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

[PoliticalChic]

11. How many lies can a Liberal fit into one paragraph?

Watch:

“People worry that immigrants will bring crime, even though stats show immigrants are no more dangerous than natives. People worry they’ll take jobs away from native workers, even though most studies suggests that immigration is a profound benefit to the economy, and there’s little evidence it hurts native workers. And if we worry that they’ll hoover up welfare benefits, we can impose residency requirements for them.”
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders



First of all....no one objects to immigrants. The lie here is leaving out the term 'illegal.'


And by definition....every single illegal immigrant is a criminal.

1. Everyone who illegally enters is a criminal.


2. "The biggest misconception about the problem of non-citizen voting is that illegal aliens are "undocumented." That's nonsense. Some experts believe that up to 75% of illegals who work in America have fraudulent Social Security cards. Fake licenses, birth certificates, and green cards are incredibly common. The fake ID industry is worth more than $2 billion."
Report: As Many as 5.7 Million Non-Citizens Voted in 2008 Election
These are felonies.


3. Latest statistics from the US Sentencing Commission [ Topic]

Non-Citizens Federal Crimes:

22% of Murders

18% of Fraud

33% of Money Laundering

29% of Drug Trafficking

72% of Drug Possession
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...ublications/quick-facts/Non-Citizens_FY17.pdf

Get it????
Non-Citizens are FAR more likely to commit crimes that Americans are.

And these are only federal statistics.



The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.

By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.

Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.

Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.
Illegal Aliens Murder at a Much Higher Rate Than US Citizens Do
Illegal Aliens Murder at a Much Higher Rate Than US Citizens Do

and....
Yes, NPR: Illegal Immigration Does Increase Violent Crime
Yes, NPR: Illegal Immigration Does Increase Violent Crime




Rule #1

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. How many lies can a Liberal fit into one paragraph?

Watch:

“People worry that immigrants will bring crime, even though stats show immigrants are no more dangerous than natives. People worry they’ll take jobs away from native workers, even though most studies suggests that immigration is a profound benefit to the economy, and there’s little evidence it hurts native workers. And if we worry that they’ll hoover up welfare benefits, we can impose residency requirements for them.”
Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders



The first lie, of course, is that this is not about immigration....open borders pertains to illegal immigration.

Of course, Liberal theology backs the ending of borders, and mitigation of illegal immigration...




The claim is that the economy needs these illegals.
"...undocumented immigrants are paying billions of dollar in taxes into state and local coffers, and that substantially more would be generated if President Obama prevails in imposing a new executive order protecting many of those workers from deportation."
Study Finds Illegal Immigrants Pay $11.8B in Taxes


But the facts aren't their friend...


“Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.” Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers



“The conservative Heritage Foundation estimated unlawful immigrant households paid $39.2 billion in 2010, but received $93.7 billion in government services.” -- Oliver Darcy

[So much for that fable.]
15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives





And, the money taken from working Americans is sent to Mexico by these Mexican citizens....more money than the money Mexico gets from oil.

"Remittances totaled more than oil income
Money sent from abroad came to $24.8 billion last year, up 4.75%
Mexico News Daily | Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Remittances sent home by Mexicans working outside the country surpassed [Mexican] petroleum revenues in 2015 for the first time.
There was a 4.75% increase in money sent from abroad, most of which comes from the U.S., to total US $24.8 billion last year, up from $23.6 billion in 2014, said the Bank of México.

The bank said it was the first time remittances had totaled more than petroleum revenues since it began tracking them in 1995.
Oil revenues last year totaled $23.4 billion."
Remittances totaled more than Mexico's oil income



Rule #1

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; let's upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and raise the minimum wage.

 

[saveliberty]

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..

Really? You that stupid? Try to get into Europe or any other country without your US passport. If it was a right, how can they make you pay for a passport? If your other statement of the founders thinking they had made open borders were true, we'd would not have made Ellis Island and rejected immigrants ever, but we certainly have. We also put quotas on them and have for a very long time. Your argument is that of a simpleton and bears no truth to that of reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Now, they finally admit where they stand:

“There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration.” Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders




Let’s check:

“…because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.” Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers




And this:

· “41 percent of immigrants score at or below the lowest level of English literacy — a level variously described as "below basic" or "functional illiteracy".

