NYTimes: The Democrats Have An Immigration Problem (I've warned you all of this)

[Gains]

Fun fact: Latin America has a longer history of white supremacy and anti black racism than the United States

Obviously since the Europeans colonized the Caribbean and South America first

the white power structure is maintained b the right wing in those countries


say aren't you republican ?

 

[theworldismine13]

Obviously since the Europeans colonized the Caribbean and South America first

It’s obviously not obvious since people are writing essays saying bringing in people from Latin America will be a blow to white supremacy

the white power structure is maintained b the right wing in those countries


say aren't you republican ?

You are just babbling

just like in the United States both the left wing and the right wing support white supremacy, the left wing is the nice gentle side of white supremacy, the right wing is the in your face side of white supremacy

That’s why black people should support black interest first instead putting left wing interests first as is so common in these here parts

I’m not a republican, I practice what I preach so I advocate splitting the vote and focusing on economics

 

[Pressure]

Fun fact: Latin America has a longer history of white supremacy and anti black racism than the United States

Fun fact...

Until you stop birder hopping to fukk mexicans I can't take your seriously.

But as always, I can drop a pin if you and Nap want to pull up.

 

[theworldismine13]

Fun fact...

Until you stop birder hopping to fukk mexicans I can't take your seriously.

But as always, I can drop a pin if you and Nap want to pull up.

I don’t take you seriously period, but I was fukking a Mexican bytch just last week, without crossing the borders, does that help?

FOH weirdo

 

[storyteller]

So we could have had Hillary?!

Unless you think Hillary = Trump policy wise, the point stands. If the white demographic were the minority in this country, policy would be moving in different directions.

Seriously though, should we use immigration to alter election results? And if so, shouldn't citizens here already have a say in that? I've never heard a politician ask if we should import more Democrats.

No, we shouldn't use immigration to alter election results. However the Republicans approach to immigration is the one actively trying to alter election results. They've used rhetoric about immigrants to to try and target policy that would bring predominantly white immigrants into the country (a better voting bloc for them to work with) and then they flip their anti-immigrant (again this rhetoric is focused pretty much entirely on people of color) rhetoric to push voter ID laws that disenfranchise people of color inside of the country. That's why I started by saying these two issues go hand in hand. We don't need to import Democrats, we already have a majority of the voters and it's growing with the movement millennials in and boomers out of the voting population. But we should be pointing out that the Republicans are addressing the demographic shift by targeting voting populations in a number of circumstances and with immigration + voter disenfranchisement they've managed to thread the needle and kill two birds with one stone when it comes to PoC voting for the issues they care about (doesn't even have to Democrat, we're just so far from the GOP addressing communities of color properly that the assumption can't help but be made).

And no the immigration debate shouldn't simply be about election results, but what I'm saying is that for the GOP, their strategy and rhetoric is all about altering election results. When you drill down on the impact immigration has on the economy, taxes in verse services out, crime rates, etc. our current system wasn't yielding bad results by nearly any means. That's not to say the current system is great or that it doesn't have problems or that we should ignore them. But everyone talks about immigration in big sweeping statements instead of drilling down issue by issue and how we should address each. "Illegal immigrants cause lower median income for people in poverty" is an issue we absolutely should address. But attempts to tackle the problem have been half-hearted and/or failed. An approach that offered a path to citizenship (which would open them up to less exploitation); tougher penalties for exploitation of labor; a higher minimum wage in general for the poor...those are potential solutions to this one aspect of the issue and could have a bigger positive impact for everyone (especially if you're a proponent of unionization imo).

 

[storyteller]

Not once has what it meant to be an illegal immigrant changed.

Try again.

You all have to stop lying to protect people who break the law so much.

- The Washington Post

Refugees becoming illegal immigrants due to policy changes of this administration illustrated. Don't claim lies just because you don't understand my point, ask questions for clarity.

I get it. its a moral project, but its one that I don't support so you're going to have to try harder than the whole "Irish became white" schtick here.

