• Ignoring your sleazy attempt to claim "bigotry", the U.S. isn't sending millions of citizens to England because we can't take care of them. And, Mexico will help even more of their citizens move to the U.S., eventually swamping the system. Instead of, for instance, realizing that supporting UHC at the same time as supporting enforcing our laws, you attempt to hide your incredibly childlike policy ideas behind a smear.

  • comment on a post Healthcare Questions for the President? over 5 years ago

    Ask him why both he and David Cutler have lied in regards to illegal aliens being covered.

  • comment on a post Smear Merchant Also A 9/11 Truther? over 6 years ago

    Corsi was apparently on radio today denying he's a "truther".

    Further, the Obama campaign omitted one sentence from the Corsi quote above in order to bolster their claim that he's a "truther".

  • comment on a post Barack Obama at La Raza over 6 years ago

    1. He's referring to lawful enforcement of our laws as "terrorizing".

    2. He doesn't understand what "raza" signifies, and BHO isn't "raza". It's a good thing he wasn't around in the 30s: he would have gone to a Bund meeting and thought he was "Volk" too.

  • architek:

    Almost all illegal aliens are citizens of some other country, most of them being citizens of Mexico. I shouldn't have to add, but I guess I do, that it fits the MexicanGovernment's agenda to send as many people as possible to the U.S. They're more valuable to them here and and they're also less likely to press for reforms in Mexico that way. And, useful idiots in the U.S. are more than willing to help Mexico with its goals.

    As for stripping people of citizenship, can you provide a citation? I know a few years ago David Neiwert falsely implied that a bill would do that, but other than that I haven't heard anyone else claim that. So, I'd like to see you provide proof of your statements.

    As for the post, those here might want to check out the chilly reception it received here:


  • 1. What happens to new illegal aliens who are hired by unscrupulous employers? Will DMI wave its magic wand in that case as well, converting them into legal workers? In that case, won't that swamp our low-wage labor system? I mean, millions of prospective illegal aliens are going to see DMI's plan as amnesty, and they're going to come here. If DMI says they would support deporting future illegal aliens, well, pardon me if I don't believe them. Those who oppose deportations now will almost certainly oppose them in the future.

    2. Won't this massive legalization give even more political power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government, leading to a loosening of DMI's rules? Mexico's former foreign minister even said he was going to use U.S. groups to push reforms, and several non-profits have links to that government. Isn't DMI's plan working against attempts to prevent Mexico from sending us even more of their excess population?

    3. Most of our recent immigrants of all types are low-skill and low-wage. Since DMI promotes how much money we're supposedly making from illegal aliens, wouldn't we make even more money if we stopped immigration by low-skilled labor and concentrated on high-skilled? Aren't DMI's plans favoring importing even more massive amounts of low-skilled labor?

    4. Can you list all the groups that profit from importing massive amounts of low-skilled labor? (Hint: one group is not obvious, but might be the most important).

  • The reason the Dems aren't picking up on Rove's remarks is the same reason that Kerry didn't use the immigration issue to win in 2004 [1].

    The reason: they agree with Bush. The Dems want votes, the Bush side of the GOP wants the cheap labor, and both like having domestic helpers. And, both supposedly distinct groups seem to want to replace or dilute the power of the current voters. See this analysis from a former Fox advisor for more on the latter. To a certain extent some of them are RacialDemagogues (Luis Gutierrez springs to mind), and others live in fear of angry press releases.

    [1] Highlighting Bush's anti-American Guest Worker plan would have won Ohio, and highlighting Bush's BorderSecurity failures would have won Arizona. And, if he'd won those states, Kerry would be president today.

  • comment on a post Scapegoating Immigrants in 2008 over 7 years ago

    Here's my Question for Matt Stoller:

    Since you support "reform", and since one of the selling points of "reform" is more stringent enforcement, and since that enforcement would include deporting future illegal aliens, aren't you yourself endorsing the KKK by your own definition?