· The average immigrant scores at the 21st percentile of the native score distribution.

· Hispanic immigrants struggle the most with English literacy. Their average score falls at the 8th percentile, and 63 percent are below basic.

· For Hispanic immigrants, self-reported English-speaking ability overstates actual literacy. The average literacy score of Hispanic immigrants who self-report that they speak English "very well" or "well" falls at the 18th percentile, and 44 percent are below basic.

· Even long-time residents struggle with English literacy. Immigrants who first arrived in the United States more than 15 years ago score at the 20th percentile, and 43 percent are below basic.

· Literacy difficulties brought by low-skill immigrants persist beyond the immigrant generation. The children of Hispanic immigrants score at the 34th percentile, and 22 percent are below basic. In addition, just 5 percent of second generation Hispanics have "elite" literacy skills, compared to 14 percent of natives overall.” Immigrant Literacy

 

[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.

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.


Get lost.


And do not come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.


Be gone.

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.


Get lost.


And do not come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.


Be gone.

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

 

[Winston]

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.

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.


Get lost.


And do not come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.


Be gone.

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....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.

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.


Get lost.


And do not come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.


Be gone.

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

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.

 

[Winston]

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.

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.


Get lost.


And do not come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.


Be gone.

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

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 are so stupid.

In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

You will note, a greater percentage of the sitting Republicans voted for the Immigration Bill of 1965 than the percentage of Democrats that voted for it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every day, it seems, there's some stupid, ugly, insalubrious imbecile whose mission is to lay out the usual, lying Leftist propaganda bumper-stickers.
I see, today, you've volunteered for that role.


Get lost.


And do not come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.


Be gone.

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

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 are so stupid.

In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

You will note, a greater percentage of the sitting Republicans voted for the Immigration Bill of 1965 than the percentage of Democrats that voted for it.

. In reality, even the normal suspects, the low-life, lying, Liberals, know that they stand for no borders, and illegal immigrants, because they see them as Democrat voters, you know, what Obama told them to do in 2016.

But…they simply lie.

Here is the NYTimes a few months ago:



“FACT CHECK OF THE DAY

No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’ President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.” No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’





10. This week:

“There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration.” Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders


Based on both the lack of knowledge, and the missing context, government school grads (Obama voters) can be convinced to support every absurdity of the Democrat Party, and, even when they doctrines reverse 180°, as they did both in the current support for gay marriage, and for allowing Iran nuclear weapons, and for a wall before they were against it.....the indoctrinated seem not to be aware of the change.

We actually saw this predicted in Orwell’s 1984.




Rule #1

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

 

[Winston]

LOL

I can promise you I am better looking than any man your lame ass could manage to snare. And nope, I am not, and really don't see why anyone, seeing the fencing in of a private residence anywhere close to the same as fencing a border of a nation built by immigrants.

Oh, and I see you quoting FAIR. Talk about a worthless source, their numbers are meaningless.

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

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 are so stupid.

In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

You will note, a greater percentage of the sitting Republicans voted for the Immigration Bill of 1965 than the percentage of Democrats that voted for it.

. In reality, even the normal suspects, the low-life, lying, Liberals, know that they stand for no borders, and illegal immigrants, because they see them as Democrat voters, you know, what Obama told them to do in 2016.

But…they simply lie.

Here is the NYTimes a few months ago:



“FACT CHECK OF THE DAY

No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’ President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.” No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’





10. This week:

“There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration.” Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders


Based on both the lack of knowledge, and the missing context, government school grads (Obama voters) can be convinced to support every absurdity of the Democrat Party, and, even when they doctrines reverse 180°, as they did both in the current support for gay marriage, and for allowing Iran nuclear weapons, and for a wall before they were against it.....the indoctrinated seem not to be aware of the change.

We actually saw this predicted in Orwell’s 1984.




