Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#122

My line exactly.


#123

Alright, I’m just going to broadly state my problem with the other side’s thinking…

The main problem I have with the anti-immigration position…

And yes, the broad position I’m addressing is anti-immigration. I go in person to conservative conventions (namely WCS and Colorado Christian University round table events) , I see people wantonly listing policy against legal as well as illegal immigrant in the same breath. People list them together more often than not.

Is that you either don’t understand, or take responsibility for, where your own thinking leads.

I have a good suspicion for where it leads, because I see those like CIS, wantonly climb into bed with the anti-humanists, the Club of Rome types. CIS echoes the latter’s arguments for the purpose of attacking immigrants, thinking anything that boosts their own argument, is good.

The problem with adopting anti-humanist arguments though, is that it reduces flesh and blood human beings to the level of inputs and outputs. Simplistic empirical measurements, that don’t even ask for economic or social effects, only the fiscal and pseudo-environmental. As if to conclude how people effect the Government’s well being, and that of biologist models for scrutinizing animal populations, is the ultimate measure of a person’s value.

And what’s more, once you let anti-humanist thinking in the door, it doesn’t stop with the immigrants. It comes for the poor, it comes for the feeble, it comes for the old.

It indeed culminates in coming after whole parts of the human race, if it thinks we’re “overpopulated”, and advocates foolish things like returning America to a population of 200 million. Which you can’t do without dramatic controls enforced upon the population.

I don’t want eugenics, I don’t want social engineering, I don’t want population control by any other name. There’s a very real danger of that thinking reemerging, thanks to technology coming about to gene edit & track human beings. I want that thinking, anything that dehumanizes other humans to the level of inputs and outputs, corralled and locked off before that technology gets here, so that we understand what the limits are.

Second point.

Government is not more important than Emergent human activity. Even if its own activity wasn’t already killing it, I would still say this.

“Emergent” includes the economy, the culture, the civil society; anything made up by human action.

I do not, nor will I ever, abide politics as an excuse to interfere with what human beings voluntarily use their liberty or property to do, if you cannot show that what they do will or has trespass other individuals.

Politics is theater, it simplifies our human society to caricatures, it hardly ever thinks of things beyond 2 or 4 year election cycles. I’am not chasing after it as the main point of importance. Each election succeeds in getting me to care only less and less about it.

Just to say, if you call a business hiring a foreigner greed, I’d call empowering the law to prevent it envy, and the latter to me is a far greater wrong. Both of these positions are simplifications, but if you’re going to go there, I don’t see how a Lockean perspective on human rights is going to put the former on top.

Further, when I disagree with you that letting in more immigrants somehow “ruins society”, it’s not because I’m a “leftist”, it’s because I scrutinize the issue in terms of decades, not election cycles, and broadly understand where things are heading. Because my understanding is that we’ve been here before.

Welfare arguments come across to me as disingenuous when someone also then tries to invoke assimilation or security or labor concerns in the same breath. If it’s about the welfare, then stick to welfare. If it’s about the other things, then I’ll expect you to explain how this didn’t apply to past immigration waves, when everything was worse. Disease was worse, control was worse, violence was worse, people living in conclaves was worse.

No one whose read history on past immigration waves, can say it wasn’t worse. My preference for immigration, doesn’t prevent me from seeing that immigration in every era was a heartbreaking and dirty process. People who don’t romanticize the past, know how to put the current era into perspective with it.

And just as with everything, I don’t seek utopia, I seek human freedom as the working solution to societal problems as they arise. This doesn’t create perfect societies; merely the best ones we’ve observed.

Given close sociological study of Russia and Japan, places with higher domestic labor protection and low immigration, the idea of “cultural purity” is something I put no stock in. Nothing in human experience indicates to me that this idea works, it just shifts the problems and those creating them.


#124

If you ignore all of the nonsensical BS, fake statistics and moronic assumptions and replace them with “I want a permanent super majority of Democrats in every political institution in the United States”; then the desire for open borders makes perfect sense.

All the rest is designed to obscure and divert attention away from the true motive, it is supposed to inspire objection so the discussion never arrives at the true motive.

Study California, if the other 49 States knew the details of how this scheme was implemented here they would see right through all the lies and misdirections that the Left is now trying to sell to the whole Nation.

