On-Topic Ann Coulter Rips Marco Rubio Over Inmigration Reform.

[HenryReardon]

And another fact that needs to be noted is Obama's vote tally in last year's election was far less (numbering in the millions) than his tally in 2008. First time ever that a president got reelected with less votes. Who was the real loser in this election?

It was 8 or 9 million less votes. I've read that 17 million people watched his first inauguration, and that number was down to 7 million or his second. Sound like a lot of people are more than a little bit disenchanted with their messiah.

Romney got 2 million or so less votes than McCain which is hardly surprising.

The Republican party doesn't stand for anything, and the Libertarians don't have a chance. Hopefully, the Tea Party will come back strong in 2014 and send some people to DC who will stop Obama's insane drive to radicalize America.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Oh, are we back on an election debate now? "Well, ... yeah he WON but .... NOT BY AS MUCH AS HE SHOULD HAVE! He fails all the time!"



Guys get a grip. Please. Turning every single thread into an election debate about how much Obama failed in winnin re-election is a tired, tired, tired topic you guys need to retire, along with Benghazi and Sarah Palin. Didn't one of you have the balls to say Democrats need some new material? You guys need to try some fruit other than grapes.

 

[JustMe5]

Obama's tally wasn't that much less. And even if that was much less, that should be concerning for republicans. Because he still won. I know it's tough to face the reality. The real loser were the two rich white guys funded by two other rich white guys. Obama won a large enough margin. The fact that republicans can barely get 60 million votes should be worrying for any republican. Including the walking contradiction GOPRouders on here.

Please. And you question who's bringing up race? Just take a look at your own post. Also, winning with less votes is a sign that someone's support has DROPPED. The hope, the change, the dreams from his father, and the prospect of going "forward" wasn't enough to convince more people to vote for Obama this time around. Yet you wanna imply that that half-assed win sounded the death knell for the GOP?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Please. And you question who's bringing up race? Just take a look at your own post. Also, winning with less votes is a sign that someone's support has DROPPED. The hope, the change, the dreams from his father, and the prospect of going "forward" wasn't enough to convince more people to vote for Obama this time around. Yet you wanna imply that that half-assed win sounded the death knell for the GOP?

This thread is about immigration reform.

Of course race is going to come up. Welcome to the topic. Stop making up faux outrages as an excuse to not be on point.

 

[palemale]

And another fact that needs to be noted is Obama's vote tally in last year's election was far less (numbering in the millions) than his tally in 2008. First time ever that a president got reelected with less votes. Who was the real loser in this election?

FDR was re-elected with fewer votes in 1944 than he won in 1940.

 

[rareboy]

FDR was re-elected with fewer votes in 1944 than he won in 1940.

Thank you.

I was going to bring this to the poster's attention.

Nice attempted diversion though......

Another one who is going to have a lonely and bitter 4 years ahead.

And the real losers in this election were the American voters who gave the Democrats in the House one million more votes than the Republicans but are sitting out here watching the Republicans with a 33 seat majority.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Palemale. Rareboy. Giancarlo. Thinking a hard fact changes minds around here. Tsk tsk.

 

[CowboyBob]

Close the border as tightly as possible. Send the National Guard to the borders. Authorize them to shoot to kill.
Problem solves.

Oh, or we could simply start enforcing existing laws. What a novel idea.

Advocating murder. Brilliant.

 

[opinterph]

Send the National Guard to the borders. Authorize them to shoot to kill.

As for shoot to kill, why not? If someone is breaking into your house, you are within your rights in shooting them.
Breaking into your country is no different.

I think your analogy is incorrect. A person entering the country without permission is more akin to someone walking in your yard without permission – and in that scenario, the intruder is trespassing. In my state, if I ask an intruder to exit my property and they fail to do so, the violation is criminal trespass. Rather than seek to kill them, the proper response is to summon law enforcement officers to forcibly remove them. Unless the intruder is placing me or someone else in obvious mortal peril, I am not within my rights to harm him/her.

It is also important to recognize that there are exceptions to your right to inflict harm upon a person who is attempting to break into your house. For example, the person may be fleeing from a danger that justifies their entry into your home – and that can even include such things as inclement weather.

