Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 03, 2015, 08:44:24 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87949 Posts in 2283 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Immigration issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: Immigration issues  (Read 181676 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #900 on: April 22, 2015, 04:53:50 PM »

TPP = Mass Immigration
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on April 21, 2015
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free-trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to control immigration policy. We could find ourselves back in the era before there were restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping President Obama achieve this goal.

The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.

The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation.

In seeking approval of the TPP, the Obama administration has proposed giving it fast-track authority to conclude trade deals -- a power that would restrict Congress's ability to amend the deal, allowing only an up-or-down vote. Led by Republicans, the Senate is moving toward passage of the fast-track authority as a precursor to ratification of the TPP treaty, immigration provisions and all.

Democrats are staging a last-ditch stand against the bill, which their labor allies condemn as the worst trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement of the 1990s, pointing to the potential loss of jobs. But Republicans are using their majorities to grant Obama fast-track authority.

It is odd, indeed, to see Republicans falling all over themselves to reward this president with more power while voluntarily reducing congressional oversight. At the very least, one would assume the TPP would give the GOP-led Congress bargaining power to force Obama to backtrack on amnesty for illegals and possibly on ObamaCare. But far from forcing concessions, Republicans are lining up in support of fast-track and, by implication, the TPP.

Because foreign treaties are the "law of the land," according to the U.S. Constitution, any provision governing our borders and the flow of immigrants could not be overridden or even modified by Congress. A new president would be able to reverse Obama's amnesty plan but not the open-border provisions of the TPP. The treaty could lead to the effective repeal of the specifically enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and naturalization.

While the treaty is still being negotiated, the current focus on white-collar immigration would be sufficiently elastic to allow open borders. For instance, what is white collar compared to blue collar? Are we going to set an income limit on immigration?

Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance, calls the trade deal "a Trojan horse for Obama's immigration agenda" on The Hill's Contributor's blog. He notes that "one corporate trade association says bluntly that 'The TPP should remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for the selection of personnel.' "

In his seventh and eighth year, every president worries about his legacy and tries to control events in the future. But here Obama is enshrining in a treaty -- that cannot be repealed or amended -- an open-border immigration policy for all time.

Those who say he would never carry the treaty's provisions that far have only to ask themselves this question: Would Obama extend his powers to their maximum limit? Of course he would. Don't give him the power.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #901 on: April 22, 2015, 07:26:33 PM »

"It is odd, indeed, to see Republicans falling all over themselves to reward this president with more power while voluntarily reducing congressional oversight. At the very least, one would assume the TPP would give the GOP-led Congress bargaining power to force Obama to backtrack on amnesty for illegals and possibly on ObamaCare. But far from forcing concessions, Republicans are lining up in support of fast-track and, by implication, the TPP."

Not odd at all.  Jeb is no different.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #902 on: May 27, 2015, 11:03:30 AM »

“Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’” Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification."

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/Texas%205th%20Circuit%20deny%20stay%20NLJ.pdf
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 07:14:45 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #903 on: June 03, 2015, 02:07:32 PM »

Our ccp is proven right - again.

I have been on the WSJ side of this, believing LEGAL immigration is mostly good - good for the country, good for the economy, and completely unrelated to illegal immigration.  Not so, according to this new bool.

Ann Coulter is often a flame thrower, but when she gets things right, she can do that with amazing wit, persuasion and clarity.

Only one chapter of this book is on illegal immigration, but the main point is to examine and expose what is happening on the legal side.

"You know I am a ferocious researcher", she said in an interview, and then went on to tell how the federal government with all its demographics, data and record keeping will not give out any information that ties statistics like crime or welfare to immigration.  So she relentlessly went through local crime stories from across the country looking for keywords like "translator" as it applied to criminal charges and other things and found out things that are not otherwise reported.

Here is a link: http://www.anncoulter.com/    I haven't read the book but her point is that these immigrants are not like those immigrants.  Generalizing, they are not coming here for the same reasons as the immigrants of the past.

