Ann Coulter Rips Marco Rubio Over Inmigration Reform.

[palemale]

Much of the divide politically in this country is really North-South, not racial or ethnic. The Republican Party has become the party of the South and is destined to be relegated a dwindling, regional party. The ideology of the South has become the ideology of the Republican Party. In an article in Salon, Michael Lind, an author from the South, writes persuasively that the genesis of this divide is the basis of our current political paralysis and has its roots in the different way the South has experienced American history from the Northeast, Midwest and West. Essentially, the rest of the country outside the South perceives American history as one of military success, against the British, the Confederacy, the Nazis and Japanese, and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The South, he argues, sees American history as a series of defeats, from the Civil War, the end of slavery, the Civil Rights movement, etc. It is definitely worth a read:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/the_...s_last_defeat/

[Benvolio]

LMAO. I was attacked repeatedly. I never said I would choose an English speaking country. America doesn't have an official language. I guess a fact check is needed. There are many languages spoken in this country... just look at LA. Again, NO official language. One can even get government documents in different languages if they want.

Where did I say I would choose an English speaking country over a Spanish speaking one? Again stop making bullshit up please.

You did choose a English speaking country.

[Benvolio]

Irrelevant, English is the de facto language of the U S and all Federal documents are in English. It is the official language of 33 states. More important, the English speaking culture has historically been the dominant culture, as in UK, Australia, New Zealand and most of Canada. I agree with your choice to come here rather than to a Hispanic country. Agreeing with your choice is not in any sense an attack on you.

Your calling centexfarmer a troll was a personal attack.

[Kulindahr]

America isn't an English speaking country. It's official language isn't English. FACT PLEASE. If it's official language was English one would have a case. And Los Angeles is a very multilingual city... very diverse.

There is NO official language in America and for good reason.

Back when German immigrants were flocking in, the percentage of non-English speakers was far, far higher than it is today, enough so that some wondered if German would become the dominant language. Of course it didn't, and for a very important reason: the people with the money and the established businesses weren't going to change.

Congress even took up the issue, and its decision was there should be no official language because that would tell immigrants they were less than the rest, second-class citizens, something utterly foreign to the founding concepts.

[xbuzzerx]

What does it MATTER what language is spoken in the country immigrants are trying to get into?

How is this relevant to anything? I don't see why it's even coming up other than in some broad-brush attempt to paint all Spanish speaking countries as inherently undesirable because it has hispanic, spanish speaking people in it.

[Benvolio]

False on all counts. I have provided solid evidence and proof showing how they are essential. We're talking about $2.6 trillion over the next ten years that would be wiped out. It means absolutely everything. The economy would fall back into a deep recession. Having a contraction in the GDP at that level would lead to a severe recession. sending people back to where they came from is nothing more than a xenophobic response and isn't how the real world works.

Better to have a nation with more open borders... a nation with closed borders is a dying nation. The Chinese closed off their civilization and it led once great Empires to total decline.

And yes, plenty of other arguments matter... just not the one that you have posted here which is absolutely meaningless.

The problem here is right wingers are scared that they are becoming an ever decreasing minority of the constituency. Their screwball candidates can no longer win. It's a scary prospect. Romney won the same percentage of white voters as Reagan did... one won in a landslide and the other lost big time. Scary for the right wing these days... not like I give a shit. I hope this nation becomes 40-50% Latino in 20 years, and the Republicans go out the same way as the Whigs. Yeah, all the brown people hating the GOP does will go out the window.

Much of the divide politically in this country is really North-South, not racial or ethnic. The Republican Party has become the party of the South and is destined to be relegated a dwindling, regional party. The ideology of the South has become the ideology of the Republican Party. In an article in Salon, Michael Lind, an author from the South, writes persuasively that the genesis of this divide is the basis of our current political paralysis and has its roots in the different way the South has experienced American history from the Northeast, Midwest and West. Essentially, the rest of the country outside the South perceives American history as one of military success, against the British, the Confederacy, the Nazis and Japanese, and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The South, he argues, sees American history as a series of defeats, from the Civil War, the end of slavery, the Civil Rights movement, etc. It is definitely worth a read:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/the_...s_last_defeat/

The ideology of the Repeblican party has not changed much over the decades. It has since 1865 been the party of the white Christian, originally protestant, minority. While the Democrats became an alliance of the southern, anti northern people and the minorities, mostly Catholic, unified only by their resentment of the majority. The famous description of the Democrat party in 1888 as "rum, Romanism, and rebellion"was largely true. The Republicans were pro business all through those decades when the US became the richest , most innovative country in history. It is the Democrats who have developed the ideology which divides the country, becoming pro abortion, the biggest single divider. But the democrats became anti business, anti majority, anti assimilation,pro immigration, and more recently, anti Christian. The have promoted division as a calculated political strategy. Divide and conquer.
The Midwest has historically been Republican, far longer than the south.

