A mediocre poem, written in the 19th century when US population was ~50M, is not a basis for a
They are on a temporary protected status. They were never meant to stay here long-term.
Well I have been speaking out against Trump. I voted against him. Got involved in the race in Washington. Donated money to the Harris campaign. Debated many many times against Trumpers. However, at the end of the day, 46% of all Latinos voted for Trump. 55% Latino men voted for Trump. Call me a bitter asshole, but not sure how much political capital I’m going to spend when so many do so little for their cause. Elections have consequences…
Isn't Derec an immigrant? Hmm...
The main difference is that it's cheaper for rich citizens to hire immigrants that can't get documents.
Bitch has been treated for "green patina" multiple times, which is one of those STDs that her kind has brought over. Also -- take a good look at "her" eyebrows, nose, lips, and chin structure, and see if you don't think that Liberty started out as Larry (or more likely, Louie.) Keep "her" out of women's sports.
Bush has been soft on illegal migration. His brother also called illegal migration an "act of love".
So your "solution" is to just declare all illegals legal?
"Better morals", huh! More like they were hoping for the demographic change (they tend to fetishize "brown") to lead to a lasting electoral advantage for the Dems. And indeed many of the leftist Dems are immigrants from underdeveloped countries - people like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. But many are also very socially conservative. The Islamist (and nominally Democratic) mayor of the Muslim colony of Hamtramckabad backed Trump not only because of Gaza, but also because of Dems' stance on social issues.
That's what mindless mass migration gets you.NY Times said:
In other words, they did not expect the leopards they encouraged to immigrate would bite the faces of the wrong people.
It’s cheaper for everyone! I just got a quote to replace the roof on my 3100 sf home: $32,000! The cost of any labor today is very high due to labor shortages. The rich can handle it a lot better than the middle class.
I guess these Russian-Americans can fuck off to Siberia where they came from next then.
Well, the Newscorp investment looks to have done the job. Allowing people who can't vote into our country in order to help us in elections would be a pretty dumb idea. And generally, people have tendency to vote the pocket book than other reasons. So no, the Democrats aren't allowing hoards of migrants into the US for electoral purposes. In general, they aren't letting in hoards to begin with.
Yes, many... let's just name two though.
Dude, the liberals are the ones that generally don't have the 'monolith' feel with ethnic groups. We know that some Hispanics are socially conservative. We understand that some Muslims can be socially conservative to even backwards. You keep repeating this like we never understood it.
Please list all the steps required to migrate legally and become a US citizen. The ways you gloss over the process makes it sound simple. I hope I'm not making any unwarranted assumptions here.
It's a longer term plan (illegals given a "path to citizenship" can eventually vote, as can their children due to misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment), even if it is a pretty dumb idea as the 2024 election showed. But you will often hear arguments that "browning" of America is a good thing for Democrats electorally. Before Trump made inroads with blacks and Hispanics, and even Muslims, you would often hear terms like "demography is destiny" and "permanent majority". Republican long term electoral chances were dismissed because they were all "male, pale and stale", not considering the sexism, racism and ageism inherent in that quip.
Hordes, not hoards. And they certainly are.
Those two are examples.
You don't seem to. Whenever I discussed mass Muslim migration for example, my concerns about, e.g. 98% of Afghans being Sharia supporters, have always been dismissed.
It is not simple. But why should it be? US is still an attractive destination for legal migration. There is no reason to have to allow illegal migration (incl. abuse of the asylum system!) or not be selective in what migrants we admit (e.g. no Islamists and other extremists).
Who said that? It wasn't me.
That is a borderline dishonest understatement. Rest assured, if a fucking Australian is saying your immigration process is fucked, it's fucked.
It's a good thing for America!
It was ideologyhunter.
It is not bigotry to recognize that people from certain regions tend to have beliefs incompatible with western societies. That does not mean a blanket rejection of everybody from e.g. Somalia (somebody like Ayan Hirsi Ali for example rejects those beliefs) but it does mean that more people from those regions will be rightly rejected than people from western countries or countries like say Japan.
US can't reasonably accommodate even a small fraction of "everyone". And neither should we. It's good to be selective about potential immigrants. It should not be done in a racist way, but at the same time we should acknowledge that there are certain areas where vast majority of people are incompatible with western way of life and that therefore fewer people from e.g. Afghanistan or Somalia should qualify. I do not think western countries should be obligated to take in Islamists who want the Caliphate because of some misguided sense of "fairness".
Americans have never shied away from child murder, as long as it's someone else holding the gun. Nothing has changed but the framing.
You claim to not care about the skin tone, and yet you say fewer whites and more "browns" in America is a good thing? Your words betray you.
I don't. I care about culture. Islamism should be out, whether the Islamist is from Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia or Somalia.
