# "SAY GOODBYE REPUBLICANS" if you pull this shit, might as well eliminate the party...



## 007

... because you'll never win another election for decades, and by that time, after dems win total power, they'll ruin the country in just a few short more years...


*Top Republicans to Call for Legal Status for Some Immigrants

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKERJAN. 28, 2014*

WASHINGTON  The House Republican leaderships broad framework for overhauling the nations immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status  but not citizenship  for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the partys statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.

But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the partys leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.

Its one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year, said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push a recipe for disaster.

Dont Do It, said the headline on a National Review editorial on Monday aimed at the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. The last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand  troubles with the presidents health care law  ahead of the elections, the editorial said.

Article continues here...


----------



## BlackSand

007 said:


> ... because you'll never win another election for decades, and by that time, after dems win total power, they'll ruin the country in just a few short more years...
> 
> 
> *Top Republicans to Call for Legal Status for Some Immigrants
> 
> By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKERJAN. 28, 2014*
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8212; The House Republican leadership&#8217;s broad framework for overhauling the nation&#8217;s immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status &#8212; but not citizenship &#8212; for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the party&#8217;s statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
> 
> But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the party&#8217;s leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year,&#8221; said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push &#8220;a recipe for disaster.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Don&#8217;t Do It,&#8221; said the headline on a National Review editorial on Monday aimed at the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. &#8220;The last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand&#8221; &#8212; troubles with the president&#8217;s health care law &#8212; ahead of the elections, the editorial said.
> 
> Article continues here...



You know &#8230; There are times when you can fix something that is broken &#8230; And then there are times when you just tear it down and start over.
It's a tough decision to make &#8230; And you are going to lose ground if you have to start over again &#8230; I know because I have been there and done that.

As a true Conservative &#8230; There isn't a whole lot the Republican party has to offer.
The Democrats are worse and will definitely win more elections considering the way they pander to anything with a heartbeat that wants a handout &#8230; Whether it be assistance or some form of benefit.
I really don't care too much about ever voting for a Democrats and don't see any reason to vote for a Republican any longer.
So it really doesn't matter to me if Republicans do what the Democrats want &#8230; They aren't going to get my vote either way.
Perhaps it will all provide for more interesting choices in third party candidates &#8230; A place to start new, on the right track without the baggage and a place to build something worthwhile.

I am just glad that the Establishment Republicans can finally own up to who they are &#8230; And maybe we should have cut them loose a long time ago.
At worst &#8230; So what &#8230; I don't see anything changing for the better in a long while.
The Rino's and their cohorts across the aisle can run or ruin this country &#8230; They will deserve what they get.
No matter what stupid policy changes and mistakes they make &#8230; There is nothing the government or a politician can ever do to make anyone equal to me (or anyone else for that matter).

I feel sorry for people who have families and worry about what it is going to be like for their children. 
My suggestion would be to broaden your horizons and figure out a way to invest in more than the country the establishment politicians from both major parties want to transform America into.

.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

I hear that they're waiting until after the filing deadline before the primaries to bring up this stuff.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The mainstream GOP leadership and most of the workers don't give a crap what the far right thinks about this.

We will get three new voters from women and minorities for everyone of you who walk.

Walk, then.  Please do.


----------



## R.D.

Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP


----------



## 007

R.D. said:


> Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP



Well there ya go... not only are some republicans on self destruct, but we have the entire left lame stream media working in unison with them to "kill them off" as the leftists here phrase it.

But so be it, at least it takes concerted effort to "kill" the GOP. If the dems get total control back, they'll kill THEMSELVES, because everything they touch they RUIN.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> The mainstream GOP leadership and most of the workers don't give a crap what the far right thinks about this.
> 
> We will get three new voters from women and minorities for everyone of you who walk.
> 
> Walk, then.  Please do.



On the contrary ... I believe we are telling establishment Republicans like you to carry your ass right on across the aisle and quit trying act like you are any different.
We don't give a rat's ass about your silly little political games fighting over individual demographics.
If you have to desert your values to get along ... If you think the responsibility of governance is to see how many people you can please with no regard to the damage you are creating ... Screw you, not interested.
Sell your snake oil to someone stupid enough to buy it.

.


----------



## R.D.

007 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there ya go... not only are some republicans on self destruct, but we have the entire left lame stream media working in unison with them to "kill them off" as the leftists here phrase it also.
> 
> But so be it, at least it takes concerted effort to "kill" the GOP. If the dems get total control back, they'll kill THEMSELVES, because everything they touch they RUIN.
Click to expand...


Puh-lease, they have been claiming a GOP sellout on immigration for years now.  It's  a reasonable assumption this is just another hit piece


----------



## JakeStarkey

BlackSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mainstream GOP leadership and most of the workers don't give a crap what the far right thinks about this.
> 
> We will get three new voters from women and minorities for everyone of you who walk.
> 
> Walk, then.  Please do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary ... I believe we are telling establishment Republicans like you to carry your ass right on across the aisle and quit trying act like you are any different.
> We don't give a rat's ass about your silly little political games fighting over individual demographics.
> If you have to desert your values to get along ... If you think the responsibility of governance is to see how many people you can please with no regard to the damage you are creating ... Screw you, not interested.
> Sell your snake oil to someone stupid enough to buy it..
Click to expand...


Nope, we are telling you redneck insignificant far right reactionaries your power is gone.

Our values will be the same without you corrupting them.

You are so outta here.  Watch what happens to your candidates in the primaries.


----------



## Jughead

> The House Republican leadership&#8217;s broad framework for overhauling the nation&#8217;s immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status &#8212; but not citizenship &#8212; for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the party&#8217;s statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.


Yep, it would be the end of the GOP. If the GOP brass does indeed approve this piece of framework, you can guarantee that staunch GOP Conservatives will stay home on election night, regardless the candidate.

The GOP in trying to attract the left to the party will only backfire by alienating it's conservative base.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, we are telling you redneck insignificant far right reactionaries your power is gone.
> 
> Our values will be the same without you corrupting them.
> 
> You are so outta here.  Watch what happens to your candidates in the primaries.



What makes you think I am redneck, reactionary or give a shit about your right wing?
I don't have any candidates in the primaries ... Just in case you cannot read.

*Edit:*
The only thing we can possibly do as true Conservatives is take power away from the GOP and establishment Republicans like you.
The only people who are reactionary are stupid establishment Republicans sitting around looking at polling data and thinking that anything they do different will help them win.
The immigrants aren't going to vote for you if you pass an immigration bill ... And if you want to sacrifice principles of smaller government and personal responsibility ... So be it. 
That is the result of you reacting to stupid polling data and neglecting your responsibilities just to chase votes.

.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bring in enough hispanic illegals and it won't just be goodbye republicans.  It will be goodbye democrats as well.   Hispanics elect only hispanics as soon as there are enough hispanics to do it.    Say goodbye to affirmative action for blacks.  Hispanics have no racial guilt and calling them racists has no effect at all.


----------



## MaryL

I love this&#8230;Illegal aliens move in, alienate , antagonize ,misbehave and arrogantly ignore American culture and laws. Wealthy Anglos of both parties profit from these poor shmucks, in their  ever growing numbers. And, not to miss jumping on the bandwagon,  Liberal democrats are quick to capitalize on the ever-growing numbers of Hispanic for their party. Then, the Republicans,  who were so quick to condemn illegal aliens (Hispanics) for their party , now  are courting these same Hispanics and jumping on the same bandwagon liberals are on&#8230; In the meanwhile, BOTH parties are missing the bloody point. The rest of US Americans might like a say in the matter., and WE may not take kindly to being ignored, regardless of the PARTY or income or race.


----------



## Howey

007 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there ya go... not only are some republicans on self destruct, but we have the entire left lame stream media working in unison with them to "kill them off" as the leftists here phrase it also.
> 
> But so be it, at least it takes concerted effort to "kill" the GOP. If the dems get total control back, they'll kill THEMSELVES, because everything they touch they RUIN.
Click to expand...


Can we ship you back to the island too?


----------



## S.J.

The problem with the GOP is that they keep blinking.  True conservatives stick to their principals but squishy Republicans who only care about staying in office will do whatever they see working for the Democrats, but freeloaders aren't going to vote for them anyway.  Republicans don't get that.  They think if they throw money at Mexicans it'll get their vote, but it doesn't.  Same thing with blacks.


----------



## DGS49

Those who are old enough to vote should be mature enough to understand the difference between "Republican" and "Conservative."

One is a philosophy and one is a political affiliation.  A philosophy can be pure and unadulterated, but politics involves compromise or else you become irrelevant.

A clear majority of Americans are willing to give "legal status" to illegals who come here, work, pay taxes, and earnestly seek the American dream.  But Legal Status does not mean "citizenship."  Legal Status does not confer the right to vote.  All it means is, we're not going to deport your ass.

Democrats are extremely keen to get the reputed 11 million illegals their citizenship, so they can vote Democrat for the rest of their lives - which they will surely do.  It is a very small minority of the American population that wants to give illegals citizenship, even with preconditions (which we all know will quickly be forgotten).

The Republicans have to take the initiative on this issue.  In point of fact, the illegals aren't going anywhere and for the most part they are working and supporting themselves.  If the Republicans don't act, the Democrats will take the lead and these bastards will be voting citizens before you know it.

Seal the borders.

Prevent illegals from getting welfare and other freebies.

Make employers criminally responsible if they employ illegals (I-9 checks are already required).

Give "legal status" to those who are here pursuing the American Dream.

Deport everyone else.  Or make things so intolerable they will self-deport.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It will be the kiss of death for the Republican party


----------



## JakeStarkey

BlackSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, we are telling you redneck insignificant far right reactionaries your power is gone.
> 
> Our values will be the same without you corrupting them.
> 
> You are so outta here.  Watch what happens to your candidates in the primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I am redneck, reactionary or give a shit about your right wing?
> I don't have any candidates in the primaries ... Just in case you cannot read.
> 
> *Edit:*
> The only thing we can possibly do as true Conservatives is take power away from the GOP and establishment Republicans like you.
> The only people who are reactionary are stupid establishment Republicans sitting around looking at polling data and thinking that anything they do different will help them win.
> The immigrants aren't going to vote for you if you pass an immigration bill ... And if you want to sacrifice principles of smaller government and personal responsibility ... So be it.
> That is the result of you reacting to stupid polling data and neglecting your responsibilities just to chase votes..
Click to expand...


We don't care about your types, hon.  You are not going to have any more power, much less take power away.

Smaller government and personal responsibility means that we reach out to women, minorities, and immigrants, not ignore their just needs.


----------



## LilOlLady

007 said:


> ... because you'll never win another election for decades, and by that time, after dems win total power, they'll ruin the country in just a few short more years...
> 
> 
> *Top Republicans to Call for Legal Status for Some Immigrants
> 
> By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKERJAN. 28, 2014*
> 
> WASHINGTON  The House Republican leaderships broad framework for overhauling the nations immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status  but not citizenship  for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the partys statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
> 
> But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the partys leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.
> 
> Its one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year, said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Dont Do It, said the headline on a National Review editorial on Monday aimed at the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. The last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand  troubles with the presidents health care law  ahead of the elections, the editorial said.
> 
> Article continues here...



BS, if you put the children on a path to citizenship you may as well do the same for the parents because there is no way they will be separated by politics. If Republicans stand their ground against amnesty they will come out winners because most of America is against amnesty, etc.


----------



## LilOlLady

*REP. STENEY HOYER IS A LIAR*
He just stated that 70% of Americans want immigration reform (amnesty).

Poll after poll proves that Americans overwhelmingly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. A majority of Americans support tougher enforcement laws and border security.

60% of voters oppose the Obama Administration's executive amnesty to younger illegal aliens. [Breitbart News & Judicial Watch, November 2012].

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/public-opinion/americans-oppose-amnesty.html

*PUBLIC REVOLTS AGAINST OBAMA, 
POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT'S AMNESTY EFFORT*S
According to new national polling data from Pew Research, the American people have revolted against President Barack Obama&#8217;s and the GOP establishment&#8217;s efforts to grant amnesty to America&#8217;s at least 11 million illegal immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform.

Public Revolts Against Obama, Political Establishment's Amnesty Efforts


----------



## hazlnut

Bigots and xenophobes need to start their own property.

And let the real conservatives have their party back.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LilOlLady said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... because you'll never win another election for decades, and by that time, after dems win total power, they'll ruin the country in just a few short more years...
> 
> 
> *Top Republicans to Call for Legal Status for Some Immigrants
> 
> By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKERJAN. 28, 2014*
> 
> WASHINGTON  The House Republican leaderships broad framework for overhauling the nations immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status  but not citizenship  for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the partys statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
> 
> But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the partys leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.
> 
> Its one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year, said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Dont Do It, said the headline on a National Review editorial on Monday aimed at the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. The last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand  troubles with the presidents health care law  ahead of the elections, the editorial said.
> 
> Article continues here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if you put the children on a path to citizenship you may as well do the same for the parents because there is no way they will be separated by politics. If Republicans stand their ground against amnesty they will come out winners because most of America is against amnesty, etc.
Click to expand...


Most Americans are for getting the immigrants into the system.  If we GOP oppose this, we will lose.


----------



## 007

JakeStarkey said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... because you'll never win another election for decades, and by that time, after dems win total power, they'll ruin the country in just a few short more years...
> 
> 
> *Top Republicans to Call for Legal Status for Some Immigrants
> 
> By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKERJAN. 28, 2014*
> 
> WASHINGTON &#8212; The House Republican leadership&#8217;s broad framework for overhauling the nation&#8217;s immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status &#8212; but not citizenship &#8212; for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the party&#8217;s statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
> 
> But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the party&#8217;s leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year,&#8221; said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push &#8220;a recipe for disaster.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Don&#8217;t Do It,&#8221; said the headline on a National Review editorial on Monday aimed at the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. &#8220;The last thing the party needs is a brutal intramural fight when it has been dealt a winning hand&#8221; &#8212; troubles with the president&#8217;s health care law &#8212; ahead of the elections, the editorial said.
> 
> Article continues here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if you put the children on a path to citizenship you may as well do the same for the parents because there is no way they will be separated by politics. If Republicans stand their ground against amnesty they will come out winners because most of America is against amnesty, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Americans are for getting the immigrants into the system.  If we GOP oppose this, we will lose.
Click to expand...

No they're not, and no we won't. Only leftist REACTIONARIES are, like you. Losing is guaranteed if the republican party goes anywhere near amnesty. Securing the border will win.

We have a record number of Americans out of a job, the LAST thing this country needs is MORE unskilled laborers to compete for jobs with those Americans already unemployed.


----------



## LilOlLady

S.J. said:


> The problem with the GOP is that they keep blinking.  True conservatives stick to their principals but squishy Republicans who only care about staying in office will do whatever they see working for the Democrats, but freeloaders aren't going to vote for them anyway.  Republicans don't get that.  They think if they throw money at Mexicans it'll get their vote, but it doesn't.  Same thing with blacks.



You are wrong. *Mexicans and Blacks *do have a price and can be bought.


----------



## JakeStarkey

007 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, if you put the children on a path to citizenship you may as well do the same for the parents because there is no way they will be separated by politics. If Republicans stand their ground against amnesty they will come out winners because most of America is against amnesty, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans are for getting the immigrants into the system.  If we GOP oppose this, we will lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they're not, and no we won't. Only leftist REACTIONARIES are, like you. Losing is guaranteed if the republican party goes anywhere near amnesty. Securing the border will win.
> 
> We have a record number of Americans out of a job, the LAST thing this country needs is MORE unskilled laborers to compete for jobs with those Americans already unemployed.
Click to expand...


Yes, we are, and we will lose if our far right reactionaries keep opposing it.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> We don't care about your types, hon.  You are not going to have any more power, much less take power away.
> 
> Smaller government and personal responsibility means that we reach out to women, minorities, and immigrants, not ignore their just needs.



That's why the GOP is going to lose ... Again.
It is plain to see you don't even understand what you are posting.

What does personal responsibility and smaller government have to do with pandering for votes by providing government assistance for immigrants, women and minorities?
And if you think losing votes doesn't equate to losing power ... You are on "full-retard".

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If we can muzzle the fart blasts from the past of the far right reactionary wing nuts, we will win.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> If we can muzzle the fart blasts from the past of the far right reactionary wing nuts, we will win.



If the GOP finally admits to the fact they are no different than the Liberals they pretend to oppose ... They only fail to comprehend that they suck as Liberals and will get beat by Democrats in any race.

.


----------



## PredFan

This country is beyond fixing anyway. Let it fall apart on the Democrat's watch.


