Did You Claim Democrats Aren't For Illegal Immigration???

[PoliticalChic]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

 

[satrebil]

If there are no borders, there is no country. It's literally that simple.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If there are no borders, there is no country. It's literally that simple.

I believe that your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I would appreciate an elucidation.

 

[satrebil]

If there are no borders, there is no country. It's literally that simple.

I believe that your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I would appreciate an elucidation.

I was just agreeing with you in a succinct manner

 

[Winston]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

 

[PoliticalChic]

If there are no borders, there is no country. It's literally that simple.

I believe that your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I would appreciate an elucidation.

I was just agreeing with you in a succinct manner

I'm not into succinct, and our Liberal pals aren't smart enough to catch on to your explanation of the end of America.

Antifa 'No Trump, No Wall, No USA at all '

 

[satrebil]

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Neat. I'm gonna plop an ugly ass 1973 Winnebago in your front yard, live in it, and dump my literal shit all over your lawn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

 

[PoliticalChic]

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Neat. I'm gonna plop an ugly ass 1973 Winnebago in your front yard, live in it, and dump my literal shit all over your lawn.

Nah.....go on in.....make yourself at home!

 

[Winston]

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Neat. I'm gonna plop an ugly ass 1973 Winnebago in your front yard, live in it, and dump my literal shit all over your lawn.

What the hell does a border have to do with property rights?

 

[Winston]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

Same question, what does property rights have to do with a border? Besides, that is not an argument let alone a moral argument.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

I have a 6 foot fence around my back yard. It is for privacy and to keep my dog in

Show me someone who has built a wall around 10,000 acres of land. Then we can talk about walling in a country

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

Same question, what does property rights have to do with a border? Besides, that is not an argument let alone a moral argument.

"....what does property rights have to do with a border? "


I have to stop saying 'how stupid can you be,' as you appear to take it as a challenge.

 

[Timmy]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

Hey stupid . Conservatives added chain migration to the law figuring it would mean more whites people .

Didn’t realky work out that way.

 

[Winston]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

Same question, what does property rights have to do with a border? Besides, that is not an argument let alone a moral argument.

"....what does property rights have to do with a border? "


I have to stop saying 'how stupid can you be,' as you appear to take it as a challenge.

Seriouisly, what do property rights have to do with a border. I mean if all the private citizens with land along the border want to put up a fence, at their expense, then they can go for it. But it is absolutely immoral for a country to CONFISCATE that same private land and force TAXPAYERS to finance a fence. What, you got nothing to refute that freedom of movement is an essential part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You got nothing to demonstrate how a border does not contradict "all men are created equal"? And tell me, how does a government that usually manages to screw everything up suddenly have the wisdom to determine who should be allowed in and who should be kept out? And tell me, just what type of government can we expect to have if we allow that government to pick and choose it's citizens? Sounds to me like a one way trip to despotism.

What the hell is wrong with the market determining immigration policy? Essentially it already does anyway. The economy is the biggest determinate of immigration, wall or no wall, laws or no laws.

So how about you impressing us with some actual rebuttal instead of stupid quips and ignorant insults. Or you can continue to demonstrate to all that you are nothing more than a copy and paste troll with no ability to actually put together an argument on your own.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats support immigration reform
Republucans just support a wall

 

[Godboy]

Of course they are.

1. In the mid-60s the Democrat Party decided that the American public doesn't and won't endorse their insane policies.....and decided the answer was to replace the voting populace with a more malleable one.

Democrats knew what they were doing when they passed the 1965 immigration law that altered the flow from European immigrants to the flood from third world nations.

" Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada.

The proponents of the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. [Democrat] President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."[16] [Democrat] Secretary of StateDean Rusk and other politicians, including [Democrat] Senator Ted Kennedy, asserted that the bill would not affect US demographic mix.[17] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.[18][19] Specifically, the [Democrat] Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe." Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia




2. There is an economic component here. Until America became a welfare state, there was no reason to stem the flow of immigrants.....any immigrants.
They came to work, for opportunity, not to be bought by the Democrats and told that they would be recompensed if they would just vote....illegally, and the 'right' way....as Obama told them to.

Milton Friedman was for illegal immigration.
"Friedman's considered view is that free migration without a welfare state is first best.
Welfare for all legal residents makes first-best free migration impossible. In that case, a high rate of illegal immigration is the second-best solution."
Milton Friedman's Argument for Illegal Immigration


Sooo....either open borders but no welfare in the country....or control of our borders but no welfare in the country.

Interesting economic choice?




3. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today in their house organ, the NYTimes:

"There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
.....a brave Democrat.....

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
...not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace."
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




.....as though those of us who work and earn and pay taxes would not have to shoulder the burden.
The party that shares the aims of Karl Marx are actually demanding that American workers bind themselves with the chains that Marx promised would be removed.

Clearly, Democrats are not the party for Americans.

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

Same question, what does property rights have to do with a border? Besides, that is not an argument let alone a moral argument.

"....what does property rights have to do with a border? "


I have to stop saying 'how stupid can you be,' as you appear to take it as a challenge.

