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

[FuryOfFirestorm]

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.

 

[Benvolio]

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

They do get welfare, including food stamps, health service at emergency rooms etc. That and the vote is what Obama's "reform" is all about. Rush illegals to citizenship and allow/encourage more to come.

 

[xbuzzerx]

They do get welfare, including food stamps, health service at emergency rooms etc. That and the vote is what Obama's "reform" is all about. Rush illegals to citizenship and allow/encourage more to come.

Then you can thank your party for making our victories possible since they've done far more to enable and incentivize illegal immigration than anyone else.

 

[Benvolio]

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.

So, how has the Roman Empire done since the Emperor said that? You persist in ignoring the effect which immigrants have on our existing poor and unemployed.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So, how has the Roman Empire done since the Emperor said that?

Here we go with the "we're like modern day Rome" crap.

Rome fell from the inside and it had nothing to do with immigrants. It had to do with heavily concentrated corrupt oligarchy which had lost all touch with reality. You know, the place that Mitt Romney wanted to take us.

 

[frankfrank]

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, because if not for those filthy Immuh-Grunts, there would be no poor or unemployed people in this country...not at all. Yup.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Benvolio, how will you feel when Marco Rubio potentially becomes the Republican 2016 presidential nominee?

 

[Benvolio]

Benvolio, how will you feel when Marco Rubio potentially becomes the Republican 2016 presidential nominee?

It will be the final proof that we have gone past the tipping point, the point of no return.

 

[Benvolio]

Yeah, because if not for those filthy Immuh-Grunts, there would be no poor or unemployed people in this country...not at all. Yup.

Without massive immigration, we could have solved poverty decades ago. With immigration we never can. Every year there will be another million or two. Any progress against poverty, however unlikely, will only encourage more to come.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Without massive immigration, we could have solved poverty decades ago. With immigration we never can. Every year there will be another million or two. Any progress against poverty, however unlikely, will only encourage more to come.

Please, pass me some of whatever you are smoking. Immigration has always been wanted and encouraged as a way to help KEEP wages down, and has always been selectively preferred for by big industries that use a lot of unskilled labor for exactly that purpose. Go back 100, 150 years and this SAME discussion was going on about the Chinese, the Irish and the Italians. Stopping any of them from coming in would not have eliminated poverty. Dream the feck on.

 

[Benvolio]

Please, pass me some of whatever you are smoking. Immigration has always been wanted and encouraged as a way to help KEEP wages down, and has always been selectively preferred for by big industries that use a lot of unskilled labor for exactly that purpose. Go back 100, 150 years and this SAME discussion was going on about the Chinese, the Irish and the Italians. Stopping any of them from coming in would not have eliminated poverty. Dream the feck on.

So you agree that immigration keeps wages down. We are making progress, albeit slowly..

 

[xbuzzerx]

So you agree that immigration keeps wages down. We are making progress, albeit slowly..

Incorrect. The fact that industry that uses unskilled labor hires it instead of paying enough of a dignified wage that people with ANY better option will actually take that job is what's relevant.

Americans WON'T go out and pick fruit or harvest crops for 70 hours a week, or put the same hours into the back of a kitchen, for minimum wage (or less) with zero benefits. Immigrants by and large are not doing jobs Americans will consent to do for the wages big business insists is all the more they can pay for it. Immigrants fill a critical gap in the workforce that wouldn't be there if living decent wages for very difficult work was actually paid.

Place blame where it's due.

If Americans did these jobs, even for a WEEK, even if you could force or convince enough hard-up Americans to do it, unions would spring all the hell up all over this country overnight. You can guarantee it. And we know how you feel about unions-- and how the REpublicans and conservatives in general feel about them. So stop talking out of both sides of your mouth and actually say something that makes the slightest bit of sense.

 

[Benvolio]

The reason the jobs pay so little is because floods of immigrant will take the jobs. Without the immigrants, employers would have to pay more. Not to long ago Americans were construction workers, carpenters, roofers, taxi drivers, etc. Now immigrants do that work for low wages and we have untold millions of unemployed Americans.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The reason the jobs pay so little is because floods of immigrant will take the jobs. Without the immigrants, employers would have to pay more. Not to long ago Americans were construction workers, carpenters, roofers, taxi drivers, etc. Now immigrants do that work for low wages and we have untold millions of unemployed Americans.

They would slowly be forced to pay more, as workers formed unions and demanded it, and voted Democrat. Also as a result business costs and the end pricepoint of goods and services would go up--- something you'd no doubt blame on the unions and Democrats and be very much against.

So your whole little "Democrats want the immigrants coming in to bolster their votes" thing is sorta unravelling here.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Gosh, it sure would be nice if someone backed up their racist bullshit with actual facts instead of repeating the same tired xenophobic crap over and over...