  • Since trying to enforce our immigration laws and supporting our sovereignty is a loser (according to this post) and represents "nativist rhetoric" (and, no, I don't think that's an unfair characterization), could someone describe the complete details of a Latino-friendly agenda, including providing an accurate number of how many millions of new legal and illegal immigrants that plan would lead to?

    And, could you also discuss other factors, such as increased political power inside the U.S. for the MexicanGovernment, the increased risk of far-left racial demagogues who even the Democratic Party would not want to be seen to be associated with (tinyurl.com/y78uh9), etc.? Could you also discuss the increased threat of TerroristInfiltration, as discussed in various government reports?

    It's one thing to call names, and it's a related thing to present broad guidelines, but it's quite another to present an actual plan and also disclose everything that that plan would do.

  • comment on a post Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll over 7 years ago

    there is a hardcore Republican fringe that hates immigration

    Around 75% of voters - across the ideological spectrum - oppose illegal immigration.

    But, feel free to portray widely-popular opposition to illegal immigration to illegal immigration as hatred of immigration, since that's obviously a sure way to win elections as the Lamont results show.

  • comment on a post The Pre-Debate Rally, and Alan Schlesinger Perot over 7 years ago

    I'm quite familiar with the issue of illegal immigration and the perils involved, so, from my perspective those who support pro-illegal immigration candidates like Lamont and Lieberman are the ones who might perhaps need to do some research into the subject.

    If Lamont wanted to win, he could have an epiphany and pledge to strongly oppose illegal immigration. He could pick up a lot of pro-American votes that way and the only votes he'd lose would be from racial power groups and the far-left. Sounds like a good bargain.

  • comment on a post Republicans Set To Go Nuclear over 7 years ago

    "Patrick Murphy wants to let 68 million illegal immigrants into the country"

    That probably doesn't include the "illegal" part and probably refers to the Senate amnesty, which could result in that many new legal immigrants over 20 years. Needless to say, that would also encourage millions of illegal aliens to come here over that time, but that can't be as easily quantified.

    "Patrick Murphy will give full in-state college tuition to "illegals"

    That's a reference to the DREAMAct or similar state bills.

    The best way for the Democrats to counter that is to point out how it's necessary to take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens and give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally. Yes, U.S. citizens will be hurt by that, but, that's OK because foreign citizens who have the full rights of their native lands will be helped so it's OK. It's also acceptable that U.S. citizenship should be devalued for some reason or other.

  • First of all, there's a difference between "immigrants" and "illegal aliens".

    Second, neither all immigrants nor all illegal aliens are working.

    Third, let's take a look at your boosterism for remittances (#2 above).

    Can anyone think of any downsides to remittances?

    Well, first of all, there's the issue that it's basically hollowing out some Mexican states as a very large percentage of their workers head to the U.S. That's unhealthy, as is getting most of that state's income from remittances.

    But, wait, once you think about it, there's more.

    Much of those remittances reflect money earned illegally: not just being employed illegally, but also using fake docs.

    And, there are American companies profiting from that illegal activity.

    And, those American companies then donate to politicians who do what those companies want: keep the illegal immigration flowing so those companies can make more money.

    So, now that we think about it, we see that what MetaData portrayed as a wonderful thing leads to massive political corruption in the U.S.

    Likewise, one could demolish the other points he raises.

  • Why don't we penalize corrupt businesses now?

    Well, because those who profit from illegal immigration have a lot of power and many allies.

    That makes it difficult to penalize those companies.

    The various amnesty schemes would only give those corrupt corporations that profit from illegal immigration even more power.

    They aren't going to take a permanent vacation once they get "reform". They're going to keep on pushing and they're going to have more power.

  • The illegal aliens that were "brought into the system" would soon find themselves out of a job as those same forces that currently support illegal immigration simply brought in new illegal aliens to take the place of the old.

    And, there are links between those who organized some of the rallies and the Mexican government or Mexican institutions. Is allying yourself with foreign governments and foreign political parties also considered progressive? What about helping a foreign country achieve their agenda of making money off the citizens they can't take care of? Is that progressive too?


Advertise Blogads