totally assimilated into the "American Identity" which was

about common ideals. Many even brought valuable skills.

 

This illegal immigration is a disaster - and puts those immigrants (Indian, Asian, etc) who deserve to be here and

do it the legal way - totally to the back of the line.

 

There is nothing good about the open borders with Mexico when they overwhelm your country because

they feel "you have to take us", and you have no say in the matter.

 

Speaking of the immigration of a century + ago....those were different times & different circumstances.  That was also about the time my ancestors came from Europe.    On both sides of the family, they were fleeing war/persecution.  They had NO CHOICE but to assimilate, they could not go back...no matter what.  It was "do or die". 

 

A lot of illegal immigrants today are economic immigrants, they stay here for a period of time and sometimes will even go back & forth to their home country 1x a year or every other year.  I knew a few that did this.  They do not have the same motivation to integrate.  They have an "out".  They can drive to their country.  A century ago, you had to get on a ship & it took a week or so.  Most people made that trip 1 way, and one time in their life.

 

There is also a HUGE problem with 2 different sets of laws.  My Aunt & Nieces & nephew immigrated to USA legally.  It took them a LONG time, a LOT of money, and a LOT OF HASSLE.  They did it the right way.  They are great people AND a great addition to the country.  They are educated (and getting educated), hard working, tax paying, law abiding, and a tremendous benefit to both my family & country.  How is it fair that they do everything right (to their detriment) and others just get a "free pass"?

 

Who gets to choose what set of laws you want abide by?  That is NOT going to end well.

 

Finally, open borders cheapens the value of USA citizenship & society.  All you got to do is just walk on in....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I agree and disagree.

 

I agree on the topic of integration. This usually does NOT occur in the first generation. The first gen is usually pretty bad - overwhelming social services, higher than average crime rates, etc. It gets better from there (logarithmically) - the second generation is one of the highest net contributors.

 

Where I disagree is your characterization of the Jewish/Irish/Italian diasporas. They were almost exactly like the current South American waves of immigration. Low-to-no literacy, very little integration (Chinatown? Little Italy?), poor employment (if any), high crime rates (the irish jewish italian mobs). I think you are doing a bit of selective recollection there in terms of what those immigrant waves were first like.

 

I'm not being selective at all. This sheer volume of immigration and non-assimilation is CHANGING California and

hundreds of communities. It's great for the immigrants - free health care, free schools, welfare, etc. 

It's terrible for the California RESIDENTS - you don't live there LC - give it a try. 

 

Move to Central California many of these places are 90% hispanic and English IS the foreign language.

Your schools are wrecked, your hospitals are taxed with immigrants. Crime is out of control.

Not only are you paying for it, but your hometown has been permanently changed. And the CA resident has no say in what happens.

Your taxes are the highest in the country, yet the infrastructure and schools are the worst.

 

We are talking about a level of magnitude that is much, much higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo speaks for itself, LC - at a  high pitched scream I might add.  The initial group now somewhere between 7000 - 14000 will soon be the lead group as another group is forming behind them.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-caravan/second-migrant-caravan-moves-through-guatemala-toward-mexico-idUSKCN1MX2JP

You can insult me all you want.  But it won't change the fact that this will not play well with voters in the mid terms.  BTW you keep making the argument that the second generation is better in terms of not costing as much as the first generation. That may be true.  But the information you've previously posted also suggested that the second generation were still a net cost to the American taxpayer.. So your argument pretty much sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't talk about California without talking about the fact that your market is permanently skewed due to your property tax laws.

 

In the 2003 California recall election in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor, his advisor Warren Buffett suggested that Proposition 13 be repealed or changed as a method of balancing the state's budget.[52] Schwarzenegger, believing that such an act would be inadvisable politically and could end his gubernatorial career, said, "I told Warren that if he mentions Proposition 13 again he has to do 500 sit-ups."[53]

 

But I agree the magnitude is much higher. This is due to the fact that it is 2018 and not 1930, not because those were "better people" as others have said. Today, sheer population has doubled since the 40s/50s. Income inequality is worse. Prospects for the marginal immigrant is worse. Geographic mobility is worse (increasing centralization of work in urban centers). The US is growing stale.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't talk about California without talking about the fact that your market is permanently skewed due to your property tax laws.

 

In the 2003 California recall election in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor, his advisor Warren Buffett suggested that Proposition 13 be repealed or changed as a method of balancing the state's budget.[52] Schwarzenegger, believing that such an act would be inadvisable politically and could end his gubernatorial career, said, "I told Warren that if he mentions Proposition 13 again he has to do 500 sit-ups."[53]

 

But I agree the magnitude is much higher. This is due to the fact that it is 2018 and not 1930, not because those were "better people" as others have said. Today, sheer population has doubled since the 40s/50s. Income inequality is worse. Prospects for the marginal immigrant is worse. Geographic mobility is worse (increasing centralization of work in urban centers). The US is growing stale.

