Ann Coulter Rips Marco Rubio Over Inmigration Reform.

[xbuzzerx]

Your logic is disturbing, HenryReardon. What kind of nation would we be if we shot men, women, and children on sight? You do realize many of these illegal immigrants are families of women and children, correct? Are you equating a home invasion to justifying a headshot to an 8 year-old child crossing a river?

It's so easy to just say, "shoot them, kill them. Keep them out. Their deaths will solve the problem." Do you actually understand the weight of your words?

What amazes me is that all these same people justified the colonization of the Americas with "Indians committed atrocities too" but turn right around with so much as a batted eye and say mass slaughtering women and children at the border would be morally justifiable based off some extremist cowboy interpretation of home self defense laws.

[GiancarloC]

Your logic is disturbing, HenryReardon. What kind of nation would we be if we shot men, women, and children on sight? You do realize many of these illegal immigrants are families of women and children, correct? Are you equating a home invasion to justifying a headshot to an 8 year-old child crossing a river?

It's so easy to just say, "shoot them, kill them. Keep them out. Their deaths will solve the problem." Do you actually understand the weight of your words?

It's xenophobia and disgusting logic... I think the mods should take a closer look at that post. It's an incredibly violent viewpoint to have.

[Rolyo85]

Does he understand the weight of his words? Has he ever given any indication that he does? Or for that matter - that they are his words at all?

[Sausy]

Shooting people on sight as a policy is appalling. We've got to make things easier on legal immigrants, and allow a path to citizenship for illegals that have been here and have made families...self deportation or forcible for that matter runs the gamut from imparactical to ludicrous. Unbridled amnesty, or failure to control borders isn't acceptable either, though to be fair to the Obama Administration many undocumented illegals coming from other sources than the southern borders have been returned to their counties of origin in the past four years.

Delicate balance is needed, as overall immigration is a boon for Americans as a whole as well. If the GOP listens to the Ann Coulters, they indeed will be signing their effective death sentence in the coming years.

[kayman23]

It's Ann Cunt-er, enough said...

[CTF]

Shooting people on sight as a policy is appalling. We've got to make things easier on legal immigrants, and allow a path to citizenship for illegals that have been here and have made families...self deportation or forcible for that matter runs the gamut from imparactical to ludicrous. Unbridled amnesty, or failure to control borders isn't acceptable either, though to be fair to the Obama Administration many undocumented illegals coming from other sources than the southern borders have been returned to their counties of origin in the past four years.

Delicate balance is needed, as overall immigration is a boon for Americans as a whole as well. If the GOP listens to the Ann Coulters, they indeed will be signing their effective death sentence in the coming years.

Be careful Sausy.

Sound, reasonable advice doesn't sell newspapers or make fake celebrities.

You need to go and peddle that rational thinking somewhere else.

[Sausy]

Be careful Sausy.

Sound, reasonable advice doesn't sell newspapers or make fake celebrities.

You need to go and peddle that rational thinking somewhere else.

There are those here who see me as uncritically right wing, but over the years I have posted in opposition to the hard right elements in the right. Not ever going to be a progressive in all my views, but the right has often gone way over the line in recent years and I don't think a roomful of hard line ultraconservatives would be happy with my stances, either.

What works effectively isn't tied down to uncritical ideological purity in the real world.... governing by mere sound bites and obstructionism (whatever the party) just isn't in the best interests of Americans, period. The GOP has gone further in an ideological direction than the Democrats have and if they want to remain relevant nationally, they have to accept the responsibility of governing a complex country in term of demographics. Easy to say no and always point to cartoonish villains than to be responsible and work hard to do diligently the people's business. Party that does it best is poised to move America forward and despite some Republicans getting the memo it has escaped the fervent base.


Some Republicans have stated recently the party has to stop being one of stupid comments and reflexive anti intellectualism. It still has a long way to go in that regard!

[CTF]

There are those here who see me as uncritically right wing, but over the years I have posted in opposition to the hard right elements in the right. Not ever going to be a progressive in all my views, but the right has often gone way over the line in recent years and I don't think a roomful of hard line ultraconservatives would be happy with my stances, either.

What works effectively isn't tied down to uncritical ideological purity in the real world.... governing by mere sound bites and obstructionism (whatever the party) just isn't in the best interests of Americans, period. The GOP has gone further in an ideological direction than the Democrats have and if they want to remain relevant nationally, they have to accept the responsibility of governing a complex country in term of demographics. Easy to say no and always point to cartoonish villains than to be responsible and work hard to do diligently the people's business. Party that does it best is poised to move America forward and despite some Republicans getting the memo it has escaped the fervent base.


