protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,888
- 18,263
- 2,250
There's no doubt that the illegal immigration that America is plagued with, is the result of Democratic Party acceptance and encouragement of this nuisance. For years, Republicans in Congress have been proposing and passing legislation to stop this, only to be thwarted by congressional Democrats and 3 US presidents (2 Democrats and one RINO).
The SAVE Act and 2006 Secure Fence Act are just 2 of a long list of Republican attempts to repel the invasion which pillages our economy of hundreds of Billions$$ in remittances, and welfare to immigrants (illegal and legal both). On the state level, numerous bills have been sponsored by Republicans in opposition to illegal immigration, with Republicans voting for it, and democrats against. One recent example is Senate Bill 269 in Georgia, introduced by Sen. Jesse Stone, R-Waynesboro, which aims to ensure that Georgia has no “Sanctuary Cities,” said House sponsor Rep. Jesse Petrea, R-Savannah. Predictably, this good legislation, which would create a reporting requirement on sanctuary cities, (which are already forbidden by state law), as a condition to obtain funding. It would also require the use of E-Verify in employment, plus confirmation that public benefits are not going to illegal aliens.
Predictably, like thousands of legislations before it, the Senate vote was strictly along party lines with 118 Republicans voting for it, and 52 Democrats against it. The bill having passed the House on March 15, now goes to Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, who being a strong opponent of illegal immigration is expected to sign it into law. A similar bill was passed in the Mississippi Senate (SB 2306) by a 36 to 14 vote, again along strict party lines.
On the federal level, a bill was proposed in 2015 to halt funding to cities/states/counties who maintain Sanctuary policies, and it was obstructed by Senate Democrats.
This is an old, old story of Republicans trying to stop illegal immigration, and Democrats doing all they can to facilitate it and increase it, including bills to give amnesty to illegal aliens, which they euphamistically and laughably, call "comprehensive immigration reform".
So when the November election rolls around, if you don't want your job to disappear, only to be recreated as one given to a low wage foreigner, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want a big loss in tax $$$ for govt services (due to illegals' off books work + lower wages paid) you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want massive lo$$es to your economy from immigrants' remittances. ($123 Billion/ year at last count), you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want a big loss in tax $$$ for govt services (due to immigrants on welfare), you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want increased crime, pollution, and traffic congestion, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want overcrowding in schools, hospitals, govt offices and recreational facilities, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want cultural erosion, including Spanish telephone recording, billboards, and now even TV commercials, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want the introduction of foreign diseases (ex. Entero virus, Dengue fever, Zika virus, etc) you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
And if you don't want the easy influx of terrorists across the Mexican border, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
And if you don't want 185,000 Syrian refugees arriving, with ISIS neatly tucked in among them, plotting to detonate nuclear bombs in US cities, and toss biological bombs around, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
Legislative Update: 3/22/2016
The SAVE Act and 2006 Secure Fence Act are just 2 of a long list of Republican attempts to repel the invasion which pillages our economy of hundreds of Billions$$ in remittances, and welfare to immigrants (illegal and legal both). On the state level, numerous bills have been sponsored by Republicans in opposition to illegal immigration, with Republicans voting for it, and democrats against. One recent example is Senate Bill 269 in Georgia, introduced by Sen. Jesse Stone, R-Waynesboro, which aims to ensure that Georgia has no “Sanctuary Cities,” said House sponsor Rep. Jesse Petrea, R-Savannah. Predictably, this good legislation, which would create a reporting requirement on sanctuary cities, (which are already forbidden by state law), as a condition to obtain funding. It would also require the use of E-Verify in employment, plus confirmation that public benefits are not going to illegal aliens.
Predictably, like thousands of legislations before it, the Senate vote was strictly along party lines with 118 Republicans voting for it, and 52 Democrats against it. The bill having passed the House on March 15, now goes to Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, who being a strong opponent of illegal immigration is expected to sign it into law. A similar bill was passed in the Mississippi Senate (SB 2306) by a 36 to 14 vote, again along strict party lines.
On the federal level, a bill was proposed in 2015 to halt funding to cities/states/counties who maintain Sanctuary policies, and it was obstructed by Senate Democrats.
This is an old, old story of Republicans trying to stop illegal immigration, and Democrats doing all they can to facilitate it and increase it, including bills to give amnesty to illegal aliens, which they euphamistically and laughably, call "comprehensive immigration reform".
So when the November election rolls around, if you don't want your job to disappear, only to be recreated as one given to a low wage foreigner, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want a big loss in tax $$$ for govt services (due to illegals' off books work + lower wages paid) you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want massive lo$$es to your economy from immigrants' remittances. ($123 Billion/ year at last count), you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want a big loss in tax $$$ for govt services (due to immigrants on welfare), you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want increased crime, pollution, and traffic congestion, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want overcrowding in schools, hospitals, govt offices and recreational facilities, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want cultural erosion, including Spanish telephone recording, billboards, and now even TV commercials, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
If you don't want the introduction of foreign diseases (ex. Entero virus, Dengue fever, Zika virus, etc) you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
And if you don't want the easy influx of terrorists across the Mexican border, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
And if you don't want 185,000 Syrian refugees arriving, with ISIS neatly tucked in among them, plotting to detonate nuclear bombs in US cities, and toss biological bombs around, you might be inclined to NOT vote for the Democrat candidate.
Legislative Update: 3/22/2016
Last edited:
