Immigration

Immigration Roundup: The Good, Bad and Ugly in the GOP-controlled Congress

Congressional Republicans are divided and could break out into a major civil war on immigration

|

Much happened on immigration reform in the Republican-controlled Congress this week — good, bad and ugly.

ImmigrationRally
Boss Tweed / Foter / CC BY

Here's a rundown, in reverse order:

Ugly:

 Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a committed immigration reform arsonist, released a restrictionist manifesto basically declaring a war on immigration on every front, as I blogged here. He attacked not just unskilled immigrants from Mexico as welfare queens who undercut American jobs and wages, he even went after skilled immigrants. He claimed that the notion that innovations and entrepreneurship by foreign techies is a major power booster for America's IT economy is a "Silicon Valley STEM Hoax" perpetrated by the likes of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. He accused them of clamoring for more guest workers only so that they could lay off "existing workers in massive quantities" – an illegal practice that would get them in a whole host of trouble with the labor department if they engaged in it.

He encouraged his fellow restrictionist GOPers to either offer "isolated measures" or "amendments to any relevant business that comes before Congress" to take a slew of steps from mandatory E-verify to criminal penalties for visa overstayers" to closing asylum and refugee loopholes" with the aim of reducing the immigration population in the country — both legal and illegal.

Some of his suggestions are really draconian and one can only hope they get consumed by termites.

Bad:

Sessions House cronies managed to prevail on the GOP to vote on a bill whose aim was to selectively fund the Department of Homeland Security's border enforcement functions — and defund Obama's anti-deportation measures.

Here's the story of their complicated manuvering:

Obama's 2012 DACA (Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals) executive order suspended deportation proceedings against aliens brought here as kids. And his 2014 action extended DACA to other undocumented foreigners with American families and deep ties to the community. Both of these have stuck in the craw of Sessions & Co. 

They accused him of Caesarism but could do nothing because the 1986 Immigration and Nationality Act unequivocally hands the president wide prosecutorial discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities as he sees fit, as I noted here. They flirted with the idea of simply slashing appropriations for the DHS but that would have been tantamount to cutting their nose to spite their face. That's because this would have given the president an excuse to scale-back drones and fences on the border, which they love — and done nothing to actually stop his executive actions – which, as per statute, are funded by user fee and not subject to Congressional appropriations.

This week, however, they passed, 236 to 191, an overarching bill to fund DHS till the end of the fiscal year, keeping all the border enforcement activity intact. But then they attached amendments to this bill to defund DACA etc. by changing the statute that paid for these programs through user fees. However, two dozen Republicans who voted for the overarching bill refused to go along with the amendments, hence they squeaked by with only 218 votes — just a few more than needed to pass.

It is highly unlikely that these amendments will get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a Democratic filibuster. And if by some miracle they make it through the Senate, President Obama will veto them. So it is hard to see what all this drama will accomplish — besides embroiling the GOP in a potential civil war between the friends and foes of immigration and cementing its reputation as a party of mean white dudes who can't handle Spanish and salsa. "It's hard for the Republicans to call themselves 'pro-family' when they repeatedly vote to rip families apart," lambasted Dan Pfeiffer, a senior Obama advisor, immediately after the vote. "This policy isn't just unwise, it's cruel, immoral and it is not who we are as Americans."

Who can argue with that?

Good:

Sens. Orin Hatch, Maro Rubio and Jeff Flake introduced something called the I-Squared bill that is effectively a poke in the eye of Sen. Sessions, at least when it comes to high-tech immigrants.

This bill, which has significant bipartisan consensus, is arguably the most positive thing to come out of Congress on immigration in nearly a quarter of a century. It increases the cap on H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 and allows it to reach 195,000 in years of high demand. It removes the limits on immigrants with advanced degrees; allows the spouses of H-1B visa holders to work, so that they don't lose their peak working years stuck in their kitchens; and lets H-1B holders change jobs so that they are not enchained to a single employer.

But where it gets truly inspired is in reforming the Employment Based green card program. Thanks to national quotas on green cards, high-skilled workers from techie-rich countries like India and China end up waiting decades to receive their green cards while the techie-poor countries don't even come close to filling their quotas.

This bill will do two things to fix this lopsided situation: One, it'll allow unused green cards to be recaptured and handed to those waiting in line. Two, it'll exempt family members of green card applicants from counting toward the numerical quota. In other words, when a techie and her husband are granted a green card, it'll count as one, not two. This will effectively double the number of green cards handed out every year without any formal increase in the quotas.

No doubt this will give Sen. Sessions a coronary. But all of this is very much along the lines of what I suggested in my magazine piece.

So all I can say is, halleulujah!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

220 responses to “Immigration Roundup: The Good, Bad and Ugly in the GOP-controlled Congress

  1. At this late date, I’m surprised anyone responds to these open borders troll with anything other than a punch in the face.