Some Republicans have stated recently the party has to stop being one of stupid comments and reflexive anti intellectualism. It still has a long way to go in that regard!

Yessir!

And I've had the honor of rubbing elbows with you while sharing a beer, face to face, and this debate isn't it.

Our Media, and many in this forum want to see our country as "divided."

Those of us who "think" and aren't afraid to share our ideas and thoughts with each other, who aren't willing to hold a grudge because we disagree, because we love our country, and respect each other as friends and neighbors, should always matter more.

It's never as bad as some would want us to believe.

There isn't an "us and a them."

We are the "them."

I'd rather make fun of you because your team lost, or take jibes from you because my team did, than to allow hucksters to divide us over politics, or any issue of the day that really effects us.

[palemale]

If you were to substitute Catholic, Jewish, Irish, Italian, for Hispanic or Latino, our right-wing JUB posters would have fit right in with the KKK of the 1920s. They seem to forget that vehemence of the anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish hatred for immigrants of the last century.

[Benvolio]

It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge that Republicans want immigration reform. Instead you have introduced an alternate theme – limiting illegal immigration.

How should the US go about limiting illegal immigration?

Most immigrant reform efforts contain some attempt to limit illegal immigration. I don't think Republicans want more immigrant. But alas, we have passed the tipping point. We have so many voters of recent immigration, who want more immigration by their ethnic group, that any politician who votes against immigration is likely to loose. In the last election the Hispanic vote was overwhelmingly Democrat and Hispanics seem to want, not only "reform"--a quick road to citizenship-- but more influx of Hispanics. You can hear the result in the public discussion by Republicans: how can we survive as a party if we do not join in pandering to the Hispanics. How can I survive as a politician if I do not?
By labeling as racist and xenophobic any one who questions it, the liberals have foreclosed discussion of the broader questions, including poverty and unemployment. How can we every overcome poverty and unemployment when we are faced with a virtually unlimited influx of more poverty?

[Benvolio]

If you were to substitute Catholic, Jewish, Irish, Italian, for Hispanic or Latino, our right-wing JUB posters would have fit right in with the KKK of the 1920s. They seem to forget that vehemence of the anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish hatred for immigrants of the last century.

I suggest you try to separate your hatred for Republicans for a moment, and try to consider the effects today of immigration. We will never again have the world-dominating and expanding economy that we did as late as WWI. We have competition from all over the world and will never again be able to create new, good paying, jobs as rapidly as we did before. Your reliance on the good old days when we could absorb masses of new workers is just bad logic. Times have changed.
And please remember the effect which all that immigration, you described, had on African Americans. While the new people got jobs, the blacks have not climbed the ladder. Immigration and discrimination have gone hand in hand, and are continuing to do so today.
Instead of focusing on how bad conservatives are, please answer the question, how can we make progress against poverty and unemployment if we continue to have a massive influx of new poverty?

[CTF]

I suggest you try to separate your hatred for Republicans for a moment, and try to consider the effects today of immigration. We will never again have the world-dominating and expanding economy that we did as late as WWI. We have competition from all over the world and will never again be able to create new, good paying, jobs as rapidly as we did before. Your reliance on the good old days when we could absorb masses of new workers is just bad logic. Times have changed.

I'm glad to see that you're finally recognizing that the wild Eyed Liberal Republican known as Dwight D. Eisenhower is no longer our Nation's President!

Baby steps.

And please remember the effect which all that immigration, you described, had on African Americans. While the new people got jobs, the blacks have not climbed the ladder. Immigration and discrimination have gone hand in hand, and are continuing to do so today.

But squashing Union Labor from the right doesn't play into your scenario/narrative WHY?"

Instead of focusing on how bad conservatives are, please answer the question, how can we make progress against poverty and unemployment if we continue to have a massive influx of new poverty?

Or better yet, how about you answering the question:

"Why should anyone answer your straw man question when it's clear that you and so called "conservatives" don't really give a shit about an honest answer?

It's called "credibility."

Which, if you have any, must admit is lacking.

[GiancarloC]

I suggest you try to separate your hatred for Republicans for a moment, and try to consider the effects today of immigration. We will never again have the world-dominating and expanding economy that we did as late as WWI. We have competition from all over the world and will never again be able to create new, good paying, jobs as rapidly as we did before. Your reliance on the good old days when we could absorb masses of new workers is just bad logic. Times have changed.