Legal immigration SHOULD be a good thing because we have needs and should decide who comes in - the right people from the right places for the right reasons.  In this politically correct world, that type of analysis is never going to happen

The Pamela Geller piece posted today in 'Islam in America' about Somali immigration is relevant here too. I went to school there on the west bank of the Univ. of Minnesota and knew that neighborhood that is now called "Little Mogadishu".  Arguably we took in refugees from a region with brutal civil war and we have done that before with other people from other regions.  But why are these people here - legally - if they don't accept basic foundations of our society like free speech.  Besides the right to remain silent, to an attorney, etc., in Minneapolis you also have the right to a free, competent and "culturally sensitive" interpreter, no matter your language and not just for criminal matters.  http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@clerk/documents/webcontent/convert_280287.pdf

More later when people have time to read the book and cite her facts, but her main point in my words is that these people, Hispanic and others, are coming from failed cultures and bringing their failed ways with them causing more problems and societal costs here.  Liberals and Democrats are conspiring to get them here, all set up on welfare programs and dependent on government from the moment they arrive and lock them in as reliable voters.  If true (and it IS true) that should drive every remaining, hard working, blue collar Democrat out of the party.  

Signing up for free everything isn't how it worked when other groups in the past came here and successfully assimilated over time and contributed greatly to our country.  Don't confuse the greatness of these people with the results of what is happening now.  Critics of course call that line of inquiry racist, but what are the facts?  No one else will say.

Whatever comes out of this, there should be a serious discussion about what legal immigration should be, in addition to solving the illegal problem.  You can look at Sweden for another example, but you can't mix open borders with a massive entitlement system and then be surprised to learn people are coming for the wrong reasons and causing problems.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 02:12:27 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12690


« Reply #904 on: June 04, 2015, 04:36:42 AM »

I know of a small city in my region where Somali gangs are going head to head against Mexican gangs with cartel affiliations.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #905 on: June 04, 2015, 12:23:09 PM »

The Somali gangs are seeking to enter the drug biz?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12690


« Reply #906 on: June 04, 2015, 07:34:18 PM »

The Somali gangs are seeking to enter the drug biz?

They are in it. Human trafficking as well.


http://www.businessinsider.com/12-gangs-on-the-fbis-radar-2014-3?op=1

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #907 on: June 05, 2015, 10:31:35 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=1
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #908 on: June 06, 2015, 02:18:14 PM »

"They said that over all, the company had a net gain of 70 tech jobs."

Sure.  Just all to people not born here. 

Hey this is good for us were told.

Only those that say that aren't the ones who wind up being hurt by this.

Or, they are the ones hiring the cheap labor and benefiting screwing Americans.

As a doctor in NJ where more than half the doctors are born elsewhere I have first hand experience with this. 

Hey so what?  It is good for all.  We have a doctor shortage don't we?

No main stream Republican will care about this.  You know what?

We should start importing our politicians from other countries.  Start replacing the goons we have now.  I would love to see this and hear how much they like it.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #909 on: June 09, 2015, 12:04:09 PM »

My only disagreement is she tends to focus on Latinos a bit too much.  Surely they make up a large portion of the illegals, but what about those coming here from other countries?   From the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Asia?

*****IMMIGRATION ADVOCATES FRIGHTENED BY 99-POUND BLONDE
June 3, 2015

Third World immigration advocates Frank Sharry, Ali Noorani and Marc Andreessen aren't shy about rushing to the press with pabulum quotes about how wonderful immigration is, but they don't want to debate me, even to lie about all those benefits.


They don't want you to think about immigration at all.


Although you will miss the lush analytical context of the full case made in my smash new book, Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, here are some more startling facts from my book that the anti-American crowd doesn't want you to know:


-- If an illegal alien drops a baby on American soil, the entire family can access welfare programs that were supposed to be for U.S. citizens -- in addition to the government assistance illegal aliens can collect right away, such as food stamps and housing subsidies, free medical care and free schooling.


-- The Constitution did not make U.S. citizenship a game of "Red Rover" with the Border Patrol. Haha! Too late -- I had the baby! The 14th Amendment confirmed the citizenship rights of former American slaves -- not 21st-century freeloaders from China.