    1. I agree you deserve only a punch to the face.

      1. If they are still in their own country they should be bombed to oblivion however. Isn’t that right.

  2. mandatory E-verify

    Because nothing says small government like requiring every single hiring decision be pre-approved by the feds.

    1. Setting aside your completely pouty characterization of the program care to provide some employeement figures or budgeting for the e-verify program. More to the point e-verify is a way of helping businesses who after all are required by law to not employ illegal aliens. Perhaps you’d prefer hefty fines and jail time for the business owners.

      I’m kidding what you prefer is for a law you don’t like to not be enforced, but that’s tyranny and we don’t do that here.

      1. So you’ve got the gun and that makes you right?

      2. I guess you must love the ACA exchanges. Just helping us COMPLY.

      3. Yes, because nothing helps businesses run efficiently so effectively as another layer of bureaucracy. Especially considering the fact that USCIS usually can’t even communicate with Social Security without a month of transaction time. I s’pose it’s just Top Men aren’t on the problem, eh?

        1. Don’t you see that’s also the fault of The Invaders?

        2. Like I said if you are open to hard core penalties on violators then dispense with the bureaucracy. But you aren’t so just grin and bear it. Everyone knows you are just trying to circumvent laws you don’t like and are politely (for the moment) telling you to drop it.

          1. Or how about we respect freedom of association and let people hire the workers they want to hire?

          2. I wonder, Sam, have you ever circumvented a law you don’t like?

            Moreover, why can’t we denounce laws we think are shit and unconstitutional?

          3. I’m open to the idea that an employment contract should be between the employee and the employer, and that everyone else — including the state — should observe the dictum: “Mind your own business.”

            But that much freedom is just intolerable, eh Sam?

            1. No, that’s tolerable. the part where you give them residency/citizenship here is the intolerable part.

              1. Ah, so you can hire anyone you want. But the employee shouldnt be able to live wherever he or she can afford. Sounds like a sound economic policy.

      4. First of all, E-verify has a false positive rate of 0.7% Better hope you’re not one of the 2 million Americans who suddenly isn’t allowed to work.

        Secondly, once there’s a system in place that allows the government to veto all hiring decisions, do you really think that decision is going to be based solely on immigration status for long? It will become a social engineering mother lode.

        1. There’s already a defacto prohibition on hiring sex offenders. And try getting a job driving anything if you’ve got a DUI on your record. And anyone with a domestic abuse restraining order on them will find their job prospects limited as well.

          The Government. Working to make sure you can’t.

    2. E-verify = Obamacare

      1. An E-verify infomercial runs on a loop in the local USCIS field office. I always liked the part where it told people not to worry if it incorrectly informed employers that you were ineligible to work in the US, because you and your employer could go through the Kafkaesque process of correcting the error and eventually get everything straightened out. Which is exactly what any prospective employer wants to add to the hiring process.

        1. The employers will just use e-Verify as a screening filter and anyone who doesn’t pass will just get deleted from consideration without explanation.

          So you won’t know it’s because of e-Verify, you’ll just suddenly be unable to get a job interview anywhere and won’t know why.

          1. Yep. Exactly. When it’s between you and 50 other candidates with the same credentials, they are not going to want to mess with the one with an E-Verify issue.

  3. Reason, as usual, completely and utterly wrong on immigration. Libertarianism does not require the elimination of the nation-state.

      1. Sure, it would definitely happen if the open borders fanatics got their wish, but it would be an unintended consequence, so they’d be blameless!

    1. It’s a little more complicated than that.

      1. A hell of lot more.

    2. “Libertarianism does not require the elimination of the nation-state.”

      It would seem to favor free trade and if free trade doesn’t include labor, it’s not very free.

      1. The way you trade labor is by importing the goods produced by foreign labor. There is no need to trade people. And when peoople show up to trade their labor after they’ve been repeatedly told to stay away they are invading not trading.

        1. You don’t mind if foreigners take jobs Americans could otherwise occupy as long as they aren’t polluting our gene pool, that about right?

          1. You want a bunch of destitute young men around because the gay sex scene is rough on chubby bald guys like you? Is that right? Because you could just go to Mexico and pay for sex.

            1. First we put the systemic pieces in place that made rural white heterosexual men dumb as a box of dumb rocks. Then we will eliminate them via a classified program involving country music, farmersonly.com, and gas chambers that look like titty bars. The gay Latino mafia’s plans have been underway ever since they installed Ronald Reagan as president. It’s too late for you. I am sorry.

              1. Credit where credit is due: that was funny.

                1. Have to agree; right up there with that satire on the ‘gay agenda’.

              2. Dumb as a box of rocks…kind of fits in your case Tonypoo.

              3. You know, Tony, just when we all had you down as nothing but a worthless oxygen thief, you come up with this. Here on in, you’re allowed.