This is very simple. I support legal immigration (even with reforms necessary over time) , but illegal immigration is a non-starter and should be universally viewed as such.

now, DEALING with illegals is one thing, but flat out giving them black checks is unacceptable.

Either listen to interview and address the points made or don't paraphrase poorly so you can misrepresent the information. I'm not sure if you're confused, disingenuous or stupid; but you're a useful idiot on that issue.

The Majority Report

 

[Starman]

Unless you think Hillary = Trump policy wise, the point stands. If the white demographic were the minority in this country, policy would be moving in different directions.

I agree their policies are different in many areas, I'm just not the guy who is going to be hype about a Hillary presidency.

No, we shouldn't use immigration to alter election results. However the Republicans approach to immigration is the one actively trying to alter election results. They've used rhetoric about immigrants to to try and target policy that would bring predominantly white immigrants into the country (a better voting bloc for them to work with) and then they flip their anti-immigrant (again this rhetoric is focused pretty much entirely on people of color) rhetoric to push voter ID laws that disenfranchise people of color inside of the country. That's why I started by saying these two issues go hand in hand. We don't need to import Democrats, we already have a majority of the voters and it's growing with the movement millennials in and boomers out of the voting population. But we should be pointing out that the Republicans are addressing the demographic shift by targeting voting populations in a number of circumstances and with immigration + voter disenfranchisement they've managed to thread the needle and kill two birds with one stone when it comes to PoC voting for the issues they care about (doesn't even have to Democrat, we're just so far from the GOP addressing communities of color properly that the assumption can't help but be made).

Democrats have done exactly that since 1965 with the Hart -Celler Act. Prior to that there was a quota system that had as it's goal not to alter the existing demographics of the United States.

The National Origins Formula was an American system of immigration quotas, used between 1921 and 1965, which restricted immigration on the basis of existing proportions of the population. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants (especially from Southern Europe and Asia), to allow families to re-unite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the largely Protestant Northwestern European-descended United States population.
National Origins Formula - Wikipedia

The Hart-Celler Act changed all of that, and began favoring immigrants from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We know what effect that has had on American politics, do you think Democrats at the time didn't?

And no the immigration debate shouldn't simply be about election results, but what I'm saying is that for the GOP, their strategy and rhetoric is all about altering election results. When you drill down on the impact immigration has on the economy, taxes in verse services out, crime rates, etc. our current system wasn't yielding bad results by nearly any means. That's not to say the current system is great or that it doesn't have problems or that we should ignore them. But everyone talks about immigration in big sweeping statements instead of drilling down issue by issue and how we should address each. "Illegal immigrants cause lower median income for people in poverty" is an issue we absolutely should address. But attempts to tackle the problem have been half-hearted and/or failed. An approach that offered a path to citizenship (which would open them up to less exploitation); tougher penalties for exploitation of labor; a higher minimum wage in general for the poor...those are potential solutions to this one aspect of the issue and could have a bigger positive impact for everyone (especially if you're a proponent of unionization imo).

I think I agree with the bold.

 

[storyteller]

I agree their policies are different in many areas, I'm just not the guy who is going to be hype about a Hillary presidency.

I agree on that, I'm a huge critic of Third Way politics in general (from the left of them). But the goal wasn't to hype her presidency, it was just to illustrate that people of color would change the direction of the country electorally.

Democrats have done exactly that since 1965 with the Hart -Celler Act. Prior to that there was a quota system that had as it's goal not to alter the existing demographics of the United States.

The National Origins Formula was an American system of immigration quotas, used between 1921 and 1965, which restricted immigration on the basis of existing proportions of the population. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants (especially from Southern Europe and Asia), to allow families to re-unite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the largely Protestant Northwestern European-descended United States population.
National Origins Formula - Wikipedia

The Hart-Celler Act changed all of that, and began favoring immigrants from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We know what effect that has had on American politics, do you think Democrats at the time didn't?