We were the test case, we proved it will eradicate all influence from every Ideology except the extreme left; the whole nation is next in the cross hairs.


#125

When Immigrants of a certain race vote over 60%, they vote Conservative.

Both the Vietnamese, and the Cubans show this.

Latinos, especially poor ones, vote the least of any race, less than 40% in most cases.

Voting behavior is based on temperament, and all races have people of temperaments that find their home with conservatives. With Latinos, they just don’t vote right now.

The problem for your viewpoint RET, is that you bought into the culture-centric rat race. You bought into the Progressives way of viewing things.

There’s more to people than culture.

Which became leftist because of Universities.
New York is in the same bag, for the same reason, with a far smaller Hispanic base.

Texas and Arizona have immigration rates which are just as high as california; it didn’t turn them into leftist havens. Arizona became borderline as its own University system grew.


#126

Hispanics vote 75 to 25 for the Left, in California the State cannot ask for proof of citizenship at the time of registration or at the polls.

Illegal immigration has converted California into the largest Welfare State in the US and secured a permanent super majority for the Extreme Left.

The “colleges and universities” are just as corrupt as they have always been here and in every other State; these institutions create morons but illegal immigrants create super majorities for Communist politicians.


#127

But what percentage of them vote?

Poor Hispanic people, are the least likely voters in the country.

The Democrats know this, which is why they’re frustrated they can’t get greater turnouts, and are for mandating voting.

The problem for them is, this would backfire. If you got more of the disinterested Hispanics to vote, more would show their distrust & impatience with the system Democrats are trying to expand. Which is why they don’t vote voluntarily in the first place.

If forced to choose, more would go with the option where they’re left the hell alone as much as possible. Ergo, more voting for 3rd parties, or us, not more for them.

Again, our experience through the States shows something else.

We see Leftist supermajorites, in States with the largest number of universities/university enrollment per capita, not the ones with the largest immigrant populations.

Massachusetts was also apart of this Super majority leftist trend, yet it has scant numbers of Hispanic immigrants compared to any of the border states.

It just doesn’t match RET.


#128

I never said illegal Immigration was the only way to create a blue state, I said that illegal immigration is a guaranteed way to establish a permanent super majority for the Extreme Left.

Nothing you have offered in your attempt to misdirect has refuted that claim and some of what you have offered is blatantly false.

Texas and Arizona together do not have the illegals that California has, and as usual I expect that you knew that when you wrote those words.

People with valid arguments make them, only people trying to hide their true motivation knowingly argue with false information and misdirection schemes.


#129

This doesn’t address what I brought up.

It’s not that it’s the only way, it’s that states with low illegal populations made the same transitions at the same time as California, while those with higher populations of illegals did not.

You didn’t name one thing. Curious.

They have far more than New York or Massachusetts, which went through the same transition as California at the same time.

That’s too big of a coincidence RET. That the voting behavior of white people, changed at the same time?

If universities were enough to transition the other States, then California, with has the largest University system of any State in the country, would clearly be affected.

You can’t ignore this, nor can you deny it.


#130

C’mon, AS. If white liberals in New York see Kalifornia becoming a blue state by importing more and more illegals, do you think they are going to suddenly turn RIGHT? NO. They’re going to turn even further left…just to keep up with Kalifornia and their growing population in CONGRESS of more and more Democrat lefties.


#131

Nope: California is blue, because the voting behavior of white people changed.

California is an epicenter of artists, Big media, and organized labor; all of which were schooled in the universities, and all of which who push the PC agenda.

It’s no coincidence, and the same thing happened to blue states on the east coast & midwest.


#132

This was blatantly false, as was your claim that illegals vote 60 percent for the conservatives when the truth is that they vote 75 percent for the Left.

You are the one who is trying to mislead and you are the one building arguments upon false premises; you’re not fooling anyone.


#133

Left-wing “white people” have ALWAYS voted for Democrats. That has never changed. The difference here is that they knew more illegals in their State would SOLIDIFY their control of the State Legislature, so embraced the illegal invasion of their State wholeheartedly.


#134

No it wasn’t. If were talking about illegal immigrants (and you imply we are), they’re a bigger share of Texas’s population than California’s :

That’s not what I said.