        2. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 7:32PM|#
          “The way you trade labor is by importing the goods produced by foreign labor. There is no need to trade people.”

          So you really don’t want free trade? You want “limited” free trade? Free trade as approved by you?

          1. Awww, look, it’s so cute, Tony and Sammy are having a lover’s quarrel.

          2. No I want cosmotards to keep pretending that “trading labor” is even a thing. None of the orginators of free trade favored open borders. It’s a duplicitous rhetorical strategy and quite desperate, but thankfully few things are more radioactive right now than open borders.

            1. None of the orginators of free trade favored open borders.

              That’s a lie.

              I want cosmotards to keep pretending that “trading labor” is even a thing.

              And I want you to shut the fuck up. We’re not ‘pretending’ we’re right. That’s probably why you’re so purple and strained with anger. We’re winning.

              1. No proof presented just table banging and yelling. You argue like Kruschev and will likely be just as disappointed with the coming age.

                1. Please stop projecting onto me.

            2. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 7:43PM|#
              “No I want cosmotards to keep pretending that “trading labor” is even a thing.”

              Oh, goody!
              Now I’m looking forward to a really interesting explanation on how labor is somehow NOT an economic good and is subject to, what, ‘idiot-economics’?

              1. Labor isn’t an economic good and it certainly isn’t a product. Products and goods can be seperated from the unit of labor which produces them unlike services. Did you ever take an Econ class? You might look into it.

                1. Labor isn’t an economic good and it certainly isn’t a product.

                  Yes it is and yes it is. I sell it and buy it.

                  1. Don’t fall into the trap of assuming a static model. Immigration increases labor, but also increases demand and productivity. That’s what the “now that I’m here, shut the door” crowd ignores. My immigrant grandparents were poor and uneducated, but worked hard and created business and more jobs. They also spent the money they made on more goods. Imagine that.

                  2. Like I told Sevo an Econ class would be an eye opener for you.

                    1. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 8:13PM|#
                      “Like I told Sevo an Econ class would be an eye opener for you.”

                      “Economic Goods ? definition and examples”
                      […]
                      “An economic good is a good or service that has a benefit (utility) to society. Also economic goods have a degree of scarcity and therefore an opportunity cost.”
                      http://www.economicshelp.org/b…..-examples/
                      First example, 20sec search.
                      Fuck off.

                    2. So like I said labor isn’t a good. This is basic economics units of labor produce goods. This isn’t like something you can debate. I know its frustrating because smart libertarains knowingly promote this falsehood, but that is for your guys to work out. Labor isn’t a good it just isn’t. Labor cannot be seperated from the unit of labor so it isn’t a good. You figure out how to seperate Juan’s labor from Juan and you’d have a point. But once you do that Juan ceases to have anything to offer you. You want Jaun for his labor go to Mexico and hire him.

                    3. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 8:29PM|#
                      “So like I said labor isn’t a good.”

                      Sorry, Sam. Reading that and then simply denying it is not making you look good.
                      In fact you are looking quite like a fucking ignoramus.

                    4. So like I said labor isn’t a good.

                      And I’m sure you can find dozens of economists who agree, right? Pardon me while I don’t hold my breath on that.

                  3. Weird. Always thought I could sell my labor. Guess Sam’s razor like acumen has shattered my mental milieu once again. With TEH stupid.

                2. what’s the difference between labor and a service?

                  Aren’t you providing a service when you labor for pay?

            3. No I want cosmotards to keep pretending that “trading labor” is even a thing.

              Cuz laber is differnt then goodz and servisez! /Retard

              1. Cuz laber is differnt then goodz and servisez! /Retard

                Well, Sam Hayseed is ‘technically’ correct in that in the classical model they teach in high school economics labor is a “factor of production” along with land and capital that is used to produce goods. However, those of us who move beyond junior year of high school learn that just as the Rutherford model is useful for teaching the basics of atomic theory but actual chemists have moved on to use more accurate models (like atomic orbitals), economists have moved on to more accurate models of human economic behavior and instead talk of human capital, growth theory, and the Heckscher?Ohlin model.

                Other than that, Hayseed doesn’t really have a point.

                1. “Well, Sam Hayseed is ‘technically’ correct in that in the classical model they teach in high school economics labor is a “factor of production” along with land and capital that is used to produce goods.”

                  This simplification also presumes that labor is not ‘separable’ from the person performing it, which is also false.
                  To make that presumption, you must ignore the time dimension, whereby Joe is selling his labor when he is ‘working’, or on the clock.
                  The labor is ‘separable’ by time, not physical distance.

            4. No I want cosmotards to keep pretending that “trading labor” is even a thing.

              …What?