----------



## whitehall

Do we have to define the word "illegal" to every radical leftie? While we are at it I guess we need to remind whiny lefties that they control 2/3 of the freaking federal government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BlackSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can muzzle the fart blasts from the past of the far right reactionary wing nuts, we will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the GOP finally admits to the fact they are no different than the Liberals they pretend to oppose ... They only fail to comprehend that they suck as Liberals and will get beat by Democrats in any race..
Click to expand...


That false nonsense sinks immediately.  The mainstream of the GOP is right of center.  We have the numbers, we have the $$$, and we have the rules committee of the RNC.

We can with our mainstream and the center as we reach out to minorities, immigrants, women, and dump you if you wish.

Your choice.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can muzzle the fart blasts from the past of the far right reactionary wing nuts, we will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the GOP finally admits to the fact they are no different than the Liberals they pretend to oppose ... They only fail to comprehend that they suck as Liberals and will get beat by Democrats in any race..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That false nonsense sinks immediately.  The mainstream of the GOP is right of center.  We have the numbers, we have the $$$, and we have the rules committee of the RNC.
> 
> We can with our mainstream and the center as we reach out to minorities, immigrants, women, and dump you if you wish.
> 
> Your choice.
Click to expand...


It is our choice ... We don't need your permission to tell you to kiss off.
If you want to be mainstream Liberal get to it ... And you will be able to identify what is sinking come the next election ... It's your Titanic, own it.

The only thing false about anything said ... Is the fact you think the GOP has a chance trying to out-liberal Democrats.
If the GOP goes all reactionary chasing votes and abandons anything that resembles a Conservative principle ... They aren't worth a damn anyway.

.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, we are telling you redneck insignificant far right reactionaries your power is gone.
> 
> Our values will be the same without you corrupting them.
> 
> You are so outta here.  Watch what happens to your candidates in the primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I am redneck, reactionary or give a shit about your right wing?
> I don't have any candidates in the primaries ... Just in case you cannot read.
> 
> *Edit:*
> The only thing we can possibly do as true Conservatives is take power away from the GOP and establishment Republicans like you.
> The only people who are reactionary are stupid establishment Republicans sitting around looking at polling data and thinking that anything they do different will help them win.
> The immigrants aren't going to vote for you if you pass an immigration bill ... And if you want to sacrifice principles of smaller government and personal responsibility ... So be it.
> That is the result of you reacting to stupid polling data and neglecting your responsibilities just to chase votes..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't care about your types, hon.  You are not going to have any more power, much less take power away.
> 
> Smaller government and personal responsibility means that we reach out to women, minorities, and immigrants, not ignore their just needs.
Click to expand...


As a minority person myself, I'd say to _"reach out"_ does not mean that you deny 12 million unemployed Americans jobs, as is exactly what the immigrationists (mostly Democrats) are doing. It also doesn't mean that it's suddenly OK to inflict a long list of harms of immigration on the American people. We have no need or reason to reach out to immigrants, nor do we have any reason to have any immigrants, period.  Immigration in the US should have been stopped (generally) in 1860, when the US reached its optimum population, based on resource base.  And it doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate against men and white people in affirmative action programs, which should all be banned, as they are in 8 states.

As for women, they are being reached out to too much already (with affirmative action). The notion that women make only 77% of what men make is because of a number of factors.  One is that women work much less hours than men do, and another is that while men choose high paying jobs (construction, machine shop work, science, engineering, etc), women more often choose lower paying occupations in the social sciences and humanities (teaching, librarians, child care, etc)

Harms of Immigration

1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2.    Wage reduction.

3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6.    Increased crime.

7.    Increased traffic congestion.

8.    Increased pollution.

9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11.  Overcrowding in government offices.

12.  Overcrowding in schools.

13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14.  Cultural erosion.

15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We already have one political party that hates this country and wants to fundamentally transform it for the worse, we don't need a second


----------



## Unkotare

007 said:


> ... because you'll never win another election for decades, and by that time, after dems win total power, they'll ruin the country in just a few short more years...]



Really? Reagan was willing to give it a try and the party didn't disintegrate. Lots and lots of Republicans were elected after all that, including to the Presidency. All these years later and both party and country are still here. This doesn't mean that a bad idea shouldn't be called out for what it is, but ease off on the hyperbole.


----------



## BlackSand

Unkotare said:


> Really? Reagan was willing to give it a try and the party didn't disintegrate. Lots and lots of Republicans were elected after all that, including to the Presidency. All these years later and both party and country are still here. This doesn't mean that a bad idea shouldn't be called out for what it is, but ease off on the hyperbole.



What did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 fix and how has it kept the same problem from requiring another worthless fix?

.


----------



## Unkotare

BlackSand said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Reagan was willing to give it a try and the party didn't disintegrate. Lots and lots of Republicans were elected after all that, including to the Presidency. All these years later and both party and country are still here. This doesn't mean that a bad idea shouldn't be called out for what it is, but ease off on the hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 fix and how has it kept the same problem from requiring another worthless fix?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I didn't say it fixed anything or that something like it should be tried again.


----------



## BlackSand

Unkotare said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Reagan was willing to give it a try and the party didn't disintegrate. Lots and lots of Republicans were elected after all that, including to the Presidency. All these years later and both party and country are still here. This doesn't mean that a bad idea shouldn't be called out for what it is, but ease off on the hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 fix and how has it kept the same problem from requiring another worthless fix?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it fixed anything or that something like it should be tried again.
Click to expand...


Do you think the GOP should be confident about supporting amnesty in attempts to get Hispanic support at the polls?

.


----------



## Unkotare

BlackSand said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 fix and how has it kept the same problem from requiring another worthless fix?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it fixed anything or that something like it should be tried again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think the GOP should be confident about supporting amnesty in attempts to get Hispanic support at the polls?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Of course not, and I have posted nothing to suggest that I do.


----------



## BlackSand

Unkotare said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it fixed anything or that something like it should be tried again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the GOP should be confident about supporting amnesty in attempts to get Hispanic support at the polls?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, and I have posted nothing to suggest that I do.
Click to expand...


I never said you did suggest any such thing.

.


----------



## Big Black Dog

A move like this by the Republicans would truly piss me off...


----------



## Amelia

I support legalization but not citizenship for illegal aliens.

Better addressing that than endless attempts to pass abortion legislation.  

Of course, it would be good if they would take on the tax code like they keep promising.


----------



## Amelia

They should start with a dream act.   Then after that is done, they can talk about the next stage.


----------



## protectionist

Amelia said:


> They should start with a dream act.   Then after that is done, they can talk about the next stage.



There should be only one stage. A renewal of Eisenhower's Operation wetback of 1954 >  Mass Deportation.  The problem isn't that illegal aliens are citizens or legal.  It is that they are HERE.


----------



## Synthaholic

_*"SAY GOODBYE REPUBLICANS" if you pull this shit, might as well eliminate the party...*_


Because we Republicans have NOTHING to offer you non-Whites!  So, instead of trying to win your vote, we'll just limit *who* can vote.

Because we cheat and have no integrity.


----------



## BlackSand

protectionist said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should start with a dream act.   Then after that is done, they can talk about the next stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be only one stage. A renewal of Eisenhower's Operation wetback of 1954 >  Mass Deportation.  The problem isn't that illegal aliens are citizens or legal.  It is that they are HERE.
Click to expand...


I was wondering more along the lines of why we even have an immigration policy if it doesn't mean anything in the longrun.
Our actual enforced immigration policy is to give illegal immigrants legal status every couple of decades ... With more and more exceptions added and greater benefits for the children of illegal immigrants each time.

That kind of promotes the idea the illegal immigrants need to go ahead and get started on a family when they get here ... To better secure their place in line.

.


----------



## SwimExpert

If the GOP is going to go this route, then it's going to set up a 2016 Presidential primary run that will an immigration hard liner nominated.  And probably elected.  I welcome that.  A President who will finally order our military to report to the border and keep all invaders out.  Shoot to kill.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think so, swim, but if so it will be an interesting executive-legislative struggle.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

After they get amnesty, they are just a single "equal protection" scotus ruling away from full citizenship, voting and welfare


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Grimm should throw boehner off the balcony for even considering this crap


----------



## Truthmatters

your party is done.

You need voters to win elections.


your guys make Americans hate them


----------



## orogenicman

What is the cost of naturalizing 12 million people so they can become a productive, taxpaying part of our society versus rounding up and deporting them all?


----------



## rightwinger

Fighting reasonable immigration reform will be the death of the Republican Party


----------



## Mac1958

.

I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:

If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.  
When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
Your kids have the same status.
You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
This seems so simple.  What am I missing?

.


----------



## Amelia

orogenicman said:


> What is the cost of naturalizing 12 million people so they can become a productive, taxpaying part of our society versus rounding up and deporting them all?




Don't round them up and deport them.  Make them legal.  Make them so they don't have to fear being uprooted from their homes if they run a red light or report a crime.   Just don't demand citizenship if they voluntarily violated the laws of the nation to come here.  

Their children are a different story.  If someone was brought here through no choice of their own, they didn't show scorn for the nation's laws and citizenship would be a reasonable option for them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Amelia said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of naturalizing 12 million people so they can become a productive, taxpaying part of our society versus rounding up and deporting them all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't round them up and deport them.  Make them legal.  Make them so they don't have to fear being uprooted from their homes if they run a red light or report a crime.   Just don't demand citizenship if they voluntarily violated the laws of the nation to come here.
> 
> Their children are a different story.  If someone was brought here through no choice of their own, they didn't show scorn for the nation's laws and citizenship would be a reasonable option for them.
Click to expand...


Just put a cap on welfare payments, so that Dems have to take it away from someone else in order to pay off their new friends


----------



## rightwinger

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .



Isn't that what is in the Senate bill?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Just put a cap on welfare payments, so that Dems have to take it away from someone else in order to pay off their new friends



Tell your Republican heroes who never ended welfare to do that. 

Force their hand - welfare is evil, correct? We are better off without it; so why was it never put to bed? 

Too many Republicans are on the dole, that's why.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Amelia said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of naturalizing 12 million people so they can become a productive, taxpaying part of our society versus rounding up and deporting them all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't round them up and deport them.  Make them legal.  Make them so they don't have to fear being uprooted from their homes if they run a red light or report a crime.   Just don't demand citizenship if they voluntarily violated the laws of the nation to come here.
> 
> Their children are a different story.  If someone was brought here through no choice of their own, they didn't show scorn for the nation's laws and citizenship would be a reasonable option for them.
Click to expand...


^^^^ Ideology is the number one roadblock to meaningful progress.

If we think with our brains instead of our self-righteous indignation, we can overcome anything.


----------



## Indeependent

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .



H1-BS get laid off the second they get their Green Cards.
One more person on UI and then on Welfare.


----------



## Amelia

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .





Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way. 

"Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way.  You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get. 

Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.  

Legalization is practical.  Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not.  In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country.  Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.


----------



## protectionist

CrusaderFrank said:


> After they get amnesty, they are just a single "equal protection" scotus ruling away from full citizenship, voting and welfare



And regarding those of minority status, don't forget affirmative action preference, putting them ahead of white Americans who were born in the US, been paying taxes here for decades, and served in the US military.


----------



## Mac1958

Amelia said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way.
> 
> "Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way.  You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get.
> 
> Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.
> 
> Legalization is practical.  Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not.  In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country.  Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.
Click to expand...



What would your approach be?

.


----------



## protectionist

orogenicman said:


> What is the cost of naturalizing 12 million people so they can become a productive, taxpaying part of our society versus rounding up and deporting them all?



1.  They don't produce anything more than the Americans whose jobs they swipe away.

2.  They pay far less taxes than the Americans whose jobs they swipe away (so tax-wise they represent a loss)

3.  They cost the US economy tens of Billions$$ per year from the remittances$$$ they wire out of the country.

4.  They cost the country tens of Billions$$ more per year from the welfare they consume (more than native-born people)

5.  There would be very little cost, if the govt just started rounding up and deporting them all, and enforcing the IRCA law on illegal employers, as the majority of illegals would just deport themselves, on their own, just like they did 60 years ago, in Operation Wetback.


----------



## rightwinger

The Republican stand towards immigration reform will kill their party.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Amnesty is just another way of killing the American Middle Class and making blacks a permanent underclass.

Somewhere in Hell, that old Grand Kleagle Bobby Byrd is crying tears of joy


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> The Republican stand towards immigration reform will kill their party.



Democrat stand on immigration will kill the Middle Class and the country


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> Fighting reasonable immigration reform will be the death of the Republican Party



The only reasonable immigration reform is mass deportation of all illegal aliens + a stoppage of all legal immigration, until it is needed. (when US unemployment is zero, and there are more jobs than job seekers)

Even if this were the case, the many other harms of immigration would all have to be taken into account and weighed as well.  It's hard to see how immigration could be beneficial to America, when we are already so horribly overpopulated.

 Harms of Immigration

1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2.    Wage reduction.

3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6.    Increased crime.

7.    Increased traffic congestion.

8.    Increased pollution.

9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11.  Overcrowding in government offices.

12.  Overcrowding in schools.

13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14.  Cultural erosion.

15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.


----------



## protectionist

Mac1958 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way.
> 
> "Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way.  You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get.
> 
> Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.
> 
> Legalization is practical.  Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not.  In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country.  Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What would your approach be?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*See Post # 68.*


----------



## rightwinger

protectionist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting reasonable immigration reform will be the death of the Republican Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reasonable immigration reform is mass deportation of all illegal aliens + a stoppage of all legal immigration, until it is needed. (when US unemployment is zero, and there are more jobs than job seekers)
> 
> Even if this were the case, the many other harms of immigration would all have to be taken into account and weighed as well.  It's hard to see how immigration could be beneficial to America, when we are already so horribly overpopulated.
> 
> Harms of Immigration
> 
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
Click to expand...


Like herding cats

The immigrants are here. They are working

Give them a work visa, Make them pay taxes, make them follow the laws, if they are good citizens make them permanent


----------



## Mac1958

protectionist said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way.
> 
> "Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way.  You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get.
> 
> Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.
> 
> Legalization is practical.  Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not.  In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country.  Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would your approach be?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See Post # 68.*
Click to expand...



Okay, well how about something that could actually *happen?*

.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JakeStarkey said:


> The mainstream GOP leadership and most of the workers don't give a crap what the far right thinks about this.
> 
> We will get three new voters from women and minorities for everyone of you who walk.
> 
> Walk, then.  Please do.



  No, Jake, they won't.  Republicans will get maybe about one-fourth of these people if they become citizens who are able to vote.  Hispanics don't oppose Republicans because they don't want to give them amnesty.  They oppose Republicans because of their economic and social welfare positions and that won't change if Republicans go along with giving illegals citizenship.

The Democrats know exactly what will happen if these 12 million become citizens.  That's why they are pushing for it so hard and that's why you are pushing for it so hard because you're not a Republican.


----------



## Amelia

Mac1958 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way.
> 
> "Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way.  You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get.
> 
> Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.
> 
> Legalization is practical.  Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not.  In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country.  Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What would your approach be?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Keep better track of who's here on visa so that prompt action can be taken when the visas expire, since that's how a high number of illegal aliens become illegal.  Penalize people who hire illegals.  Follow the advice of people in the ICE who are actually interested in securing the borders.  Dream act for those who were brought here as children.  Something which would be called amnesty for those who have been here a long time and put down roots -- but not citizenship.  They can choose to go back to their home countries and apply the legal way, or they can choose a legal status which they agree will never turn into citizenship because they didn't care about the laws of this country.


----------



## orogenicman

Amelia said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic. Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status. You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple. What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way.
> 
> "Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way. You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get.
> 
> Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.
> 
> Legalization is practical. Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not. In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country. Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.
Click to expand...

 

If you are a guest worker you not only are not working illegally, but you are not here illegally.


----------



## orogenicman

protectionist said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the cost of naturalizing 12 million people so they can become a productive, taxpaying part of our society versus rounding up and deporting them all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They don't produce anything more than the Americans whose jobs they swipe away.
> 
> 2. They pay far less taxes than the Americans whose jobs they swipe away (so tax-wise they represent a loss)
> 
> 3. They cost the US economy tens of Billions$$ per year from the remittances$$$ they wire out of the country.
> 
> 4. They cost the country tens of Billions$$ more per year from the welfare they consume (more than native-born people)
> 
> 5. There would be very little cost, if the govt just started rounding up and deporting them all, and enforcing the IRCA law on illegal employers, as the majority of illegals would just deport themselves, on their own, just like they did 60 years ago, in Operation Wetback.
Click to expand...

 
1 and 2) How does a naturalized citizen produce less and pay less in taxes than someone who is born here?

3) Even naturalized citizens wire money out of the country.  Hell even large corporations do the same.  So, your point?