-- Our ludicrous "anchor baby" policy was invented out of whole cloth by Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote in a Supreme Court opinion in 1982.


-- On average, college graduates in the United States pay about $30,000 more in taxes each year than they get back in government services, while those without a high school degree get back about $35,000 more in government services than they pay in taxes.



-- Only about 7 percent of Americans do not have a high school diploma, but more than a third of legal immigrants under the post-Kennedy immigration act and about 75 percent of illegal aliens do not have a high school diploma.


-- Mexican immigrants send $20 billion back to Mexico every year -- more than the U.S. sends to that country in direct foreign aid.


-- The New York Times was saved from bankruptcy by one of the richest men in the world, Mexican Carlos Slim, whose fortune comes from illegal aliens' sending money -- most of it from the U.S. taxpayer -- back to Mexico.


-- Anything the Times says on immigration ought to be treated like a press release from a tobacco company about the low risk of disease from smoking.


-- Contrary to repeated assertions that fences don't work (by the Times, as well as a slew of Republicans, such as former Texas governor Rick Perry), after Israel completed a fence along its border in 2013, the number of illegal aliens entering the country dropped to zero.


-- The country that put men on the moon can't seem to build a wall like the one the Chinese built 700 years before Christ.


-- Fully half of the fires on federal or tribal land investigated by the Government Accountability Office, where a cause could be determined, were set by illegal immigrants. (For suggesting as much, Sen. John McCain was denounced as a racist on MSNBC and in The Washington Post.)


-- Illegal immigrants from Mexico planted a huge pot farm right in the middle of Sequoia National Forest, dumping pesticides and refuse within a few miles of the world's tallest tree.


-- The Sierra Club, which took a $100 million donation from hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum to be pro-illegal immigration, never said a word about it. Nothing the Sierra Club says about immigration -- or the environment -- can be believed.


-- The government refuses to say how many foreign-born residents have been sentenced to prison in America. There is no attempt to count naturalized citizens at all, or legal immigrants in state prisons. Even illegal immigrants are counted only if the states have requested reimbursement from the federal government for those inmates.


-- Instead, the government issues reports with its wild guesses about the number of aliens who are imprisoned in America. The Department of Justice relies on immigrants' self-reports. The GAO goes by Bureau of Prisons data. The U.S. census simply guesses the immigration status of inmates.


-- In 2010, New York state prisons held more than 4,000 inmates from 10 Latin American and Caribbean nations, and fewer than 150 inmates from all of Western Europe (most of whom were probably Muslims).


-- There are already more Hispanics than whites in two states, New Mexico and California, and Hispanics are the largest minority group in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

How about letting these facts "come out of the shadows"?


COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER****

Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 164


« Reply #910 on: June 10, 2015, 10:28:05 PM »

I know of a small city in my region where Somali gangs are going head to head against Mexican gangs with cartel affiliations.

Big difference between going against someone affiliated and the real deal.
Logged

Singing in the rain...
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #911 on: June 25, 2015, 10:08:08 AM »

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062215-758485-mexican-flag-waving-illegal-has-had-a-cushy-ride.htm

Education: An illegal immigrant who graduated from UC San Diego thanked taxpayers for her free ride by waving the Mexican flag at commencement. Seems that illegals get a better deal in education than citizens. Why else would she flaunt it?

The shameless ingratitude provoked public outrage. Indira Esparza, an illegal alien who took a coveted slot at the taxpayer-funded University of California, milked the system for aid and then marched up to the podium waving the flag of the country she would do anything to avoid being sent back to, couldn't have been surprised by the angry reaction.

After all, activist groups have cautioned illegals since the illegal immigrant marches of 2006 to wave the U.S., not the Mexican, flag. Esparza was clearly confident that she could get away with it despite the offense it caused to the public.

It stands in stark contrast to the criticism that the Confederate flag is drawing following a terrible massacre of black churchgoers by a white supremacist in South Carolina. The Confederate flag will come down, but the Mexican flag still waves, despite the offense.

People with Esparza's chutzpah don't float in out of nowhere. As we suspected, there was a massive support network behind this poster child for arrogant, over-rewarded illegals, putting the lie to her victimhood claims of living in the shadows.