              This is really pathetic. If we’re going to have these long, drawn-out discussions that go nowhere, leave this other side to TIT or Papaya or whoever. That’ll be slightly less frustrating.

        3. *I* didn’t tell them to stay away from me. Who are you to tell them they can’t do business with me?

    3. But immigration restrictionists require strawmen.

    4. It kind of, exactly does just that if you take it really seriously.

    5. Why do people bother responding to straw man arguments like this? Obviously a troll…

  4. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a committed immigration reform arsonist, released a restrictionist manifesto basically declaring a war on immigration on every front, as I blogged here. He attacked not just unskilled immigrants from Mexico as welfare queens who undercut American jobs and wages, he even went after skilled immigrants.

    You’d think someone from Alabama would have learned how little Alabamans want jobs that immigrants ‘steal.’

    1. It’s ridiculous. Illegal immigrants work hard in jobs that Americans either will not take or will slack all damn day if they do take.

      But make no mistake, it’s entirely possible to turn all of these hard working immigrants into the same slackers and welfare queens if you tell them ‘why work? Here’s free stuff, courtesy of the tax payers!’.

      Remember these are uneducated people from socialist shitholes. They aren’t lifetime libertarians from birth.

      1. It’s ridiculous as Hyperion’s boss I am completely dissastifed with his work output and surly attitude, but I’m not allowed to just import nerds from India to replace him.

        1. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 7:28PM|#
          “It’s ridiculous as Hyperion’s boss I am completely dissastifed with his work output and surly attitude, but I’m not allowed to just import nerds from India to replace him.”

          Yes, it is. What point did you have there?

        2. On the contrary, my surly attitude is tolerated because of my valuable skills, and my company does employ Indians and other foreign nationals. We also use E-verify.

          You on the other hand, are just another retard with nothing intelligent to say, and no wit.

      2. Even if they get welfare, so what? They don’t vote, so no electoral feedback reinforcement.

        1. Marty: Whoa, wait a minute, Doc. What are you talking about? What happens to us in the future? What, do we become assholes or something?

          Doc Brown: No, no, no, no, no, Marty. Both you and Jennifer turn out fine. It’s your kids, Marty. Something gotta be done about your kids!

      3. Yeah, it’s their children (and grand children) that are the biggest problem.

  5. I’m just really sick of politicians trying to simplify these issues and put everyone is a pro vs. con position pitted against each other. Of course, this is how the damn corruptocrats stay in power and the sheep are easy game.

    Immigration is a complex issue. I’m pro-immigration, but this is not a simple issue. You can’t just open up the border one way and invite the poor of the entire world to enter the country and start handing out government benefits to them all. Obviously, this will result in disaster even quicker than the current disaster course that we’re already on.

    1. Immigrants are a net benefit for the welfare system in the US, so you can take that argument off the table right now. It’s fact-free scaremongering with a dose of anti?welfare state ideological agenda. What did granny do to earn her Social Security anyway? Be born in the right place? Certainly not work harder than a migrant worker.

      What determines the rate of immigration is the number of jobs waiting for them. That’s why immigration slowed way down during the recent economic crisis. It’s not the World War Z scenario you’re describing. They’re rational people who make rational choices.

      1. You can’t even read English Tony, you fucking retard. No go pass out on your mommies basement floor before you make yourself look even more retarded. Ok, that’s not possible.

        1. But I’m not the one lying to support an anti-libertarian position. You can’t insult me. I know I’m smarter than you. You’re a libertarian. You’re all ridiculous dumbasses. That is never a guarantee of humility, of course.

          1. Wow Tony I’ve never seen you so irritable.
            Are you having a visit from your Aunt Flo?

            1. Does that mean his mother was Vera?

              1. Kiss my grits!

          2. Haahaahhaaa, smarter than me, Bwaahaahaaahaa. You aren’t even smarter than your BGF Sammy, RFLMAO!

            1. And yet you still haven’t sucessfully countered a single one of my points. But I get it you are one of those guys who thinks that strippers like you for charm. You aren’t even so much stupid as you are incapable of actually formulating a thought. Just loud noises and taunting like a baboon. But one of those baboons that has to have sex with other male baboons because the female baboons think you are lame.

              1. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 8:08PM|#
                “And yet you still haven’t sucessfully countered a single one of my points.”

                Which of your ‘points’ (rather than lame opinions) hasn’t been countered?
                I’ll admit the claim that e-verify is law certainly is true, but irrelevant. You’re laughable claim that labor isn’t a good was de-bunked.
                Other than that, you’ve been farting loudly and stinking up the place.

      2. Immigrants are a net benefit for the welfare system in the US, so you can take that argument off the table right now.

        I love your tendency to make wild proclamations for which you provide no evidence.

