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

[panopticon]

It goes further than the Monroe Doctrine, it goes back to John Adams' Aliens & Sedition's act. Immigrants were less likely to vote for his party, so he enacted an anti-immigration law which made it more difficult to become a citizen (14 years, long after he'd be running for president). Thomas Jefferson repelled 3/4 of the act when he came into office, and the part he didn't was used to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII

I was just pointing how post-Reagan neoconservatives stirring up narcoterrorism, paramilitary groups, and right-wing Juntas in Latin American countries has led to a direct influx in emigration from those areas; and how Nap is such a brainwashed stooge, that he'll go on and on about how it's unrelated, but then eventually concede, throw up his hands and go "too bad! We all have problems, they still can't come here. Go back to those death traps ILLEGALS!" like a xenophobic republican from Dallas has their hand pulling his puppet strings.

But that goes to the heart of it all, doesn't it?

In the same way that the US armed and trained right-wing paramilitary groups and supported vicious quasi-fascist dictators across Latin America...the Soviets supported left-wing guerrilla groups, provided them training in sophisticated propaganda techniques to stir up average citizens, and even helped them pick out the best landowners and other wealthy folks to assassinate...

It was a war. A war most Americans know nothing about, because our government would very much like it to keep it that way. For the Soviets, it was a war just the same.

I wouldn't expect former Soviet states to take on refugees from that war...and so I can't expect the US to either.

I'm an isolationist by nature. I know the OP disagrees with my stance vehemently...but the potential consequences of foreign entanglements (like being vulnerable to a reasonable moral argument for taking on refugees) are exactly why I take that stance.

The US is surrounded by 2 huge oceans, the global menace otherwise known as Canada to its north and Mexico to its south. Literally no other country on this planet has that sort of luck. We should be counting our blessings, avoiding the bullshyt the rest of the world cooks up on a daily basis, and focusing on improving things here.

Just my opinion though

 

[GPBear]

But that goes to the heart of it all, doesn't it?

In the same way that the US armed and trained right-wing paramilitary groups and supported vicious quasi-fascist dictators across Latin America...the Soviets supported left-wing guerrilla groups, provided them training in sophisticated propaganda techniques to stir up average citizens, and even helped them pick out the best landowners and other wealthy folks to assassinate...

It was a war. A war most Americans know nothing about, because our government would very much like it to keep it that way. For the Soviets, it was a war just the same.

I wouldn't expect former Soviet states to take on refugees from that war...and so I can't expect the US to either.

I'm an isolationist by nature. I know the OP disagrees with my stance vehemently...but the potential consequences of foreign entanglements (like being vulnerable to a reasonable moral argument for taking on refugees) are exactly why I take that stance.

The US is surrounded by 2 huge oceans, the global menace otherwise known as Canada to its north and Mexico to its south. Literally no other country on this planet has that sort of luck. We should be counting our blessings, avoiding the bullshyt the rest of the world cooks up on a daily basis, and focusing on improving things here.

Just my opinion though

Yeah you're right, America shouldn't have to accept refugees from its ongoing political imperialist policies because the soviet union was also maybe doing similar things in the 70s...
Again, you're acting like we stopped fukking around in Latin America, using past tense "supported" "it was a war." We're still doing this shyt. . You can't keep making places uninhabitable and then play isolationist when the people suffering try to escape. Especially when America billed itself as a refuge for the displaced for centuries.

I cited the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. America decided to side with "Authoritarian" regimes to oppose "Totalitarian" Soviet ones.
It was in their gameplan to overthrow functioning democracies and replace them with authoritarian despot puppet states. Happened throughout South East Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
You're saying America gets to play around with foreign countries like its their plaything and then not be responsible for its actions.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It goes further than the Monroe Doctrine, it goes back to John Adams' Aliens & Sedition's act. Immigrants were less likely to vote for his party, so he enacted an anti-immigration law which made it more difficult to become a citizen (14 years, long after he'd be running for president). Thomas Jefferson repelled 3/4 of the act when he came into office, and the part he didn't was used to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII

I was just pointing how post-Reagan neoconservatives stirring up narcoterrorism, paramilitary groups, and right-wing Juntas in Latin American countries has led to a direct influx in emigration from those areas; and how Nap is such a brainwashed stooge, that he'll go on and on about how it's unrelated, but then eventually concede, throw up his hands and go "too bad! We all have problems, they still can't come here. Go back to those death traps ILLEGALS!" like a xenophobic republican from Dallas has their hand pulling his puppet strings.

Bruh. Shut the hell up.