Immigration has happened during times of economic boom, and during the prior recession people actually left this country. The rest of that is just talk. This country can create high paying jobs if it avoids the republican method. The republicans advocate a sort of economic idiocy that goes against all logic and reason. The republicans would bankrupt this country even further than they did.

And please remember the effect which all that immigration, you described, had on African Americans. While the new people got jobs, the blacks have not climbed the ladder. Immigration and discrimination have gone hand in hand, and are continuing to do so today.
Instead of focusing on how bad conservatives are, please answer the question, how can we make progress against poverty and unemployment if we continue to have a massive influx of new poverty?

Actually there has been an emergence of a black middle class in this country. And what's this massive influx? There hasn't been a massive influx of immigrants in years. The last three years have been marked by a decline of immigration, and people actually have left this country. Maybe if one were to bother to check their facts they would realize that.

By labeling as racist and xenophobic any one who questions it, the liberals have foreclosed discussion of the broader questions, including poverty and unemployment. How can we every overcome poverty and unemployment when we are faced with a virtually unlimited influx of more poverty?

Bullshit. It's telling the truth about what the other party has done. And what are these so called "broader" questions? And why are the republicans and conservatives interested in reducing poverty or unemployment? As far as republicans are concerned they need people to be poor so they can serve as low wage workers for their big corporate supporters.

Thanks for the attack on immigrants, and Latinos. It's nothing anything new. Same old recycled rubbish. Hispanics work hard in this country and are the ones doing jobs some Americans would never want to do. Perhaps realize that before slapping ridiculous labels on entire groups of people.

And Hispanics voted democrat for several reasons... one was the economy. Yep. Democrats have a VASTLY SUPERIOR MESSAGE on the economy than republicans.

[xbuzzerx]

Most immigrant reform efforts contain some attempt to limit illegal immigration. I don't think Republicans want more immigrant. But alas, we have passed the tipping point. We have so many voters of recent immigration, who want more immigration by their ethnic group, that any politician who votes against immigration is likely to loose. In the last election the Hispanic vote was overwhelmingly Democrat and Hispanics seem to want, not only "reform"--a quick road to citizenship-- but more influx of Hispanics. You can hear the result in the public discussion by Republicans: how can we survive as a party if we do not join in pandering to the Hispanics. How can I survive as a politician if I do not?
By labeling as racist and xenophobic any one who questions it, the liberals have foreclosed discussion of the broader questions, including poverty and unemployment. How can we every overcome poverty and unemployment when we are faced with a virtually unlimited influx of more poverty?

Somebody apparently didn't explain to Benvolio that in order to vote in this country you need to have citizenship, and if you are a citizen you are someone to whom politicians need to pander in order to get votes. In fact I think someone failed to explain this to the entire GOP, given their disconnect as to why they're losing elections and why they're massively losing the hispanic vote when they platform heavily on making life for illegals and immigrants, which they virtually equate with being hispanic, as miserable possible so that they'll stop coming or leave voluntarily.

[GiancarloC]

The republicans tried to sway the angry white male vote... and failed miserably. The reason why Hispanics are backing the democrats is primarily because the democrats have a better and more coherent message, including related to the economy. Not just immigration. Republicans hate Hispanics... it's just the reality. They also hate everyone that isn't an angry (preferably rich) white male. There hasn't been an influx of Hispanics, and discussing one group in particular... Mexican immigration has actually declined and reversed in recent years. Many are leaving the US to go back.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/2...-perhaps-less/

Facts like this undercut his obvious xenophobic agenda.

[palemale]

I suggest you try to separate your hatred for Republicans for a moment, and try to consider the effects today of immigration. We will never again have the world-dominating and expanding economy that we did as late as WWI. We have competition from all over the world and will never again be able to create new, good paying, jobs as rapidly as we did before. Your reliance on the good old days when we could absorb masses of new workers is just bad logic. Times have changed.
And please remember the effect which all that immigration, you described, had on African Americans. While the new people got jobs, the blacks have not climbed the ladder. Immigration and discrimination have gone hand in hand, and are continuing to do so today.
Instead of focusing on how bad conservatives are, please answer the question, how can we make progress against poverty and unemployment if we continue to have a massive influx of new poverty?