First, she won a coveted place at UCSD's cushy La Jolla-based Preuss charter school, displacing a legal resident in an elite, taxpayer-funded school. After that, she was showered with resources for illegals.

"She received a scholarship from the Patricia and Christopher Weil Family Foundation to help support her undergraduate studies at U.C. San Diego," the UCSD public relations website reads. Still better, she got $10,000 cash from the Chancellor's Associate Scholars program launched in 2013.

"The program essentially provides a full-ride and loan-free UC San Diego financial aid package to eligible students from several underserved high schools," UCSD said.

Esparza called it "ridiculously awesome" in a 2013 interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune. "I don't have to worry so much about my finances. I always have money for books. I have money to buy my parking pass. I have gas money."

Unusual? Not really. Just this month, Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg donated $5 million for college tuition for 400 illegals through the TheDream.US foundation.

Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles gives illegals free rides, too. Students like Esparza are free to take gut majors like political science and even minors like educational studies because it costs them zero.

The Union-Tribune reports that Esparza helped found UCSD's Undocumented Student Services Center, part of a $5 million plan by President Janet Napolitano to "help students in the country illegally obtain access to taxpayer-funded financial aid and other benefits," The College Fix reports.

With U.S. students paying tens of thousands for student loans and being unable to find jobs, why are illegals handed tuition, living expenses and more on a silver platter? And they show their gratitude for that largesse by waving the Mexican flag at their graduations.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062215-758485-mexican-flag-waving-illegal-has-had-a-cushy-ride.htm#ixzz3e5RVmJJo
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #912 on: July 01, 2015, 10:13:26 AM »

This could go under housing...  I rented a house yesterday to a nice Spanish speaking couple with 3 adorable children.  

We hear about better identification and stronger employer sanctions as being part of the solution.  I haven't had to deal with the question of legal status much in housing; most of the influx of people to north Minneapolis come from the southside of Chicago, Detroit, Gary, IN, etc.  I am not clear whether it is illegal to rent to an illegal.  I am pretty sure it is illegal not to.  

In this case, the man who doesn't speak a word of English showed his Driver's License - I don't know if illegals get those here.  He also has a good bank account; I don't know the rules there either, but good enough for me.  The wife speaks English as a second language but didn't want her name on the lease.  I told her it has to go on the lease.  The kids were great translators and pretty soon I had them talking on the phone with my daughter in Spanish to sharpen her language skills.

I went with 'don't ask, don't tell' on legal status and made a business decision that I liked this family and had no reason to turn down their application.  

Whether they are legal or illegal, I'm sure they know people affected by the words used (cf. Donald Trump) and issues negotiated in "immigration reform".  

But what if both parents are illegal and their children are legal, and that we want to make new law going forward that emphasizes control over our border?  We should be able to argue that anyone who came here some time ago illegally, who has set up a life, a residence, a family, a job here, can stay but will not ever vote, and that by making ours a sovereign nation (e pluribus unum) with good, enforceable laws in the best interests of our nation is what is in the best interest of their children's interests also, and that policies that grow our economy are best for their family and their children - all without permanently driving away everyone of their heritage from our side of politics.

It is a very delicate argument to say that we don't want to become the place they left without insulting the people and losing them forever politically.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 12:38:28 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #913 on: July 06, 2015, 10:54:14 AM »

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/barack-obama-is-a-liar-he-deports-900000-illegal-aliens-they-never-leave-the-u-s/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12690


« Reply #914 on: July 11, 2015, 09:00:50 AM »

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/trump-is-right-illegal-alien-crime-is-staggering-in-scope-and-savagery?f=must_reads
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12690


« Reply #915 on: July 13, 2015, 08:35:53 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-silence-on-kathryn-steinle-killing-is-deafening/2015/07/13/06f5730e-2959-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

I'm sure the credentialed journalists will be sure to ask Obama about this, right bigdog?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12690


« Reply #916 on: July 13, 2015, 08:39:31 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html

Reliable.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 09:06:34 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #917 on: July 24, 2015, 07:34:27 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10153686119710579/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #918 on: July 29, 2015, 03:19:50 PM »

I don't see how winning 40% of the vote is a big win for Republicans when they are coming here by the tens of millions and 60% or more will vote for the Democrats.  Good luck ever winning California again.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2958571/posts
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #919 on: July 29, 2015, 06:59:52 PM »

If I am not mistaken if Romney had matched Bush's 40% he would have won.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #920 on: July 30, 2015, 11:10:49 AM »

If I am not mistaken if Romney had matched Bush's 40% he would have won.