[xbuzzerx]

White protestants have not been a minority since 1865.

[palemale]

The ideology of the Repeblican party has not changed much over the decades. It has since 1865 been the party of the white Christian, originally protestant, minority. While the Democrats became an alliance of the southern, anti northern people and the minorities, mostly Catholic, unified only by their resentment of the majority. The famous description of the Democrat party in 1888 as "rum, Romanism, and rebellion"was largely true. The Republicans were pro business all through those decades when the US became the richest , most innovative country in history. It is the Democrats who have developed the ideology which divides the country, becoming pro abortion, the biggest single divider. But the democrats became anti business, anti majority, anti assimilation,pro immigration, and more recently, anti Christian. The have promoted division as a calculated political strategy. Divide and conquer.
The Midwest has historically been Republican, far longer than the south.

I guess you never heard of the "Southern Strategy." That was the Republican Party plan, which it implemented quite effectively, to peal off the votes of Southern Democrats from the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party by stoking racial resentment, i.e. they appealed to racism without appearing overtly racist. It is the Republican Party that has promoted division as a political strategy. They have promoted race resentment, put gay marriage on the ballot to gin up their religious base to come out and vote, campaigned against intellectuals, unions, communists, etc. Let's get our historic facts straight.

Ultimately, the South needs to engage in some serious reflection and self analysis. It's pretty indisputable that the majority of our most negative and disgraceful episodes in American history, and our darkest historical periods, were the result of reactionary, Southern intransigence and ignorance. They resisted abolition of slavery, trade unions, civil rights, modernity. Lynching was endemic and so accepted that Southerners would bring their children out to see blacks cruelly lynched, and they would send post cards commemorating the event. Our treatment of Native Americans was one of the few, universal horrors that cannot be pinned primarily on the South.

[opinterph]

failed Latino countries

infinitely more successful English speaking country

shit language, known here in Texas as "Mexican."

Are you suggesting there is a correlation between a particular language and aptitude, general intelligence, or success?

[opinterph]

Ideally, you're right. But government is supposed to benefit its citizens, not do them harm -- and to round up all the illegals and ship them off would do immense harm to many citizens. .

"immense harm to citizens?" I rather doubt it. It would free up millions of jobs Millions. Perhaps some of the millions of able bodied citizens currently receiving welfare could be 'encouraged' to take those jobs. It would be a win win situation for Americans.

When low-skill jobs are taken by “guest workers,” the effect generally has an upward benefit for “native” workers at all skill levels. The guest workers create demand, which increases industry and productivity. If guest workers were not available, some jobs would simply cease to exist. After a certain wage point, it becomes more expedient to outsource those jobs to another country with lower wages. It’s just as likely for the work to go where the labor is as it is for labor to go where the work is.

[xbuzzerx]

When low-skill jobs are taken by “guest workers,” the effect generally has an upward benefit for “native” workers at all skill levels. The guest workers create demand, which increases industry and productivity. If guest workers were not available, some jobs would simply cease to exist. After a certain wage point, it becomes more expedient to outsource those jobs to another country with lower wages. It’s just as likely for the work to go where the labor is as it is for labor to go where the work is.

I believe this is the first post from anyone other than Giancarlo to address my repeated asking of anyone to examine what immigrant workers "put into" the economy in any discussion where people are going to throw numbers around about what they "cost" the economy. Thank you.

[Rolyo85]

What does it MATTER what language is spoken in the country immigrants are trying to get into?

How is this relevant to anything? I don't see why it's even coming up other than in some broad-brush attempt to paint all Spanish speaking countries as inherently undesirable because it has hispanic, spanish speaking people in it.

Because English is the Superior language and is spoken by the Superior cultures, duh. I thought it was obvious what he meant.

[Benvolio]

You are correct, it should read "white Christian, originally Protestant majority."

[opinterph]

You are correct, it should read "white Christian, originally Protestant majority."

To whom or what are you responding?

[Benvolio]

You are correct, it should read "white Christian, originally Protestant majority."

xbuzzerx pointed our that typing mistake to me.

[Benvolio]

Are you suggesting there is a correlation between a particular language and aptitude, general intelligence, or success?

Absolutely not. But there is no question that some countries and cultures have been more successful than others, economically and in other respects. You can argue about the reasons, but I believe they are predominately cultural, and language is at least a distinguishing element or marker of the cultures.