This isn't about hating Republicans. My point is that what animates the anti-immigrant forces today is the same thing that animated the anti-immigrant forces in the late 19th and the 20th Century, right up to the election of JFK. Back then, it was the fear that Catholic and Jewish immigration would dilute and ruin the white, protestant culture of the United States. Today, the anti-immigrant forces believe that largely non-white immigrants will dilute and ruin the white protestant culture. In post 24, I printed what purports to be a Tea Party manifesto. In fact, it was an excerpt from the "Klansman's Manual" from 1925, but substituting "Tea Party" for "Ku Klux Klan." The original is as follows:

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is a movement devoting itself to the needed task of developing a genuine spirit of American patriotism. Klansmen are to be examples of pure patriotism. They are to organize the patriotic sentiment of native-born white, Protestant Americans for the defense of distinctively American institutions. Klansmen are dedicated to the principle that America shall be made American through the promulgation of American doctrines, the dissemination of American ideals, the creation of wholesome American sentiment, the preservation of American institutions.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/mmh/clas...klanmanual.htm

You can see how if you substitute "Tea Party" for "Ku Klux Klan," and remove the reference to white Protestants, as I did, it would fit nicely into a Tea Party manifesto.

You should also be aware that organized labor for years opposed immigration, especially illegal immigration. However, corporate America loved it because it did in fact depress wages. The problem for organized labor is that it was extremely difficult to organize work places with large numbers of undocumented workers. These workers were afraid of deportation. Because penalties for employing undocumented workers was so week, to non-existent, it was a common occurrence for an employer to call INS himself if he was facing a National Labor Relations Board election for representation, had a lot of undocumented workers and feared the union was going to win the election. Many of the workers get deported or simply leave and don't show up for work, people are intimidated, and the effort to unionize is thwarted.

[JustMe5]

By labeling as racist and xenophobic any one who questions it, the liberals have foreclosed discussion of the broader questions, including poverty and unemployment. How can we every overcome poverty and unemployment when we are faced with a virtually unlimited influx of more poverty?

Notice how in any political discussion its always Democrats who bring up race? And this whole idea that a politician has to run on an immigration-friendly platform in order to win votes from Hispanics is pretty ridiculous. I'm Hispanic and I don't give two fucks about the nation's current immigration reform proposals. It doesn't affect anyone in my family. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the government can go ahead and evict/deport every single last one of the illegals.

It's like you said on the first page:

The reason the Democrats want immigration "reform" is that they want to rush illegals to voting status to join the class/race war and vote Democrat. Their idea of Democracy is that if the American people don't want the party's socialist agenda, flood the country with poor immigrants who will vote socialist.

[xbuzzerx]

Notice how in any political discussion its always Democrats who bring up race? And this whole idea that a politician has to run on an immigration-friendly platform in order to win votes from Hispanics is pretty ridiculous. I'm Hispanic and I don't give two fucks about the nation's current immigration reform proposals. It doesn't affect anyone in my family. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the government can go ahead and evict/deport every single last one of the illegals.

It's like you said on the first page:

Who employs illegal immigrant labor and reaps a financial benefit from having undocumented workers they aren't paying payroll taxes on, JustMe5?

I'll give you a hint. In general it's not Democrats.

But yeah, I'm sure a DNC recruiter going down to Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America and telling people to come up just to help us hedge the vote for Democrats is the main reason they're coming.

[GiancarloC]

Notice how in any political discussion its always Democrats who bring up race? And this whole idea that a politician has to run on an immigration-friendly platform in order to win votes from Hispanics is pretty ridiculous. I'm Hispanic and I don't give two fucks about the nation's current immigration reform proposals. It doesn't affect anyone in my family. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the government can go ahead and evict/deport every single last one of the illegals.

It's like you said on the first page:

Um, who is bringing up race? Immigration is an issue in this country and the process needs to be streamlined. And I understand some don't give a fuck. I don't care for Hispanic republicans either honestly (about as much as I care about gay republicans). And evict and deporting a bunch of people simply doesn't fly and doesn't work.

I guess the facts just get disregarded for those on the right as they rely on strawman arguments. And that quote is a classic strawman argument. The democrats already have enough voters to defeat republicans... they proved that in the last election. They don't need to bring in people from other countries. The American citizens here already support the democrats in great numbers. I know the truth sometimes hurt but it needs to be said.

And if the democrats are seriously doing that it isn't working. IMMIGRATION HAS REVERSED AND PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THIS COUNTRY AT THEIR OWN FREE WILL. I know I can probably say that a thousand times and it won't be heard.

But seriously... this is all the same tired boring argument people used against Irish and Italian immigrants... many of whom came here on forged documents or no documentation at all besides ship ledgers.

[xbuzzerx]

Um, who is bringing up race? Immigration is an issue in this country and the process needs to be streamlined. And I understand some don't give a fuck. I don't care for Hispanic republicans either honestly (about as much as I care about gay republicans). And evict and deporting a bunch of people simply doesn't fly and doesn't work.

