drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Any other president and there would be national outrage. This will be forgotten by the weekend and his next tweet.

---

lol there is national outrage. That's the problem. Haiti and Niger are sh*thole countries. It doesn't mean their people are all sh*tholes. What's next, criticizing Islam, which is not a race, is 'racism'? Oh wait...

Who will outrage whom next in this cycle of identity politics and outrage?

---

Compelling. Couldn't be clearer that sh*tholes are the problem.

---

defining that term would be a start. We can't do anything about the SHs that are citizens and don't break the law, but we can, at least with a concerted effort, prevent the adding to that population with SHs from elsewhere, in so far as that is possible. That's really all it is.

---

No, I meant you.

---

For stating facts? That's telling...

---

No, don't consider myself fact averse. I was moved by your embrace of the word sh*tholes, particularly as you apply it to people. Are those facts? Cuz that would be telling. Who gets to determine which among us are factual sh*tholes? Can I certify that you're a sh*thole? Grade AAA factual sh*thole? These are just questions.

---

If Haiti and Niger aren't "sh*tholes" which countries are? And what would that classify America as? I mean I hear the same people refer to the central valley or the South as sh*tholes who are up in arms about this comment. Following their logic, they'd rather live in Haiti than in certain parts of America. Everybody sees these countries as 3rd world hell holes for objective reasons, but to some we can't say it out loud, because feelings and stuff. And of course it's en vogue to conflate it with a bigoted hatred towards it's people on the basis of their citizenship there.

iwantwinners said:

---

If Haiti and Niger aren't "sh*tholes" which countries are? And what would that classify America as? I mean I hear the same people refer to the central valley or the South as sh*tholes who are up in arms about this comment.

---

Yes. How dare people want their president to act with some semblance of decorum and good manners?

Yogi Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

If Haiti and Niger aren't "sh*tholes" which countries are? And what would that classify America as? I mean I hear the same people refer to the central valley or the South as sh*tholes who are up in arms about this comment.

---

Yes. How dare people want their president to act with some semblance of decorum and good manners?

---

Oh the humanity, a president talks like a normal human being?

So it's not that these countries aren't pits of hell, or that all of us are hypocrites since we basically agree with him and hold such views, it's that a president actually has the audacity to speak uncomfortable truths?

It's nice to know you guys have your priorities in order. Factors of immigration policy, who cares? But president says something inflammatory yet true about immigration, lets rail against that?

iwantwinners said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Any other president and there would be national outrage. This will be forgotten by the weekend and his next tweet.

---

lol there is national outrage. That's the problem. Haiti and Niger are sh*thole countries. It doesn't mean their people are all sh*tholes. What's next, criticizing Islam, which is not a race, is 'racism'? Oh wait...

Who will outrage whom next in this cycle of identity politics and outrage?

---

Compelling. Couldn't be clearer that sh*tholes are the problem.

---

defining that term would be a start. We can't do anything about the SHs that are citizens and don't break the law, but we can, at least with a concerted effort, prevent the adding to that population with SHs from elsewhere, in so far as that is possible. That's really all it is.

---

No, I meant you.

---

For stating facts? That's telling...

---

No, don't consider myself fact averse. I was moved by your embrace of the word sh*tholes, particularly as you apply it to people. Are those facts? Cuz that would be telling. Who gets to determine which among us are factual sh*tholes? Can I certify that you're a sh*thole? Grade AAA factual sh*thole? These are just questions.

---

If Haiti and Niger aren't "sh*tholes" which countries are? And what would that classify America as? I mean I hear the same people refer to the central valley or the South as sh*tholes who are up in arms about this comment. Following their logic, they'd rather live in Haiti than in certain parts of America. Everybody sees these countries as 3rd world hell holes for objective reasons, but to some we can't say it out loud, because feelings and stuff. And of course it's en vogue to conflate it with a bigoted hatred towards it's people on the basis of their citizenship there.

---

I wish you luck in your search for winners.

Cave Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Quote:

---

There are 325 million people in this country and only 11 million of them are illegal immigrants.

---

But they're illegal, don't you get it? Your post was apologetics for illegal activity (when a legal process exists) in service to your political preferences and ideology. Citing that it's not a central factor to certain domestic issues is NOT an argument for refusing basic federal immigration law. All 11 million should face legal action up to and including deportation not in loyalty to my politics, but in loyalty to federal law.

