Reblogged: Set the Bar Low for Immigration but High for Citizenship

[tadmjones]

Yeah but you could only relocate because the government gave you that right.(sarcasm, if that is not too obvious)

Edited April 3, 2014 by tadmjones

[HandyHandle]

A Cambodian moving from Cambodia to the U.S. is immigrating.  An American moving within America is not immigrating.  (United States Army Field Manual #35, pages 48 & 49.  Diagrams showing maps and arrows not included here.)

 

Multiculturalists – despite the multi – seek to destroy (what’s left of)  American culture, whereas I want to preserve it.

 

(Yes, I made up that Army manual.)

[softwareNerd]

Curious, I checked wikipedia for U.S. States with the highest percentage of hispanics and latinos.

• The list is led by New Mexico (If one does not count Puerto Rico), with a Republican governor.
• Then, we have California, which has a reputation for being in the Democrat camp (despite Reagan and the Terminator).
• They're followed by Texas, with a Republican governor.
• Then, Arizona, with a GOP governor 
• Then, Nevada, with a GOP governor

It looks like the Democrats are the ones who should be scared of the hispanic/latino vote (i.e., if they look at reality and practice, rather than theory).

[HandyHandle]

Largest doesn’t mean most of the population.  What matters is how the Hispanics voted in those states, and what they voted for.  At this point there are more whites than Hispanics in every state, so who won is not always determined by the Hispanic vote.

 

A Hispanic, Susana Martinez, got elected governor in the state with the largest Hispanic population (nearing half), by a narrow margin.  She began her political career as a Democrat, later switched to Republican in 1995.  She campaigned on a promise to be “tough on border security.”

 

So take New Mexico – please.

[softwareNerd]

Largest doesn’t mean most of the population.

You say "adding salt makes the state sweet". I retort, "the ones with the most salt are actually salty". You reply: "If you add tons of salt, it would be sweet".

[Eiuol]

 

Largest doesn’t mean most of the population.  What matters is how the Hispanics voted in those states, and what they voted for.  At this point there are more whites than Hispanics in every state, so who won is not always determined by the Hispanic vote.

So how does a state with third MOST number of hispanics for proportion of population, Texas, manage to let a Republican become governor if non-criminal (i.e. people who don't steal, trespass, kill, etc) immigrants are such a threat?

 

There's a lot of implicit racism on your end - it would probably be better to do a survey that asks questions that it would imply supporting statism if answered a certain way. Until then, there is just rampant speculation, and if you insist on rampant speculation, your arguments are either meaningless, or racist. Neither is a good option.

[Nicky]

Blatantly false.  Take an extreme case.

Blatantly false. Take an extreme case. Suppose the Sun explodes. Will that help or hurt? Hurt? Quick, get rid of the Sun.

[HandyHandle]

Despite Susana Martinez’s campaign platform rhetoric and (ineffectual) opposition to driver's licenses for illegal aliens ... from Fox News Latino:

 

"The first Latina governor in U.S. history and the most prominent Latina in the Republican party criticized Mitt Romney’s campaign rhetoric, her party’s approach to the Hispanic community, and pushed the need for comprehensive immigration reform."

 

If you follow polispeak, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is code for Amnesty, which word she would eliminate from the debate, but not the substance.

 

After criticizing Romney for claiming that Obama pandered to minorities

 

"Martinez criticized Republicans as well, implying that her party isn’t diverse enough. 'We have to start electing people who look like their communities all the way from county commissioners ... up into national politics,' she said ..."

 

And you can bet that community isn’t white.  “Who look like their communities” = Hispanics.  She’s one nasty piece of work.  A fifth-column politician.  Full article: 

“Susana Martinez Rips Mitt Romney, Wants GOP Latino Outreach to Change”

 

 

[HandyHandle]

Rick Perry has been governor of Texas since 2000.  He was recruited for the GOP in 1989 after, believe it or not, serving as Texas chairman of Al Gore’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.  Like Martinez, he was a Democrat who switched to Republican.

 

Despite a few anti-immigrant actions he wants "amnesty without citizenship" and we know where that leads.

 

It looks like Hispanics (along with Sheldon Adelson and Mark Zuckerberg) are helping elect pro-Amnesty candidates.

Edited April 4, 2014 by HandyHandle

[softwareNerd]

If you follow polispeak, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is code for Amnesty, which word she would eliminate from the debate, but not the substance.

Clearly (from your posts) you would think "amnesty" is a bad thing. I assume most of those responding to you here would not.

To nationalists, any solution that allows illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. on any basis, even if it comes with a large monetary penalty, is unacceptable. So, Newt got in trouble for suggesting that we cannot have wholesale deportations while Romney tried to walk the fence by speaking of "voluntary deportations".