You won't get anywhere with me mentioning OPERATION CONDOR or some bullshyt. It still doesn't account for the sort of rampant violation of immigration norms you see internationally.

I'm first generation. I know more about immigration than you. I have parents who went through the shyt. I have friends of the family who are illegals who overstayed their visas...but because they're from the Caribbean they are technically "documented" and on papers.

Do you know that we're talking about people who aren't even just illegal immigrants but literally UNDOCUMENTED GHOST PEOPLE?!!?

You can't have that in a country!

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yeah you're right, America shouldn't have to accept refugees from its ongoing political imperialist policies because the soviet union was also maybe doing similar things in the 70s...
Again, you're acting like we stopped fukking around in Latin America, using past tense "supported" "it was a war." We're still doing this shyt. . You can't keep making places uninhabitable and then play isolationist when the people suffering try to escape. Especially when America billed itself as a refuge for the displaced for centuries.

I cited the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. America decided to side with "Authoritarian" regimes to oppose "Totalitarian" Soviet ones.
It was in their gameplan to overthrow functioning democracies and replace them with authoritarian despot puppet states. Happened throughout South East Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
You're saying America gets to play around with foreign countries like its their plaything and then not be responsible for its actions.

HOW MANY YEARS DOES THE United States HAVE TO ACCEPT ILLEGALS POURING OVER THE BORDER?

Theres has been NO situation in the world where 30 million people over 40 years decamped to another nation.

Even the Syrian war only brought a few million into Europe!

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@GPBear speaking of "throwing your hands up" wasn't your bytch ass in here talking about "well the USA got stolen from Native Americans" ...

Are you really using lazy arguments like that and trying to get away with it?

Don't pretend that rattling off history changes your dumbass argument. "well this goes back to..."

Hold up. Stop the bullshyt. Illegal immigration is a very specific phenomenon facing the United States with a very specific targeted history against low wage, unskilled and poor workers (i.e. mostly black people) in the last 40 years. THAT is what I'm responding to and that ALL that matters.

In that case, we'll give Alaska back to Russia if that makes you so fukking happy.

We can get rid of the entire midwest and give it back to the French. The trip-state area can go back to the Dutch.

Every nation has immigration laws.

I can't own property within 30 miles of a beach in Mexico for example! Foreign Real-Estate Buyers Get Told to Go Home

In fact, Mexico's immigration laws are way tougher than the USA's.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

A lot of Demcrat voters and Americans in general are not for open borders and getting rid of ICE.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

I don't think anyone is saying whites becoming a minority topples white supremacy. But a larger voting demographic will absolutely have a better opportunity to influence policy. Look at the polling, if the country were a majority black and hispanic, is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump?

So are we gonna pretend Hispanics communities don't harbor white supremacy? Who to say their voting bloc will alway be Dem? Their identity is certain fluid and has been proven to change the lorger they are in this country.

I'm gonna just sit back, lots of these naive assumption about Hispanic communities have been proven wrong time and time again. fukk it.

Hispanic anti Blackness kills. Literally.

 

[storyteller]

So are we gonna pretend Hispanics communities don't harbor white supremacy? Who to say their voting bloc will alway be Dem? Their identity is certain fluid and has been proven to change the lorger they are in this country.

I'm gonna just sit back, lots of these naive assumption about Hispanic communities have been proven wrong time and time again. fukk it.

Hispanic anti Blackness kills. Literally.

Are there polls where the Hispanic community doesn't vote 60-70% for Dems? No voting demographic just switches their support for no reason. So yes, the Hispanic vote is fluid, just like any other voting bloc will be based on the policies being offered. Figuring out where policies can unit PoC is a better strategy imo than ignoring the largest growing voting bloc for fear that they'll become white supremacists and leaving them open to an alternative.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

Are there polls where the Hispanic community doesn't vote 60-70% for Dems? No voting demographic just switches their support for no reason. So yes, the Hispanic vote is fluid, just like any other voting bloc will be based on the policies being offered. Figuring out where policies can unit PoC is a better strategy imo than ignoring the largest growing voting bloc for fear that they'll become white supremacists and leaving them open to an alternative.

Most are already white supermacist. It's just when they will fully assimilate.

They are already surpassing blacks in almost every category.

Like I said I'm gonna sit back and watch.

 

[storyteller]

Most are already white supermacist. It's just when they will fully assimilate.

They are already surpassing blacks in almost every category.

Like I said I'm gonna sit back and watch.

Where are they voting with the White Supremacists rather than the Dems?

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

Where are they voting with the White Supremacists rather than the Dems?