---

I respect the law but I am not a slave to it. There are circumstances where ignoring or mitigating a law is the right thing to do and many of those instances were driven by political preference and ideology. Millions of these people have been here for years, decades even. They include both children and adults who were not born here but cannot remember having ever lived elsewhere. They've become members of our communities and I'm against ripping them out forcing them to return to the disaster site they escaped. It is not possible to parse the population to determine which deserve to be here even if we could use my arbitrary standards, so I am for a general amnesty for those who have not committed violent crimes paired with a broad guest worker program.

---

What about non-violent crimes? Theft? Robbery? Drug trafficking?

It's like people who have a warrant out for a crime, but in the 10 years of going undiscovered by LE, that person proved to be a positive, contributing member of society. They're still going to jail. But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Quote:

---

There are 325 million people in this country and only 11 million of them are illegal immigrants.

---

But they're illegal, don't you get it? Your post was apologetics for illegal activity (when a legal process exists) in service to your political preferences and ideology. Citing that it's not a central factor to certain domestic issues is NOT an argument for refusing basic federal immigration law. All 11 million should face legal action up to and including deportation not in loyalty to my politics, but in loyalty to federal law.

---

I respect the law but I am not a slave to it. There are circumstances where ignoring or mitigating a law is the right thing to do and many of those instances were driven by political preference and ideology. Millions of these people have been here for years, decades even. They include both children and adults who were not born here but cannot remember having ever lived elsewhere. They've become members of our communities and I'm against ripping them out forcing them to return to the disaster site they escaped. It is not possible to parse the population to determine which deserve to be here even if we could use my arbitrary standards, so I am for a general amnesty for those who have not committed violent crimes paired with a broad guest worker program.

---

What about non-violent crimes? Theft? Robbery? Drug trafficking?

---

If the crime included no violence or threat of violence I'm going to lean on the side of the immigrant. The amnesty only applies to the illegal act of their immigration. If there is an open warrant out for an illegal immigrant on felony theft charges and they are arrested, I am still in favor of prosecuting them for the felony theft. If there is an illegal immigrant who had a felony theft conviction in his past but has paid his debt to society and not re-offended then I would offer amnesty.

Quote:

---

It's like people who have a warrant out for a crime, but in the 10 years of going undiscovered by LE, that person proved to be a positive, contributing member of society. They're still going to jail.

---

No they probably won't go to jail, or at least not for long, because the vast majority of crimes have a statute of limitations that expires before 10 years pass. An undocumented immigrant who's been here for 50 years can still be deported if he is discovered.

Quote:

---

But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Sounds good to me.

iwantwinners said:

---

When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Rates of illegal immigration have slowed to a trickle since about the mid '00s. You're worried about a problem that largely doesn't exist anymore.

How do you feel about the employers that hire undocumented workers? Aren't they breaking the law as well? Repeatedly? Any thoughts? Or are you still more concerned about the brown people breaking laws?

Cave Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Sounds good to me.

---

Open border, advocate. Well Okay then. How about you and I gather up 20 million of our fellow Americans and demand our way into Italy tomorrow, we'll cry victim that we came there illegally, have them educate us and our children, and collect public benefits. The irony is that Americans would support Italy in their quest to rid themselves of these crooks.

AunBear89 said:

---

How do you feel about the employers that hire undocumented workers? Aren't they breaking the law as well? Repeatedly? Any thoughts? Or are you still more concerned about the brown people breaking laws?

---

They are the problem too, absolutely. A big problem is the SCOTUS decision that forces K-12 public schools to educate illegal aliens. Universities are following suit. You should NOT be able to work, drive a vehicle, receive education (paid or free) or ANY public benefits without legal status and a SS #. Let's not require people come in legally if we're going to continue to do that, given we are subsidizing illegal behavior. And this would be OPEN BORDERS.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Rates of illegal immigration have slowed to a trickle since about the mid '00s. You're worried about a problem that largely doesn't exist anymore.

---

This is so dishonest. Not that it isn't a fact, but that your agenda -- not based on facts or sound and fair/equal policy, but on emotive ideology centered around privilege for groups you perceive to be "victims" -- compels you to argue it's "not a problem".