        It’s fact-free scaremongering with a dose of anti?welfare state ideological agenda.

        Yeah, the possibility that immigrants might get stuck on welfare dependency is such fact-free scaremongering that Swedish and French Muslim immigrants have incredibly low labor force participation rates and flat out don’t bother looking for work. Immigrants are vastly less likely to work in Sweden than they are here.

        Don’t trust me though, here’s some stats from the economist.

        Mass immigration is posing serious problems for the region. For the Nordic countries to be able to afford their welfare states they need to have 80% of their adults in the workforce, but labour-force participation among non-European immigrants is much lower than that. In Sweden only 51% of non-Europeans have a job, compared with over 84% of native Swedes. The Nordic countries need to persuade their citizens that they are getting a good return on their taxes, but mass immigration is creating a class of people who are permanently dependent on the state.

        1. I was talking specifically about the United States.

          1. I was talking specifically about the United States.

            Okay. But you want to construct a welfare system like Sweden. So even if you’re talking specifically about the United States today, your dream system would result in the exact same catastrophe we’re seeing in Europe today. You also said this:

            What determines the rate of immigration is the number of jobs waiting for them. That’s why immigration slowed way down during the recent economic crisis.

            Given that only 51% of non-Europeans in Sweden are working, clearly what determines the rate of immigration is not the number of jobs waiting for them. Otherwise far fewer non-Europeans would be immigrating due to the lack of jobs awaiting them. If people HAVE TO WORK then the amount of immigration is determined by the jobs awaiting them, but if they can just sit on welfare (like they do in Western Europe) that barrier is eliminated, furthering the problem of immigrant unemployment and state dependency.

            Man, I just destroyed your argument, didn’t I Tony? What’s it like to get bent over a table like that?

            1. I just want people to stop lying so they can support a position their stated philosophy won’t otherwise let them. I don’t have a dogmatic view on this issue. If immigration is doing economic harm to a country, policies should be reexamined. In the US, it so happens that immigration is basically a massive de facto amnesty program for cheap labor the country needs, and it happens to benefit the economy and the social welfare system. You’re welcome to simply accept that fact and say something like, “that’s worse! They’re not starving the beast enough.”

              1. “In the US, it so happens that immigration is basically a massive de facto amnesty program for cheap labor the country needs, and it happens to benefit the economy and the social welfare system.”

                That simply isn’t a fact. Immigrants with their children (and grand children) are long-term consumers.

                They’re essentially a subsidy for big business.

        2. So tell me, Tony, if only 51% of non-Europeans are working in Sweden, then how can they be putting more into the economy than they’re taking out? Especially since those that are working are overwhelmingly concentrated in low-skill jobs?

          Thankfully, since America has yet to implement the moronic welfare state you see in Western Europe, we haven’t yet had this problem with our immigrants. If you had your way, immigration would destroy this country since they would become an eternal underclass, just like what’s happened all over Sweden.

          Don’t mind me though! I’m just posting actual evidence rather than making wild assertions without proof. I wish I were less ideological like you and realized that facts are racist scare mongering.

          1. I don’t know enough about Sweden’s system to comment. I’m talking about what everyone else is talking about. You bringing Sweden into it indicates you want to avoid the issue that your big get-out-of-being-a-nativist-asshole-free card on this issue is bunk.

          2. Watch some of the documentaries about that specific country and immigration, on youtube, netflix, etc.. You will see how Muslims have taken over entire areas of the city and live completely off the state, have no intention of joining a free society, working, and despise and laugh at their host and vow to destroy them.

            National suicide. You are seeing this all over Europe. I don’ want that shit here and hopefully when it comes down to it, the people here will not tolerate it.

        3. Link. If you want to bitch about the source feel free to check the many many references it links to.

        4. This is my point, Irish. Sure immigrants are a net plus if they work and start businesses, which many do. But we have a government who are actively encouraging them to expect free stuff when they arrive, just to one day get their votes.

          To Tony and other simpletons, everything is black or white, there is never any consideration about how something that is really great can be made into something terrible by the wrong people, and by the wrong people, I mean the sociopath assholes who we elect to run the country.

          1. Let the immigrants take welfare. Less for the rest.

            1. Let the immigrants take welfare. Less for the rest.

              What. Do you not know how welfare systems work? It’s not like there’s a pot of money and if the immigrants get it the Americans wouldn’t. The welfare system will expand as more people move into it, thus causing increased expenditures over time.

              If all the immigrants were taking welfare, it wouldn’t result in ‘less for the rest’ it would result in less for the people who are actually working as their earnings were taxed or inflated away.

              1. The welfare system will expand as more people move into it, thus causing increased expenditures over time.

                I am calling BS on that. That’s not how government works. Once money is set aside, it’s getting spent. Illegals can displace the parasites that actively re-enforce the system. Sweden was a welfare state before foreigners arrived.

