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

[JoeB131]

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

Sure you are... I know you need to believe that.

Kids, this is what happens when you lock up your mail order bride and let it listen to Hate Radio all day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Sure you are... I know you need to believe that.

Kids, this is what happens when you lock up your mail order bride and let it listen to Hate Radio all day.

Pretty vapid attempt at saving face, even for you, you dope.


My posts are linked, sourced, and documented.


But...you can have another attempt to prove otherwise:


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 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



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






Get it? Me....100% accurate, true and correct.

You....the perennial holder of the title of "Dumbest Land Mammal on the North American Continent”

 

[Winston]

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.

You are confused. There was no "immigration" law in 1790. It was what it was called, a "naturalization" law. There were no rules on who could enter the country. We had open borders for almost one hundred years. Those rules were about who could become a citizen.

And the military was not tasked with killing coyotes. They were tasked with killing Native Americans which is about the polar opposite of enforcing the border.

 

[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.

You are confused. There was no "immigration" law in 1790. It was what it was called, a "naturalization" law. There were no rules on who could enter the country. We had open borders for almost one hundred years. Those rules were about who could become a citizen.

And the military was not tasked with killing coyotes. They were tasked with killing Native Americans which is about the polar opposite of enforcing the border.

It expanded our borders. Naturalization laws pertaining to immigrants you moron

 

[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.

"64% Of Federal Arrests Were Of Non-Citizens In 2018, DOJ Finds

Federal arrests of non-citizens has increased exponentially over the past two decades, and account for the majority of all federal arrests, data released by the Justice Department revealed.

Non-citizens made up 64% of all federal arrests in 2018 despite making up 7% of the U.S. population, according to Justice Department data released Thursday and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Between 1998 and 2018, federal arrests of non-citizens grew by 234%, while federal arrests of U.S. citizens climbed 10%.

While the numbers provide credence to President Donald Trump’s argument that illegal immigration results in increased crime, immigration experts also pointed out that migrant apprehensions make up a significant portion of current federal arrests.

“Experience has taught the immigration agencies and DOJ that this works to reduce recidivism — in other words, when illegal crossers face some more severe consequence than just being sent back home, they don’t keep doing it,” Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies told the Washington Examiner. 64% Of Federal Arrests Were Of Non-Citizens In 2018, DOJ Finds

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing can't be serious about our border problems by funding our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, which only have the effect of creating refugees.