You start by saying illegal immigration is good, then you backpedal and say year over year levels aren't increasing. There are still over 10 million by any conservative estimate. You don't need to move the goal posts. Just say you feel bad for people and want everyone to have a better life who has the courage to break the law to do so, be damned the consequences to themselves and other people.

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Rates of illegal immigration have slowed to a trickle since about the mid '00s. You're worried about a problem that largely doesn't exist anymore.

---

This is so dishonest. Not that it isn't a fact, but that your agenda -- not based on facts or sound and fair/equal policy, but on emotive ideology centered around privilege for groups you perceive to be "victims" -- compels you to argue it's "not a problem".

You start by saying illegal immigration is good, then you backpedal and say year over year levels aren't increasing. There are still over 10 million by any conservative estimate. You don't need to move the goal posts. Just say you feel bad for people and want everyone to have a better life who has the courage to break the law to do so, be damned the consequences to themselves and other people.

---

Nothing dishonest about it. I said rates of illegal immigration have slowed. They have. The debate over Dreamers is about what to do with people who are already here and have been here for a long time.

I do feel bad for people. I don't think everyone should just break the law. I think the laws should be reformed.

Fine the companies that break the laws.

Riiiight. Cuz white (emphasis on white) collar criminals don't need to go to jail. Just pay your $5000 fine and never do it again! Promise? Ok - we'll check back on you in a couple of years and make sure you're not doing it again. If you are: another fine!

I believe jail time is called for on the more serious offenses. California protects these companies from the INS / federal government.

Quick Google search...

An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien's illegal employment.18 Any person who within any 12-month period hires ten or more individuals with actual knowledge that they illegal aliens or unauthorized workers is guilty of felony harboring.

Agriculture would collapse. Undocumented workers are necessary. They are willing to work long hours on demand when crops are in then willing to be laid off, they can't unionize and can't vote..

Pay your fine. Personal check will be good. And we'll see you at the Fund raiser at Mara Lago this Saturday.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Delicious irony reading a guy who calls himself iwantwinners essentially arguing that he thinks Americans with all of our privileges can't compete with undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

I just don't care that much about illegal immigration. It doesn't negatively impact my life. The diffuse economic negatives are probably outweighed by the positives (their cheap labor leads to lower cost made in USA goods and services). I feel terrible for dreamers and think they should be made citizens. I don't have a problem with calling it amnesty either.

---

there are no arguments made in this post. And if whether policy impacts one's life, directly or otherwise, is the standard for good policy, justice, etc, then...

You advocate for immigrants taking laborious jobs for cheap so ag doesn't have to raise wages like it's a good thing to lower wages. If no citizens will take picking in 100 degree weather for $50/day and no bathroom breaks, ag will be forced to increase wages to get labor commensurate with what people are willing to do it for (the market). Are you pro-labor or not? Or maybe just for non-whites?

You've taken your narrow and identity based empathy and neglected all other interests and principles of fairness or justice. And yet you think you're the morally righteous one.

AunBear89 said:

---

Riiiight. Cuz white (emphasis on white) collar criminals don't need to go to jail. Just pay your $5000 fine and never do it again! Promise? Ok - we'll check back on you in a couple of years and make sure you're not doing it again. If you are: another fine!

---

I'm good with jail time. But when the SCOTUS forced k-12 to educate everybody regardless of legal status, when they can get DL's, pay and collect taxes and public benefits, etc etc., we're seeking to punish a crime that we're also subsidizing and incentivizing. Plyer v Doe was a terrible decision and utilization of the eqaul protection clause.

Cave Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Sounds good to me.

---

Open border, advocate. Well Okay then. How about you and I gather up 20 million of our fellow Americans and demand our way into Italy tomorrow, we'll cry victim that we came there illegally, have them educate us and our children, and collect public benefits. The irony is that Americans would support Italy in their quest to rid themselves of these crooks.

---

This argument would have some validity if America was in the same awful state as Mexico and Italy was the richest and most powerful country in the world. Or if Italy was our neighbor and was a nation which spent much of the past two centuries falsely claiming responsibility for protecting and guiding all of the states of the American hemisphere. Or if Italy had a political tradition of embracing mass immigration from depressed regions--you know, those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Or if the 20 million people you're hypothetically emigrating to Italy didn't represent 1/3 of their entire population, as opposed to the 1.5% of our population that your hypothetical 5 million more immigrants from Mexico represent.