I guess the facts just get disregarded for those on the right as they rely on strawman arguments.

What's far more interesting to me than the weak-kneed implication that "Democrats always bring up race" is that when discussing the Hispanic vote Republicans constantly bring up "illegals." People who incidentally can't vote. So yeah Republicans-- keep kidding yourself that the reason you're losing elections is because Democrats purportedly hand out free toys to illegals, who can't vote, in order to win the election. Keep that mindset till 2016. I won't complain.

[GiancarloC]

What's far more interesting to me than the weak-kneed implication that "Democrats always bring up race" is that when discussing the Hispanic vote Republicans constantly bring up "illegals." People who incidentally can't vote. So yeah Republicans-- keep kidding yourself that the reason you're losing elections is because Democrats purportedly hand out free toys to illegals, who can't vote, in order to win the election. Keep that mindset till 2016. I won't complain.

Sorry I edited that post kinda late... but yea, as I said... the American citizens already here support the democrats in large numbers over Republicans. One fact that must be noted is republican party membership has been in steady decline and has dropped below 30%. So they will keep blaming immigrants, and this will rub off the wrong way against those immigrants who are citizens (like myself). Nevermind that the republicans have absolute shit economic plans.

And yea I hope they do retain that mindset. I'd like to see Hillary Clinton as President in 2016. And if they get even more angry maybe California will become a bigger picture of the whole US politically. Supermajority! I know that's a bit of wishful thinking, but I think the democrats have a bright future.

[JustMe5]

Who employs illegal immigrant labor and reaps a financial benefit from having undocumented workers they aren't paying payroll taxes on, JustMe5?

I'll give you a hint. In general it's not Democrats.

Typical Democrat talking point. What proof is there of that??? Y'all need new material.

[xbuzzerx]

Typical Democrat talking point. What proof is there of that??? Y'all need new material.

Wool. Eyes.

Check out George W Bush approving the Chamber of Commerce's request that the government stop doing checks on social security numbers in employment documents.

[JustMe5]

the American citizens already here support the democrats in large numbers over Republicans. One fact that must be noted is republican party membership has been in steady decline and has dropped below 30%.

And another fact that needs to be noted is Obama's vote tally in last year's election was far less (numbering in the millions) than his tally in 2008. First time ever that a president got reelected with less votes. Who was the real loser in this election?

[GiancarloC]

And another fact that needs to be noted is Obama's vote tally in last year's election was far less (numbering in the millions) than his tally in 2008. First time ever that a president got reelected with less votes. Who was the real loser in this election?

Obama's tally wasn't that much less. And even if that was much less, that should be concerning for republicans. Because he still won. I know it's tough to face the reality. The real loser were the two rich white guys funded by two other rich white guys. Obama won a large enough margin. The fact that republicans can barely get 60 million votes should be worrying for any republican. Including the walking contradiction GOPRouders on here.

Hey thanks for the red herring... massive fail. It's hilarious Obama lost yet he won the White House... thanks for the Karl Rove spin. I guess that only works when one is on the losing end. Obama LOST, yet he WON... LMAO.

[HenryReardon]

And another fact that needs to be noted is Obama's vote tally in last year's election was far less (numbering in the millions) than his tally in 2008. First time ever that a president got reelected with less votes. Who was the real loser in this election?

It was 8 or 9 million less votes. I've read that 17 million people watched his first inauguration, and that number was down to 7 million or his second. Sound like a lot of people are more than a little bit disenchanted with their messiah.

Romney got 2 million or so less votes than McCain which is hardly surprising.

The Republican party doesn't stand for anything, and the Libertarians don't have a chance. Hopefully, the Tea Party will come back strong in 2014 and send some people to DC who will stop Obama's insane drive to radicalize America.

[GiancarloC]

It was 8 or 9 million less votes. I've read that 17 million people watched his first inauguration, and that number was down to 7 million or his second. Sound like a lot of people are more than a little bit disenchanted with their messiah.

LMAO! Here we go again. Fact check please... I know it's difficult. 65.8 million votes went to Obama in 2012. 69.4 million went to Obama in 2008. Lets whip out the calculator... and not the REPUBLICAN CALCULATOR. The difference is 3.6 million votes, not 8-9 million. Facts hurt?

And Obama still won.

The Republican party doesn't stand for anything, and the Libertarians don't have a chance. Hopefully, the Tea Party will come back strong in 2014 and send some people to DC who will stop Obama's insane drive to radicalize America.

The tea party is a frigging joke. They are the ones who want to send this country over the cliff. And where is Obama's insane drive to radicalize America? I never realized a centrist president is a radical. Us on the real left criticize him for not being left wing enough, but I'll take him over the jokes in the GOP.