Rule #1

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

You are a total waste of time. Showing one person that supports open borders does not prove all Democrats support open borders. Hell, you have yet to prove your one person is even a Democrat. He might actually be a real libertarian.

But worse, you have yet to even attempt to rebuttal a single one of my arguments. You seriously need to find something else to do with your time. My nine year old grandson can cut and paste. Is there not a bingo parlor near you or something?

 

[saveliberty]

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

Well Mr. Bush League, it seems you can't win an argument or walk away when beat. You realize that one of the few powers granted to the federal government was the military. That military was to protect us from peoples entering, in particular to protect our land borders. Interesting how you feel the arguments can hinge only on point you nake. Indeed, a ineffectual poster's mode of creating a false win.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sure you're so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off! -

I told you not to come back until you are ready to stop pretending not to see the same function in wall around Obama's house, and a border wall.

Now get lost, gasbag.

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

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 are so stupid.

In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

You will note, a greater percentage of the sitting Republicans voted for the Immigration Bill of 1965 than the percentage of Democrats that voted for it.

. In reality, even the normal suspects, the low-life, lying, Liberals, know that they stand for no borders, and illegal immigrants, because they see them as Democrat voters, you know, what Obama told them to do in 2016.

But…they simply lie.

Here is the NYTimes a few months ago:



“FACT CHECK OF THE DAY

No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’ President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.” No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’





10. This week:

“There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration.” Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders


Based on both the lack of knowledge, and the missing context, government school grads (Obama voters) can be convinced to support every absurdity of the Democrat Party, and, even when they doctrines reverse 180°, as they did both in the current support for gay marriage, and for allowing Iran nuclear weapons, and for a wall before they were against it.....the indoctrinated seem not to be aware of the change.

We actually saw this predicted in Orwell’s 1984.




Rule #1

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.

You are a total waste of time. Showing one person that supports open borders does not prove all Democrats support open borders. Hell, you have yet to prove your one person is even a Democrat. He might actually be a real libertarian.

But worse, you have yet to even attempt to rebuttal a single one of my arguments. You seriously need to find something else to do with your time. My nine year old grandson can cut and paste. Is there not a bingo parlor near you or something?

"...does not prove all Democrats support open borders. "


Here ya' go, ugly:

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



And the reason why normal folks oppose open borders:


"There are regular reports of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens – horrific gang-related murders have occurred recently in New York, Washington, D.C., and Houston – but the true crime rate among illegal aliens is not known. Most states do not keep those records for reasons we can only guess, plus there is no way of knowing the real number of illegals in the country. That fact hasn’t stopped liberal commentators and politicians from stating unequivocally that we Americans are the real crime problem in this country.

Democrats would rather pander for the potential votes of illegal aliens should they be granted citizenship than defend Americans."
Derek Hunter - For Democrats, How Many American Victims Are Enough?





Now remember.....don't go out in daylight....you scare the children.

 

[Winston]

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

Well Mr. Bush League, it seems you can't win an argument or walk away when beat. You realize that one of the few powers granted to the federal government was the military. That military was to protect us from peoples entering, in particular to protect our land borders. Interesting how you feel the arguments can hinge only on point you nake. Indeed, a ineffectual poster's mode of creating a false win.

Are you fawking kidding me? So, the purpose of our military was to protect us from people entering. You need to take an American History class. The founders were opposed to a standing army. The Constitution is structured in a way that the financing of the Army was temporary. And when the Constitution was adopted we had no need for protection from people entering because ANYBODY COULD COME IN. We had an open border. And when has the military ever been used to enforce a border? When have we ever had to repeal an invading force? And you do realize that the first use of the Army after the revolution was against our own citizens.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I think you are a little confused, as usual. The reason why people stopped coming over from Europe is that after WWII and the Marshall Act, they adopted the kind of Social Democracies that made them prosperous places to live, so no one really WANTED to come over from Western Europe and the Soviets wouldn't let people from Eastern Europe leave.