                1. I am calling BS on that. That’s not how government works. Once money is set aside, it’s getting spent.

                  No, Cyto, you don’t understand the American welfare system.

                  They don’t say ‘okay, we’re going to spend X amount of dollars on welfare this year.’ They say ‘we’re going to give x amount of dollars in welfare TO EACH PARTICIPANT.’

                  That means that if you have more people on food stamps, it doesn’t cause displacement, it just results in bigger deficits because more money goes out in the food stamp program.

                  I don’t even know what the fuck you’re arguing, but it bears no relation to the reality of Western welfare systems.

                2. Lol, you dumb asshole, that’s not how it works.

            2. No, that is fucking stupid. It will destroy every single good thing, and there are many, about immigration. And also destroy the very people you are speaking of. Have you been in the inner city of a major city in the USA lately?

              1. There is no correlation between immigration levels and welfarism. The inner cities are bad because of political machines. People have to vote these in. Illegals generally don’t vote.

                1. There is no correlation between immigration levels and welfarism.

                  Really? Because California’s flown screaming to the left over the period of time in which their population went from 85% white to 40% white. Most of the increase in the non-white population came from Hispanic immigrants.

                  If those people don’t vote, then why did an influx of them happen to perfectly coincide with the leftward movement of California? Just a coincidence?

                  Illegals generally don’t vote.

                  Yes, but we’re talking about making them legal. Saying ‘illegals don’t get welfare’ is irrelevant to the discussion because they very well might get welfare if we made them legal citizens and allowed them to do so.

                  1. If those people don’t vote, then why did an influx of them happen to perfectly coincide with the leftward movement of California? Just a coincidence?

                    Yes. Dumb white liberals ruined California. Notice that Texas is not turning blue.

                    Yes, but we’re talking about making them legal. Saying ‘illegals don’t get welfare’ is irrelevant to the discussion because they very well might get welfare if we made them legal citizens and allowed them to do so.

                    Well we could prohibit the taking of goodies for say 5 years after legalization.

                    1. ‘Dumb white liberals?’ Really? Dumb white liberals are probably about 10% of California’s population at this point. The entire white population is only 40%, and most of them are Republicans in the hick sections of the state.

                      Are you even listening to yourself? Do you seriously think California’s shift electorally is due to ‘dumb white liberals’ who have always been in California but were relatively ineffectual for most of their history?

                      No, it’s because of the demographic changes. All you have to do is look at the percentages and this is pretty obvious.

                    2. “Yes. Dumb white liberals ruined California. Notice that Texas is not turning blue.”

                      Don’t tell that to these guys:

                      “The organization, dubbed “Battleground Texas,” plans to engage the state’s rapidly growing Latino population, as well as African-American voters and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that have been underrepresented at the ballot box in recent cycles.

                      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/…..z3P9Q4QLcX

                2. There is no correlation between immigration levels and welfarism. The inner cities are bad because of political machines. People have to vote these in. Illegals generally don’t vote.

                  You see, what I’m saying is that it CAN CHANGE. Until now, immigrants come here to work and start businesses.

                  Politicians can use the exact same tactic they used to create the inner city Democrat plantations on the immigrants and turn the entire country into inner city Detroit.

                  1. It can change for the better and immigration is so good that even with a welfare state open borders would probably cause a rebirth of America. The wealth generated could end our debt problem in a fell swoop.

                    1. It can change for the better and immigration is so good that even with a welfare state open borders would probably cause a rebirth of America. The wealth generated could end our debt problem in a fell swoop.

                      You’re not an American. Stop saying our.

                      Secondly, this is the most utopian balderdash I’ve ever heard. If we had totally open borders without decreasing the welfare state, we would end up in the same situation as the Europeans. We already have a case study of open borders with a generous welfare state. It’s called Sweden, and it hasn’t worked out too well.

                    2. We already have a case study of open borders with a generous welfare state. It’s called Sweden, and it hasn’t worked out too well.

                      You’re just flat wrong. Europe’s immigration is highly restricted, and immigrants are subject to various restrictions particularly in France but also in Germany, where they still have in effect a 1913 blood law stating citizenship is only for those with German blood.

                    3. Here’s the thing, your arguments about immigration are as illogical and absurd as the people who want to stop all immigration and prance around yelling about how awesome American is.

                      You seem to think immigrants are magic and that the mere act of having immigrants will end budget deficits, cause widespread gigantic economic growth, and will do all of this with no negative consequences.

                      In truth, they will have a minimal impact on budget deficits, will have a positive impact on economic growth, but less of an impact on per capita growth which is really what matters, and of course there will be negative consequences.