Winning an even slightly greater share of any and all of these demographic groups matters.  Black, Hispanic, gay, Jew, Catholic, single mom, soccer mom, urban dwellers, media people, academia, (martial artists?), etc. etc., we have to convince them that there are other viewpoints and it is okay to choose one that is not what everyone else you know is choosing.  Each time they see one more person slip over to the other side they face the possibility of being curious about what they are not seeing.

We have former liberals right here on the board...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #921 on: July 30, 2015, 01:15:54 PM »

Roughly 23 million "Latinos" voted in 2012.  So if we take 13 % of that and add that to Romney's total and subtract from Brock's maybe that would have made up the 5% overall difference.  Not enough time right now to figure it out.   That said it is only 40% of a population that is expanding exponentially - by design.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/03/inside-the-2012-latino-electorate/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #922 on: July 31, 2015, 10:58:03 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+July+31%2C+2015&utm_campaign=20150731_m126776469_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+July+31%2C+2015&utm_term=Big+Government
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #923 on: August 03, 2015, 09:16:47 AM »

I know the immigrants are good for us....   I know if the Republicans just win their hearts and minds....we can win them over.... (just look at all the immigrants who vote for Republicans now)  The Asians the Middle Easterners, the South of the border ones, the Africans, the Caribbean ones etc.....

I know they help industry which helps us all...
I know the mow our lawns and fix our sidewalks....
I know they all do jobs US born Americans won't do....
I know they are just hard working wonderful people who "dream"...

Yet JEB wants to let them know we all love them.....  while they walk all over us:

*******Exclusive — USA to Issue More Green Cards Than Populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Combined
by Breitbart News2 Aug 20155,123
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

concerning America’s ongoing policy of massive legal immigration:

The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants—because they are all invited

The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.

Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.

These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies—such as tax rates or spending programs—there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.

If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years—a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.

This has substantial economic implications.

The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade—or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970. 

These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.

Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold—to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.

Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line.  And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.

President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024—hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880–1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.

Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently—the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill—would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).

Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here—instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.*****
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #924 on: August 10, 2015, 09:02:50 AM »

" since the recession hit in December of 2007, 100% of all employment gains among women workers were netted by foreign workers, while the number of American women with jobs actually declined. Specifically, 9.041 million foreign-born women held jobs in December of 2007 compared to 10.028 million today – or a gain of roughly 1 million jobs. By contrast, 59.322 million US-born women held jobs in December of 2007 compared to 59.258 million today – or a loss of nearly 64 thousand jobs (even as the population of US-born women 16+ increased by more than 600,000). Overall, nearly 25 million foreign workers, men and women, hold jobs inside the United States."

Source:  BLS
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/another-aspect-of-the-democrats-war-on-women-jobs.php

Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2850


« Reply #925 on: August 22, 2015, 08:19:52 PM »

An interesting thought piece:

http://openborders.info/blog/billion-immigrants-change-american-polity/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12690


« Reply #926 on: August 22, 2015, 10:10:24 PM »


Mix a gallon of dog sh*t with a gallon of chocolate ice cream, it's going to be as unpalatable as the unmixed dogsh*t.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #927 on: August 25, 2015, 12:47:16 PM »

I don't like to hear that the WSJ Editorialists got this wrong.  Or is John Eastman wrong here?  I don't think so.  This is the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment

We Can Apply the 14th Amendment While Also Reforming Birthright Citizenship
 by JOHN C. EASTMAN   August 24, 2015 4:00 AM

Birthright citizenship has exploded into the national discourse. The issue is generating a lot of heat on the Republican side of the aisle in particular, because it threatens to expose the long-standing rift between the party’s base and its pro-crony-capitalism establishment.