What happened was the Republicans drove non-whites into the arms of the Democrats by embracing the racists to get dumb white people to vote against their own economic interests. And it worked, all the way up until 1988, when you ran out of dumb white people. After that, you had to start cheating.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Copy and paste troll. Picking up your toys and going home because someone won't accept your argument. How mature. They teach you that in the community college you flunked out of? You lose if you can't explain how freedom of movement is not part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You lose if you can't tell me how "a wall" does nothing but perpetuate inequality in a land where "all men are created equal". You lose if you can't explain to me why the market cannot control immigration better than a government. And if a government can control immigration better than the free market what else can the government control better than the free market.

Just face it. You are totally out of your league with me and you are right, you are nothing but a waste of time.

Well Mr. Bush League, it seems you can't win an argument or walk away when beat. You realize that one of the few powers granted to the federal government was the military. That military was to protect us from peoples entering, in particular to protect our land borders. Interesting how you feel the arguments can hinge only on point you nake. Indeed, a ineffectual poster's mode of creating a false win.

Are you fawking kidding me? So, the purpose of our military was to protect us from people entering. You need to take an American History class. The founders were opposed to a standing army. The Constitution is structured in a way that the financing of the Army was temporary. And when the Constitution was adopted we had no need for protection from people entering because ANYBODY COULD COME IN. We had an open border. And when has the military ever been used to enforce a border? When have we ever had to repeal an invading force? And you do realize that the first use of the Army after the revolution was against our own citizens.

Wow....you're a double threat: ugly and stupid.


1. No.....the purpose of the was is to protect American citizens from
crime
disease
free-loaders living off the citizenry

Democrats couldn't care less....as long as the illegals follow their instructions....and vote.




2. It is difficult for Democrats to deny that they are for illegal immigration, open borders, when this headline appears today n 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



3. Illegal aliens lower our standard of living, increase unemployment among Americans, and cost mucho Dinaro in welfare and support, plus huge costs to the prison system.
Yet, Liberals/Democrats welcome, encourage, and invite same for one reason:
they vote....and they vote Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I think you are a little confused, as usual. The reason why people stopped coming over from Europe is that after WWII and the Marshall Act, they adopted the kind of Social Democracies that made them prosperous places to live, so no one really WANTED to come over from Western Europe and the Soviets wouldn't let people from Eastern Europe leave.

What happened was the Republicans drove non-whites into the arms of the Democrats by embracing the racists to get dumb white people to vote against their own economic interests. And it worked, all the way up until 1988, when you ran out of dumb white people. After that, you had to start cheating.

As you know, I am always 100% accurate and correct..
Always.


Take notes, so you appear less of a dunce:


1. 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 State Dean 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



Democrats certainly must hate American culture, huh?



2. " Despite [Democrat] Robert Kennedy's promise that, "Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total," Mexico sent 20 percent of last year's immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968.

[Democrat] Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments "will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. ....immigrant participation lowers wages.



3. ... the [Democrat] 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace.

All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration. " FrontPage Magazine - The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster





4. Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad said in a speech in 1997: "We do have the ultimate weapon. People are more mobile now. They can go anywhere. . . . If we are not allowed a good life in our countries, if we are going to be global citizens, then we should migrate North. We should migrate North in our millions, legally or illegally. Masses of Asians and Africans should inundate Europe and America."
Half a Century of Barely Controlled Immigration

How would he vote, Democrat or Republican?




5. 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

 

[saveliberty]

Are you fawking kidding me? So, the purpose of our military was to protect us from people entering. You need to take an American History class. The founders were opposed to a standing army. The Constitution is structured in a way that the financing of the Army was temporary. And when the Constitution was adopted we had no need for protection from people entering because ANYBODY COULD COME IN. We had an open border. And when has the military ever been used to enforce a border? When have we ever had to repeal an invading force? And you do realize that the first use of the Army after the revolution was against our own citizens.

Well the purpose of a military certainly wasn't to kill coyotes. Are you suggesting we have been without a military at some point in our history, because that would be a lie as well. We have had immigration Laws since 1790.

 

[danielpalos]

i am for mutual full body massage with right wing women who have lousy arguments; their even chance.