Edit: Sources for my numbers:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php - 2012 Election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2008 - 2008 Election

[xbuzzerx]

Oh, are we back on an election debate now? "Well, ... yeah he WON but .... NOT BY AS MUCH AS HE SHOULD HAVE! He fails all the time!"



Guys get a grip. Please. Turning every single thread into an election debate about how much Obama failed in winnin re-election is a tired, tired, tired topic you guys need to retire, along with Benghazi and Sarah Palin. Didn't one of you have the balls to say Democrats need some new material? You guys need to try some fruit other than grapes.

[JustMe5]

Obama's tally wasn't that much less. And even if that was much less, that should be concerning for republicans. Because he still won. I know it's tough to face the reality. The real loser were the two rich white guys funded by two other rich white guys. Obama won a large enough margin. The fact that republicans can barely get 60 million votes should be worrying for any republican. Including the walking contradiction GOPRouders on here.

Please. And you question who's bringing up race? Just take a look at your own post. Also, winning with less votes is a sign that someone's support has DROPPED. The hope, the change, the dreams from his father, and the prospect of going "forward" wasn't enough to convince more people to vote for Obama this time around. Yet you wanna imply that that half-assed win sounded the death knell for the GOP?

[xbuzzerx]

Please. And you question who's bringing up race? Just take a look at your own post. Also, winning with less votes is a sign that someone's support has DROPPED. The hope, the change, the dreams from his father, and the prospect of going "forward" wasn't enough to convince more people to vote for Obama this time around. Yet you wanna imply that that half-assed win sounded the death knell for the GOP?

This thread is about immigration reform.

Of course race is going to come up. Welcome to the topic. Stop making up faux outrages as an excuse to not be on point.

[palemale]

And another fact that needs to be noted is Obama's vote tally in last year's election was far less (numbering in the millions) than his tally in 2008. First time ever that a president got reelected with less votes. Who was the real loser in this election?

FDR was re-elected with fewer votes in 1944 than he won in 1940.

[GiancarloC]

Please. And you question who's bringing up race? Just take a look at your own post. Also, winning with less votes is a sign that someone's support has DROPPED. The hope, the change, the dreams from his father, and the prospect of going "forward" wasn't enough to convince more people to vote for Obama this time around. Yet you wanna imply that that half-assed win sounded the death knell for the GOP?

That comment is truthful. They were indeed two rich white guys funded by two other rich white guys. Thanks for attempting to take something out of context. It really does nothing for that non-existent argument. Thanks for all the faux outrages. The GOP is a pile of shit right now... lets just get to reality.

And I already stated the facts about how many people voted for Obama. Let me make a KEEN observation... remember superstorm Sandy? That probably hit turn-out in several areas... including in New York and New Jersey. Taking it out of the equation the total would have been closer to the same. How was it a half assed win? When was the last time a President won over 50% of the popular vote twice? Spare us the rhetoric and antics.

The only thing half assed are some of the responses around here.

[rareboy]

FDR was re-elected with fewer votes in 1944 than he won in 1940.

Thank you.

I was going to bring this to the poster's attention.

Nice attempted diversion though......

Another one who is going to have a lonely and bitter 4 years ahead.

And the real losers in this election were the American voters who gave the Democrats in the House one million more votes than the Republicans but are sitting out here watching the Republicans with a 33 seat majority.

[xbuzzerx]

Palemale. Rareboy. Giancarlo. Thinking a hard fact changes minds around here. Tsk tsk.

[CowboyBob]

Close the border as tightly as possible. Send the National Guard to the borders. Authorize them to shoot to kill.
Problem solves.

Oh, or we could simply start enforcing existing laws. What a novel idea.

Advocating murder. Brilliant.

[opinterph]

Send the National Guard to the borders. Authorize them to shoot to kill.

As for shoot to kill, why not? If someone is breaking into your house, you are within your rights in shooting them.
Breaking into your country is no different.

I think your analogy is incorrect. A person entering the country without permission is more akin to someone walking in your yard without permission – and in that scenario, the intruder is trespassing. In my state, if I ask an intruder to exit my property and they fail to do so, the violation is criminal trespass. Rather than seek to kill them, the proper response is to summon law enforcement officers to forcibly remove them. Unless the intruder is placing me or someone else in obvious mortal peril, I am not within my rights to harm him/her.

It is also important to recognize that there are exceptions to your right to inflict harm upon a person who is attempting to break into your house. For example, the person may be fleeing from a danger that justifies their entry into your home – and that can even include such things as inclement weather.