[Benvolio]

When low-skill jobs are taken by “guest workers,” the effect generally has an upward benefit for “native” workers at all skill levels. The guest workers create demand, which increases industry and productivity. If guest workers were not available, some jobs would simply cease to exist. After a certain wage point, it becomes more expedient to outsource those jobs to another country with lower wages. It’s just as likely for the work to go where the labor is as it is for labor to go where the work is.

Both are happening. Cheap labor is coming here at the same time that jobs are being sent elsewhere to escape the many burdens of employment in the US. As a result we are building a large permanent underclass of poor and unemployed.
Your argument suggests that wages in the US for unskilled workers are keeping up with inflation, does it not? I don't believe that is true. It also assumes that the creation of demand is all important. But how does population increase affect other problems? Are pollution, green house emissions, sewage, urban sprawl, etc improved or made worse by population growth? Is crime helped by population growth or increased by it. Americans are told that they must sacrifice to reduce emissions, even as we bring in millions of more people. Schools? The health care problem? All out problems and indeed the worlds problems are made worse by population growth.

[Benvolio]

Most immigrants come here for superior economic advantages, but that is a function of culture, particularly a culture friendly to business and rewarding innovation. Other people could have invented telegraph, telephone, phonograph, electrical distribution and appliances, airplane, transistor etc etc, etc. but they did not. In many other instances inventions were made by other but developed, improved and mass produced in America. We did not invent the railroad, but we soon had more miles than he rest of the world combined. Ford did not invent the auto, but quickly revolutionized the world with his. Not the radio, but the vacuum tube which gave it sound. Not the computer, but the transistor which revolutionized electronics. We continue lead the world in innovation. Use google to see the namely prize winners in the sciences and medicine and you will see how the US and UK have dominated. Some by immigrants but working in the environment created by our culture.

[Benvolio]

Which Hispanic countries would you consider rich, Giancarlo? Google, under Median Houshold Income shows:US 31,111; Spain 18,860, 7, 851; Chile 7,851; Mexico 4,689. These are 2007 figures, probably worse now. I agree with your decision to choose the US.

[Benvolio]

Look again, Giancarlo. I said most immigrants come here for "superior economic advantages". But a favorable cultural climate creates those advantages, encouraging innovation and free enterprise.

[Benvolio]

So, since you claim that all those countries have economies equal to or better than ours, why do they come by the millions, with millions more wanting to come?

[Rolyo85]

I have to ask - where are all those untold millions of immigrants? I am beginning to imagine them as some nanomachine locust-like black cloud sandstorm that just engulfs cities and leave economic ruins...

[Benvolio]

Illegal immigration may or may not be down a little. Does someone stand at the border and count them as they sneak in? Or should we believe the immigration beaurocrats' estimate of the number of their failures. None the less they come in larges numbers, however fewer. No one claims it has stopped. Legal immigrants continue at about a million a year.

[xbuzzerx]

Absolutely not. But there is no question that some countries and cultures have been more successful than others, economically and in other respects. You can argue about the reasons, but I believe they are predominately cultural, and language is at least a distinguishing element or marker of the cultures.

Look at any corner of the world that is economically behind and like clockwork you'll be looking almost invariably at parts of the world that were systematically colonized, wrecked, plundered and finally "released" by colonial, usually European or western, countries which enriched themselves in the bargain.

It might be prudent to examine that as a reason why they might be behind economically compared to the colonialist powers rather than reducing it to something moronic and simple like their language or 'culture' was what strip mined them and left them economically behind when entering the global economy.

Unless of course, one doesn't wish to view it that way for personal bias reasons, in which case disregard everything said, naturally.

[Benvolio]

- - - Updated - - -

How were small numbers of Europeans able to colonize much larger populations of non Europeans? Cultural and therefore technological advancement. Firearms and naval advances were a big part of it. Why were Europeans so far ahead? The Renaissance--a big cultural change.

[Lostlover]

Guy is clearly trolling and people keep responding. Unreal.

We just made the GOP sit the fuck down. Why are we still talking to them as if their opinions matter? Seriously.

[xbuzzerx]

- - - Updated - - -

How were small numbers of Europeans able to colonize much larger populations of non Europeans? Cultural and therefore technological advancement. Firearms and naval advances were a big part of it. Why were Europeans so far ahead? The Renaissance--a big cultural change.

If you use technology at any given moment as a sign of some kind of innate superiority then Europe was inferior to Arabs and Asians for the great majority of world history.

Care to comment?

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Guy is clearly trolling and people keep responding. Unreal.

We just made the GOP sit the fuck down. Why are we still talking to them as if their opinions matter? Seriously.