 

[Just_Believe18]

It will be the final proof that we have gone past the tipping point, the point of no return.

But will you still vote for him over the white Democrat presidential candidate?

 

[opinterph]

• Democrats seem to want more Hispanic immigration.

Democrats want continued large scale immigration, including Hispanics and preferring non-whites. Immigrants tend to vote Democrat.

I question your use of the term “continued large scale immigration.” Though more than a million persons obtain legal permanent resident status in the US each year – that represents an annual increase of only about one-third of one percent of our total population. I also note that no particular source country is particularly overrepresented in the total. [DHS]

It seems to me that you may be engulfed in a fear that is based on the perception of a crisis that doesn’t exist.

You have mentioned a “tipping point” and I sense you intend that term primarily to imply that the inclusion of new citizens from other countries affects voting outcomes in the US. The basic thesis being that allowing new citizens to vote changes the dynamics of predictability in such a way as to increase the likelihood that newly elected politicians may sponsor a more favorable view toward immigrants than in times past.

With respect to the effect of those voting outcomes on the Republican Party, I think a better term is catch-22. After years of denigrating immigrants and using their presence as a wedge issue in order to motivate the base of their Party and thereby win elections, the Party must now face the reality of change. The fact that immigrants may be more likely to vote for candidates of the Democratic Party probably relates more to the history of their experience than any scurrilous intention they foster toward one party or the other. The catch-22 for Republicans is that they cannot expect to again reject immigration reform, without further alienating their appeal to Hispanic (and other minority) voters. And yet, if the millions of undocumented residents are somehow afforded an eventual path to citizenship, there is no logical reason to expect them to subsequently embrace the Republican Party. So while the citizen Hispanic vote continues to grow as a percentage of the whole, the inclusion of what are now undocumented Hispanics carries the likelihood of merely accelerating the disparity of support they demonstrate between the parties in national and some state elections. It is quickly becoming a no win situation for the Republicans and should remind them that short-term goals to win elections should take into account longer-term realities.

This is nothing new.

 

[opinterph]

• The broader questions about immigration include poverty and unemployment.

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.

I applaud your concern for Black Americans and hope you will continue to use your activism to promote policies and objectives that provide help or offer remedies for the obstacles many African Americans face in their effort to fully participate and share in the bounty of our society.

While it is true that new immigrants to the US are more likely to experience poverty than native-born citizens, it is my impression that their assimilation does not result in any remarkable or enduring change to overall poverty levels in the US. Accordingly, I encourage you to provide a credible source that shares or promotes a viewpoint similar to your suggestion that immigration has a profound or notable effect on poverty in the US.

 

[Benvolio]

I question your use of the term “continued large scale immigration.” Though more than a million persons obtain legal permanent resident status in the US each year – that represents an annual increase of only about one-third of one percent of our total population. I also note that no particular source country is particularly overrepresented in the total. [DHS]

It seems to me that you may be engulfed in a fear that is based on the perception of a crisis that doesn’t exist.

You have mentioned a “tipping point” and I sense you intend that term primarily to imply that the inclusion of new citizens from other countries affects voting outcomes in the US. The basic thesis being that allowing new citizens to vote changes the dynamics of predictability in such a way as to increase the likelihood that newly elected politicians may sponsor a more favorable view toward immigrants than in times past.

With respect to the effect of those voting outcomes on the Republican Party, I think a better term is catch-22. After years of denigrating immigrants and using their presence as a wedge issue in order to motivate the base of their Party and thereby win elections, the Party must now face the reality of change. The fact that immigrants may be more likely to vote for candidates of the Democratic Party probably relates more to the history of their experience than any scurrilous intention they foster toward one party or the other. The catch-22 for Republicans is that they cannot expect to again reject immigration reform, without further alienating their appeal to Hispanic (and other minority) voters. And yet, if the millions of undocumented residents are somehow afforded an eventual path to citizenship, there is no logical reason to expect them to subsequently embrace the Republican Party. So while the citizen Hispanic vote continues to grow as a percentage of the whole, the inclusion of what are now undocumented Hispanics carries the likelihood of merely accelerating the disparity of support they demonstrate between the parties in national and some state elections. It is quickly becoming a no win situation for the Republicans and should remind them that short-term goals to win elections should take into account longer-term realities.

This is nothing new.

NO, my tipping point is not Democrat vs Republican. We have passed the point that any politician who attempts to limit immigration will likely lose. We have lost our ability to limit it. With it we lose our ability to make progress against poverty.
With it we have lost our ability to preserve a free enterprise economy. Immigrants being poor are amenable to class/race warfare and socialism and the last election demonstrated the acceleration of that warfare.
I am not allowed to speak of the damage to the culture which made us a great nation.

 

[Rolyo85]

That culture would be the culture of slavery, segregation and xenophobia, yes?