---

so are you for open borders or not? You seem to be, then insinuate we at least need to take certain numbers of people from "poorer nations" (what **** policy in 2018), and then you stipulate that up to a certain point -- "one-third" -- the number of legal/illegal (still not sure here) immigrants is OK. Just not until, per your discretion, it becomes equal to or greater than 1/3? Maybe somebody if you're lucky we'll get there.

Is there actually a policy argument why a haphazard whatever is clever policy is both fair and in the country's best interest? Even if you think the number of visas should increase exponentially, you'd simply be advocating for a change in policy, not an ambivalence towards illegal immigration. All of what you're posting amounts to virtue signaling -- "helping these 'poor' people (no matter what the cost) and turning the other way when they break the law is the RIGHT thing to do!"

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Sounds good to me.

---

Open border, advocate. Well Okay then. How about you and I gather up 20 million of our fellow Americans and demand our way into Italy tomorrow, we'll cry victim that we came there illegally, have them educate us and our children, and collect public benefits. The irony is that Americans would support Italy in their quest to rid themselves of these crooks.

---

This argument would have some validity if America was in the same awful state as Mexico and Italy was the richest and most powerful country in the world. Or if Italy was our neighbor and was a nation which spent much of the past two centuries falsely claiming responsibility for protecting and guiding all of the states of the American hemisphere. Or if Italy had a political tradition of embracing mass immigration from depressed regions--you know, those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Or if the 20 million people you're hypothetically emigrating to Italy didn't represent 1/3 of their entire population, as opposed to the 1.5% of our population that your hypothetical 5 million more immigrants from Mexico represent.

---

so are you for open borders or not? You seem to be, then insinuate we at least need to take certain numbers of people from "poorer nations" (what **** policy in 2018), and then you stipulate that up to a certain point -- "one-third" -- the number of legal/illegal (still not sure here) immigrants is OK. Just not until, per your discretion, it becomes equal to or greater than 1/3? Maybe somebody if you're lucky we'll get there.

Is there actually a policy argument why a haphazard whatever is clever policy is both fair and in the country's best interest? Even if you think the number of visas should increase exponentially, you'd simply be advocating for a change in policy, not an ambivalence towards illegal immigration. All of what you're posting amounts to virtue signaling -- "helping these 'poor' people (no matter what the cost) and turning the other way when they break the law is the RIGHT thing to do!"

---

You've drawn way more from the remarks in my last post than should be drawn and still couldn't find the point. That post was a direct response to your ridiculous comparison of my willingness to allow 5 million more illegal immigrants as the long term immigration cost of amnesty to 20 million Americans trying to emigrate to Italy. I'm not for totally unrestricted immigration, but 5 million more Mexican immigrants is not a catastrophe to me given that for now and at least the immediate future they are no worse than a neutral economic proposition. They cost a little bit more in services than they bring in tax revenue but they add net to national wealth through their economic activity even after their effects on the labor market are accounted for. The real **** policy is trying to solve this problem with the Great Wall v2.0 in the 21st ****ing century paired with state police roaming their jurisdictions demanding that people who look or sound like they might be immigrants produce their papers. The solution is to fix Mexico, to fix the damn hole in the boat while we still have time instead of trying to bail out water.

These people want to be here, most of them want to work to have a better life. Best yet, they somehow still prize the idea of America as a land of safety and prosperity, something worth risking everything for a chance to be a part of. You want us to turn away that group of people when we can easily absorb the 3% of the population they currently represent?

What this is really about is the racial future of this nation, a fact that makes me wish we could split this nation in two because I think it's the patently stupid cause to fight for, a fact that is validated by its epic failures and disgraces in American history. I don't say that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is motivated by this racism, but those people are disproportionately moderate, neocon or libertarian and therefore marginal within conservatism.

America better take an opportunity to learn from the past, for a change. Rome did not die of old age, it died for ethnic and cultural bigotry. Many Germanic and Asiatic tribes were begging to be assimilated for centuries but the Romans couldn't imagine a future together and worse couldn't imagine the necessity. Demographics are as badly against us, both in our hemisphere and in the world. It's very bad news for us at a moment where isolationism is running hot.