I said when voter participation for a group is over 60%, they vote conservative. The Vietnamese and Cubans have shown this.

Latinos vote left, because their conservative-minded people don’t see a reason to show up. Their voter participation trends less than 40%.

Poor Hispanics have a voter participation rate of less than 30%. They’re the least likely voters in the country.

Voter Participation rate RET, I’ve never seen you scrutinize this, nor ask why Hispanics are so low.


#135

As usual, you attempt misdirection and goalpost shifting; Texas illegals cannot vote without exposing themselves to prosecution while California illegals can register and vote in every election without any mechanism to determine the crime.

You attempt to say that Massachusetts and New York were reliably Red States until a couple decades ago when the Leftist Universities and Colleges became more Leftist (ludicrous on every level even for you) while you ignore the obvious and verifiable reasons why a State that ACTUALLY DID VOTE RED in Statewide contests and national elections pretty regularly shifted to an insurmountable Leftist majority BEGINNING PRECISELY WHEN THE REAGAN AMNESTY WAS GRANTED.

California became purple almost immediately, the Left saw this and began dismantling the voter verification process and encouraging illegal immigration with Cadillac Welfare offerings and keeping their promise to never turn them into the Feds.

And you know all this, that is why you are inventing ridiculous fairy tales about East Coast States transforming like California; that ludicrous claim is all anyone needs to hear to know your argument well is dry as dust.


#136

Your entire premise is that illegals, by being in a place, automatically shift elections left.

Now you’re suddenly acknowledging that voter laws do something?
Then how does that not automatically solve this problem?

How are they going to shift Red states, when red states have these same laws as Texas?

I did not, they were purple, and could swing (same to California). Mass went red 6 times and New York 9 times in Presidential elections since 1920.

Nope, this doesn’t explain why States with very low illegal immigrant populations also turned left at the same time.

And what all the states have in common, is being centers of Universities, and big media.
The common denominator points out the truth.

The voting behavior of white people in these States changed. That is an absolute fact RET, and it’s why these States lean left.

You can’t deny it. You just avoid acknowledging it.


#137

I never said “turned left”, I said converted into an insurmountable Leftist majority.

And of course “Laws make a difference”, you are the one who claims that “laws which cannot be enforced in the absolute are pointless”; I have never made an idiotic claim like that.

California has made it illegal to notify the Feds of illegal aliens, California has made it illegal to demand proof of citizenship when registering to vote, California has made it illegal to ask for ID when voting and in San Francisco they just went the full step and made it legal for non citizens to vote.

California has effectively established your vision for America, an open border with no laws; the results are exactly what I said and your fairy tale explanation reveals nothing except your complete ignorance of what has been happening here since the 1980’s.


#138

Massachusetts and New York did this. So still waiting for an explanation RET.

Then you have a cause & effect problem; if California was already doing this, then they were already on the left.

So does North Dakota; they allowed this long before this even became an issue.

States like Alabama allow it so long as the person shows they “intend” to become Americans, and have lived there a few months.


#139

We certainly do have a “cause and effect”, we have politicians who embrace your Ideology and like you they know they can never sell it to anyone besides those who are entirely dependent upon government for their sustenance; so they are importing those voters as quickly as they can and crushing their legal citizens until they go bankrupt or flee the State.

And like you they claim entirely different motivations for their actions.


#140

Your “effect” came before the cause; you already had leftist majorities before the immigrants showed up.
Amnesty applied no less to illegals in Texas; but they still didn’t get the “switch” we see in California.

And RET, you still can’t avoid the obvious; the behavior of white, middle class voters changed.
They over represent likely voters, and they are the ones Democrats need to appeal to to take power.

And they did.

Post-modernism, and it’s deconstruction of American values, is what’s to blame here. That’s what the left pulled itself into, that’s what got them those white voters.

Immigrants didn’t give us Post-modernism, the Universities and their media shills did.


#141

Really?
So Reagan, Deukmejian and Wilson were “Leftist Governors”?
Our 2 Republican Senators were Part of the “Leftist Majority” as well? How about the GOP Dominance in most of the State wide races as well, were those also part of the “Leftist Majorities” that plagued California before Amnesty?

Typical Leftist argument, just invent history when the truth condemns your argument.