4) How would a naturalized citizen cost more in welfare than the tens of millions of ordinary citizens who are on it?

5) That is certainly not true.  The cost of 1), finding all 12 million +, 2) rounding them up, 3) holding them, 4) processing them, and then 5) transporting them out of the country, assuming their home countries would even accept them, would be astronomical.


----------



## SwimExpert

rightwinger said:


> Fighting reasonable immigration reform will be the death of the Republican Party



The Republican party welcomes reasonable immigration reform.  The problem is that the Democrats think that reasonable immigration reform means amnesty for illegals and making it easier for people to immigrate to the country.  When in reality, reasonable reform would be strengthening enforcement policies, providing real and substantial border security, and closing the various loopholes that illegals use to take advantage of us, bleed our resources, and get away with things that would land a person in prison for decades in Mexico.


----------



## S.J.

CrusaderFrank said:


> Amnesty is just another way of killing the American Middle Class and making blacks a permanent underclass.
> 
> *Somewhere in Hell, that old Grand Kleagle Bobby Byrd is crying tears of joy*


I thought he was an Exalted Cyclops.


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting reasonable immigration reform will be the death of the Republican Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reasonable immigration reform is mass deportation of all illegal aliens + a stoppage of all legal immigration, until it is needed. (when US unemployment is zero, and there are more jobs than job seekers)
> 
> Even if this were the case, the many other harms of immigration would all have to be taken into account and weighed as well.  It's hard to see how immigration could be beneficial to America, when we are already so horribly overpopulated.
> 
> Harms of Immigration
> 
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like herding cats
> 
> The immigrants are here. They are working
> 
> Give them a work visa, Make them pay taxes, make them follow the laws, if they are good citizens make them permanent
Click to expand...


This is insanity.  So you're OK with all these 16 HARMS to the American people ?  With friends like you, the American people don't need enemies.


----------



## Statistikhengst

R.D. said:


> Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP




Oh, I think the GOP is doing that all on it's own.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think the GOP is doing that all on it's own.
Click to expand...


The GOP has moved into a dwindling number of Red States with low electoral votes. They cannot win any urban area and rely on gerrymander and redistricting to maintain their power at the state level

That is their base. It cannot be expanded without an expansion of the Republican platform


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets hope this is the New York Times doing their part to kill off the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think the GOP is doing that all on it's own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The GOP has moved into a dwindling number of Red States with low electoral votes*. They cannot win any urban area and rely on gerrymander and redistricting to maintain their power at the state level
> 
> That is their base. It cannot be expanded without an expansion of the Republican platform
Click to expand...




This analysis makes your point painfully clear:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display

Y'all, to to the link and see the maps for yourself.

But this is the critical part:








Those are the states that have gone 6-for-6 for their respective party.  Using the electoral allocation based on the 2010 census, the low-point for the Democratic party is 242 EV, for the GOP, 102.

Add in the 5-of-6ers to the 6-of-6ers and you get this:






D 257 / R 158 - margin: D +99

Read the rest, cool stats from the gilded age and some very obvious parallels.

The "Clinton 6" are also in this analysis.


----------



## Sallow

protectionist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reasonable immigration reform is mass deportation of all illegal aliens + a stoppage of all legal immigration, until it is needed. (when US unemployment is zero, and there are more jobs than job seekers)
> 
> Even if this were the case, the many other harms of immigration would all have to be taken into account and weighed as well.  It's hard to see how immigration could be beneficial to America, when we are already so horribly overpopulated.
> 
> Harms of Immigration
> 
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like herding cats
> 
> The immigrants are here. They are working
> 
> Give them a work visa, Make them pay taxes, make them follow the laws, if they are good citizens make them permanent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is insanity.  So you're OK with all these 16 HARMS to the American people ?  With friends like you, the American people don't need enemies.
Click to expand...


Was it "insanity" when the nation started?

This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.

The process we now have in place is completely nuts.

And makes no sense whatsoever.

If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?

That's nuts.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think the GOP is doing that all on it's own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The GOP has moved into a dwindling number of Red States with low electoral votes*. They cannot win any urban area and rely on gerrymander and redistricting to maintain their power at the state level
> 
> That is their base. It cannot be expanded without an expansion of the Republican platform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This analysis makes your point painfully clear:
> 
> Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display
> 
> Y'all, to to the link and see the maps for yourself.
> 
> But this is the critical part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the states that have gone 6-for-6 for their respective party.  Using the electoral allocation based on the 2010 census, the low-point for the Democratic party is 242 EV, for the GOP, 102.
> 
> Add in the 5-of-6ers to the 6-of-6ers and you get this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D 257 / R 158 - margin: D +99
> 
> Read the rest, cool stats from the gilded age and some very obvious parallels.
> 
> The "Clinton 6" are also in this analysis.
Click to expand...


It all comes down to population density

People who live in densely populated areas want and need government services....schools, roads, mass transit, social programs ...they tend to vote Democratic

People who live in remote areas don't want those things. They do want farm subsidies, more defense spending...they tend to vote Republican


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .



  [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION] *makes some very solid and interesting points*.

I want to tell you all two different small stories:

My mentor, with whom I apprenticed many, many years ago, is an arch-Conservative. He is a damned fine person with very, very strict Conservative beliefs. In terms of beliefs, he and I are like night and day.

Ca. 7 years ago, when then President Bush, Jr. tried to push immigration reform through, my mentor was visiting me, we met up not far from Vienna. Over a bottle of wine, as I asked him what he thought about this all, he, an arch-Conservative, said the following to me:

1.) It's a shitty situation, built on the backs of both parties.
2.) Illegal aliens have built a shadow economy that would better serve our economy were it to come into the open.
3.) Most illegal aliens do jobs that most Americans don't want to do.
4.) Most illegal aliens come from catholic backgrounds and tend to have a more Conservative worldview, at least at the onset.
5.) It would cost far more to root them all up and send them back than to find a way to incorporate them into the Union.
6.) If the GOP doesn't do it, one day there will be a DEM president and the DEMS will do it and then they will get the credit.

And those words came from the mouth of an arch conservative. 7 years ago. Pretty prophetic stuff.

Second story:

A man I worked with for a while, a guy who did administrative stuff, once told me that whenever he had to do some kind of disciplinary process on someone, it was always a matter of discerning between intent and perception.  In other words, a person who may have screwed up badly may intend one thing, but it will be perceived in another way.

And so it is with the GOP. Do I think that most Republicans hate immigrants, esp. illegal immigrants?  *NO, I don't*.

But there are just enough GOP freaks out there who have had access to a microphone or TV interview, who have said batshit crazy things about illegal immigrants - and let's be clear here: in almost every case they are talking about Latinos - and automatically linking LEGAL immigrants who are Latinos with illegal immigrants. And that is where the GOP shoots itself in the foot every day over this issue. Every single day.

So, even if many, many Republicans don't intend it, it sure as hell is being perceived that way. Mitt Romney was forced to shoot himself in the foot with the "self-deportation" thing in order to assuage the extreme-right of the GOP and those words came back to bite him squarely in the ass in the fall.

Now, back to you, Mac: I see no problem with your ideas. But be careful about the children part. Kids born here, irrespective of the nationality of their parents at that time, are US citizens.

  [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION] makes the point - and correctly so imo, that, if we don't completely, hermetically seal the border (meaning, the Texas / Mexico border), then in 20 years, we will be right back where we are now.  Please remember that the Obama administration has put more boots on the ground at the border than any other administration and the Obama adminstration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other, but that is not enough. We may have to build an electronic - and - physical fence, along the entire stretch, without exception.

My advice to the GOP would be to take part in this, for it is going to happen, anyway. If the GOP kills immigration reform once more, polling is already showing that the Latinos will simply give up on the GOP. There were already strong indications of this in 2012. Latinos really, really liked Bill Clinton. They are going to be crazy for Hillary, mark my word, and if she selects a Latino as her running mate, and I suspect she may just do that, then the sleeping bear that is the Latino vote will awaken.

What is not acceptable is the excuse on the part of GOPer that Latinos will never vote GOP and so, "fuck 'em". Really?

*President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote*. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - *as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.*

I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP. Were the Congress to adopt Obama's proposal from LAST YEAR, then that would mean at least 12 years would have to pass before the first illegal aliens would be naturalized, which means that they would probably first vote in the 2028 elections. Does anyone think that the GOP is SOOOO paralyzed that it cannot convince Latinos on the battlefield of ideas that maybe their party is better, when they would have about 14 years to get the job done? Really?

Had Republicans been that defeatist in 1980, then the Reagan Revolution would never have happened, for Reagan brought people into the GOP whom most GOPers thought would never sign-up.

So, those were my two cents.

  [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]


----------



## rightwinger

> President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.



That is a key point. It goes beyond the "free stuff" the Republicans keep babbling about. It comes down to respect

Minorities read what is posted on the internet. They hear what the talking heads on rightwing hate radio say. They hear the code words from politicians

They ask.....Is this the party I want to belong to?


----------



## PredFan

Meh, the stupidity if the American voter, who put the left in charge of things is responsible for the ruination of this country. It is more than likely irrepairably damaged. I say let it collapse on the democrat party's watch. They completely deserve the blame. I kind of pity the young since they will suffer the most but hey, much of it is their fault.


----------



## rightwinger

PredFan said:


> Meh, the stupidity if the American voter, who put the left in charge of things is responsible for the ruination of this country. It is more than likely irrepairably damaged. I say let it collapse on the democrat party's watch. They completely deserve the blame. I kind of pity the young since they will suffer the most but hey, much of it is their fault.



Republicans are not giving the American voter much reason to vote for them

In actuality, they are giving them many reasons not to vote for them


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a key point. It goes beyond the "free stuff" the Republicans keep babbling about. It comes down to respect
> 
> Minorities read what is posted on the internet. They hear what the talking heads on rightwing hate radio say. They hear the code words from politicians
> 
> They ask.....Is this the party I want to belong to?
Click to expand...




Exactly.

Intent - Perception.


It's really that simple.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a key point. It goes beyond the "free stuff" the Republicans keep babbling about. It comes down to respect
> 
> Minorities read what is posted on the internet. They hear what the talking heads on rightwing hate radio say. They hear the code words from politicians
> 
> They ask.....Is this the party I want to belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Intent - Perception.
> 
> 
> It's really that simple.
Click to expand...


And in the end...it is all unnecessary

Republicans can tell their pundits to STFU. They are hurting the party brand and driving people away


----------



## JakeStarkey

Some points to make:

(1) anyone who discounts the strength of the voting public discounts what makes America great and good when that happens

(2) some to the far right in my party don't want to share power with people of color or from immigrant backgrounds

(3) the GOP will continue its road to being a minority party if it does not reach out to Hispanics, immigrants, and women

(4) the framing of our language must be non-confrontational in pursuit of #3 (yes, Huckabee framed his comments about Democrats, women, contraception, and sluts stupidly if ignorantly)


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> Some points to make:
> 
> (1) anyone who discounts the strength of the voting public discounts what makes America great and good when that happens
> 
> (2) some to the far right in my party don't want to share power with people of color or from immigrant backgrounds
> 
> (3) the GOP will continue its road to being a minority party if it does not reach out to Hispanics, immigrants, and women
> 
> (4) the framing of our language must be non-confrontational in pursuit of #3 (yes, Huckabee framed his comments about Democrats, women, contraception, and sluts stupidly if ignorantly)



Yeah,  I just don't get the slut thing at all. I mean, I assume that most GOP men are married and know what kind of wrath a woman can have (and rightly so) when called such.  Calling women "sluts" when you want their vote is a little like when someone throws you a left hook and you lean in, right?

Wow... just wow.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

The sensible start to fixing our immigration situation is to push for the Dream Act.  If I were Reince Priebus  I would make that part of the party's national campaign this year.  Give the ones who were brought here as children the opportunity to earn their citizenship through either four years of military service or a trade school or college degree.  I mean, those are the kind of people we want here in the first place, people with  education and military experience who have proven they will be able to pull their own weight and not mooch off the system. This really should be a no-brainer for the GOP and when the hardliners start complaining they can tell them to eat shit.  It's morally the right thing to do and definitely the Christian thing to do.

After this is done then you start determining how to deal with the millions of others already here who don't fall under the Dream Act and you also start working to relax our immigration laws.  Frankly, anybody who wants to come here and work should be able to without hassle.  They aren't going to take jobs away from native born Americans.  The market will work that out.  If there is nowhere for the immigrants to work they simply won't come.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> Some points to make:
> 
> (1) anyone who discounts the strength of the voting public discounts what makes America great and good when that happens
> 
> (2) some to the far right in my party don't want to share power with people of color or from immigrant backgrounds
> 
> (3) the GOP will continue its road to being a minority party if it does not reach out to Hispanics, immigrants, and women
> 
> (4) the framing of our language must be non-confrontational in pursuit of #3 (yes, Huckabee framed his comments about Democrats, women, contraception, and sluts stupidly if ignorantly)



Republican need to concentrate on what they do best....fiscal restraint

When they stray into social issues they start to run into problems. They need to stop the offensive rhetoric. They need to reprimand those who engage in it. They need to hold off the attacks on those members of their party who differ on nonconsequential issues. A Republican can believe in global warming and still be a Republican. A Republican can support gay marriage and still be a Republican


----------



## Unkotare

Statistikhengst said:


> I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP.





We're not, obviously.


----------



## Unkotare

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> After this is done then you start determining how to deal with the millions of others already here who don't fall under the Dream Act and you also start working to relax our immigration laws.  .





We don't need to "relax" our immigration laws, we need to enforce them. When we _really_ do that, _then_ we can start working on other related issues.


----------



## Unkotare

Statistikhengst said:


> Yeah,  I just don't get the slut thing at all. .






What elected representative from the GOP has used the word "slut" in public policy remarks?


----------



## Foxfyre

One thing is for sure. . . .

Why in the world would the GOP take advice about what to do or how to handle things from the leftists/statists/progressives/political class/liberals/Jake Starkey?  Do you really think they have any interest in giving the GOP good advice?


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> One thing is for sure. . . .
> 
> Why in the world would the GOP take advice about what to do or how to handle things from the leftists/statists/progressives/political class/liberals/Jake Starkey?  Do you really think they have any interest in giving the GOP good advice?



I still have not seen any Republican responses as to their plan of action regarding their diminishing support among Hispanics

What is your advice?  You are usually pretty good at it


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre does not like that mainstream Republicans, such as myself, have no use for the damage the far right reactionaries and libertarians have done to the party since 2009.

I am in line with the RNC, not the nutjobs.

So let's work on fiscal restraint and get out of the culture and religious wars, Republicans.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,  I just don't get the slut thing at all. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What elected representative from the GOP has used the word "slut" in public policy remarks?
Click to expand...


Does it matter?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Unkotare said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not, obviously.
Click to expand...


27% for Mitt Romney.

27%.

uhuh...


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> Foxfyre does not like that mainstream Republicans, such as myself, have no use for the damage the far right reactionaries and libertarians have done to the party since 2009.
> 
> I am in line with the RNC, not the nutjobs.
> 
> So let's work on fiscal restraint and get out of the culture and religious wars, Republicans.



They also need to take lessons on not acting batshit crazy when they think nobody is looking


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,  I just don't get the slut thing at all. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What elected representative from the GOP has used the word "slut" in public policy remarks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
Click to expand...





Thanks Hilary,  you can go sit in the corner now.


----------



## Unkotare

Statistikhengst said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 27% for Mitt Romney.
> 
> 27%.
> 
> uhuh...
Click to expand...



Apples

Highway

Snowball

Sunshine




Anything else unrelated to the comment you'd like to add?


----------



## Amelia

orogenicman said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic. Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status. You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple. What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letting them "wait in line" after they came here illegally is an insult to people who are waiting in line in their home countries the legal way.
> 
> "Waiting in line" for citizenship after you've been here illegally feathering a nest with illegally obtained wages is an unfair advantage over people who did it the right way. You stole a headstart that people who did things the right way didn't get.
> 
> Illegal behavior should not be rewarded with citizenship in this country.
> 
> Legalization is practical. Full amnesty with citizenship at the end is not. In 25 years we're already going to be in pretty much the same situation we're now in even if we seal the borders tight because of all the other ways people take up illegal residence in the country. Incentivizing this kind of illegal behavior with the hope of citizenship if they just hang on long enough is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a guest worker you not only are not working illegally, but you are not here illegally.
Click to expand...



Of course.  

Not sure why you mention that.