One of the ridiculous aspects of your America --> Italy illegal immigration analogy was that Italy's population density is already 3.3 times higher than ours. China's is over 4 times higher than ours. We are not out of vacancies in this country. Your belief that a liberal immigration policy is **** makes the assumption I'm that trying to enlarge the economic underclass of this nation. I'm not. China projects to surpass us in economic power because their population is over 4 times higher than ours and they try harder to develop their citizenry as economic units. My political platform can reduce those advantages. Modernize entitlements in this nation, build Mexico and put the welcome sign out for anyone who wants to come here, live in peace and work for a better life.

https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/1637332962968823/

Yogi Bear said:

---

https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/1637332962968823/

---

no kidding mexico would want mexicans raised and educated in the United States, it would make them the creme de la creme in Mexico, a country with much harsher immigration policies and standards than America.

Quote:

---

According to Mexico's immigration laws, Article 32 states you must speak Spanish and must be a professional who is useful to the Mexican society. There are no bilingual programs in the school and no pressing 2 for English. All business must be conducted in Spanish. Investors are welcome but must pay higher than minimum wage and your land purchases are restricted. Article 34 states that foreigners must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. There are no welfare programs, food stamps, government housing or entitlements.

Article 87 states foreigners must be "physically and mentally healthy." Articles 73, 85, 86, 87 state foreigners must be on a national population registry, cooperating with federal-local, and municipal police. Article 116 states foreigners using fake documents face a fine and imprisonment. Immigrants must show a birth certificate to show citizenship and must have identification when voting. Articles 117-121 state foreigners who fail to obey laws will be fined, deported, and felons imprisoned. No one is allowed to enter the country with a criminal record.

There is no due process of deportation. There is no 14th Amendment. Law enforcement officers are required to enforce Mexico's immigration laws at all times. Articles 123-126 make illegal immigration a felony. Articles 127 state any Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner is subject to five years in prison.

The government of Mexico benefits from American policies since their criminals and poor flee to America for many free benefits and a safe haven provided for them. President Trump's policies are much kinder. He wants to prevent criminals, terrorist, gang members, drug cartels, and human traffickers from entering America. He wants to reduce the tax burden on the American taxpayer, which according to www.politicallyincorrectfacts.com is $383 Billion Dollars annually for healthcare, education, incarceration, and social services. This is far more than the one-time payment of $10 Billion to build a wall and far less than the $140 Billion Obama gave to Iran.

---

Cave Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.

---

Sounds good to me.

---

Open border, advocate. Well Okay then. How about you and I gather up 20 million of our fellow Americans and demand our way into Italy tomorrow, we'll cry victim that we came there illegally, have them educate us and our children, and collect public benefits. The irony is that Americans would support Italy in their quest to rid themselves of these crooks.

---

This argument would have some validity if America was in the same awful state as Mexico and Italy was the richest and most powerful country in the world. Or if Italy was our neighbor and was a nation which spent much of the past two centuries falsely claiming responsibility for protecting and guiding all of the states of the American hemisphere. Or if Italy had a political tradition of embracing mass immigration from depressed regions--you know, those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Or if the 20 million people you're hypothetically emigrating to Italy didn't represent 1/3 of their entire population, as opposed to the 1.5% of our population that your hypothetical 5 million more immigrants from Mexico represent.

---

so are you for open borders or not? You seem to be, then insinuate we at least need to take certain numbers of people from "poorer nations" (what **** policy in 2018), and then you stipulate that up to a certain point -- "one-third" -- the number of legal/illegal (still not sure here) immigrants is OK. Just not until, per your discretion, it becomes equal to or greater than 1/3? Maybe somebody if you're lucky we'll get there.

Is there actually a policy argument why a haphazard whatever is clever policy is both fair and in the country's best interest? Even if you think the number of visas should increase exponentially, you'd simply be advocating for a change in policy, not an ambivalence towards illegal immigration. All of what you're posting amounts to virtue signaling -- "helping these 'poor' people (no matter what the cost) and turning the other way when they break the law is the RIGHT thing to do!"