Seriouisly, what do property rights have to do with a border. I mean if all the private citizens with land along the border want to put up a fence, at their expense, then they can go for it. But it is absolutely immoral for a country to CONFISCATE that same private land and force TAXPAYERS to finance a fence. What, you got nothing to refute that freedom of movement is an essential part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You got nothing to demonstrate how a border does not contradict "all men are created equal"? And tell me, how does a government that usually manages to screw everything up suddenly have the wisdom to determine who should be allowed in and who should be kept out? And tell me, just what type of government can we expect to have if we allow that government to pick and choose it's citizens? Sounds to me like a one way trip to despotism.

What the hell is wrong with the market determining immigration policy? Essentially it already does anyway. The economy is the biggest determinate of immigration, wall or no wall, laws or no laws.

So how about you impressing us with some actual rebuttal instead of stupid quips and ignorant insults. Or you can continue to demonstrate to all that you are nothing more than a copy and paste troll with no ability to actually put together an argument on your own.

My government has a responsibility to at least TRY to keep me safe. Open borders is the opposite of safe.

 

[Godboy]

Democrats support immigration reform
Republucans just support a wall

You support meaningless buzzwords like "immigration reform". Republicans offer real solutions.

 

[Winston]

You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open. Freedom of movement is a basic human right that is inherent in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Borders are a direct contradiction to "all men are created equal" because by definition some people are more "equal" than other people completely dependent upon where they popped out of the womb. Our founders understood those realities. But maybe most importantly, no one can claim to be a libertarian and yet support a government that is free to pick and choose their citizens. The "free market" should determine our immigration policy, not some arbitrary quota system created by a dysfunctional government.

And funny thing about that Immigration Act of 1965. Yes, it eliminated the quota system. But the always ignorant Congress people wanted to keep America "as it were", mostly white, mostly European. So you know what they implemented in that act to encourage that result? Chain migration. Yep, they figured if family members of citizens and current residents were given priority, and since those members were mostly white and European at the time, then that would help keep the United States a white majority. But, as it usually does, things didn't work out that way and now it is that very chain migration that the same supporters of that white majority condemn..

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

Same question, what does property rights have to do with a border? Besides, that is not an argument let alone a moral argument.

"....what does property rights have to do with a border? "


I have to stop saying 'how stupid can you be,' as you appear to take it as a challenge.

Seriouisly, what do property rights have to do with a border. I mean if all the private citizens with land along the border want to put up a fence, at their expense, then they can go for it. But it is absolutely immoral for a country to CONFISCATE that same private land and force TAXPAYERS to finance a fence. What, you got nothing to refute that freedom of movement is an essential part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You got nothing to demonstrate how a border does not contradict "all men are created equal"? And tell me, how does a government that usually manages to screw everything up suddenly have the wisdom to determine who should be allowed in and who should be kept out? And tell me, just what type of government can we expect to have if we allow that government to pick and choose it's citizens? Sounds to me like a one way trip to despotism.

What the hell is wrong with the market determining immigration policy? Essentially it already does anyway. The economy is the biggest determinate of immigration, wall or no wall, laws or no laws.

So how about you impressing us with some actual rebuttal instead of stupid quips and ignorant insults. Or you can continue to demonstrate to all that you are nothing more than a copy and paste troll with no ability to actually put together an argument on your own.

My government has a responsibility to at least TRY to keep me safe. Open borders is the opposite of safe.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Godboy]

"You cannot make a moral argument for borders that are not open."

I don't have to, you dunce.......the wall around Obama's mansion speaks volumes.

UPDATE: Wall around Obama's DC home complete! - The American Mirror

Same question, what does property rights have to do with a border? Besides, that is not an argument let alone a moral argument.

"....what does property rights have to do with a border? "


I have to stop saying 'how stupid can you be,' as you appear to take it as a challenge.

Seriouisly, what do property rights have to do with a border. I mean if all the private citizens with land along the border want to put up a fence, at their expense, then they can go for it. But it is absolutely immoral for a country to CONFISCATE that same private land and force TAXPAYERS to finance a fence. What, you got nothing to refute that freedom of movement is an essential part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You got nothing to demonstrate how a border does not contradict "all men are created equal"? And tell me, how does a government that usually manages to screw everything up suddenly have the wisdom to determine who should be allowed in and who should be kept out? And tell me, just what type of government can we expect to have if we allow that government to pick and choose it's citizens? Sounds to me like a one way trip to despotism.

What the hell is wrong with the market determining immigration policy? Essentially it already does anyway. The economy is the biggest determinate of immigration, wall or no wall, laws or no laws.

So how about you impressing us with some actual rebuttal instead of stupid quips and ignorant insults. Or you can continue to demonstrate to all that you are nothing more than a copy and paste troll with no ability to actually put together an argument on your own.

My government has a responsibility to at least TRY to keep me safe. Open borders is the opposite of safe.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Oh my god!!! That is soooo profound!

No, seriously though, you arent making a good case for open borders.