----------



## Avorysuds

JakeStarkey said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mainstream GOP leadership and most of the workers don't give a crap what the far right thinks about this.
> 
> We will get three new voters from women and minorities for everyone of you who walk.
> 
> Walk, then.  Please do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary ... I believe we are telling establishment Republicans like you to carry your ass right on across the aisle and quit trying act like you are any different.
> We don't give a rat's ass about your silly little political games fighting over individual demographics.
> If you have to desert your values to get along ... If you think the responsibility of governance is to see how many people you can please with no regard to the damage you are creating ... Screw you, not interested.
> Sell your snake oil to someone stupid enough to buy it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, we are telling you redneck insignificant far right reactionaries your power is gone.
> 
> Our values will be the same without you corrupting them.
> 
> You are so outta here.  Watch what happens to your candidates in the primaries.
Click to expand...



You liked McCain, he lost, you liked Mitt, he lost... proving that winning the primaries mean dick chit anymore.

However, you liked Obama, and he won... I wonder, did you vote Obama? Seems you are good at picking Democrats, not republicans to win. 

Anyways, Jake, you might wana drop the "far right wing reactionary" comments, you're starting to go down the road on TM where you just repeat insults rather than add to the conversation. I'm being honest here man, you only get "thanks" from well know hyper partisan lefties on these boards anymore. They don't even buy that your a republican.


----------



## Amelia

Statistikhengst said:


> ....
> 
> [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION] makes the point - and correctly so imo, that, if we don't completely, hermetically seal the border (meaning, the Texas / Mexico border), then in 20 years, we will be right back where we are now.  Please remember that the Obama administration has put more boots on the ground at the border than any other administration and the Obama adminstration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other, but that is not enough. We may have to build an electronic - and - physical fence, along the entire stretch, without exception.
> 
> ....




Actually the point I made was that even if we did hermetically seal the border we'll be in pretty much the same position in a couple of decades because of all the people who came here legally and overstayed their visas.  

Tracking and enforcement need to be improved on many fronts, not just border control.  

And, imho, all of the above need to be addressed decisively before citizenship is even considered for people who willfully flouted our laws to come here or stay here.  


If/when someone whom I respect such as Marco Rubio signs onto a citizenship provision for those who as adults broke the law to come or stay here, I will not turn on that person.  However, I favor legalization which stops short of citizenship until we can be sure that we are not telling anyone else in the world that it's worth taking the chance to come here and build a life by illegal means and one day they'll probably get to be a citizen.


----------



## Amelia

Foxfyre said:


> One thing is for sure. . . .
> 
> Why in the world would the GOP take advice about what to do or how to handle things from the leftists/statists/progressives/political class/liberals/Jake Starkey?  Do you really think they have any interest in giving the GOP good advice?





Exactly.  

There are some people on the left here whom I respect, but when they thank Jake they're thanking trollery and undermining the impression they might otherwise have given of being willing to have fruitful discussions with people who are legitimately on the right.


----------



## Avorysuds

Jughead said:


> The House Republican leaderships broad framework for overhauling the nations immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status  but not citizenship  for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the partys statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it would be the end of the GOP. If the GOP brass does indeed approve this piece of framework, you can guarantee that staunch GOP Conservatives will stay home on election night, regardless the candidate.
> 
> The GOP in trying to attract the left to the party will only backfire by alienating it's conservative base.
Click to expand...


I disagree, I think they will flood the libertarian party more than they have been. Sure, the Libertarian party will remain insignificant as a viable winning party, but the Republicans will keep losing due to the migration to independent and libertarian affiliations.


----------



## Jughead

Avorysuds said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The House Republican leaderships broad framework for overhauling the nations immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status  but not citizenship  for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the partys statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it would be the end of the GOP. If the GOP brass does indeed approve this piece of framework, you can guarantee that staunch GOP Conservatives will stay home on election night, regardless the candidate.
> 
> The GOP in trying to attract the left to the party will only backfire by alienating it's conservative base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, I think they will flood the libertarian party more than they have been. Sure, the Libertarian party will remain insignificant as a viable winning party, but the Republicans will keep losing due to the migration to independent and libertarian affiliations.
Click to expand...

True. Some will stay home, others will join the Libertarian party or turn to an independent candidate. Either way, they will be taking votes away from the GOP.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure. . . .
> 
> Why in the world would the GOP take advice about what to do or how to handle things from the leftists/statists/progressives/political class/liberals/Jake Starkey?  Do you really think they have any interest in giving the GOP good advice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still have not seen any Republican responses as to their plan of action regarding their diminishing support among Hispanics
> 
> What is your advice?  You are usually pretty good at it
Click to expand...


My advice is to treat Hispanics like people instead of a voting demographic.  My advice is to spell out why conservative policies are advantageous to Hispanics as much as they are to any other people.  My advice is to explain to the Hispanic leaders why sensible immigration policies are as advantageous to them as they are to any other Americans.  Promising amnesty won't gain them votes.  The Democrats don't have any better track record than Republicans--not as good actually--on that as the GOP and the Hispanics still vote Democratic because they promise the freebies that the GOP won't promise.

The GOP needs to teach clearly, without hyperbole and without mincing words and without one-liner rally the troops slogans why the private sector is the only way to generate prosperity fo all and what the GOP will do to promote that.

And the GOP needs a clear, easy-to-sell, sensible, and practical immigration policy that accomplishes what our immigration policy has always intended to accomplish along with a practical and sensible visitor work program for our neighbors to the north and south.

And they need to teach their people how to sell principles in a way that the leftwing media can't distort and misrepresent and twist into something the GOP never said and never intended.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure. . . .
> 
> Why in the world would the GOP take advice about what to do or how to handle things from the leftists/statists/progressives/political class/liberals/Jake Starkey?  Do you really think they have any interest in giving the GOP good advice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still have not seen any Republican responses as to their plan of action regarding their diminishing support among Hispanics
> 
> What is your advice?  You are usually pretty good at it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My advice is to treat Hispanics like people instead of a voting demographic.  My advice is to spell out why conservative policies are advantageous to Hispanics as much as they are to any other people.  My advice is to explain to the Hispanic leaders why sensible immigration policies are as advantageous to them as they are to any other Americans.  Promising amnesty won't gain them votes.  The Democrats don't have any better track record than Republicans--not as good actually--on that as the GOP and the Hispanics still vote Democratic because they promise the freebies that the GOP won't promise.
> 
> The GOP needs to teach clearly, without hyperbole and without mincing words and without one-liner rally the troops slogans why the private sector is the only way to generate prosperity fo all and what the GOP will do to promote that.
> 
> And the GOP needs a clear, easy-to-sell, sensible, and practical immigration policy that accomplishes what our immigration policy has always intended to accomplish along with a practical and sensible visitor work program for our neighbors to the north and south.
> 
> And they need to teach their people how to sell principles in a way that the leftwing media can't distort and misrepresent and twist into something the GOP never said and never intended.
Click to expand...


Thank you

Basically what I have been saying. Republicans need to get engaged with the Hispanic community. Trickle down Rhetoric and "Look we have Hispanic Republucans" doesn't cut it
Republicans need to be a presence in Hispanic communities. Not for photo-ops but full time offices. A place the community can go to help get a job or help with a community issue. 
Republicans need to stop the hate rhetoric from right wing media. Stop passing English only laws. Stop with show me your papers legislation

Unless they do, their party is doomed


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> I still have not seen any Republican responses as to their plan of action regarding their diminishing support among Hispanics.



I guess when Hispanics figure out they want to be Americans ... Then it won't make a difference that they are Hispanic.
If Hispanics want special consideration for their community because they are Hispanic and want politicians to cater to them so they can gets votes ... Oh well, I am pretty sure the Democrat party will do a better job of that.

Been happening for years with a bunch of sell-outs in the Democrat party who forgot who we are as a country ... Have compromised the integrity of simply being American ... And are wiling to trade their principles peddling social programs for votes.

.


----------



## rightwinger

BlackSand said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still have not seen any Republican responses as to their plan of action regarding their diminishing support among Hispanics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess when Hispanics figure out they want to be Americans ... Then it won't make a difference that they are Hispanic.
> If Hispanics want special consideration for their community because they are Hispanic and want politicians to cater to them so they can gets votes ... Oh well, I am pretty sure the Democrat party will do a better job of that.
> 
> Been happening for years with a bunch of sell-outs in the Democrat party who forgot who we are as a country ... Have compromised the integrity of simply being American ... And are wiling to trade their principles peddling social programs for votes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Guess what?

They are Americans. Maybe not the type of American you like, but Americans just the same

Until Republicans start to tell idiots like you to stay the hell away from their party...they are doomed


----------



## rightwinger

protectionist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting reasonable immigration reform will be the death of the Republican Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reasonable immigration reform is mass deportation of all illegal aliens + a stoppage of all legal immigration, until it is needed. (when US unemployment is zero, and there are more jobs than job seekers)
> 
> Even if this were the case, the many other harms of immigration would all have to be taken into account and weighed as well.  It's hard to see how immigration could be beneficial to America, when we are already so horribly overpopulated.
> 
> Harms of Immigration
> 
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
Click to expand...


I am impressed by your list

Impressed by the fact that this same list has been applied to every immigrant group that came to this country.....starting with the Irish


----------



## Rozman

Maybe it's a good thing that Democrat's win elections.
They will keep on passing shit bills like ObamaCare.
They will keep the economy stagnant.
Jobs will be hard to get.
Let them have total control...

The people will get fed up and will beg for the Republican party to let them in....
By then I will be in charge and only will the hot looking chicks be allowed in.
Lesbians will be more then welcome,but not the Ellen Degeneres,Rachel Maddow,Chris Hayes type.Only the lipstick lesbians.

As for the Metrosexual,pajama boy type of the Democrat party....No way.


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> Until Republicans start to tell idiots like you to stay the hell away from their party...they are doomed



If the desire to treat everyone equally as Americans and the absence legislative assistance to individual demographics in attempts to pander for votes is what you think is Un-American ... Well, we are not the idiots.
As long as Democrats keep pandering to individual demographics to achieve more votes ... I am pretty sure you will keep winning elections and probably redefine the entire concept of what an American is.

You still won't be anything more than a shyster and snake oil peddler. 

.


----------



## Geaux4it

This is why I fired the Pubs a few years ago. They have lost their way and joined into a single party failure with the Dems.

Build the fence

-Geaux


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still have not seen any Republican responses as to their plan of action regarding their diminishing support among Hispanics
> 
> What is your advice?  You are usually pretty good at it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice is to treat Hispanics like people instead of a voting demographic.  My advice is to spell out why conservative policies are advantageous to Hispanics as much as they are to any other people.  My advice is to explain to the Hispanic leaders why sensible immigration policies are as advantageous to them as they are to any other Americans.  Promising amnesty won't gain them votes.  The Democrats don't have any better track record than Republicans--not as good actually--on that as the GOP and the Hispanics still vote Democratic because they promise the freebies that the GOP won't promise.
> 
> The GOP needs to teach clearly, without hyperbole and without mincing words and without one-liner rally the troops slogans why the private sector is the only way to generate prosperity fo all and what the GOP will do to promote that.
> 
> And the GOP needs a clear, easy-to-sell, sensible, and practical immigration policy that accomplishes what our immigration policy has always intended to accomplish along with a practical and sensible visitor work program for our neighbors to the north and south.
> 
> And they need to teach their people how to sell principles in a way that the leftwing media can't distort and misrepresent and twist into something the GOP never said and never intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Basically what I have been saying. Republicans need to get engaged with the Hispanic community. Trickle down Rhetoric and "Look we have Hispanic Republucans" doesn't cut it
> Republicans need to be a presence in Hispanic communities. Not for photo-ops but full time offices. A place the community can go to help get a job or help with a community issue.
> Republicans need to stop the hate rhetoric from right wing media. Stop passing English only laws. Stop with show me your papers legislation
> 
> Unless they do, their party is doomed
Click to expand...


The Republicans are engaged with the Hispanic community.  There are a lot of Republican Hispanics and they generally get demonized by the left just as all other conservative minorities are demonized.  The Republicans aren't hateful to Hispanics nor is the rightwing media.  Leftwing media and Democrats portrays it that way however, and the left snarfs that right down as the truth without ever checking the actual facts.

English only laws?  Learning the language is the only way for Hispanics to truly prosper and achieve full status in society.  Making it easier for Hispanics to avoid doing that is not doing Hispanics any favors.  Republicans need to make that case.

Republicans have long been far more friend to Hispanics than the Democrats, but the GOP is not as effective as the Democrats in flattering rhetoric or selling a concept.  I suppose truth is  just more difficult to sell than are rhetorical lies and empty flattery.  But we do nobody any favor by hurting people on the pretense we are accommodating them, nor do we do anybody any favor by continuing to divide people up into groups, each valued for nothing more than their voting power.

So if he GOP has to become big government Democrats in order to survive, they might as well fold up their tents because saving them won't be worth anybody's time and will accomplish nothing.


----------



## rightwinger

BlackSand said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Republicans start to tell idiots like you to stay the hell away from their party...they are doomed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the desire to treat everyone equally as Americans and the absence legislative assistance to individual demographics in attempts to pander for votes is what you think is Un-American ... Well, we are not the idiots.
> As long as Democrats keep pandering to individual demographics to achieve more votes ... I am pretty sure you will keep winning elections and probably redefine the entire concept of what an American is.
> 
> You still won't be anything more than a shyster and snake oil peddler.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It is not treating people unequally.....it is helping people who need help

A concept conservatives cannot grasp


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice is to treat Hispanics like people instead of a voting demographic.  My advice is to spell out why conservative policies are advantageous to Hispanics as much as they are to any other people.  My advice is to explain to the Hispanic leaders why sensible immigration policies are as advantageous to them as they are to any other Americans.  Promising amnesty won't gain them votes.  The Democrats don't have any better track record than Republicans--not as good actually--on that as the GOP and the Hispanics still vote Democratic because they promise the freebies that the GOP won't promise.
> 
> The GOP needs to teach clearly, without hyperbole and without mincing words and without one-liner rally the troops slogans why the private sector is the only way to generate prosperity fo all and what the GOP will do to promote that.
> 
> And the GOP needs a clear, easy-to-sell, sensible, and practical immigration policy that accomplishes what our immigration policy has always intended to accomplish along with a practical and sensible visitor work program for our neighbors to the north and south.
> 
> And they need to teach their people how to sell principles in a way that the leftwing media can't distort and misrepresent and twist into something the GOP never said and never intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Basically what I have been saying. Republicans need to get engaged with the Hispanic community. Trickle down Rhetoric and "Look we have Hispanic Republucans" doesn't cut it
> Republicans need to be a presence in Hispanic communities. Not for photo-ops but full time offices. A place the community can go to help get a job or help with a community issue.
> Republicans need to stop the hate rhetoric from right wing media. Stop passing English only laws. Stop with show me your papers legislation
> 
> Unless they do, their party is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans are engaged with the Hispanic community.  There are a lot of Republican Hispanics and they generally get demonized by the left just as all other conservative minorities are demonized.  The Republicans aren't hateful to Hispanics nor is the rightwing media.  Leftwing media and Democrats portrays it that way however, and the left snarfs that right down as the truth without ever checking the actual facts.
> 
> English only laws?  Learning the language is the only way for Hispanics to truly prosper and achieve full status in society.  Making it easier for Hispanics to avoid doing that is not doing Hispanics any favors.  Republicans need to make that case.
> 
> Republicans have long been far more friend to Hispanics than the Democrats, but the GOP is not as effective as the Democrats in flattering rhetoric or selling a concept.  I suppose truth is  just more difficult to sell than are rhetorical lies and empty flattery.  But we do nobody any favor by hurting people on the pretense we are accommodating them, nor do we do anybody any favor by continuing to divide people up into groups, each valued for nothing more than their voting power.
> 
> So if he GOP has to become big government Democrats in order to survive, they might as well fold up their tents because saving them won't be worth anybody's time and will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...


27% of the vote is not engaged and is not a lot of Hispanic Republicans. Whatever your message to that community, it is not working

If you can't convince Hispanics that you will make their lives better it is your fault.......not the liberal media


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> It is not treating people unequally.....it is helping people who need help
> 
> A concept conservatives cannot grasp



Which is not treating people equally no matter how you slice it or want to pitch your snake oil.
A concept you are incapable of getting because you are nothing more than a crooked shyster than cannot understand principles and responsibilities ... And don't actually hold any worth a damn yourself.

.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I never thought that I would actually find a group of people more clueless than George Bush II, but the Tea Party wins the prize. Even Bush knew that he could not win without the Hispanic vote.