 

No, they are NOT assimilating. As DTEJD pointed out - they move here wanting to totally keep their Mexican culture.

They want Mexico in California - unlike those immigrants that viewed the move as permanent from across the ocean.

And life is way better for them here, because someone else is paying for the important stuff - hence the enormous tax burden.

And life is worse for the average CA taxpayer who sees their hometowns being overrun by illegal immigration.

 

Your chances of growing stale are much better when you are a welfare state.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just smell burning republicans ahead of the mid-terms ...

 

Can't shake the MeToo movement (50% ot the population) - and trying eveything to change the channel instead?

Rile up the base and pressure it to make their women folk vote republican? - cause the illegals are coming!, the illegals are coming!

What happens behind a closed door we can't see, and we really need that senate!

 

Cant even claim anymore how great 'America First' has been for the US - 'cause the Dow is down 1500 points in 10 days - and continuing  to collapse.

How's that MAGA working out for you? and how about those tarriffs. We're winning!

 

And that Saudi thing.

115B seems an OK price for a dead journalist, & hey .. we're friends!

Real smart.

 

Those illegals are WALKING, they will not get to the Mexico/US border untill AFTER the mid-terms, and they are going to be meeting active American and Mexican resistance the whole way.  What do you think happens when pictures of the nightly rapes and gang raids start showing up on TV stations at a voting station near you?

 

SD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of the immigration of a century + ago....those were different times & different circumstances.  That was also about the time my ancestors came from Europe.    On both sides of the family, they were fleeing war/persecution.  They had NO CHOICE but to assimilate, they could not go back...no matter what.  It was "do or die". 

 

A lot of illegal immigrants today are economic immigrants, they stay here for a period of time and sometimes will even go back & forth to their home country 1x a year or every other year.  I knew a few that did this.  They do not have the same motivation to integrate.  They have an "out".  They can drive to their country.  A century ago, you had to get on a ship & it took a week or so.  Most people made that trip 1 way, and one time in their life.

 

 

This view of immigration is dated.  In the 90s and earlier most of the Latin American immigration was from Mexico and it was strictly economic - getting a job and sending money back, returning if and when they could.  I don't have the most recent data but we've had recent years when net migration from Mexico was negative - more people returning to Mexico than coming to the US.  Lots of reasons for that, primarily that it's tougher to get jobs here and better economic conditions in Mexico.

 

In recent years, most Latin American immigration is from Central America.  They are fleeing poverty, yes, but also violence (mostly gangs).  They are asylum seekers and this caravan is basically going to present themselves at the border to make an asylum claim.

 

This complicates things because it brings in a whole other legal process as people try to prove their claims.  Some (most?) will not pass muster but some will.  The problem is you can either let people into the US and give them court dates to show up (which makes it look like we're accepting them in and encourages the next caravan) or you can put them in holding centers at the border which may create more international incidents like the child separation policy.  Or you can close the border and refuse to let anyone in, which might be what Trump does, but this has political and economic consequences as well.

 

I'm pretty liberal on immigration, but aside from the politics if people can't see the problem of thousands of people trying to cross the border together in a high profile march I don't know what to say.  I don't blame Trump for being angry at Mexico for letting them through because they are basically passing the problem along to us.  I'd be putting pressure on Mexico to basically process them through their own asylum process first, assuming they have one, I have no idea. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50% of the population is metoo? My goodness what kind of info is getting sent up there to Canada?

 

Like most liberal propaganda, metwo started off sounding great and noble and quickly evolved into a circus of frauds and guilty until proven innocent rhetoric. Heck, the poster boy, Asia Argento supposedly assaulted a minor, and as it's turning out in the court of law(well, it hasn't even been able to get that far), the case against big, bad, Harvey is turning into a giant pile of nothing. #metoo (Ironically also pronounced, pound, me, too; are they asking for it? j/k)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have eyes, I can count, and I can do 'rithmatic too!

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.1

 

2017: Total population of males & females, all ages = 36,708,083

2017: Total population of females = 18,500,242. Average age of 41.5, with 900,000+ >80!

Proportion of females/men = 18,500,242/36,708,083 = 50.3983%

 

It's not going to be a whole lot different in the US, and may even be a little higher.

The males keep getting shot!

 

SD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all:

 

One thing I want to make clear is that a lot of people on the "right" are neutral OR for immigration...they just don't want open borders and they want the rule of law to be followed.

 

The left just can't seem to "grock" this...if you are opposed to open borders, then you are opposed to all immigration AND are a bigoted xenophobe...or so the "left" says.

 

Seems that a lot of arguments on the "left" boil down to racism and such.

 

Just not the case in a lot of instances!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...