[opinterph]

Most immigrant reform efforts contain some attempt to limit illegal immigration. I don't think Republicans want more immigrant. But alas, we have passed the tipping point. We have so many voters of recent immigration, who want more immigration by their ethnic group, that any politician who votes against immigration is likely to loose. In the last election the Hispanic vote was overwhelmingly Democrat and Hispanics seem to want, not only "reform"--a quick road to citizenship-- but more influx of Hispanics. You can hear the result in the public discussion by Republicans: how can we survive as a party if we do not join in pandering to the Hispanics. How can I survive as a politician if I do not?
By labeling as racist and xenophobic any one who questions it, the liberals have foreclosed discussion of the broader questions, including poverty and unemployment. How can we every overcome poverty and unemployment when we are faced with a virtually unlimited influx of more poverty?

I suggest you try to separate your hatred for Republicans for a moment, and try to consider the effects today of immigration. We will never again have the world-dominating and expanding economy that we did as late as WWI. We have competition from all over the world and will never again be able to create new, good paying, jobs as rapidly as we did before. Your reliance on the good old days when we could absorb masses of new workers is just bad logic. Times have changed.
And please remember the effect which all that immigration, you described, had on African Americans. While the new people got jobs, the blacks have not climbed the ladder. Immigration and discrimination have gone hand in hand, and are continuing to do so today.
Instead of focusing on how bad conservatives are, please answer the question, how can we make progress against poverty and unemployment if we continue to have a massive influx of new poverty?

Please verify that I am properly interpreting the viewpoints you have presented by affirming or offering corrections to the following points I have derived from the two posts quoted above.

• Recent immigrants vote to favor policies that allow more immigration by their own ethnic group.

• Democrats seem to want more Hispanic immigration.

• The broader questions about immigration include poverty and unemployment.

• Immigration prevents African Americans from advancing, progressing, and/or succeeding in society or employment.

• Immigration encourages discrimination.

[Benvolio]

[QUOTE=opinterph;8681245]Please verify that I am properly interpreting the viewpoints you have presented by affirming or offering corrections to the following points I have derived from the two posts quoted above.

[LIST][*]
I believe those statements are true with these qualifications.
Democrats want continued large scale immigration, including Hispanics and preferring non-whites. Immigrants tend to vote Democrat.
Historically, and continuing today, immigration has facilitated discrimination against African Americans. Since 1865, the US economy expanded incredibly, creating millions of jobs, but that expansion did little to benefit blacks, because of discrimination, because the massive immigration provided whites to take the jobs. It continues in a different form. Legal immigrants are entitled to the benefit of anti-discrimination laws and it is illegal to discriminate against them, because they are immigrants, in favor of Americans, including blacks. They qualify for affirmative action programs designed to help blacks. The massive immigration of people willing to work for the lowest salaries, has kept wages low and discouraged some Americans, including young blacks from entering the labor market. They don't want jobs at such low incomes, and and the incomes are low because there are many people willing to work at that level.
[/LI

[chrisrobin]

Please verify that I am properly interpreting the viewpoints you have presented by affirming or offering corrections to the following points I have derived from the two posts quoted above.

[LIST][*]
I believe those statements are true with these qualifications.
Democrats want continued large scale immigration, including Hispanics and preferring non-whites. Immigrants tend to vote Democrat.
Historically, and continuing today, immigration has facilitated discrimination against African Americans. Since 1865, the US economy expanded incredibly, creating millions of jobs, but that expansion did little to benefit blacks, because of discrimination, because the massive immigration provided whites to take the jobs. It continues in a different form. Legal immigrants are entitled to the benefit of anti-discrimination laws and it is illegal to discriminate against them, because they are immigrants, in favor of Americans, including blacks. They qualify for affirmative action programs designed to help blacks. The massive immigration of people willing to work for the lowest salaries, has kept wages low and discouraged some Americans, including young blacks from entering the labor market. They don't want jobs at such low incomes, and and the incomes are low because there are many people willing to work at that level.
[/LI

We must remember that immigration is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy designed to fuck over Republicons. Actually, there were illegal aliens inside the statue. There is no end to their treachery.

[xbuzzerx]

I love how the "....... WHAT?! The hispanics went for the libs?!" rude awakening that the Republicans had in November of 2012 has now been historically rewritten into: the Democrats have been facilitating and striving to enable illegal immigration all along as part of a vast plot to hedge Democratic votes.