----------



## rightwinger

BlackSand said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not treating people unequally.....it is helping people who need help
> 
> A concept conservatives cannot grasp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not treating people equally no matter how you slice it or want to pitch your snake oil.
> A concept you are incapable of getting because you are nothing more than a crooked shyster than cannot understand principles and responsibilities ... And don't actually hold any worth a damn yourself.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Did you actually post that?  Helping people who need help is not treating people equally because you are not helping the rich at the same time

No wonder nobody will vote for you


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> I never thought that I would actually find a group of people more clueless than George Bush II, but the Tea Party wins the prize. Even Bush knew that he could not win without the Hispanic vote.



Bush got 46% of the Hispanic vote.......Romney got 27%

Where will Republicans be in another 15 years?


----------



## Vandalshandle

rightwinger said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought that I would actually find a group of people more clueless than George Bush II, but the Tea Party wins the prize. Even Bush knew that he could not win without the Hispanic vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush got 46% of the Hispanic vote.......Romney got 27%
> 
> Where will Republicans be in another 15 years?
Click to expand...


They will be still scratching their heads wondering what went wrong....


----------



## Amelia

It's tough to know how to deal with experts in class warfare -- the kind of people who turn respect for the law into an indictment of racial intolerance.

Those people are sh*tty. 

But they're in charge.  They have the bully pulpit and most of the media.  

So what to do?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Reach honestly to women, Hispanics, and minorities is the path to follow for the GOP.

Heavens knows the opposite has not worked.


----------



## rightwinger

Amelia said:


> It's tough to know how to deal with experts in class warfare -- the kind of people who turn respect for the law into an indictment of racial intolerance.
> 
> Those people are sh*tty.
> 
> But they're in charge.  They have the bully pulpit and most of the media.
> 
> So what to do?



There is a class of people who will not vote Republican. That is not warfare, that is reality


----------



## Amelia

The throw-granny-off-the-cliff b.s. and other class warfare Dems play backfires on them.

They can get votes from the people they scare but when you paint decent people as demons, that doesn't make the people want to work with you, so all you have left is to whine about how obstructionist the people you called evil are.


----------



## rightwinger

Amelia said:


> The throw-granny-off-the-cliff b.s. and other class warfare Dems play backfires on them.
> 
> They can get votes from the people they scare but when you paint decent people as demons, that doesn't make the people want to work with you, so all you have left is to whine about how obstructionist the people you called evil are.



All republicans need to is provide a reason to vote for them.....should be easy


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to know how to deal with experts in class warfare -- the kind of people who turn respect for the law into an indictment of racial intolerance.
> 
> Those people are sh*tty.
> 
> But they're in charge.  They have the bully pulpit and most of the media.
> 
> So what to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is a class of people who will not vote Republican.* That is not warfare, that is reality
Click to expand...

Yep, they're called freeloaders and there are plenty of them.


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's tough to know how to deal with experts in class warfare -- the kind of people who turn respect for the law into an indictment of racial intolerance.
> 
> Those people are sh*tty.
> 
> But they're in charge.  They have the bully pulpit and most of the media.
> 
> So what to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is a class of people who will not vote Republican.* That is not warfare, that is reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, they're called freeloaders and there are plenty of them.
Click to expand...

Winner, winner...chicken dinner

More reason minorities won't vote Republican

Anyone else want to chime in?


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> The throw-granny-off-the-cliff b.s. and other class warfare Dems play backfires on them.
> 
> They can get votes from the people they scare but when you paint decent people as demons, that doesn't make the people want to work with you, so all you have left is to whine about how obstructionist the people you called evil are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All republicans need to is provide a reason to vote for them.....should be easy
Click to expand...


Sure.  They could give them the same reason the Democrats do, i.e. a ton of empty promises of what big government is going to do for them, give to them, arrange for them.  The fact that such promises are always dangled juuuuuuuuust out of reach doesn't phase those who are thrown a bone now and then to keep them quiet.  And hopeful for more.

But let's say the GOP does that.  What does that accomplish other than a one party system populated by professional politicians and bureaucrats who don't really give a damn about anybody so long as they can fool the people long enough to acquire their power, prestige, influence, and massive personal wealth.

Obama has managed to push the gimme sector over the 50% mark during the last 5 years.  More than 50% of the population now receives at least some kind of benefit from the federal government whether it is their total support or food stamps or a cell phone.  It is very difficult for folks to give up even a meager and/or essentially meaningless benefit once they have it when there is no assurance that it will be replaced with something better in the private sector.

So the Democrats herd more and more hapless government addicts onto the plantation and solidify their power despite growing discontent as promise after promise is broken. But the politicans and bureaucrats don't care.  They'll have theirs and will be long gone before it all hits the fan.

And we want the Republicans to do that too just to get into office?  Why?  Why not just disband them and be honest that we would then be the one-party system that would result?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

rightwinger said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought that I would actually find a group of people more clueless than George Bush II, but the Tea Party wins the prize. Even Bush knew that he could not win without the Hispanic vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush got 46% of the Hispanic vote.......Romney got 27%
> 
> Where will Republicans be in another 15 years?
Click to expand...


Bush was an anomaly, though.  Even Reagan only got around 30% and he actually granted amnesty.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Unkotare said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> After this is done then you start determining how to deal with the millions of others already here who don't fall under the Dream Act and you also start working to relax our immigration laws.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need to "relax" our immigration laws, we need to enforce them. When we _really_ do that, _then_ we can start working on other related issues.
Click to expand...


No, we need to do away with them, period.  It's not just Hispanics jumping over the border that's a problem.  Even immigrants from Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world go through years of bureaucratic red tape to be able to stay here.  My buddy's wife is from France.  She has a college degree and works for a marketing firm and the shit she's had to go through to get U.S. citizenship is absurd. I don't even know if she's gotten it yet, to be honest with you, and they started the process two years ago.  She may still be on a visa.


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is a class of people who will not vote Republican.* That is not warfare, that is reality
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they're called freeloaders and there are plenty of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winner, winner...chicken dinner
> 
> *More reason minorities won't vote Republican*
> 
> Anyone else want to chime in?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about minorities but if the shoe fits...Freeloaders come in all colors.  Minorities freeload more as a percentage of their population but in actual numbers there are just as many white freeloaders (and they vote Democrat).


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> The throw-granny-off-the-cliff b.s. and other class warfare Dems play backfires on them.
> 
> They can get votes from the people they scare but when you paint decent people as demons, that doesn't make the people want to work with you, so all you have left is to whine about how obstructionist the people you called evil are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All republicans need to is provide a reason to vote for them.....should be easy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  They could give them the same reason the Democrats do, i.e. a ton of empty promises of what big government is going to do for them, give to them, arrange for them.  The fact that such promises are always dangled juuuuuuuuust out of reach doesn't phase those who are thrown a bone now and then to keep them quiet.  And hopeful for more.
> 
> But let's say the GOP does that.  What does that accomplish other than a one party system populated by professional politicians and bureaucrats who don't really give a damn about anybody so long as they can fool the people long enough to acquire their power, prestige, influence, and massive personal wealth.
> 
> Obama has managed to push the gimme sector over the 50% mark during the last 5 years.  More than 50% of the population now receives at least some kind of benefit from the federal government whether it is their total support or food stamps or a cell phone.  It is very difficult for folks to give up even a meager and/or essentially meaningless benefit once they have it when there is no assurance that it will be replaced with something better in the private sector.
> 
> So the Democrats herd more and more hapless government addicts onto the plantation and solidify their power despite growing discontent as promise after promise is broken. But the politicans and bureaucrats don't care.  They'll have theirs and will be long gone before it all hits the fan.
> 
> And we want the Republicans to do that too just to get into office?  Why?  Why not just disband them and be honest that we would then be the one-party system that would result?
Click to expand...


Fine Republicans....don't want to get the Hispanic vote through big government?  Go for it

Show Hispanics the wonder of free market capitalism and funnel jobs into their neighborhoods. They will vote Republucan forever

What is stopping you?


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> Fine Republicans....don't want to get the Hispanic vote through big government?  Go for it
> 
> Show Hispanics the wonder of free market capitalism and funnel jobs into their neighborhoods. They will vote Republucan forever
> 
> What is stopping you?



Maybe Republicans should be more Conservative and choose more responsible things to legislate than either of the vote buying, crooked assed, shyster snake oil salesman bullshit ideas a person like you with no principles whatsoever just suggested.

.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Freeloaders. 

Would that include Iowa farmers with crop subsidies and ethanol production incentives? Would that include big oil, with government subsidies? How about Big Pharmacy with a law in force that forbids the government from bargaining their prices, in spite of the fact that Medicare is pharmacies biggest customer? Would that term include those that have offshore bank accounts that are tax avoidance tools, which the republicans just announced that they support? Let me rephrase that question. How can we democrats get in on some of that action? We would like to pick up those votere as well!


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> All republicans need to is provide a reason to vote for them.....should be easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  They could give them the same reason the Democrats do, i.e. a ton of empty promises of what big government is going to do for them, give to them, arrange for them.  The fact that such promises are always dangled juuuuuuuuust out of reach doesn't phase those who are thrown a bone now and then to keep them quiet.  And hopeful for more.
> 
> But let's say the GOP does that.  What does that accomplish other than a one party system populated by professional politicians and bureaucrats who don't really give a damn about anybody so long as they can fool the people long enough to acquire their power, prestige, influence, and massive personal wealth.
> 
> Obama has managed to push the gimme sector over the 50% mark during the last 5 years.  More than 50% of the population now receives at least some kind of benefit from the federal government whether it is their total support or food stamps or a cell phone.  It is very difficult for folks to give up even a meager and/or essentially meaningless benefit once they have it when there is no assurance that it will be replaced with something better in the private sector.
> 
> So the Democrats herd more and more hapless government addicts onto the plantation and solidify their power despite growing discontent as promise after promise is broken. But the politicans and bureaucrats don't care.  They'll have theirs and will be long gone before it all hits the fan.
> 
> And we want the Republicans to do that too just to get into office?  Why?  Why not just disband them and be honest that we would then be the one-party system that would result?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine Republicans....don't want to get the Hispanic vote through big government?  Go for it
> 
> Show Hispanics the wonder of free market capitalism and funnel jobs into their neighborhoods. They will vote Republucan forever
> 
> What is stopping you?
Click to expand...


Count that as another point made that went flying right over RW's head.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  They could give them the same reason the Democrats do, i.e. a ton of empty promises of what big government is going to do for them, give to them, arrange for them.  The fact that such promises are always dangled juuuuuuuuust out of reach doesn't phase those who are thrown a bone now and then to keep them quiet.  And hopeful for more.
> 
> But let's say the GOP does that.  What does that accomplish other than a one party system populated by professional politicians and bureaucrats who don't really give a damn about anybody so long as they can fool the people long enough to acquire their power, prestige, influence, and massive personal wealth.
> 
> Obama has managed to push the gimme sector over the 50% mark during the last 5 years.  More than 50% of the population now receives at least some kind of benefit from the federal government whether it is their total support or food stamps or a cell phone.  It is very difficult for folks to give up even a meager and/or essentially meaningless benefit once they have it when there is no assurance that it will be replaced with something better in the private sector.
> 
> So the Democrats herd more and more hapless government addicts onto the plantation and solidify their power despite growing discontent as promise after promise is broken. But the politicans and bureaucrats don't care.  They'll have theirs and will be long gone before it all hits the fan.
> 
> And we want the Republicans to do that too just to get into office?  Why?  Why not just disband them and be honest that we would then be the one-party system that would result?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine Republicans....don't want to get the Hispanic vote through big government?  Go for it
> 
> Show Hispanics the wonder of free market capitalism and funnel jobs into their neighborhoods. They will vote Republucan forever
> 
> What is stopping you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Count that as another point made that went flying right over RW's head.
Click to expand...


Not at all........Republicans can't keep shouting at the rain

Sooner or later they have to show working Americans that they give a shit about anyone but the rich. Calling people lazy, freeloaders, class envy, redistribution of wealth....whatever the buzz word of the day is

Until Republucans can start to define how they will make people's lives better

They will fail


----------



## Amelia

Gotta love the cocky Dems.

They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.

Look after yourselves, guys.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

The establishment of both parities both want some sort of amnesty. The DNC wants more votes and the GOP wants a cheap work force. Neither party is pure of political motive. My biggest fear is that the left will help the hispanic community in the same way they "helped" the black community. Showering the Hispanic community with empty platitudes and substandard schools is going to force the illegal Hispanic community further in the shadows than they are already. Neither party has the answer of course since getting "votes" and "workers" are far more important than fixing any problem. For those of us who not blinded by hyper-partisanship know that both parties are corrupt, self serving and detached from the American people. 
 What I would propose is to support laws that make it illegal for companies to hire illegal aliens. This would include jail terms and astronomically high fines. In other words, get rid of the magnet. I would also secure the border with the help of high tech surveillance (I love drones! I want to marry one! Don't judge me!). Lastly, once we fixed the illegal's job magnet and border I would allow the people already here to stay (which is my least favorite part of this plan but I'm not going to go chasing 11 million illegals).  This is my plan. You can tell it's a good plan because everybody will find something to hate about it. The establishment entrenched in the GOP and DNC are both going to hate my plan. As far as I'm concerned, that is a good sign.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JohnL.Burke said:


> The establishment of both parities both want some sort of amnesty. The DNC wants more votes and the GOP wants a cheap work force. Neither party is pure of political motive. My biggest fear is that the left will help the hispanic community in the same way they "helped" the black community. Showering the Hispanic community with empty platitudes and substandard schools is going to force the illegal Hispanic community further in the shadows than they are already. Neither party has the answer of course since getting "votes" and "workers" are far more important than fixing any problem. For those of us who not blinded by hyper-partisanship know that both parties are corrupt, self serving and detached from the American people.
> 
> *What I would propose is to support laws that make it illegal for companies to hire illegal aliens. This would include jail terms and astronomically high fines.* In other words, get rid of the magnet. I would also secure the border with the help of high tech surveillance (I love drones! I want to marry one! Don't judge me!). Lastly, once we fixed the illegal's job magnet and border I would allow the people already here to stay (which is my least favorite part of this plan but I'm not going to go chasing 11 million illegals).  This is my plan. You can tell it's a good plan because everybody will find something to hate about it. The establishment entrenched in the GOP and DNC are both going to hate my plan. As far as I'm concerned, that is a good sign.





Nice posting in many ways, and well written.

The bolded: those laws already exist. It is a matter of 

a.) finding such
b.) enforcing


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> Reach honestly to women, Hispanics, and minorities is the path to follow for the GOP.
> 
> Heavens knows the opposite has not worked.




It's sensible people like you that make me miss Gerald Ford, who was a very sensible president thrown into the ring under the worst possible of circumstances.

Were the GOP to have a candidate who thinks as you do, I think he or she could win the full house of cards.


----------



## rightwinger

Amelia said:


> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.



Actually, the Electoral College is getting to the point where Republicans can no longer win the White House. Before the election even starts the Dems have a huge lead in Elecoral votes

Lose the Hispanic vote any more and Florida is no longer a swing state

Making the White House out of reach for the GOP


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the Electoral College is getting to the point where Republicans can no longer win the White House. Before the election even starts the Dems have a huge lead in Elecoral votes*
> 
> Lose the Hispanic vote any more and Florida is no longer a swing state
> 
> Making the White House out of reach for the GOP
Click to expand...



Yes:


Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display


----------



## Amelia

Statistikhengst said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reach honestly to women, Hispanics, and minorities is the path to follow for the GOP.
> 
> Heavens knows the opposite has not worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's sensible people like you that make me miss Gerald Ford, who was a very sensible president thrown into the ring under the worst possible of circumstances.
> 
> Were the GOP to have a candidate who thinks as you do, I think he or she could win the full house of cards.
Click to expand...



Were the GOP to have a candidate who thinks as Jake does, the GOP would be the Democrat party.  Jake loves Obama.  Jake claimed to support Romney but in spite of much questioning he could not provide any reason to justify voting for Romney over Obama, whom he consistently defends. 

You're praising someone who regularly calls even right-leaning moderates such as myself reactionary.  I have spent some time trying to think of a prominent GOP member who comes close to being as far to the left as Jake is and the only name which came to mind was David Brooks but Jake is to the left of Brooks so I had to keep thinking and never found one. 

When you praise Jake, the credibility of the advice you give dips.  You don't yet seem to be flirting with the level of disingenuity of  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] on this front, but if the GOP had a candidate who thought as Jake did the Democrat would still win because the leftwinger with a D after their name will get more votes than the leftwinger with the R after their name.  The one with the D would get the D's and many of the I's.  The one with the R would get some I's and some R's just on principle, but a sizeable swath of R's would stay home or vote Libertarian or almost anyone else rather than vote for a leftwinger.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the Electoral College is getting to the point where Republicans can no longer win the White House. Before the election even starts the Dems have a huge lead in Elecoral votes*
> 
> Lose the Hispanic vote any more and Florida is no longer a swing state
> 
> Making the White House out of reach for the GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes:
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display
Click to expand...


Good stuff

Actually, I see Florida and Virginia moving into the blue column with maybe North Carolina next

I don't see any swing states in danger of going Red


----------



## Vandalshandle

First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.

Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.

Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.


----------



## protectionist

Sallow said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like herding cats
> 
> The immigrants are here. They are working
> 
> Give them a work visa, Make them pay taxes, make them follow the laws, if they are good citizens make them permanent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is insanity.  So you're OK with all these 16 HARMS to the American people ?  With friends like you, the American people don't need enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it "insanity" when the nation started?
> 
> This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.
> 
> The process we now have in place is completely nuts.
> 
> And makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?
> 
> That's nuts.
Click to expand...


NO, it WAS NOT insanity when the nation started.  That's because THEN, the nation was young and undeveloped,and needed people to help build up the nation, and build up a military.  But we're not talking about THEN.  We're talking about what should be done NOW.  We now have 316 Million people. That is 10 times the 30 million that Geographers agree (incidentally I used to teach Geography) is the optimum populatin for the USA relative to its resource base.

And this bloated, crazy overpopulation is the cause of almost all the items on that harms of immigration list.  Nations should take in people if.whenever they NEED to do that.  The last thing the US needs is more people.


----------



## protectionist

Statistikhengst said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION] *makes some very solid and interesting points*.
> 
> I want to tell you all two different small stories:
> 
> My mentor, with whom I apprenticed many, many years ago, is an arch-Conservative. He is a damned fine person with very, very strict Conservative beliefs. In terms of beliefs, he and I are like night and day.
> 
> Ca. 7 years ago, when then President Bush, Jr. tried to push immigration reform through, my mentor was visiting me, we met up not far from Vienna. Over a bottle of wine, as I asked him what he thought about this all, he, an arch-Conservative, said the following to me:
> 
> 1.) It's a shitty situation, built on the backs of both parties.
> 2.) Illegal aliens have built a shadow economy that would better serve our economy were it to come into the open.
> 3.) Most illegal aliens do jobs that most Americans don't want to do.
> 4.) Most illegal aliens come from catholic backgrounds and tend to have a more Conservative worldview, at least at the onset.
> 5.) It would cost far more to root them all up and send them back than to find a way to incorporate them into the Union.
> 6.) If the GOP doesn't do it, one day there will be a DEM president and the DEMS will do it and then they will get the credit.
> 
> And those words came from the mouth of an arch conservative. 7 years ago. Pretty prophetic stuff.
> 
> Second story:
> 
> A man I worked with for a while, a guy who did administrative stuff, once told me that whenever he had to do some kind of disciplinary process on someone, it was always a matter of discerning between intent and perception.  In other words, a person who may have screwed up badly may intend one thing, but it will be perceived in another way.
> 
> And so it is with the GOP. Do I think that most Republicans hate immigrants, esp. illegal immigrants?  *NO, I don't*.
> 
> But there are just enough GOP freaks out there who have had access to a microphone or TV interview, who have said batshit crazy things about illegal immigrants - and let's be clear here: in almost every case they are talking about Latinos - and automatically linking LEGAL immigrants who are Latinos with illegal immigrants. And that is where the GOP shoots itself in the foot every day over this issue. Every single day.
> 
> So, even if many, many Republicans don't intend it, it sure as hell is being perceived that way. Mitt Romney was forced to shoot himself in the foot with the "self-deportation" thing in order to assuage the extreme-right of the GOP and those words came back to bite him squarely in the ass in the fall.
> 
> Now, back to you, Mac: I see no problem with your ideas. But be careful about the children part. Kids born here, irrespective of the nationality of their parents at that time, are US citizens.
> 
> [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION] makes the point - and correctly so imo, that, if we don't completely, hermetically seal the border (meaning, the Texas / Mexico border), then in 20 years, we will be right back where we are now.  Please remember that the Obama administration has put more boots on the ground at the border than any other administration and the Obama adminstration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other, but that is not enough. We may have to build an electronic - and - physical fence, along the entire stretch, without exception.
> 
> My advice to the GOP would be to take part in this, for it is going to happen, anyway. If the GOP kills immigration reform once more, polling is already showing that the Latinos will simply give up on the GOP. There were already strong indications of this in 2012. Latinos really, really liked Bill Clinton. They are going to be crazy for Hillary, mark my word, and if she selects a Latino as her running mate, and I suspect she may just do that, then the sleeping bear that is the Latino vote will awaken.
> 
> What is not acceptable is the excuse on the part of GOPer that Latinos will never vote GOP and so, "fuck 'em". Really?
> 
> *President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote*. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - *as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.*
> 
> I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP. Were the Congress to adopt Obama's proposal from LAST YEAR, then that would mean at least 12 years would have to pass before the first illegal aliens would be naturalized, which means that they would probably first vote in the 2028 elections. Does anyone think that the GOP is SOOOO paralyzed that it cannot convince Latinos on the battlefield of ideas that maybe their party is better, when they would have about 14 years to get the job done? Really?
> 
> Had Republicans been that defeatist in 1980, then the Reagan Revolution would never have happened, for Reagan brought people into the GOP whom most GOPers thought would never sign-up.
> 
> So, those were my two cents.
> 
> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Is VOTING all you are thinking about in this matter ?  What about ALL THIS >>

*Harms of Immigration
*
1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2.    Wage reduction.

3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6.    Increased crime.

7.    Increased traffic congestion.

8.    Increased pollution.

9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11.  Overcrowding in government offices.

12.  Overcrowding in schools.

13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14.  Cultural erosion.

15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obamas calling illegals "no second class citizens" means they get to collect welfare and vote turning Texas blue


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.
> 
> Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.
> 
> Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.



To call an* illegal alien* an _"undocumented worker_ is about the equivalent of calling a bank robber an _*"informal withdrawl agent"*_

As for securing the border, the double fence, mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act, built across the ENTIRE Mexican border, with 5 rows on concertina wire on the American side, would be very effective at stopping border crashers.  As for visa overstayers, just pass a law making that illegal.  As for illegal employers violating IRCA, yes, they can only be held responsible for "knowingly" hiring illegals, BUT much can be done to assist them, such as mandatory E-Verify usage and a mandatory biometric ID system.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Vandalshandle said:


> First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.
> 
> Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.
> 
> Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.



 I get the drift that you didn't read your own post. How can you say there is no such thing as an illegal alien after you wrote about most "illegal aliens" walking through the border patrolled gate. Which is pure nonsense by the way.
 As for the rest of the post, I would agree that I didn't go into details. I simply stated a very general idea of what should be happening. I can post how I think it SHOULD happen but I think the previous post is a pretty good start on how we fix a broken system. Plus it's dinner time and I'm making some tacos. No irony intended.


----------



## Vox

there is an old proverb - better is an enemy of good.

our immigration law is working perfectly well - if anybody would like to use it and PAY.

advice for GOP - if you do not want to be ruined completely - forget about immigration. IGNORE it. Pull the harry reid card on all talks about immigration.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.
> 
> Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.
> 
> Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To call an* illegal alien* an _"undocumented worker_ is about the equivalent of calling a bank robber an _*"informal withdrawl agent"*_
> 
> As for securing the border, the double fence, mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act, built across the ENTIRE Mexican border, with 5 rows on concertina wire on the American side, would be very effective at stopping border crashers.  As for visa overstayers, just pass a law making that illegal.  As for illegal employers violating IRCA, yes, they can only be held responsible for "knowingly" hiring illegals, BUT much can be done to assist them, such as mandatory E-Verify usage and a mandatory biometric ID system.
Click to expand...




You are not so obtuse as to believe that there is such a thing in the legal world as a "bank robber" until a court of law convicts him as such. Until that date, he is an "alleged bank robber". There is no law against hiring an "alleged illegal alien".


----------



## Vandalshandle

JohnL.Burke said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.
> 
> Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.
> 
> Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get the drift that you didn't read your own post. How can you say there is no such thing as an illegal alien after you wrote about most "illegal aliens" walking through the border patrolled gate. Which is pure nonsense by the way.
> As for the rest of the post, I would agree that I didn't go into details. I simply stated a very general idea of what should be happening. I can post how I think it SHOULD happen but I think the previous post is a pretty good start on how we fix a broken system. Plus it's dinner time and I'm making some tacos. No irony intended.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. not "Most" illegal aliens mearly overstayed their visa. *Only 40% of them.*

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...arter-claim-40-percent-nations-illegal-resid/

I live 35 miles from the border. of the other 60%, about half, or more, come through hidden on trucks and busses and trains. Good luck with stopping that with a fence and drones.


----------



## Howey

protectionist said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is insanity.  So you're OK with all these 16 HARMS to the American people ?  With friends like you, the American people don't need enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "insanity" when the nation started?
> 
> This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.
> 
> The process we now have in place is completely nuts.
> 
> And makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?
> 
> That's nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it WAS NOT insanity when the nation started.  That's because THEN, the nation was young and undeveloped,and needed people to help build up the nation, and build up a military.  But we're not talking about THEN.  We're talking about what should be done NOW.  We now have 316 Million people.
Click to expand...

 
Interesting...are you one of those people who believe the Constitution should be taken literally today too, just like when our country was in it's infancy?


----------



## BlackSand

Sallow said:


> Was it "insanity" when the nation started?
> 
> This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.
> 
> The process we now have in place is completely nuts.
> 
> And makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?
> 
> That's nuts.



We understand you and people in the Democrat party want to import more poor people ... Everybody needs more poor people.
We cannot take care of those we have ... So we need to make sure we get some more.

.


----------



## rightwinger

protectionist said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I clearly am missing something when it comes to this topic.  Here's what I'd like to see, someone please tell me why it's so terrible:
> 
> If you're here, you get guest worker status.  You can work and you pay our taxes.
> When you get guest worker status, you go to the back of the immigration line.
> Your kids have the same status.
> You work (kids go to school) while you're waiting your turn.
> When you reach the front of the line, you're in.
> This seems so simple.  What am I missing?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION] *makes some very solid and interesting points*.
> 
> I want to tell you all two different small stories:
> 
> My mentor, with whom I apprenticed many, many years ago, is an arch-Conservative. He is a damned fine person with very, very strict Conservative beliefs. In terms of beliefs, he and I are like night and day.
> 
> Ca. 7 years ago, when then President Bush, Jr. tried to push immigration reform through, my mentor was visiting me, we met up not far from Vienna. Over a bottle of wine, as I asked him what he thought about this all, he, an arch-Conservative, said the following to me:
> 
> 1.) It's a shitty situation, built on the backs of both parties.
> 2.) Illegal aliens have built a shadow economy that would better serve our economy were it to come into the open.
> 3.) Most illegal aliens do jobs that most Americans don't want to do.
> 4.) Most illegal aliens come from catholic backgrounds and tend to have a more Conservative worldview, at least at the onset.
> 5.) It would cost far more to root them all up and send them back than to find a way to incorporate them into the Union.
> 6.) If the GOP doesn't do it, one day there will be a DEM president and the DEMS will do it and then they will get the credit.
> 
> And those words came from the mouth of an arch conservative. 7 years ago. Pretty prophetic stuff.
> 
> Second story:
> 
> A man I worked with for a while, a guy who did administrative stuff, once told me that whenever he had to do some kind of disciplinary process on someone, it was always a matter of discerning between intent and perception.  In other words, a person who may have screwed up badly may intend one thing, but it will be perceived in another way.
> 
> And so it is with the GOP. Do I think that most Republicans hate immigrants, esp. illegal immigrants?  *NO, I don't*.
> 
> But there are just enough GOP freaks out there who have had access to a microphone or TV interview, who have said batshit crazy things about illegal immigrants - and let's be clear here: in almost every case they are talking about Latinos - and automatically linking LEGAL immigrants who are Latinos with illegal immigrants. And that is where the GOP shoots itself in the foot every day over this issue. Every single day.
> 
> So, even if many, many Republicans don't intend it, it sure as hell is being perceived that way. Mitt Romney was forced to shoot himself in the foot with the "self-deportation" thing in order to assuage the extreme-right of the GOP and those words came back to bite him squarely in the ass in the fall.
> 
> Now, back to you, Mac: I see no problem with your ideas. But be careful about the children part. Kids born here, irrespective of the nationality of their parents at that time, are US citizens.
> 
> [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION] makes the point - and correctly so imo, that, if we don't completely, hermetically seal the border (meaning, the Texas / Mexico border), then in 20 years, we will be right back where we are now.  Please remember that the Obama administration has put more boots on the ground at the border than any other administration and the Obama adminstration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other, but that is not enough. We may have to build an electronic - and - physical fence, along the entire stretch, without exception.
> 
> My advice to the GOP would be to take part in this, for it is going to happen, anyway. If the GOP kills immigration reform once more, polling is already showing that the Latinos will simply give up on the GOP. There were already strong indications of this in 2012. Latinos really, really liked Bill Clinton. They are going to be crazy for Hillary, mark my word, and if she selects a Latino as her running mate, and I suspect she may just do that, then the sleeping bear that is the Latino vote will awaken.
> 
> What is not acceptable is the excuse on the part of GOPer that Latinos will never vote GOP and so, "fuck 'em". Really?
> 
> *President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote*. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - *as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.*
> 
> I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP. Were the Congress to adopt Obama's proposal from LAST YEAR, then that would mean at least 12 years would have to pass before the first illegal aliens would be naturalized, which means that they would probably first vote in the 2028 elections. Does anyone think that the GOP is SOOOO paralyzed that it cannot convince Latinos on the battlefield of ideas that maybe their party is better, when they would have about 14 years to get the job done? Really?
> 
> Had Republicans been that defeatist in 1980, then the Reagan Revolution would never have happened, for Reagan brought people into the GOP whom most GOPers thought would never sign-up.
> 
> So, those were my two cents.
> 
> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is VOTING all you are thinking about in this matter ?  What about ALL THIS >>
> 
> *Harms of Immigration
> *
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
Click to expand...


Is there anthing in there that hasn't been said about every group of immgrants? Irish, Chinese, Polish, Italian.....


----------



## rightwinger

BlackSand said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "insanity" when the nation started?
> 
> This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.
> 
> The process we now have in place is completely nuts.
> 
> And makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?
> 
> That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand you and people in the Democrat party want to import more poor people ... Everybody needs more poor people.
> We cannot take care of those we have ... So we need to make sure we get some more.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families


----------



## Geaux4it

rightwinger said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "insanity" when the nation started?
> 
> This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.
> 
> The process we now have in place is completely nuts.
> 
> And makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?
> 
> That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand you and people in the Democrat party want to import more poor people ... Everybody needs more poor people.
> We cannot take care of those we have ... So we need to make sure we get some more.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families
Click to expand...


That's fine. Easier for ICE to find them all in one spot.

Round em up and send them home then have them start over at the front door the right way

That's not to much to ask.

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand you and people in the Democrat party want to import more poor people ... Everybody needs more poor people.
> We cannot take care of those we have ... So we need to make sure we get some more.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine. Easier for ICE to find them all in one spot.
> 
> Round em up and send them home then have them start over at the front door the right way
> 
> That's not to much to ask.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Herding cats


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "insanity" when the nation started?
> 
> This is a nation of immigrants. What we have now is people that want to slam the door making the rules on immigration.
> 
> The process we now have in place is completely nuts.
> 
> And makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> If you are rich you can buy your way into citizenship..but poor folks are barred?
> 
> That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand you and people in the Democrat party want to import more poor people ... Everybody needs more poor people.
> We cannot take care of those we have ... So we need to make sure we get some more.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with wanting to import more and the fact we don't take care of the ones we have?
Well ... I mean what other than supplying votes for Democrats and Liberals do the two have in common?

Save your sales pitch for someone else.

.


----------



## rightwinger

BlackSand said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand you and people in the Democrat party want to import more poor people ... Everybody needs more poor people.
> We cannot take care of those we have ... So we need to make sure we get some more.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with wanting to import more and the fact we don't take care of the ones we have?
> Well ... I mean what other than supplying votes for Democrats and Liberals do the two have in common?
> 
> Save your sales pitch for someone else.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It s you who keeps talking about importing more

I am talking about how Hispanic citizens refuse to vote Republican


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.
> 
> Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.
> 
> Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To call an* illegal alien* an _"undocumented worker_ is about the equivalent of calling a bank robber an _*"informal withdrawl agent"*_
> 
> As for securing the border, the double fence, mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act, built across the ENTIRE Mexican border, with 5 rows on concertina wire on the American side, would be very effective at stopping border crashers.  As for visa overstayers, just pass a law making that illegal.  As for illegal employers violating IRCA, yes, they can only be held responsible for "knowingly" hiring illegals, BUT much can be done to assist them, such as mandatory E-Verify usage and a mandatory biometric ID system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not so obtuse as to believe that there is such a thing in the legal world as a "bank robber" until a court of law convicts him as such. Until that date, he is an "alleged bank robber". There is no law against hiring an "alleged illegal alien".
Click to expand...