                    4. In truth, they will have a minimal impact on budget deficits, will have a positive impact on economic growth, but less of an impact on per capita growth which is really what matters, and of course there will be negative consequences.

                      Are you looking short-term or medium-term? First generation immigrants on balance pull their weight, even allowing for your generally correct but somewhat incomplete (e.g., both positive and negative consequences), and some far more than pull their weight. But if we look at the medium term and also consider the second and third generation… Sorry, I’m not seeing a downside

                      There’s a reason that the US has a disproportionate amount of innovation, art, and cultural impact on the rest of the world. We have a unique way of blending the best bits of different cultures. It’s our strength, our competitive edge. That’s why you’re typing on a computer, and connected to the rest of the world. The immigrants and their kids and their grandkids are the creators of the engines of the economy.

                    5. There’s a reason that the US has a disproportionate amount of innovation, art, and cultural impact on the rest of the world. We have a unique way of blending the best bits of different cultures.

                      You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim. I don’t doubt that immigrants on net are an economic benefit, but that’s primarily due to the increase in labor supply that they provide. It’s a stretch to say that our innovation comes from some special blending sauce. It could equally be due to having had a relatively freer marketplace than other indiustrialized nations coupled with underutilized resources and a lot less of the baggage that exists in the old world.

                      For centuries China dominated innovation in the world and you would be hard pressed calling imperial China an open and immigrant friendly nation.

                    6. It’s a stretch to say that our innovation comes from some special blending sauce.

                      Not so stretchy. Why is our innovation disproportionate? Our cultural impact? We’re 5% of the world’s population. What do we have that other developed nations (e.g., Russia, Germany, France, China, Japan…) lack? Hmmm, what could it be, what could it be…?

                    7. Well that clearly proved your point and refuted my point about China. It MUST be the blending. It just MUST!

                      It certainly can’t be that we’ve had a relatively free market system and none of the class baggage of much of old Europe. And truly Europe was a backwater 100 years ago, and the US dominated the world in science and culture. Why, we taught the Germans about chemistry and optics and quantum mechanics. The British stole the industrial revolution from us too!

                    8. And how can I forget about our invention of the jet engine, antibiotics, radar, or the electronic computer?

                    9. It’s been about a thousand years since China had any innovation.

                    10. Your straw man: the US has always had its advantage since a thousand years before there was a US.

                      German science and British industry are two of the elements we incorporated into our society. The first big wave of immigration started about 1900, and that pretty much started the rise of the US as the world center for innovation, culture, and economics. The Germans ceased being a science powerhouse, the British manufacturing sector became a joke, Feynman, Schwinger, Fermi, Teller, Lee & Yang, Gamow, et al were American immigrants or children of immigrants and dominated 20th century science. Coincidentally, my postdoc adviser in chemistry was an immigrant- all he did was manage to win a Nobel Prize, along with a son of immigrants.

                      Should I bring up Hollywood?

                    11. That special blending sauce *is* our freer marketplace – but he won’t admit that.

                    12. Lol, you dumb fucking moron, this is so wrong it’s laughable. Get a clue you retard.

          2. OK, so the issue is welfare policy, not immigration.

            1. The two are not unrelated.

        5. Swedish and French Muslim immigrants have incredibly low labor force participation rates and flat out don’t bother looking for work.

          That’s because there is no opportunity in those places. The idea that immigrants take up welfare in America is a myth. Even if it weren’t, freedom comes first. Let them take welfare and collapse the system.

          1. I always ask the question, “Have you ever been hit up by a Mexican or Vietnamese panhandler?” The answer is invariably a long pause and then a disquisition on welfare.

            1. Viet, no; Chinese yes, Mexican yes, Ashkenazi yes, Sephardic no, Semitic yes. I think it depends greatly upon where one lives.

      3. Hyperion made a birthday cake, and Tony shat on it.

      4. If one could think you were stupid and have any doubt you have just verified that.

        Fuck off, you dolt.

  6. Shihka Dalmia good-faith argument arsonist and super shitty guest.

    1. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 7:30PM|#
      “Shihka Dalmia good-faith argument arsonist and super shitty guest.”

      And you’ve added so much to the conversation, too!

      1. I think it’s Tony’s BGF. Notice how is showed up at exactly the same time and how it’s even dumber than Tony?

    2. Sam Hayson is the Shihka of Red Bizzaro World. In a shitty art film, each would stare into the mirror and hate that they saw the other. Or maybe that was a dream I had. I dunno.

  7. Sessions is an idiot and an asshole, but I don’t think defunding government can be bad at this point. Between that and the very enlighten I-Squared legislation I think it was a good week for immigration overall.

  8. We are being invaded. I work in west TX and can see it first hand. If handouts we not given to every young man that chooses not to work we could fill these jobs with our own countrymen. I have done every job that is currently being preformed by our invaders for a lot less money. Cut out the incentive and they will leave. Cut out the incentive to lay on your a$$ and watch what happens to those currently sucking at the teat of government.