---

You've drawn way more from the remarks in my last post than should be drawn and still couldn't find the point. That post was a direct response to your ridiculous comparison of my willingness to allow 5 million more illegal immigrants as the long term immigration cost of amnesty to 20 million Americans trying to emigrate to Italy. I'm not for totally unrestricted immigration, but 5 million more Mexican immigrants is not a catastrophe to me given that for now and at least the immediate future they are no worse than a neutral economic proposition. They cost a little bit more in services than they bring in tax revenue but they add net to national wealth through their economic activity even after their effects on the labor market are accounted for. The real **** policy is trying to solve this problem with the Great Wall v2.0 in the 21st ****ing century paired with state police roaming their jurisdictions demanding that people who look or sound like they might be immigrants produce their papers. The solution is to fix Mexico, to fix the damn hole in the boat while we still have time instead of trying to bail out water.

These people want to be here, most of them want to work to have a better life. Best yet, they somehow still prize the idea of America as a land of safety and prosperity, something worth risking everything for a chance to be a part of. You want us to turn away that group of people when we can easily absorb the 3% of the population they currently represent?

What this is really about is the racial future of this nation, a fact that makes me wish we could split this nation in two because I think it's the patently stupid cause to fight for, a fact that is validated by its epic failures and disgraces in American history. I don't say that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is motivated by this racism, but those people are disproportionately moderate, neocon or libertarian and therefore marginal within conservatism.

America better take an opportunity to learn from the past, for a change. Rome did not die of old age, it died for ethnic and cultural bigotry. Many Germanic and Asiatic tribes were begging to be assimilated for centuries but the Romans couldn't imagine a future together and worse couldn't imagine the necessity. Demographics are as badly against us, both in our hemisphere and in the world. It's very bad news for us at a moment where isolationism is running hot.

One of the ridiculous aspects of your America --> Italy illegal immigration analogy was that Italy's population density is already 3.3 times higher than ours. China's is over 4 times higher than ours. We are not out of vacancies in this country. Your belief that a liberal immigration policy is **** makes the assumption I'm that trying to enlarge the economic underclass of this nation. I'm not. China projects to surpass us in economic power because their population is over 4 times higher than ours and they try harder to develop their citizenry as economic units. My political platform can reduce those advantages. Modernize entitlements in this nation, build Mexico and put the welcome sign out for anyone who wants to come here, live in peace and work for a better life.

---

In bold are not policy arguments, nor are they irrelevant. They are judgments of empathy for a targeted group of people at the expense of others and rule of law beacuse it suits your politics.

Hispanic immigrants perform very low in K-12 education compared to their peers, and naturally it's in large part due to their literacy.

Quote:

---

Even those numbers could exaggerate the level of assimilation. As mentioned above, a high-school diploma has become so commonplace among today's youth (due in large part to watered-down standards) that it is no longer a strong indicator of skills. Similarly, CIS research has shown that immigrants tend to overstate their English ability. When Hispanic immigrants, who make up some 80 to 90 percent of DACA recipients, recently took an objective test of English literacy, 44 percent of those who said they speak English "well" or "very well" actually scored "below basic" a level sometimes described as functional illiteracy. Based on test-takers with the required age and residency, I estimate that perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only "basic" English ability.

---

Keep playing the world's smallest violin for illegal immigrants. "Empathy" run amok. That you think rejecting illegal immigration and high standards of admittance is "racial" is profoundly sanctimonious and ignorant.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

You advocate for immigrants taking laborious jobs for cheap so ag doesn't have to raise wages like it's a good thing to lower wages. If no citizens will take picking in 100 degree weather for $50/day and no bathroom breaks, ag will be forced to increase wages to get labor commensurate with what people are willing to do it for (the market). Are you pro-labor or not? Or maybe just for non-whites?

You've taken your narrow and identity based empathy and neglected all other interests and principles of fairness or justice. And yet you think you're the morally righteous one.

---

You talk a lot about identity politics while your motivations seem far more targeted to ethnic identity than anyone else here. Perhaps like your savior Trump, with you it's more projection.

I don't have any preference for whites or non-whites in the labor market. I do acknowledge that the USA isn't producing enough workers to expand the economy the way we will need to in order to support retiring baby boomers and the entitlements that will accrue to them.