I stopped bothering to post in this thread. I just come here to laugh at Benny regurgitate the same StormFront propaganda over and over again.

I say this to you as a friend, Giancarlo: When someone keeps answering 2 + 2 = 5 after you keep repeatedly showing him that 2 + 2 = 4, it's time to go home, put an Al Green record on and take a nice hot bath.

[Benvolio]

Yes, the Arabs had a period of cultural advancement, with several inventions, but then they became stagnant, apparently as a result of the increasingly authoritarian power of the Muslim clerics. China as well had such a period long ago, but went stagnant, even as Europe stagnanted during the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome, and prior to the European Renaissance.

[Benvolio]

Strange that you would invoke Mathematics, Fury. If we have too many poor people,then bring in millions of additional poor people, we will have more poor people than before. It always astonishes me that I must argue propositions that are obvious and indisputable.

[xbuzzerx]

Yes, the Arabs had a period of cultural advancement, with several inventions, but then they became stagnant, apparently as a result of the increasingly authoritarian power of the Muslim clerics. China as well had such a period long ago, but went stagnant, even as Europe stagnanted during the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome, and prior to the European Renaissance.

No they didn't. They were set back and didn't recover for almost a millenium from the conquest of the Mongols, which wrecked the Middle East and completely bypassed Europe because Europe was a backwards, over-forested barbaric land useless for horses and too poor to be worth conquering. The riches and civilization and everything worth plundering was in the Middle East, not Europe, and the degree to which the Mongols devastated them is only very passingly mentioned in western history. The Mongols in many cases eradicated entire cities down to the last man, woman and child. And that was also frequently their reaction to any uprising against their rule, as well. They would even pull their army out of a sacked city for 3 days, to let any who escaped or survived go back home, and then return and re-raze it and kill everyone they could find.

But I'm sure, more than that, their "culture" (which had put them virtually at the forefront of human progress) suddenly stagnated them to death. Sure.

[Rolyo85]

Ugh, you almost make it sound like Anglo-Saxon culture isn't inherently better by virtue of its very genetics than any other in the world. Have you no decency?!

[Kulindahr]

Again those pesky citizens are committing more crimes. Undocumented immigrants actually commit less crime according to several prestigious studies.

A local study found that this is true here, and that when illegals do commit crime the crimes tend to be mostly petty ones; the exceptions tend to be aggravated assault and rape. There is far more trouble from those who believe that this country should be "white and Christian".

[Kulindahr]

Utter nonsense. There are many Caucasian countries that are very poor like in Eastern Europe. And there are some Hispanic countries that are actually quite wealthy. Stop splitting hairs. Some cultures are definitely not more successful than others... wrong on ALL COUNTS.

Yep. Consider Brazil: one of the fastest growing economies in the world, actually paying down its national debt, and steadily climbing the ladder of the most productive and prosperous.

[Kulindahr]

Most immigrants come here for superior economic advantages, but that is a function of culture, particularly a culture friendly to business and rewarding innovation. Other people could have invented telegraph, telephone, phonograph, electrical distribution and appliances, airplane, transistor etc etc, etc. but they did not. In many other instances inventions were made by other but developed, improved and mass produced in America. We did not invent the railroad, but we soon had more miles than he rest of the world combined. Ford did not invent the auto, but quickly revolutionized the world with his. Not the radio, but the vacuum tube which gave it sound. Not the computer, but the transistor which revolutionized electronics. We continue lead the world in innovation. Use google to see the namely prize winners in the sciences and medicine and you will see how the US and UK have dominated. Some by immigrants but working in the environment created by our culture.

And how are those record miles of high-speed rail doing lately?

[Kulindahr]

By the way, who built the railroads in this country particularly on the west coast?

Socialism did it.

[Kulindahr]

Brazil has a better atmosphere for investment and development than the United States right now, and Brazil is operated by some pinko commie socialists (using right winger logic).

The World Bank rates Brazil as 130th on their "ease of doing business" scale -- not exactly in the upper ranks. The US is rated fourth.

[Kulindahr]

Strange that you would invoke Mathematics, Fury. If we have too many poor people,then bring in millions of additional poor people, we will have more poor people than before. It always astonishes me that I must argue propositions that are obvious and indisputable.

The US had gobs of poor people. Then it brought in poor Italians, poor Irish, poor Germans, poor Chinese... and ended up0 with a smaller portion of poor people than before.

Maybe we should import more poor people!

[Benvolio]

The US had gobs of poor people. Then it brought in poor Italians, poor Irish, poor Germans, poor Chinese... and ended up0 with a smaller portion of poor people than before.