Spoiler

Putting the graphic in spoilers just for sake of saving space. But I'll direct back to the interview I've posted a couple of times, because I really think it's enlightening on major policy decisions that impacted immigration and our rhetoric surrounding it. They get to the 20th century decisions at about the 20 minute mark and it's not long from there where they get into the Hart-Celler Act and some of the rational behind it. I really think everyone should peep the whole thing though. It's not too long and covers a lot of history as well as the logic behind decisions and accompanying changes in rhetoric.

Aviva Chomsky joins us to talk about immigration and her book “Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal.” The myth that there are a finite number of jobs in the US and immigrants take away opportunities from natural-born citizens. Our history of settler colonialism and slavery. How the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 opened up immigration from Asia but restricted it from Mexico for the first time, creating the concept of the Mexican “illegal” immigrant. The history of “chain migration.” How the militarization of the border contributed to the professionalization of smuggling and the takeover of drug traffickers. How nativist immigration policies have hurt workers and helped bosses. How Democratic lawmakers fail to fight for the big picture.

The Majority Report

I think I agree with the bold.

Simply put, no one solution is gonna fix things, but I'm not opposed to the bold and seeing what the results are over a period of time.

 

[Starman]

Putting the graphic in spoilers just for sake of saving space. But I'll direct back to the interview I've posted a couple of times, because I really think it's enlightening on major policy decisions that impacted immigration and our rhetoric surrounding it. They get to the 20th century decisions at about the 20 minute mark and it's not long from there where they get into the Hart-Celler Act and some of the rational behind it. I really think everyone should peep the whole thing though. It's not too long and covers a lot of history as well as the logic behind decisions and accompanying changes in rhetoric.

I'll give that link a listen when I get home in 2 hours or so, but what do you have to say about Democrats changing demographics? Do you think politics was part of that decision?

 

[storyteller]

I'll give that link a listen when I get home in 2 hours or so, but what do you have to say about Democrats changing demographics? Do you think politics was part of that decision?

Considering that's right around the beginning of the Southern Strategy flipping voting demos, I'm not really sure how big of a role the political views played on that one. We know the end result but I wouldn't assume that it was the intended result because of the other consequences of the act (which are laid out better than I could type in that interview). I'm not about to say politics didn't play a role; can't tell if it's just the zeitgeist or not but politics ALWAYS has some role be it primary or secondary on legislative decisions. But my guess is their role wasn't as big as the moneyed interests behind the legislation. Immigration history has a couple of times where it appears that the results of legislation don't vibe with the intentions that got it passed in the first place (family reunification coming to mind). This act in particular looks like it may have had a goal of setting limitations on Mexicans entering the country without letting go of the labor value they provided.

 

[Pressure]

I don’t take you seriously period, but I was fukking a Mexican bytch just last week, without crossing the borders, does that help?

FOH weirdo

Your ex girlfriend is Mexican and her family didn't respect your c00n ass.

You're hoe ass nikka

 

[JDH]

America is for everybody

 

[theworldismine13]

Your ex girlfriend is Mexican and her family didn't respect your c00n ass.

You're hoe ass nikka

Oh the horror

Mexicans and other Latinos don’t respect you no matter how many posts you make crying and showing empathy for the plight of illegal immigrants

You are the real c00n and you have a lot of feminine energy, yuck

 

[Pressure]

Oh the horror

Mexicans and other Latinos don’t respect you no matter how many posts you make crying and showing empathy for the plight of illegal immigrants

You are the real c00n and you have a lot of feminine energy, yuck

You're the one who is jumping the border to spend money and time on people who don't respect you.

That is the definition of c00ning.

But let me know when you're close to Charlotte so I can pull up.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

- The Washington Post

Refugees becoming illegal immigrants due to policy changes of this administration illustrated. Don't claim lies just because you don't understand my point, ask questions for clarity.



Either listen to interview and address the points made or don't paraphrase poorly so you can misrepresent the information. I'm not sure if you're confused, disingenuous or stupid; but you're a useful idiot on that issue.

The Majority Report

There have always been illegal immigrants

THE GROUPS WITHIN THAT CLASSIFICATION have changed.

Smarten up.