I don't want comprehensive reform. I would rather see only the reforms that I want, and none that my opponents want. However, the reason immigration reform has to be "comprehensive" is simple: no one side will give on its issue. For example, a lot of people support an increase in the H1-B type visas and related green cards, especially for people with master's degrees in STEM. However, a politician who has a large number of legal and illegal Hispanics in his district would be a fool to vote "yes" on such a bill (even though he might like the idea) unless it has something that he wants as well. Otherwise, he'll never get his issue addressed. When people in the GOP say that things like a border fence must come "first", that kills any chance of getting votes for a fence or for legalization.

Pragmatically, it plays to the Democrat's advantage to have the GOP be seen as anti-immigrant, just as it did for the GOP to be seen as anti-gay (though that's dwindling in relevance now). On an issue like abortion, the GOP would probably lose a lot of votes if it budged. However, on being anti-gay and being anti-immigrant, they probably lose far more than they gain.

My only hope is that we never have a GOP president while the GOP has legislative control.

[Spiral Architect]

 

A Cambodian moving from Cambodia to the U.S. is immigrating.  An American moving within America is not immigrating.  (United States Army Field Manual #35, pages 48 & 49.  Diagrams showing maps and arrows not included here.)

 

Multiculturalists – despite the multi – seek to destroy (what’s left of)  American culture, whereas I want to preserve it.

 

(Yes, I made up that Army manual.)

 

 

A person moving from location to another is the same thing.  Crossing an invisible line, outside of something like Military threat, is no different. 

 

If you moved next door to me, my rights are not violated.  It does not affect me in any way.

 

If someone from Cambodia moves next door, my rights are not violated either.  Why?  Because the act of moving from one zip code to another doesn't violate my rights.

 

There is obvious exceptions that apply to all cases, like possibble criminal/pandemic things but the presence of an invisible line doesn't change that.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Spiral Architect

[Spiral Architect]

 

Multiculturalists – despite the multi – seek to destroy (what’s left of)  American culture, whereas I want to preserve it.

 

 

 

Preserve what?  A plot of land where rights no longer exist? That is many things but no longer America. 

 

I'm reminded of George Bush Jr. saying "We need to abandon the free market in order to save it". 

 

We do not need to abandon rights to save them. 

[Spiral Architect]

One theme in this thread is the argument that people moving here will vote in such a way as to destroy America.

 

You do realize that the issue here is not the voting, since the goofs in Washington already do this far worse then someone moving from Poland, but it has the same real cause - Power.

 

America, and the West, is sinking because we have given the Government power it is not supposed to have.  Pointing a gun at people and telling them how they can move about will not change that.  Fix the disease, not the symptom. 

 

Fixing the Government and removing the power however will fix it and every other issue related to this. 

 

That is how you preserved America. 

[HandyHandle]

America, and the West, is sinking because we have given the Government power it is not supposed to have.

 

That’s the half of it.  The other half is that the government isn’t using it’s legitimate power to protect us.  What we have now is approaching immigration anarchy.

 

In Spiral Architect’s world there are no governments restricted to the populous of an individual country.  Instead, each country’s government ministers to anyone on earth as long as they show up at its – rather fictitious – border.  In a word, a kind of one world globalism.  

 

In that brave new world America gets swamped by Third World immigrants.

 

[HandyHandle]

About softwareNerd’s last post ...

 

Among whites – though not intellectuals and media hacks – it’s to the Republican’s advantage to be seen as opposing open immigration.  The sooner the GOP realizes this the better for them.

 

At this point whites vainly expect Republican politicians to fight amnesty and immigration.  If the GOP did indeed stand for this,  strongly and consistently,  Republicans would win among whites.  And they would win elections, because at this point whites are still the majority.

 

Yes, I know, it’s repugnant to be writing like this.  The white vote, the Hispanic vote, the Black vote – it would be insane in 1950 when the country was over 90% white (not to mention had literacy tests for voting) and we could focus on fighting welfare.  

 

But today talking race is necessary, and the Immigration Act of 1965 made it necessary.   It’s another reason to hate the scum behind that bill.  They’ve made true what Leon Trotsky never said:

 

You may not be interested in race, but race is interested in you.

[dream_weaver]

"You may not be interested in race, but race is interested in you."

 

Collectivism certainly does breed that sort of mentality.

[softwareNerd]

At this point whites vainly expect Republican politicians to fight amnesty and immigration.  If the GOP did indeed stand for this,  strongly and consistently,  Republicans would win among whites.

That's completely false. The idea that the millions of white people who vote democrat will suddenly switch because they think immigration is a major issue is fantastic.

I know there is a decent-sized minority of Whites who think that America is theirs in some covenant from God. The land they were given to make their own and practice their religion free from the papists and free. These nut-jobs already vote Republican, and most white folk who hear their spiel think they're nuts. So, why would those other whites suddenly abandon their own philosophy to tow your racist line?