1.  As I duly noted in my post that you quoted, so what's your problem ?

2.  However, if/whenever the "alleged" illegal alien is shown to BE an illegal alien, and it's shown that the employer could have and should have known this, then that employer can be held liable for having violated the IRCA, and will face consequences.  From the employer's point of view, there has to always be some degree of risk in all this, and this all is something I personally would not be comfortable with.  When you come right down to it, when prison and large fines are around the corner, don't get greedy.
And if you can't afford to function without cheap, foreign labor, you're not prepared to be in business in the first place. Stay out of it.  Get a job.

3.  Definition of *"bank robber"*  >>  One who robs a bank.


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with wanting to import more and the fact we don't take care of the ones we have?
> Well ... I mean what other than supplying votes for Democrats and Liberals do the two have in common?
> 
> Save your sales pitch for someone else.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It s you who keeps talking about importing more
> 
> I am talking about how Hispanic citizens refuse to vote Republican
Click to expand...


No it isn't me ... It was in the post I commented on.

_"This country was built by immigrants ... Blah-Blah-Blah ... Rich people can buy their way into citizenship ... but poor people are barred ... Blah-Blah-Blah."_
Illegal immigrants don't buy their way into citizenship ... So that would be talking about people who aren't here buying their way in ... And those who cannot afford it being barred.

If you cannot read then that is not my problem.
The only people who want to buy anything are Liberals and Democrats like you ... And you want to buy votes with legislative policies.
Sell your bullshit elsewhere ... You lying liberal, snake oil selling, sack of excrement.

.


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=34298]Mac1958[/MENTION] *makes some very solid and interesting points*.
> 
> I want to tell you all two different small stories:
> 
> My mentor, with whom I apprenticed many, many years ago, is an arch-Conservative. He is a damned fine person with very, very strict Conservative beliefs. In terms of beliefs, he and I are like night and day.
> 
> Ca. 7 years ago, when then President Bush, Jr. tried to push immigration reform through, my mentor was visiting me, we met up not far from Vienna. Over a bottle of wine, as I asked him what he thought about this all, he, an arch-Conservative, said the following to me:
> 
> 1.) It's a shitty situation, built on the backs of both parties.
> 2.) Illegal aliens have built a shadow economy that would better serve our economy were it to come into the open.
> 3.) Most illegal aliens do jobs that most Americans don't want to do.
> 4.) Most illegal aliens come from catholic backgrounds and tend to have a more Conservative worldview, at least at the onset.
> 5.) It would cost far more to root them all up and send them back than to find a way to incorporate them into the Union.
> 6.) If the GOP doesn't do it, one day there will be a DEM president and the DEMS will do it and then they will get the credit.
> 
> And those words came from the mouth of an arch conservative. 7 years ago. Pretty prophetic stuff.
> 
> Second story:
> 
> A man I worked with for a while, a guy who did administrative stuff, once told me that whenever he had to do some kind of disciplinary process on someone, it was always a matter of discerning between intent and perception.  In other words, a person who may have screwed up badly may intend one thing, but it will be perceived in another way.
> 
> And so it is with the GOP. Do I think that most Republicans hate immigrants, esp. illegal immigrants?  *NO, I don't*.
> 
> But there are just enough GOP freaks out there who have had access to a microphone or TV interview, who have said batshit crazy things about illegal immigrants - and let's be clear here: in almost every case they are talking about Latinos - and automatically linking LEGAL immigrants who are Latinos with illegal immigrants. And that is where the GOP shoots itself in the foot every day over this issue. Every single day.
> 
> So, even if many, many Republicans don't intend it, it sure as hell is being perceived that way. Mitt Romney was forced to shoot himself in the foot with the "self-deportation" thing in order to assuage the extreme-right of the GOP and those words came back to bite him squarely in the ass in the fall.
> 
> Now, back to you, Mac: I see no problem with your ideas. But be careful about the children part. Kids born here, irrespective of the nationality of their parents at that time, are US citizens.
> 
> [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION] makes the point - and correctly so imo, that, if we don't completely, hermetically seal the border (meaning, the Texas / Mexico border), then in 20 years, we will be right back where we are now.  Please remember that the Obama administration has put more boots on the ground at the border than any other administration and the Obama adminstration has deported more illegal immigrants than any other, but that is not enough. We may have to build an electronic - and - physical fence, along the entire stretch, without exception.
> 
> My advice to the GOP would be to take part in this, for it is going to happen, anyway. If the GOP kills immigration reform once more, polling is already showing that the Latinos will simply give up on the GOP. There were already strong indications of this in 2012. Latinos really, really liked Bill Clinton. They are going to be crazy for Hillary, mark my word, and if she selects a Latino as her running mate, and I suspect she may just do that, then the sleeping bear that is the Latino vote will awaken.
> 
> What is not acceptable is the excuse on the part of GOPer that Latinos will never vote GOP and so, "fuck 'em". Really?
> 
> *President George W. Bush, Jr, got 45% of the Latino vote*. A real GOP outreach could possibly bring the GOP more, but the situation is absolutely hopeless for the GOP so long as it continues to demonize Latinos, plain and simple. Whether or not it is intended, it is being perceived so. And as long as you have assholes like Rep. King from Iowa talking about Latino drug-dealing teenagers with calves the size of melons or a total whackazoid like Tommy Tancredo calling for literacy tests for LEGAL immigrants to be able to vote whilst also saying that we should nuke Mecca, or Louis Gohmert babbling on and on and on about El Quaida getting in bed with Mexicans so as to smuggle over "anchor babies" who will then grow up to blow up our cities - *as long as your team has these kind of absolutely batshit crazy nutz going around doing this kind of shit, the Latino community will never, ever trust you.*
> 
> I also would like to know why Republicans are so damned defeatist about their chances at recruiting Latinos into the GOP. Were the Congress to adopt Obama's proposal from LAST YEAR, then that would mean at least 12 years would have to pass before the first illegal aliens would be naturalized, which means that they would probably first vote in the 2028 elections. Does anyone think that the GOP is SOOOO paralyzed that it cannot convince Latinos on the battlefield of ideas that maybe their party is better, when they would have about 14 years to get the job done? Really?
> 
> Had Republicans been that defeatist in 1980, then the Reagan Revolution would never have happened, for Reagan brought people into the GOP whom most GOPers thought would never sign-up.
> 
> So, those were my two cents.
> 
> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is VOTING all you are thinking about in this matter ?  What about ALL THIS >>
> 
> *Harms of Immigration
> *
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there anthing in there that hasn't been said about every group of immgrants? Irish, Chinese, Polish, Italian.....
Click to expand...


You think I care which immigrants are coming here ?  In my book, *an immigrant is an immigrant.*  Period.


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, "securing our borders" is GOP double talk. Most illegal aliens walked right through the border patroled gate, with visa's which they just overstayed. All the drones and survielance equipment in the world isn't going to stop that.
> 
> Second, fining and punishing those that hire aliens is another piecie of GOP doubletalk. There is no such thing as an illegal alien, until a court of law has made that determination. You can fine and punish a company for hiring an undocumented worker, but only if he has not been given forged documentation that complies with those listed in the law that are good enough that a reasonable man would not know that they were false. I will be pleased to tell any poster here how to get legitament documented paperwork of a new identity, including a birth certificate, driver's license, and voter registration card...all issued by the legal authorities, for the sum of $1. It makes no difference to the GOP that more illegal aliens have been deported under the Obama administration than under any other admisistration. The whole issue is a smokescreen.
> 
> Not that I am complaining, however, The more the GOP villifies Hispanics...., well, you get the drift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get the drift that you didn't read your own post. How can you say there is no such thing as an illegal alien after you wrote about most "illegal aliens" walking through the border patrolled gate. Which is pure nonsense by the way.
> As for the rest of the post, I would agree that I didn't go into details. I simply stated a very general idea of what should be happening. I can post how I think it SHOULD happen but I think the previous post is a pretty good start on how we fix a broken system. Plus it's dinner time and I'm making some tacos. No irony intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. not "Most" illegal aliens mearly overstayed their visa. *Only 40% of them.*
> 
> John Carter claim that 40 percent of nation's illegal residents came by plane and overstayed visas draws on 2006 estimate | PolitiFact Texas
> 
> I live 35 miles from the border. of the other 60%, about half, or more, come through hidden on trucks and busses and trains. Good luck with stopping that with a fence and drones.
Click to expand...


As it is with most problems , they need to be handled in a variety of ways to guard against a variety of situations.  The fence is part of that. So is the transportation factor, birthright citizenship, sanctuary cities, the overstaying of visas (which ought to be eliminated almost entirely), and the practice of US politicians sucking up to vested interest bribers, instead of doing what's best for America, as they're supposed to.

Lastly, there is the necessity of dealing with Mexico, who is nothing less than an enemy invader that needs a US president to stand up to them.  President James K. Polk, wish you were here now Mr. President.  You too, Ike.

http://images-cdn.lancasteronline.com/23357_640.jpg


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> All republicans need to is provide a reason to vote for them.....should be easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  They could give them the same reason the Democrats do, i.e. a ton of empty promises of what big government is going to do for them, give to them, arrange for them.  The fact that such promises are always dangled juuuuuuuuust out of reach doesn't phase those who are thrown a bone now and then to keep them quiet.  And hopeful for more.
> 
> But let's say the GOP does that.  What does that accomplish other than a one party system populated by professional politicians and bureaucrats who don't really give a damn about anybody so long as they can fool the people long enough to acquire their power, prestige, influence, and massive personal wealth.
> 
> Obama has managed to push the gimme sector over the 50% mark during the last 5 years.  More than 50% of the population now receives at least some kind of benefit from the federal government whether it is their total support or food stamps or a cell phone.  It is very difficult for folks to give up even a meager and/or essentially meaningless benefit once they have it when there is no assurance that it will be replaced with something better in the private sector.
> 
> So the Democrats herd more and more hapless government addicts onto the plantation and solidify their power despite growing discontent as promise after promise is broken. But the politicans and bureaucrats don't care.  They'll have theirs and will be long gone before it all hits the fan.
> 
> And we want the Republicans to do that too just to get into office?  Why?  Why not just disband them and be honest that we would then be the one-party system that would result?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine Republicans....don't want to get the Hispanic vote through big government?  Go for it
> 
> Show Hispanics the wonder of free market capitalism and funnel jobs into their neighborhoods. They will vote Republucan forever
> 
> What is stopping you?
Click to expand...


Republicans can show Hispanics lots of thing that Hispanics value highly, without mentioning a word about free market capitalism.  They can show how those Hispanics, like any other Americans should be from all the harms of immigration (any immigration from anywhere).  They show a greater respect for the family unit and marriage as being between a man and a woman.  They can show more emphasis on punishment for criminals, like the death penalty, whenever applicable.  They can show a better and stronger resistance to Islamization, a threat to Christianity (most Hispanics are Catholics).  They can show a better resistance to Muslim terrorism.

Harms of Immigration

1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2.    Wage reduction.

3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6.    Increased crime.

7.    Increased traffic congestion.

8.    Increased pollution.

9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11.  Overcrowding in government offices.

12.  Overcrowding in schools.

13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14.  Cultural erosion.

15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.


----------



## rightwinger

protectionist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is VOTING all you are thinking about in this matter ?  What about ALL THIS >>
> 
> *Harms of Immigration
> *
> 1.    Americans lose jobs.  (especially Whites due to affirmative action).
> 
> 2.    Wage reduction.
> 
> 3.    Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).
> 
> 4.    Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).
> 
> 5.    Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.
> 
> 6.    Increased crime.
> 
> 7.    Increased traffic congestion.
> 
> 8.    Increased pollution.
> 
> 9.    Overcrowding in hospital ERs.
> 
> 10.  Overcrowding in recreational facilities.
> 
> 11.  Overcrowding in government offices.
> 
> 12.  Overcrowding in schools.
> 
> 13.  Decrease in funds available for entitlements.
> 
> 14.  Cultural erosion.
> 
> 15.  Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)
> 
> 16.  Introduction of foreign diseases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anthing in there that hasn't been said about every group of immgrants? Irish, Chinese, Polish, Italian.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I care which immigrants are coming here ?  In my book, *an immigrant is an immigrant.*  Period.
Click to expand...


Native Americans said the same thing


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those poor people are already here. Doing work and raising families
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with wanting to import more and the fact we don't take care of the ones we have?
> Well ... I mean what other than supplying votes for Democrats and Liberals do the two have in common?
> 
> Save your sales pitch for someone else.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It s you who keeps talking about importing more
> 
> I am talking about how Hispanic citizens refuse to vote Republican
Click to expand...


The Hispanic vote is overrated.  It is only 9% of the total national vote  And less than that in most states elections.  Hispanics also vote less than whites and blacks.  Only 52% of Hispanics vote compared to 66% of whites, and 65% of blacks.  

Lastly, the common opinion is that the Hispanic vote for Democrats is increasing.  Actually, over the past 8 years, it has been Decreasing.  69% in 2006. 67% in 2008.  60% in 2010. Over the same time, the Hispanic vote for Republicans has been on the INcrease.  30% to 31% to 38%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_American_politics


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anthing in there that hasn't been said about every group of immgrants? Irish, Chinese, Polish, Italian.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I care which immigrants are coming here ?  In my book, *an immigrant is an immigrant.*  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans said the same thing
Click to expand...


You mean American Indians.  Anyone born in America is a _"Native American"_.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To call an* illegal alien* an _"undocumented worker_ is about the equivalent of calling a bank robber an _*"informal withdrawl agent"*_
> 
> As for securing the border, the double fence, mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act, built across the ENTIRE Mexican border, with 5 rows on concertina wire on the American side, would be very effective at stopping border crashers.  As for visa overstayers, just pass a law making that illegal.  As for illegal employers violating IRCA, yes, they can only be held responsible for "knowingly" hiring illegals, BUT much can be done to assist them, such as mandatory E-Verify usage and a mandatory biometric ID system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not so obtuse as to believe that there is such a thing in the legal world as a "bank robber" until a court of law convicts him as such. Until that date, he is an "alleged bank robber". There is no law against hiring an "alleged illegal alien".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  As I duly noted in my post that you quoted, so what's your problem ?
> 
> 2.  However, if/whenever the "alleged" illegal alien is shown to BE an illegal alien, and it's shown that the employer could have and should have known this, then that employer can be held liable for having violated the IRCA, and will face consequences.  From the employer's point of view, there has to always be some degree of risk in all this, and this all is something I personally would not be comfortable with.  When you come right down to it, when prison and large fines are around the corner, don't get greedy.
> And if you can't afford to function without cheap, foreign labor, you're not prepared to be in business in the first place. Stay out of it.  Get a job.
> 
> 3.  Definition of *"bank robber"*  >>  One who robs a bank.
Click to expand...


Tell ya what, Protect. Go into a court of law, and call the denfendent charged, but not convicted, of bank robbery a "bank robber", and count the seconds before his attorney objects, and the judge sustains.... I take back my doubt that you are not so obtuse as to understand that. Obviously, you are.


----------



## Amelia

Vandalshandle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not so obtuse as to believe that there is such a thing in the legal world as a "bank robber" until a court of law convicts him as such. Until that date, he is an "alleged bank robber". There is no law against hiring an "alleged illegal alien".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  As I duly noted in my post that you quoted, so what's your problem ?
> 
> 2.  However, if/whenever the "alleged" illegal alien is shown to BE an illegal alien, and it's shown that the employer could have and should have known this, then that employer can be held liable for having violated the IRCA, and will face consequences.  From the employer's point of view, there has to always be some degree of risk in all this, and this all is something I personally would not be comfortable with.  When you come right down to it, when prison and large fines are around the corner, don't get greedy.
> And if you can't afford to function without cheap, foreign labor, you're not prepared to be in business in the first place. Stay out of it.  Get a job.
> 
> 3.  Definition of *"bank robber"*  >>  One who robs a bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell ya what, Protect. Go into a court of law, and call the denfendent charged, but not convicted, of bank robbery a "bank robber", and count the seconds before his attorney objects, and the judge sustains.... I take back my doubt that you are not so obtuse as to understand that. Obviously, you are.
Click to expand...




The robber is not in Schrodinger's box.  

An unconvicted robber is still a robber.  

Someone who is in this country in violation of our laws is an illegal alien.  Getting caught or convicted is not what makes someone's presence here illegal.