Unfortunately, in arguing that the 14th Amendment requires citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, some of the more prominent interlocutors are promoting an incorrect understanding of history. The Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial on the matter is a case in point, and my good friend John Yoo’s NR essay repeats one of the same basic flaws.

The first clause of the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Journal thinks the meaning is “straightforward”: “Subject to the jurisdiction” covers everyone born on U.S. soil (except the children of diplomats and invading armies), because “‘jurisdiction’ defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom — and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth.” It then states: “By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.”

Professor Yoo makes the same claim (absent the ad hominem word “restrictionist”): “Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory: Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment.”

This claim plays off a widespread ignorance about the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” It fails to recognize that the same word covers two distinctly different ideas: 1) complete, political jurisdiction; and 2) partial, territorial jurisdiction.

Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.

The same is true for those who are in this country illegally. They are subject to our laws by their presence within our borders, but they are not subject to the more complete jurisdiction envisioned by the 14th Amendment as a precondition for automatic citizenship. It is just silliness to contend, as the Journal does, that this is “circular restrictionist logic” that would prevent illegal immigrants from being “prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.”

Moreover, contrary to Professor Yoo’s contention, the text elsewhere in the 14th Amendment supports this distinction. Unlike the Citizenship Clause, which uses the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” the Equal Protection Clause bars a state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added.) The phrase “within its jurisdiction” is territorial, whereas the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” is political.

There were no restrictions on immigration in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted and ratified, so there was no debate on whether the Citizenship Clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants. But we do have debate on the analogous circumstance of Native Americans who continued to owe allegiance to their tribes. One senator — exhibiting the same confusion today exhibited by the Journal — asked Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment, whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause, since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military.”

Trumbull responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” — that is, under the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which the 14th Amendment was intended to codify. That act made the point even more clearly: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) As the debate over the 14th Amendment makes clear, the shift in language from the 1866 Civil Rights Act to what became the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was not intended to provide citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, but rather to shift away from the “not subject to any foreign power” language out of recognition that the Indian tribes were not foreign powers but domestic (albeit dependent) powers. As Senator Howard explained, the Citizenship Clause excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The leading treatise writer of the day, Thomas Cooley, confirmed this was the understanding of the 14th Amendment. As he wrote in his treatise, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”

When the Supreme Court first addressed the Citizenship Clause in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, both the majority and dissenting opinions recognized this same understanding. The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “the phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” (Emphasis added).

That language in Slaughterhouse was dicta (a comment not strictly relevant to the decision), but it became holding a decade later in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins. The Supreme Court held in that case that the claimant — a Native American born on a tribal reservation — was not a citizen because he was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, which required that he be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk did not meet the jurisdictional test because, as a member of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States. Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” according to the Court, thereby making clear that its holding was about allegiance and not the reservation’s geographic territory. Then, drawing explicitly on the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act from which the 14th Amendment was drawn, the Court continued: “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

Professor Yoo is therefore simply mistaken in his claim that “the Supreme Court has consistently read Section One as granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens on U.S. territory.” In fact, it has never held that the children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in this country illegally are citizens. In the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, the Court simply held that a child born of Chinese immigrants who were lawfully and permanently in the United States — “domiciled” here, to use the Court’s phrase — was a citizen. Language in the opinion that can be read as suggesting that birth on U.S. soil alone, no matter what the circumstances, confers automatic citizenship is pure dicta, because no claim was at issue in the case other than whether the child of lawful, permanent residents was a citizen.