Nevermind who was hiring illegal immigrants and providing the incentive for them to move, nevermind which party has traditionally made the most saber rattling while doing the least of substance to actually catch the employment of illegal immigrants, nevermind which industries rely on illegal labor the most and which party they donate campaign dollars to, and nevermind the fact that no illegal immigrant can vote. So any immigrants in discussion here either came here legally or have been here for a significant period of time and acquired citizenship through natural birth or naturalization.

Even if we accept a premise of "immigrants vote Democrat and so Democrats want immigrants in", and we view immigration strictly through the narrow little reptile eye lens of "which party benefits from immigrant votes", we don't have Democrats to thank for what happened in 2012, we have decades of free market deregulation Republicans who were always happy to incentivize immigration to the U.S. through the mass hiring of immigrant no-benefit low-wage labor for agribusiness, shipping and distribution, retail and a million other jobs-- all the while claiming they hated immigrants and that everyone should speak English.

[Benvolio]

Democrats just cannot face the fact that their hypocritical promotion of immigration is a disaster for those they pretend to care about, the poor and unemployed.

[xbuzzerx]

Democrats just cannot face the fact that their hypocritical promotion of immigration is a disaster for those they pretend to care about, the poor and unemployed.

And you apparently can't face the intellectual dishonesty of this statement from someone who'd as happy dismantle all support network for the poor and unemployed.

[GiancarloC]

Democrats just cannot face the fact that their hypocritical promotion of immigration is a disaster for those they pretend to care about, the poor and unemployed.

Troll attempt fail.

[Benvolio]

And you apparently can't face the intellectual dishonesty of this statement from someone who'd as happy dismantle all support network for the poor and unemployed.

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.

[Rolyo85]

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.

Yeah, that sounds kinda dumb...

[xbuzzerx]

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.

You're just repeating horse manure from people like Rush Limbaugh. Illegal immigrants can't get welfare and they can't vote.

[Benvolio]

It appears that you are unwilling to acknowledge that Republicans want immigration reform. Instead you have introduced an alternate theme – limiting illegal immigration.

How should the US go about limiting illegal immigration?

We should do what it takes to keep large numbers from coming. No, not killing them but stopping them. A basic purpose of government is to protect its people from invasion, article I V, sec 4 of the Constitution provides: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican [Democratic] form of government, and shall protect each of the against Invasion.."
No, really, it does say that. Look it up.
The Democrats violate both requirements. By allowing and encouraging the invasion they can destroy the Democracy by swamping the states with foreigners who will reliably vote Democrat to impose high taxes on Americans to provide freebies to the invaders.
It is happening before our eyes.

[GiancarloC]

There is no invasion. There wasn't one in the 1910s when Italians came here in droves (many of which came here as undocumented and the only documentation that exists are ship ledgers). The falsehoods of the right wing reactionary argument continue. Yes, one can look it up and see there is no invasion. The democrats didn't violate anything. Stop distorting the Constitution. I know republicans love to distort the constitution a lot.

Foreigners aren't invading America. They are coming here to work in jobs some republicans would never want... and are contributing to this country. I was born in a different country, and I find this as a personal affront. The racism and xenophobia on this forum by the right wingers is evident.

[xbuzzerx]

There is no invasion. There wasn't one in the 1910s when Italians came here in droves (many of which came here as undocumented and the only documentation that exists are ship ledgers). The falsehoods of the right wing reactionary argument continue. Yes, one can look it up and see there is no invasion. The democrats didn't violate anything. Stop distorting the Constitution. I know republicans love to distort the constitution a lot.

Foreigners aren't invading America. They are coming here to work in jobs some republicans would never want... and are contributing to this country. I was born in a different country, and I find this as a personal affront. The racism and xenophobia on this forum by the right wingers is evident.

Yup.

At the height of the Irish/Italian immigration period, there were more foreign-born people in the U.S. as a percentage of the population than today. There is no 'invasion.' Anymore than there's an 'invasion' of the UK by Muslims or Asians or any of the rest of this alarmist, nativist, reactionary rhetoric that's literally been around for millenia.

In college I had a professor put a transparency up on the screen as we came in. It was a quote talking about how "we're being invaded by hordes of immigrants who have totally different language and customs, do not adopt ours, harm our civilization and are nothing at all like the previous immigrants who worked hard and contributed." The professor asked everyone to guess what the quote was talking about, and everyone, naturally, thought it was about hispanic immigration.

She revealed the rest of the transparency and it was a Roman Emperor talking about Britons.

None of this shit is anything new.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

It is hard to support the poor and unemployed when they flood into the country by the millions, and any support provides an incentive for more to come.