[HandyHandle]

That's completely false. The idea that the millions of white people who vote democrat will suddenly switch because they think immigration is a major issue is fantastic.

 

Not a fantasy but hyperbole.  It's not that every white would vote Republican.  However a significant percentage of whites really are very concerned about immigration and many of those voting Democrat who are not very committed to that party (and that’s a significant percentage) would change to Republican.  

 

Thus it would help the Republicans among white voters, which are still a large majority of voters.  It would hurt Republicans among non-whites, still a minority.  Admittedly the net help is hard to quantify.  I don’t know of any polls asking the sort of questions necessary to make an estimate.

 

Democrats seem to agree though.  James Carville after the 2010 midterm election (for “demographics” read “immigration results”):

“When you get into a presidential electorate, it decidedly favors Democrats, and every year it’s going to decidedly favor them more and more. ... Demographics don’t do anything but get better for Democrats. Every election becomes less white.” 

Howard Dean (chairman of DNC) in 2008:

"... the demographic trends favor the Democrats.

...

“If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican Party."

[softwareNerd]

HandyHandle,

• You have a very short-term view of what moves U.S. political ideology.
• You project your view on to others (or on to whites); whereas if you dropped your wishful thinking and looked at things realistically, you would understand that most whites don't share your views and it isn't merely  a question of someone giving them the message and the leadership
• You simply evade that all the statism in the U.S. has been brought to us by WASPs, even if dot.heads are the most statist when it comes to the economy
• Finally, you assume a very static notion of ideology by race and geography, whereas experience shows major shifts taking place within a couple of generations

See how those Mexicans in Texas and California brought Jimmy Carter to power

 

Edited April 5, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Nicky]

 

Not a fantasy but hyperbole.  It's not that every white would vote Republican.  However a significant percentage of whites really are very concerned about immigration and many of those voting Democrat who are not very committed to that party (and that’s a significant percentage) would change to Republican.  

 

Thus it would help the Republicans among white voters, which are still a large majority of voters.  It would hurt Republicans among non-whites, still a minority.  Admittedly the net help is hard to quantify.  I don’t know of any polls asking the sort of questions necessary to make an estimate.

 

Democrats seem to agree though.  James Carville after the 2010 midterm election (for “demographics” read “immigration results”):

“When you get into a presidential electorate, it decidedly favors Democrats, and every year it’s going to decidedly favor them more and more. ... Demographics don’t do anything but get better for Democrats. Every election becomes less white.” 

Howard Dean (chairman of DNC) in 2008:

"... the demographic trends favor the Democrats.

...

“If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican Party."

 

Just to clarify: You believe that the Republican Party stands for laissez faire capitalism, and the Democratic Party for third world statism?

[HandyHandle]

Nicky must know I never said that.

[HandyHandle]

Replying to softwareNerd ...

 

How a state votes depends on all its voters, white and non-white.  The non-whites could vote one way and the state another.  The state vote by itself tells nothing about it’s non-white vote.

 

SoftwareNerd left out an important detail about the Carter election.  It was way back in 1976 –  38 years ago – when there were far fewer non-whites than today, especially in Texas and California.

 

Another factor is that  "Democrats = not-white party"  is a fairly recent development.  Years ago, especially in the South, it wasn’t true.

 

... most whites don't share your views and it isn't merely  a question of someone giving them the message and the leadership

 

It was whites writing and calling their Congressmen that got Rubio-Schumer defeated in the House.  It was whites who recently defeated a proposal in Oregon that would have given drivers licenses to illegals.

 

... all the statism in the U.S. has been brought to us by WASPs

 

WASP is a slur designation for anglo-saxon Protestants.  Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration cannot be described as anglo-saxon Protestant.  Harold Laski (British but he influenced the U.S. scene – he lectured at Harvard and Yale for example), on whom the character Ellsworth Toohey is based, was not an anglo-saxon Protestant.  

 

... experience shows major shifts taking place within a couple of generations

 

No major shift has come, especially among Blacks.   We don’t have time for a couple more generations.  As “the better Peikoff” said at the end of his podcast (see post #67 here) we need to buy time.

 

[Nicky]

Nicky must know I never said that.

Is that a no? 

 

If it is, my next question is "Why do you think Republican voters are better suited to be Americans than Democratic voters?"

Edited April 5, 2014 by Nicky

[HandyHandle]

Nicky’s question was loaded – as he well knows – and neither Yes nor No is an answer. 

 

Nicky might get to his point eventually, but don’t hold your breath.

[Nicky]

You've spent five pages explaining how a race of people should be kept out of the country because they're slightly more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.

There are only two explanations for that:

1. You think refusing to vote Republican over Democrat disqualifies them and their entire race from ever stepping foot on US soil.

2. All this is an excuse for you to be a racist thug.

My position is, and always has been that the explanation is nr. 2. You continuously refusing to address the glaring contradictions in your convoluted rationalizations is proof of that.