Professor Yoo’s contention to the contrary overlooks the Court’s use of the word “domiciled” in describing the nature of Wong Kim Ark’s relationship to the United States. “Domicile” is a legal term of art; it means “a person’s legal home,” according to Black’s law dictionary, and is often used synonymously with “citizenship.” Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not allowed to become citizens because the U.S. had entered into a nefarious treaty with the Emperor of China that refused to recognize their natural right to emigrate, but they were “domiciled” in the United States, which is to say, lawfully present in the United States. The holding of the case, as opposed to its broader dicta, does not mandate citizenship for children born to those who are unlawfully present in the United States, and it does not even mandate citizenship for those who are visiting the United States temporarily but lawfully. In both cases, the children, through their parents, retain allegiance to their parents’ home country — to a “foreign power,” to return to the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. They are therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way intended by the 14th Amendment, and therefore not automatic citizens.

As I said, no Supreme Court case has held otherwise. Wong Kim Ark did not so hold. Neither did Plyler v. Doe in 1982, contrary to the Journal’s assertion; the relevant language in that case is simply a footnote for comparison with the Equal Protection Clause, and pure dicta.

Professor Yoo’s description of the debate between Senators Cowan and Conness likewise misses the point. Cowan asked whether the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship upon the children of Chinese parents who were living in California, or the children of Gypsies living in Pennsylvania. “Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States?” he asked. He was attempting to draw a distinction based on race or ethnic background, not on lawful versus unlawful presence in the United States, or even on permanent versus temporary presence. It was for that reason that Conness began his reply by stating that he failed to see what relation Cowan’s question had to do with the Citizenship Clause. The 14th Amendment did not do away with sovereignty.

Conness then responded that automatic citizenship would be available to the “children begotten of Chinese parents in California” just as existed under existing law — that is, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship to “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power.” That guarantee was available no matter the ethnic background of the parents — we were not extending citizenship only to the descendants of white Europeans — but his response did not suggest that the children of those who were not lawfully present in the United States, or who were mere temporary visitors, would be automatic citizens. Indeed, Cowan’s own question — “Have [the children of Chinese or Gypsies domiciled in the United States] any more rights than a sojourner?” — demonstrates that he was also aware of the distinction between territorial and political jurisdiction. For the debate to support Professor Yoo’s position, Conness would have had to respond that even the children of sojourners would be entitled to automatic citizenship. There is not a hint in his response to suggest such an answer, nor in any other part of the entire debate.

So, truth be told, the 14th Amendment does not need to be repealed in order to fix the problem of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. It just needs to be understood and applied correctly. The Journal’s contention that conservatives who insist upon this understanding of the law “are promising a GOP version of President Obama’s ‘illegal amnesty order’” could therefore not be further from the truth. Constitutional originalism requires that we give effect to the public meaning of the words actually used, even if the Wall Street Journal would wish the meaning were otherwise. And the Journal’s further contention that anyone who wishes to see the 14th Amendment faithfully applied is claiming “that some people are not real Americans and have no right to be,” is simply another ad hominem attack and mischaracterization not worthy of an otherwise great newspaper.

Finally, let me close with some agreement with Professor Yoo’s soaring rhetoric at the end of his piece, much of which is entirely true. Yes, “rather than being a misguided act of generosity, the 14th Amendment marks one of the great achievements of the Republican party.” And yes, “It was the Republican party that opposed Dred Scott.” And yes, “It was the Republican Party that fought and won the Civil War.” And definitely yes, “it was the Republican party that drafted and ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which did away with slavery and any distinction between Americans based on race.”

But the 14th Amendment did not do away with sovereignty. It did not do away with the importance of citizenship, or with the idea, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, that legitimate governments are grounded on the consent of the governed. Birthright citizenship, as currently practiced, allows those who continue to owe allegiance to a foreign power to demand American citizenship for their children, unilaterally and as a result of their illegal conduct. Those who oppose such an abuse do not support Dred Scott. They are drawing distinctions based not on race, but on the rule of law. Professor Yoo need not worry, therefore, that applying the 14th Amendment faithfully would “discard one of the greatest attributes of American exceptionalism.” The welcome mat to American citizenship is open to anyone in the world regardless of race or ethnic background, as long as they adhere to the legal rules set out by Congress for immigration to this country.

 — John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former dean at Chapman University School of Law. He also serves as the director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #928 on: August 25, 2015, 02:27:09 PM »

Doug,

Good post; logical and obviously consistent with the intent of the 14th amendment.
The Repub candidates should memorize many of the lines and thought process in this piece and make them the party's mantra.