 

[opinterph]

Most immigrant reform efforts contain some attempt to limit illegal immigration. I don't think Republicans want more immigrant. But alas, we have passed the tipping point. We have so many voters of recent immigration, who want more immigration by their ethnic group, that any politician who votes against immigration is likely to loose. In the last election the Hispanic vote was overwhelmingly Democrat and Hispanics seem to want, not only "reform"--a quick road to citizenship-- but more influx of Hispanics. You can hear the result in the public discussion by Republicans: how can we survive as a party if we do not join in pandering to the Hispanics. How can I survive as a politician if I do not?
By labeling as racist and xenophobic any one who questions it, the liberals have foreclosed discussion of the broader questions, including poverty and unemployment. How can we every overcome poverty and unemployment when we are faced with a virtually unlimited influx of more poverty?

I suggest you try to separate your hatred for Republicans for a moment, and try to consider the effects today of immigration. We will never again have the world-dominating and expanding economy that we did as late as WWI. We have competition from all over the world and will never again be able to create new, good paying, jobs as rapidly as we did before. Your reliance on the good old days when we could absorb masses of new workers is just bad logic. Times have changed.
And please remember the effect which all that immigration, you described, had on African Americans. While the new people got jobs, the blacks have not climbed the ladder. Immigration and discrimination have gone hand in hand, and are continuing to do so today.
Instead of focusing on how bad conservatives are, please answer the question, how can we make progress against poverty and unemployment if we continue to have a massive influx of new poverty?

Please verify that I am properly interpreting the viewpoints you have presented by affirming or offering corrections to the following points I have derived from the two posts quoted above.

• Recent immigrants vote to favor policies that allow more immigration by their own ethnic group.

• Democrats seem to want more Hispanic immigration.

• The broader questions about immigration include poverty and unemployment.

• Immigration prevents African Americans from advancing, progressing, and/or succeeding in society or employment.

• Immigration encourages discrimination.

 

[Benvolio]

Please verify that I am properly interpreting the viewpoints you have presented by affirming or offering corrections to the following points I have derived from the two posts quoted above.

• 
  I believe those statements are true with these qualifications.
  Democrats want continued large scale immigration, including Hispanics and preferring non-whites. Immigrants tend to vote Democrat.
  Historically, and continuing today, immigration has facilitated discrimination against African Americans. Since 1865, the US economy expanded incredibly, creating millions of jobs, but that expansion did little to benefit blacks, because of discrimination, because the massive immigration provided whites to take the jobs. It continues in a different form. Legal immigrants are entitled to the benefit of anti-discrimination laws and it is illegal to discriminate against them, because they are immigrants, in favor of Americans, including blacks. They qualify for affirmative action programs designed to help blacks. The massive immigration of people willing to work for the lowest salaries, has kept wages low and discouraged some Americans, including young blacks from entering the labor market. They don't want jobs at such low incomes, and and the incomes are low because there are many people willing to work at that level.
  [/LI

 

[chrisrobin]

Please verify that I am properly interpreting the viewpoints you have presented by affirming or offering corrections to the following points I have derived from the two posts quoted above.

• 
  I believe those statements are true with these qualifications.
  Democrats want continued large scale immigration, including Hispanics and preferring non-whites. Immigrants tend to vote Democrat.
  Historically, and continuing today, immigration has facilitated discrimination against African Americans. Since 1865, the US economy expanded incredibly, creating millions of jobs, but that expansion did little to benefit blacks, because of discrimination, because the massive immigration provided whites to take the jobs. It continues in a different form. Legal immigrants are entitled to the benefit of anti-discrimination laws and it is illegal to discriminate against them, because they are immigrants, in favor of Americans, including blacks. They qualify for affirmative action programs designed to help blacks. The massive immigration of people willing to work for the lowest salaries, has kept wages low and discouraged some Americans, including young blacks from entering the labor market. They don't want jobs at such low incomes, and and the incomes are low because there are many people willing to work at that level.
  [/LI

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  We must remember that immigration is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy designed to fuck over Republicons. Actually, there were illegal aliens inside the statue. There is no end to their treachery.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I love how the "....... WHAT?! The hispanics went for the libs?!" rude awakening that the Republicans had in November of 2012 has now been historically rewritten into: the Democrats have been facilitating and striving to enable illegal immigration all along as part of a vast plot to hedge Democratic votes.

Nevermind who was hiring illegal immigrants and providing the incentive for them to move, nevermind which party has traditionally made the most saber rattling while doing the least of substance to actually catch the employment of illegal immigrants, nevermind which industries rely on illegal labor the most and which party they donate campaign dollars to, and nevermind the fact that no illegal immigrant can vote. So any immigrants in discussion here either came here legally or have been here for a significant period of time and acquired citizenship through natural birth or naturalization.

Even if we accept a premise of "immigrants vote Democrat and so Democrats want immigrants in", and we view immigration strictly through the narrow little reptile eye lens of "which party benefits from immigrant votes", we don't have Democrats to thank for what happened in 2012, we have decades of free market deregulation Republicans who were always happy to incentivize immigration to the U.S. through the mass hiring of immigrant no-benefit low-wage labor for agribusiness, shipping and distribution, retail and a million other jobs-- all the while claiming they hated immigrants and that everyone should speak English.

 

[Benvolio]

Democrats just cannot face the fact that their hypocritical promotion of immigration is a disaster for those they pretend to care about, the poor and unemployed.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Democrats just cannot face the fact that their hypocritical promotion of immigration is a disaster for those they pretend to care about, the poor and unemployed.

And you apparently can't face the intellectual dishonesty of this statement from someone who'd as happy dismantle all support network for the poor and unemployed.

 

[Benvolio]

And you apparently can't face the intellectual dishonesty of this statement from someone who'd as happy dismantle all support network for the poor and unemployed.

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.

 

[Rolyo85]

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.

Yeah, that sounds kinda dumb...

 

[xbuzzerx]

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.

You're just repeating horse manure from people like Rush Limbaugh. Illegal immigrants can't get welfare and they can't vote.

 

[Benvolio]

It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge that Republicans want immigration reform. Instead you have introduced an alternate theme – limiting illegal immigration.

How should the US go about limiting illegal immigration?

We should do what it takes to keep large numbers from coming. No, not killing them but stopping them. A basic purpose of government is to protect its people from invasion, article I V, sec 4 of the Constitution provides: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican [Democratic] form of government, and shall protect each of the against Invasion.."
No, really, it does say that. Look it up.
The Democrats violate both requirements. By allowing and encouraging the invasion they can destroy the Democracy by swamping the states with foreigners who will reliably vote Democrat to impose high taxes on Americans to provide freebies to the invaders.
It is happening before our eyes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

There is no invasion. There wasn't one in the 1910s when Italians came here in droves (many of which came here as undocumented and the only documentation that exists are ship ledgers). The falsehoods of the right wing reactionary argument continue. Yes, one can look it up and see there is no invasion. The democrats didn't violate anything. Stop distorting the Constitution. I know republicans love to distort the constitution a lot.

Foreigners aren't invading America. They are coming here to work in jobs some republicans would never want... and are contributing to this country. I was born in a different country, and I find this as a personal affront. The racism and xenophobia on this forum by the right wingers is evident.

Yup.

At the height of the Irish/Italian immigration period, there were more foreign-born people in the U.S. as a percentage of the population than today. There is no 'invasion.' Anymore than there's an 'invasion' of the UK by Muslims or Asians or any of the rest of this alarmist, nativist, reactionary rhetoric that's literally been around for millenia.

In college I had a professor put a transparency up on the screen as we came in. It was a quote talking about how "we're being invaded by hordes of immigrants who have totally different language and customs, do not adopt ours, harm our civilization and are nothing at all like the previous immigrants who worked hard and contributed." The professor asked everyone to guess what the quote was talking about, and everyone, naturally, thought it was about hispanic immigration.

She revealed the rest of the transparency and it was a Roman Emperor talking about Britons.

None of this shit is anything new.