Around 30% of Hispanics have voted Republican since the Nixon administration. Many of the 60-70% that vote dem are conservative on many issues like abortion, LGBT, women rights, more than half not in favor of reparation for blacks, less enthusiastic about Affirmtive Action and so forth.

As they grow in population and start to move up the economic latter most will abandon their "Hispanic" identity and the Democratic Party.

Just watch. It's happening already.

You guys underestimate how many young Hispanics are fans of Shapiro.

Also the right wing populist movements happening down in Brazil and Coloumbia are going to spread into Latin America and eventually their communities in America.

Mexicans and Possibly Puerto Rican's may have some portions of their pop that still vote dem but make no mistake that even these groups will have conservative enclaves.

I will see how Puerto Ricans and Mexicans fair in the midterms to make that decision.

 

[storyteller]

Around 30% of Hispanics have voted Republican since the Nixon administration. Many of the 60-70% that vote dem are conservative on many issues like abortion, LGBT, women rights, more than half not in favor of reparation for blacks, less enthusiastic about Affirmtive Action and so forth.

So the 70/30 voting has been consistent since Nixon, that's the data based part. Most are already white supremacist but they've been consistent with the Dems for generations now. It doesn't add up. I do agree that Hispanic voters are more conservative on some issues, but I'd argue that that's exactly why 30% have been reliably Republican. The rest either put other issues at great levels of importance or are on the right side of those issues. I'd actually be curious to see how the sentiments in exit polls have changed with generations but that's more time and effort than I'm ready to put in. The 70/30 being consistent for so long makes it hard for me to see where the shift has been and continues to happen; but I admit that the Republicans could steal this electorate if they shifted heavily on immigration (but I don't see how they could without alienating their base so I don't believe it's a problem).

As they grow in population and start to move up the economic latter most will abandon their "Hispanic" identity and the Democratic Party.

Just watch. It's happening already.

You guys underestimate how many young Hispanics are fans of Shapiro.

Also the right wing populist movements happening down in Brazil and Coloumbia are going to spread into Latin America and eventually their communities in America.

Mexicans and Possibly Puerto Rican's may have some portions of their pop that still vote dem but make no mistake that even these groups will have conservative enclaves.

I will see how Puerto Ricans and Mexicans fair in the midterms to make that decision.

It's a lot of speculation here, but I can see the rationale. I'd point out that in Brazil, Lula is the most popular politician though and would win if not for essentially a judicial coup. As far as Puerto Ricans and Mexicans having conservative enclaves, for sure, but their the minority in both demos everywhere I've seen (maybe not in Florida? I'm Northeast centric I acknowledge).

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

So the 70/30 voting has been consistent since Nixon, that's the data based part. Most are already white supremacist but they've been consistent with the Dems for generations now. It doesn't add up. I do agree that Hispanic voters are more conservative on some issues, but I'd argue that that's exactly why 30% have been reliably Republican. The rest either put other issues at great levels of importance or are on the right side of those issues. I'd actually be curious to see how the sentiments in exit polls have changed with generations but that's more time and effort than I'm ready to put in. The 70/30 being consistent for so long makes it hard for me to see where the shift has been and continues to happen; but I admit that the Republicans could steal this electorate if they shifted heavily on immigration (but I don't see how they could without alienating their base so I don't believe it's a problem).



It's a lot of speculation here, but I can see the rationale. I'd point out that in Brazil, Lula is the most popular politician though and would win if not for essentially a judicial coup. As far as Puerto Ricans and Mexicans having conservative enclaves, for sure, but their the minority in both demos everywhere I've seen (maybe not in Florida? I'm Northeast centric I acknowledge).

I agree
The republicans can snag them easily if their stance wasn't so anti immigration.

It wont be anytime soon the change but within the next 10 to 20 years.

 

[theworldismine13]

So in other words some black people are willing to risk political capital to demand an influx of people that have a history of white supremacy and whose 70/30 split can turn to 60/40 or 50/50 at the drop of a dime or as soon as Republicans our forward a Hispanic nominee and this is all based on the presumption that liberals and the left wing are friends of black people

I’m sure this will end well

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

So in other words some black people are willing to risk political capital to demand an influx of people that have a history of white supremacy and whose 70/30 split can turn to 60/40 or 50/50 at the drop of a dime or as soon as Republicans our forward a Hispanic nominee and this is all based on the presumption that liberals and the left wing are friends of black people

I’m sure this will end well

A young conservative Mexican American with a centrist approach will be end game for dems and their Latino base.