Just like the Dems try to do but with their illogical deceptive propaganda.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34176


« Reply #929 on: August 27, 2015, 11:54:53 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Best%20of%208/22&utm_term=VDHM%20Reader

by Edward J. Erler August 19, 2015 4:00 AM Donald Trump continues to bewilder political experts. He unabashedly wades into politically dangerous territory and yet continues to be rewarded by favorable poll results. He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote. Establishment Republicans believe that the future of the party depends on being able to capture a larger share of this rapidly expanding electorate. Trump’s plan, however, may appeal to the most rapidly expanding electorate, senior citizens, and may have an even greater appeal to the millions of Republicans who stayed away from the polls in 2012 as well as the ethnic and blue-collar Democrats who crossed party lines to vote Republican in the congressional elections of 2014. All of these voters outnumber any increase in the Latino vote that Republicans could possibly hope to gain from a population that has consistently voted Democratic by a two-thirds majority and shows little inclination to change. RELATED: Not Hard to Read the 14th Amendment As Not Requiring Birthright Citizenship — And Nothing Odd About Supporting Such a Reading Critics say that Trump’s plan is unrealistic, that it would require a constitutional amendment because the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship and that the Supreme Court has upheld this requirement ever since its passage in 1868. The critics are wrong. A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true. Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” RELATED: End Birthright Citizenship Now: Barack Obama Makes the Case Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. Furthermore, there has never been an explicit holding by the Supreme Court that the children of illegal aliens are automatically accorded birthright citizenship. In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority’s holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship. Get Free Exclusive NR Content

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20Best%20of%208/22&utm_term=VDHM%20Reader
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4579


« Reply #930 on: August 27, 2015, 02:18:45 PM »

"He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote"

I keep hearing on MSLSD and the Feminist controlled CNN that 70% of Latins are against Trump.

So what.   70% are against any Republican.   And who is the establishment catering to?  Illegals and new immigrants who overstay their Visas.  They should be catering to those who come here legally as well as US citizens. 

And the darn CANS still can't get it that it is not about Latinos.  It is about anyone from anywhere that comes here illegally.

Does anyone think the Puerto Ricans are thrilled to have Mexicans flooding here by the millions having babies at our expense and then turning around and demanding benefits and the same rights they have? 

I will not vote for a pro amnesty candidate.  I will sit the next election out.

I am not saying Trump is my ideal choice but he is the only standing up to this leftist intimidation.   The rest of the bunch are cowards and are signing their own demise.
 
Thank you.  I feel better now.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6668


« Reply #931 on: August 27, 2015, 02:31:49 PM »

"He has clearly tapped into a reserve of public resentment for inside-the-Beltway politics. How far this resentment will carry him is anyone’s guess, but the Republican establishment is worried. His latest proposal to end birthright citizenship has set off alarm bells in the Republican party. The leadership worries that Trump will derail the party’s plans to appeal to the Latino vote"

I keep hearing on MSLSD and the Feminist controlled CNN that 70% of Latins are against Trump.

So what.   70% are against any Republican.   And who is the establishment catering to?  Illegals and new immigrants who overstay their Visas.  They should be catering to those who come here legally as well as US citizens. 

And the darn CANS still can't get it that it is not about Latinos.  It is about anyone from anywhere that comes here illegally.

Does anyone think the Puerto Ricans are thrilled to have Mexicans flooding here by the millions having babies at our expense and then turning around and demanding benefits and the same rights they have? 

I will not vote for a pro amnesty candidate.  I will sit the next election out.

I am not saying Trump is my ideal choice but he is the only standing up to this leftist intimidation.   The rest of the bunch are cowards and are signing their own demise.
 
Thank you.  I feel better now.

CCP has been right on the immigration problem for quite a while.  Assuming it is not going to be Trump, we will need a candidate who will assimilate the Trump voters with the rest of us - and win - and then DO SOMETHING about it.

Immigration SHOULD be a very positive thing for this country.  On the current course, it will never be a positive force with our safety net running wild and our private economy stalled.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!