If you are so worked about American white people who are failing to succeed in this labor market, you should focus on the breakdown in their culture. Hard to believe that uneducated immigrants who don't speak English are really preventing the winners you say you want from succeeding in the US. Maybe you should change your handle to "iwantdeplorablelosers". Seems more apt.

---

This is an annoying habit of the left -- attempting to discredit the person not the content, typically by insinuating their views are racially motivated and reflect some sort of racial preference or prejudice.

This has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the country's interest in terms of value -- both economic and social. The odds that Mexico has skilled labor we need relative to other countries that actually have quality education systems and wealth are not good, the precise generalization that Trump was referencing in smirking at the mention of MORE Haitian immigrants. But every applicant should be evaluated case by case, but policy makers are advocating arbitrary increased numbers for specific segments of the world with no regard for U.S. interests. That's just stupid. For once, we should be more like Mexico in this regard.

iwantwinners said:

---

This is an annoying habit of the left -- attempting to discredit the person not the content, typically by insinuating their views are racially motivated and reflect some sort of racial preference or prejudice.

This has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the country's interest in terms of value -- both economic and social. The odds that Mexico has skilled labor we need relative to other countries that actually have quality education systems and wealth are not good, the precise generalization that Trump was referencing in smirking at the mention of MORE Haitian immigrants. But every applicant should be evaluated case by case, but policy makers are advocating arbitrary increased numbers for specific segments of the world with no regard for U.S. interests. That's just stupid. For once, we should be more like Mexico in this regard.

---

Please. First of all you attempt to smear me with your blanket description of "the left." I could just as easily say "projecting identity politics is an annoying habit of the right."

If you can't handle opposition trying to ascribe motivation to your positions, you shouldn't discuss politics in public. Just like you and your ilk often accuse "the left" of importing people in order to increase liberal voters (which I've never heard a liberal advocate for although admittedly I'm not in the deep state or any other cabal), you should be prepared to have your positions questioned.

On the one hand you say that we don't need unskilled labor from other countries to come here and do the work that the winners you seek are unwilling to do, and that we really need to import skilled labor. On the other hand when any discussion arises about importing skilled labor, you would argue that we should be giving those jobs to skilled Americans and that importing skilled labor is just being done to lower the cost of skilled labor.

As for Trump smirking at the mention of more Haitian immigrants, Trump's favorite place in the world (Mar a lago) imports more foreign unskilled labor from Haiti than it does from anywhere else. Sorry, I can't remember, should we be taking his words literally or figuratively here?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/iraq-christians-trump-death-sentence-deportation-625722%3famp=1

Trump is getting rid of excess Christians from a s$ithole country.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

You advocate for immigrants taking laborious jobs for cheap so ag doesn't have to raise wages like it's a good thing to lower wages. If no citizens will take picking in 100 degree weather for $50/day and no bathroom breaks, ag will be forced to increase wages to get labor commensurate with what people are willing to do it for (the market). Are you pro-labor or not? Or maybe just for non-whites?

You've taken your narrow and identity based empathy and neglected all other interests and principles of fairness or justice. And yet you think you're the morally righteous one.

---

You talk a lot about identity politics while your motivations seem far more targeted to ethnic identity than anyone else here. Perhaps like your savior Trump, with you it's more projection.

I don't have any preference for whites or non-whites in the labor market. I do acknowledge that the USA isn't producing enough workers to expand the economy the way we will need to in order to support retiring baby boomers and the entitlements that will accrue to them.

If you are so worked about American white people who are failing to succeed in this labor market, you should focus on the breakdown in their culture. Hard to believe that uneducated immigrants who don't speak English are really preventing the winners you say you want from succeeding in the US. Maybe you should change your handle to "iwantdeplorablelosers". Seems more apt.

---

We can't kick out white (or any) citizens who are 'losers' and failing to succeed in the labor market. We CAN, however, prevent more of these types from entering and gaining residency.

No immigration should be arbitrary ("diversity", quotas from certain countries), it should not be racially motivated, it should be aimed at filling labor gaps. If there 1 million unemployed accountants due to an over-saturation in the field (hard to believe that would ever happen in accounting, but...), NO MORE ACCOUNTANTS. You want to teach English but can't speak it? Buy Rosetta Stone and come back to us next year. We're not paying for you or your kids to learn English. It's very simple.