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not so obtuse as to believe that there is such a thing in the legal world as a "bank robber" until a court of law convicts him as such. Until that date, he is an "alleged bank robber". There is no law against hiring an "alleged illegal alien".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  As I duly noted in my post that you quoted, so what's your problem ?
> 
> 2.  However, if/whenever the "alleged" illegal alien is shown to BE an illegal alien, and it's shown that the employer could have and should have known this, then that employer can be held liable for having violated the IRCA, and will face consequences.  From the employer's point of view, there has to always be some degree of risk in all this, and this all is something I personally would not be comfortable with.  When you come right down to it, when prison and large fines are around the corner, don't get greedy.
> And if you can't afford to function without cheap, foreign labor, you're not prepared to be in business in the first place. Stay out of it.  Get a job.
> 
> 3.  Definition of *"bank robber"*  >>  One who robs a bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell ya what, Protect. Go into a court of law, and call the defendent charged, but not convicted, of bank robbery a "bank robber", and count the seconds before his attorney objects, and the judge sustains.... I take back my doubt that you are not so obtuse as to understand that. Obviously, you are.
Click to expand...


You may tell me anything you like, but a bank robber is > One who robs a bank. 

Just curious though.  Suppose someone robbed a bank and was tried and convicted of it.  Would you say on the date that he robbed that bank that he wasn't a bank robber ?  That's OK you don't have to answer. * He was a bank robber* because he robbed the bank , even if he got away and wasn't even arrested.  You may come back down to earth now.  Your little ploy didn't fly.


----------



## Vandalshandle

protectionist said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  As I duly noted in my post that you quoted, so what's your problem ?
> 
> 2.  However, if/whenever the "alleged" illegal alien is shown to BE an illegal alien, and it's shown that the employer could have and should have known this, then that employer can be held liable for having violated the IRCA, and will face consequences.  From the employer's point of view, there has to always be some degree of risk in all this, and this all is something I personally would not be comfortable with.  When you come right down to it, when prison and large fines are around the corner, don't get greedy.
> And if you can't afford to function without cheap, foreign labor, you're not prepared to be in business in the first place. Stay out of it.  Get a job.
> 
> 3.  Definition of *"bank robber"*  >>  One who robs a bank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what, Protect. Go into a court of law, and call the defendent charged, but not convicted, of bank robbery a "bank robber", and count the seconds before his attorney objects, and the judge sustains.... I take back my doubt that you are not so obtuse as to understand that. Obviously, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may tell me anything you like, but a bank robber is > One who robs a bank.
> 
> Just curious though.  Suppose someone robbed a bank and was tried and convicted of it.  Would you say on the date that he robbed that bank that he wasn't a bank robber ?  That's OK you don't have to answer. * He was a bank robber* because he robbed the bank , even if he got away and wasn't even arrested.  You may come back down to earth now.  Your little ploy didn't fly.
Click to expand...




To parapharase a line in the 1972 movie, "Paper Chase", "Here is a dime, Protect. Use it to call your mother and tell her that there is very little chance of you graduating from Law school".


----------



## protectionist

Vandalshandle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what, Protect. Go into a court of law, and call the defendent charged, but not convicted, of bank robbery a "bank robber", and count the seconds before his attorney objects, and the judge sustains.... I take back my doubt that you are not so obtuse as to understand that. Obviously, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may tell me anything you like, but a bank robber is > One who robs a bank.
> 
> Just curious though.  Suppose someone robbed a bank and was tried and convicted of it.  Would you say on the date that he robbed that bank that he wasn't a bank robber ?  That's OK you don't have to answer. * He was a bank robber* because he robbed the bank , even if he got away and wasn't even arrested.  You may come back down to earth now.  Your little ploy didn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To parapharase a line in the 1972 movie, "Paper Chase", "Here is a dime, Protect. Use it to call your mother and tell her that there is very little chance of you graduating from Law school".
Click to expand...


In case it hasn't dawned on you yet (and apparently not), as Amelia and I have both pointed out to you, everything isn't confined into a box of legal/illegal.  What is illegal is illegal regardless of any official legal action.  If I play the guitar, I play the guitar.  That fact doesn't need a legal proclamation to support it.  If a boy catches a fish, he has caught that fish and he is a fisherman.  No law school study necessary.  And if a bank robber robs a bank, whether he's caught or not, he still is a bank robber, and he still robbed that bank.  Get it ?

  I don't need to go to law school, and you do seem to need a special school.  One that can teach you how to think.

As for calling my mother, she is deceased, and if you had an ounce of decency, you wouldn't be injecting someone's mother into the discussion in the first place.


----------



## Vandalshandle

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wOUMd3bMRI]The Paper Chase (1973) - SON OF A BITCH KINGSFIELD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Amelia said:


> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.



You do have to wonder, don't you.     I somehow just can't imagine a leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class/Democrat being too sincere in helping the GOP.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to wonder, don't you.     I somehow just can't imagine a leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class/Democrat being too sincere in helping the GOP.
Click to expand...


Its not like the GOP listens to anyone anyway

They will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation and then blame the media and "free stuff"


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to wonder, don't you.     I somehow just can't imagine a leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class/Democrat being too sincere in helping the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not like the GOP listens to anyone anyway
> 
> They will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation and then blame the media and "free stuff"
Click to expand...


Well, unless you want to characterize Hispanics as blithering idiots, then there isn't much else other than a partisan media and free stuff to blame for them voting Democrat.  The Republicans have been far more beneficial to the Hispanic community than the Democrats have been.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to wonder, don't you.     I somehow just can't imagine a leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class/Democrat being too sincere in helping the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not like the GOP listens to anyone anyway
> 
> They will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation and then blame the media and "free stuff"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless you want to characterize Hispanics as blithering idiots, then there isn't much else other than a partisan media and free stuff to blame for them voting Democrat.  The Republicans have been far more beneficial to the Hispanic community than the Democrats have been.
Click to expand...


Have they?

Seems you would be able to do a far better job of convincing Hispanics than the paltry 27% vote in the last election


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the cocky Dems.
> 
> They get the White House in a set of circumstances they won't be able to duplicate and the president's appeal is dwindling, they squander the Congress, the Senate is in jeopardy, Republicans swept the state houses in 2010 and have the wind at their back for 2014, but Dems are full of oh so helpful advice for us.
> 
> Look after yourselves, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to wonder, don't you.     I somehow just can't imagine a leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class/Democrat being too sincere in helping the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not like the GOP listens to anyone anyway
> 
> They will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation and then blame the media and "free stuff"
Click to expand...


The Hispanic vote hardly even exists.  Less than 10% of registered voters, and they vote less than blacks or whites.  They're notorious for not showing up at the polling centers.


----------



## rightwinger

protectionist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have to wonder, don't you.     I somehow just can't imagine a leftist/liberal/progressive/statist/political class/Democrat being too sincere in helping the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not like the GOP listens to anyone anyway
> 
> They will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation and then blame the media and "free stuff"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Hispanic vote hardly even exists.  Less than 10% of registered voters, and they vote less than blacks or whites.  They're notorious for not showing up at the polling centers.
Click to expand...


Interesting...

I imagine you can back that up with a link


----------



## Synthaholic

_*"SAY GOODBYE REPUBLICANS" if you pull this shit, might as well eliminate the party...*_


If it was good enough for St. Ronnie Of The RKO, it should be good enough for today's fake conservatives.


----------



## Synthaholic

protectionist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think I care which immigrants are coming here ?  In my book, *an immigrant is an immigrant.*  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans said the same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean American Indians.  Anyone born in America is a _"Native American"_.
Click to expand...

That's laughably false.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Synthaholic said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans said the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Indians.  Anyone born in America is a _"Native American"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably false.
Click to expand...



Yepp.


----------



## protectionist

rightwinger said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not like the GOP listens to anyone anyway
> 
> They will lose the Hispanic vote for a generation and then blame the media and "free stuff"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hispanic vote hardly even exists.  Less than 10% of registered voters, and they vote less than blacks or whites.  They're notorious for not showing up at the polling centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> I imagine you can back that up with a link
Click to expand...


I already did just a few pages ago IN THIS THREAD.  Try to keep up.


----------



## protectionist

Synthaholic said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans said the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Indians.  Anyone born in America is a _"Native American"_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's laughably false.
Click to expand...


No it's not.  If you're born in Mexico, you're a native Mexican.  If you're born in Denmark, you're a native Dane.  If you're born in America, you're a native American.  Why would you say that's false ?  Strange thing to say.

Again: the correct term for the people you're referring to is *American Indians*. Any other term is confusing, and not necessarily correct.  How would you call a person of the Apache tribe, and who speaks that language, if they were born in Mexico ? Or Australia ? Or a member of the Blackfeet tribe (ordinarily located in Montana), if they were born in Canada ? Or England ?

It's like the term African-American, used to describe Black people.  Again, FALSE terminology.  I've known 3 people who are correctly known as African Americans, who immigrated to the United States, and became US citizens.  One was born in Botswana.  One in Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). And one born in Tanzania. All 3 are White.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

protectionist said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Indians.  Anyone born in America is a _"Native American"_.
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  If you're born in Mexico, you're a native Mexican.  If you're born in Denmark, you're a native Dane.  If you're born in America, you're a native American.  Why would you say that's false ?  Strange thing to say.
> 
> Again: the correct term for the people you're referring to is *American Indians*. Any other term is confusing, and not necessarily correct.  How would you call a person of the Apache tribe, and who speaks that language, if they were born in Mexico ? Or Australia ? Or a member of the Blackfeet tribe (ordinarily located in Montana), if they were born in Canada ? Or England ?
> 
> It's like the term African-American, used to describe Black people.  Again, FALSE terminology.  I've known 3 people who are correctly known as African Americans, who immigrated to the United States, and became US citizens.  One was born in Botswana.  One in Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). And one born in Tanzania. All 3 are White.
Click to expand...


Very good point. In the mad rush to distance ourselves from the term "Indian" we inadvertently created a paradox that convoluted the meaning of the word "native." 

American Indians were not originally native to America in the first place - they had to cross the barring straight to get here.


----------



## Synthaholic

protectionist said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean American Indians.  Anyone born in America is a _"Native American"_.
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  If you're born in Mexico, you're a native Mexican.  If you're born in Denmark, you're a native Dane.  If you're born in America, you're a native American.  Why would you say that's false ?  Strange thing to say.
> 
> Again: the correct term for the people you're referring to is *American Indians*. Any other term is confusing, and not necessarily correct.  How would you call a person of the Apache tribe, and who speaks that language, if they were born in Mexico ? Or Australia ? Or a member of the Blackfeet tribe (ordinarily located in Montana), if they were born in Canada ? Or England ?
> 
> It's like the term African-American, used to describe Black people.  Again, FALSE terminology.  I've known 3 people who are correctly known as African Americans, who immigrated to the United States, and became US citizens.  One was born in Botswana.  One in Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). And one born in Tanzania. All 3 are White.
Click to expand...

They are only referred to as 'Indians' because the first Europeans to come here thought they were Indians, from India.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Synthaholic said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  If you're born in Mexico, you're a native Mexican.  If you're born in Denmark, you're a native Dane.  If you're born in America, you're a native American.  Why would you say that's false ?  Strange thing to say.
> 
> Again: the correct term for the people you're referring to is *American Indians*. Any other term is confusing, and not necessarily correct.  How would you call a person of the Apache tribe, and who speaks that language, if they were born in Mexico ? Or Australia ? Or a member of the Blackfeet tribe (ordinarily located in Montana), if they were born in Canada ? Or England ?
> 
> It's like the term African-American, used to describe Black people.  Again, FALSE terminology.  I've known 3 people who are correctly known as African Americans, who immigrated to the United States, and became US citizens.  One was born in Botswana.  One in Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). And one born in Tanzania. All 3 are White.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are only referred to as 'Indians' because the first Europeans to come here thought they were Indians, from India.
Click to expand...


Yes, but after being called that for several centuries, it kind of stuck. 

Protectionist does point out a very valid conundrum when using the term "native." 

I'm, technically a native American, having been born in the US. Come to think of it, me and most of the Americans I know have some percentage of Indian blood.

How many remaining "native Americans" are 100% american? 

It's a slippery mess indeed.


----------



## BDBoop

Every time I see 'shit' and 'eliminate' in the thread title, I think "redundant much?"


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Why should this be the end of the GOP? 

If it's the best option and we do not use it, is someone going to benefit? I would rather have everyone have documentation and NO ONE living here illegally. Then, we can deport people who are illegal and have the immigration laws mean something again.


----------



## Unkotare

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> After this is done then you start determining how to deal with the millions of others already here who don't fall under the Dream Act and you also start working to relax our immigration laws.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need to "relax" our immigration laws, we need to enforce them. When we _really_ do that, _then_ we can start working on other related issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we need to do away with them, period.  It's not just Hispanics jumping over the border that's a problem.  Even immigrants from Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world go through years of bureaucratic red tape to be able to stay here.  My buddy's wife is from France.  She has a college degree and works for a marketing firm and the shit she's had to go through to get U.S. citizenship is absurd. I don't even know if she's gotten it yet, to be honest with you, and they started the process two years ago.  She may still be on a visa.
Click to expand...



It is irrational to suggest that the 'solution' to the byzantine process of immigrating here legally is to abolish all relevant laws. Think about it for a second.

If the woman from France is your buddy's wife she can obtain permanent resident status before (or instead of, if they choose) applying for citizenship. Is it a pain in the ass? Yes. A lot of people hire an immigration lawyer to go through the mountains of paperwork and sort it all out for them, which can be expensive. But it can be done. As long as they are married she can stay during the period her application is being considered unless there are extenuating circumstances.


----------



## protectionist

Synthaholic said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's laughably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  If you're born in Mexico, you're a native Mexican.  If you're born in Denmark, you're a native Dane.  If you're born in America, you're a native American.  Why would you say that's false ?  Strange thing to say.
> 
> Again: the correct term for the people you're referring to is *American Indians*. Any other term is confusing, and not necessarily correct.  How would you call a person of the Apache tribe, and who speaks that language, if they were born in Mexico ? Or Australia ? Or a member of the Blackfeet tribe (ordinarily located in Montana), if they were born in Canada ? Or England ?
> 
> It's like the term African-American, used to describe Black people.  Again, FALSE terminology.  I've known 3 people who are correctly known as African Americans, who immigrated to the United States, and became US citizens.  One was born in Botswana.  One in Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). And one born in Tanzania. All 3 are White.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are only referred to as 'Indians' because the first Europeans to come here thought they were Indians, from India.
Click to expand...


We all learned that in the 4th grade.  But thanks anyway.  It's the thought that counts.


----------



## protectionist

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  If you're born in Mexico, you're a native Mexican.  If you're born in Denmark, you're a native Dane.  If you're born in America, you're a native American.  Why would you say that's false ?  Strange thing to say.
> 
> Again: the correct term for the people you're referring to is *American Indians*. Any other term is confusing, and not necessarily correct.  How would you call a person of the Apache tribe, and who speaks that language, if they were born in Mexico ? Or Australia ? Or a member of the Blackfeet tribe (ordinarily located in Montana), if they were born in Canada ? Or England ?
> 
> It's like the term African-American, used to describe Black people.  Again, FALSE terminology.  I've known 3 people who are correctly known as African Americans, who immigrated to the United States, and became US citizens.  One was born in Botswana.  One in Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe). And one born in Tanzania. All 3 are White.
> 
> 
> 
> They are only referred to as 'Indians' because the first Europeans to come here thought they were Indians, from India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but after being called that for several centuries, it kind of stuck.
> 
> Protectionist does point out a very valid conundrum when using the term "native."
> 
> I'm, technically a native American, having been born in the US. Come to think of it, me and most of the Americans I know have some percentage of Indian blood.
> 
> How many remaining "native Americans" are 100% american?
> 
> It's a slippery mess indeed.
Click to expand...


Quite correct. Anyone born in the United States is a native American.


----------



## Adriana

Thanks for Sharing this information


----------



## Friends

Immigration divides the Republican Party the way civil rights and the War in Vietnam divided the Democratic Party during the late 1960's and early 1970's. I do not see how the GOP can handle this issue without losing Republican voters and campaign contributors.

The business community, which has always dominated the GOP, wants more immigrants so employers can lower wages. White blue collar Republicans want fewer or no immigrants for the same reason.

The Democrat Party has different constituencies with different concerns, but they are not divided by a critical issue. 

The ideal solution from the standpoint of the country club Republicans is to allow more immigrants, without allowing the immigrants to become citizens. That way the immigrants lower wages without voting Democrat. The blue collar wing of the GOP will not accept that however. Joe Sixpack does not want Hispanics applying for his job.


----------