Maybe we should import more poor people!

Please remember that the immigration you describe facilitated the discrimination against African Americans, who made little progress during that period. Employers needing workers could and did hire immigrants rather than African Americans. In those olden days of yore, the government was friendly to business, not the enemy, and labor unions were weak. Foreign competition did not exist. Now that combination has destroyed much of our heavy industry. Even the advocates of immigration say they are here for very low paying jobs, even as government burdens force such jobs overseas.

[palemale]

The US had gobs of poor people. Then it brought in poor Italians, poor Irish, poor Germans, poor Chinese... and ended up0 with a smaller portion of poor people than before.

Maybe we should import more poor people!

The Irish were instrumental in building the labor movement. Three of the five presidents of the AFL-CIO were Irish Americans from the Bronx.

[HenryReardon]

.

I say this to you as a friend, Giancarlo: When someone keeps answering 2 + 2 = 5 after you keep repeatedly showing him that 2 + 2 = 4, it's time to go home, put an Al Green record on and take a nice hot bath.

The problem is this: Giancarlo is the one who's insisting that 2 + 2 = 5.

[Benvolio]

Socialism, defined as the government ownership or control of the means of production, did not build the railroads. It provided incentives in the form of land grants, but then the government stepped aside and the railroads were built with great speed and owned by private interprise. The government neither owned or controlled them.

[Benvolio]

American laborers would like to regain those big paying heavy industry jobs.

[xbuzzerx]

American laborers would like to regain those big paying heavy industry jobs.

They moved overseas dude. You think factory work is still here and just went to immigrants? Get real.

[mightbe]

Benvolio-all the jobs that will be taken by Americans have been taken by Americans. They don't want the jobs that are filled with illegal immigrants, which is why they can get them in the first place. Removing immigrants means that Americans suddenly get their shitty jobs, and they'll want more for it. Jobs must be created for Americans with help from the federal government, as some have been. There's too many of us and too few jobs we'll take.

[Benvolio]

The reason the jobs are low paying is because there are so many people willing to work cheap. Stop the immigration and let employers pay more. But it is wrong to assume that the problem is only illegals. The economic effects of legal immigration are much the same. Is taxi driving such a bad job that Americans will not take it? I think not. Construction? Factories?
Low paying jobs often cost the country more than he are worth. Our taxpayers nod up having to give the workers welfare, food stamps, health care, schools for their children,subsidized housing. Far better to send those jobs to other countries.

[xbuzzerx]

The reason the jobs are low paying is because there are so many people willing to work cheap. Stop the immigration and let employers pay more. But it is wrong to assume that the problem is only illegals. The economic effects of legal immigration are much the same. Is taxi driving such a bad job that Americans will not take it? I think not. Construction? Factories?
Low paying jobs often cost the country more than he are worth. Our taxpayers nod up having to give the workers welfare, food stamps, health care, schools for their children,subsidized housing. Far better to send those jobs to other countries.

You're just repeating this over and over again. Evidence doesn't support your position. As pointed out above the inflow of Irish and Italian immigrants ultimately moved more native borns upwards in terms of income and socioeconomic class.

Your position only makes sense to you because you operate from this factually incorrect mindset that all immigrants do is come in here and suck at resources and do not contribute anything. Any immigrant here is eating here, paying for a roof here, buying goods here. You remove them and you also remove a lot of demand from the economy.

[mightbe]

I'm more specifically referring to agricultural jobs, in which case it is beyond optimal for all parties for those positions to be taken by those that need the little money the job offers. Don't you like that food is by-and-large cheap? The only reason some Mexicans aren't here legally is because you don't have to fly or take a boat to get here. Mexicans come from the border and up. Along the way (depending on where) you'll be likely to find orchards and farms in southern California, ranching operations in Texas and New Mexico, and god knows what in Aridzone. The point is, they take under the table jobs that give them money they need and keep the domestic cost of food low to everyone. It's far more likely for an illegal immigrant to get a job in unskilled agriculture (an insignificant one to most of us) than to sign on with a taxi company. Taxi companies are higher up, they have more to lose. Hence, many Mexican taxi drivers are here legally. Agriculture is more rural and is easier to do under-the-table work away from the roving eyes of a large population.

[mightbe]

And as buzzer said, they contribute what they make. They don't waste it. They can't afford to.

[Benvolio]

Cheap food is an illusion if we have to give them schools, health care, food stamps etc. But illegals do much more than agricultural. Much of the construction, restaurant, hotel, etc work as well. And again, legal immigrants compete with Americans and pull wages down as well.
Actually much of the agricultural workers are here on temporary work permits, and are expected to return home.