    1. We are being invaded. I work in west TX and can see it first hand.

      Restrictionists love their doomsday fever fantasies. It’s their porn.

      1. Not restrictionist or fantasy, just stating facts.Fact are my PORN.

        1. No. There’s no ‘invasion’ you idiot. Just people trying to peacefully transact and assholes trying to get in their way.

          The invader is government.

        2. “Birds have learned to use cigarette butts when building their nests because burnt nicotine works as an insecticide.”

          *Gaultomatic unzips pants and begins furiously masturbating*

    2. Gaultomatic|1.16.15 @ 7:44PM|#
      “I have done every job that is currently being preformed by our invaders for a lot less money.”

      It doesn’t take long watching the field workers in CA to realize that most of them aren’t there because they’re cheap.
      They may have started that way to get experience, but by now, that work gets done in a highly efficient manner, and Spanish is the predominant language.
      Some “invaders”.

      1. That still does not change the facts of my statement. We have borders for a reason. Do we choose which laws are to be followed or not. Just because someone else’s home country is a shit hole gives them no rights here.

        1. We have borders for a reason.

          And ‘keep out foreign people for no good reason’ is not one of them.

        2. Do we choose which laws are to be followed or not.

          So if we just change the laws so that crossing the border and immigration are easier, you’d support it?

        3. Gaultomatic|1.16.15 @ 8:00PM|#
          “That still does not change the facts of my statement.”

          Hint:
          Calling people “invaders” is not stating facts.

          1. in?vad?er
            in?v?d?r/Submit
            noun
            noun: invader; plural noun: invaders
            a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.
            “it is a country that has repelled all invaders”
            synonyms: attacker, aggressor, raider, marauder; occupier, conqueror; intruder, interloper

            1. UMMM FACT

              1. Gaultomatic|1.16.15 @ 8:18PM|#
                “UMMM FACT”

                Man, really giving the retard a run for the money, aren’t you?
                You do know, I hope that copying and pasting an irrelevant definition may be a ‘fact’ but it really isn’t helping your case.

            2. So I assume you’re of native American heritage? Because any whining from the ancestors of Europeans about how immigration into North America is an ‘invasion’ is a bit hypocritical don’t you think?

              UMMM FACT.

              1. *Descendants of Europeans, man that was almost as incoherent as Gaultomatic.

                1. You’re a time traveler. You can be forgiven for mixing something like that up.

      2. I know some highly efficient spanish speaking home invasion specialists I’ll have to let them know at your house they will just be guests.

        1. You’re boring.

          1. And retarded.

        2. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 8:04PM|#
          “I know some highly efficient spanish speaking home invasion specialists I’ll have to let them know at your house they will just be guests.”

          Yes, to those of us who have certain disabilities, working in ag fields is exactly like invading a home!
          Do they let you park in the blue zone?

          1. He’s resorting to threatening us with violence for dissenting from his violence-enforced immigration paradigm.

            1. Hahahahahah. Yea I’m threatening you Cytotoxic. Just like girls and cooties and your neighbors and their mind control devices. Get over yourself man. You aren’t even worth a dirty look.

          2. Hey you made the argument that efficency and spanish speaking were all that was necessary to not constitute an invader. don’t blame me for taking advantage of your sloppy logic to score a debate point. I get that you are more comfortable with the typical Reason argumentative style of circle jerks and talking about how much smarter you are than the person running logical rings around you. But like the French say tant pis.

            1. Sam Haysom|1.16.15 @ 8:33PM|#
              “Hey you made the argument that efficency and spanish speaking were all that was necessary to not constitute an invader.”

              So we can forget reading comprehension on your part also?
              What skills DO you have?

    3. As someone who has family in South Texas; family that has been living on the same land for over 500 years, I’m gonna have to call shenanigans on the invasion claim. The people have been there all along, the border has shifted back and forth many, many times.

  9. Canada lets in more immigrants into America (it is still too few and too hard to get in) and that is one reason we are more prosperous. It has not led to any kind of disaster wrt the welfare state. All your fears are baseless.

    1. Dude, Canada is a frozen wasteland. The entire habitable part of the country is what, the size of Rhode Island? All of your cities are hugged so tight to our border that we’re getting friction burn from it.

      There’s a natural limit to the immigrants who can enter Canuckistan because if they stray more than 30 meters north of the border, they’ll instantly freeze into a fucking giant popsicle!

      Now get back into your igloo and dream about Murika!

      1. I get it, you’re jealous of how Canadian I am. God no need to say it so loudly.

        There’s a natural limit to the immigrants who can enter Canuckistan because if they stray more than 30 meters north of the border, they’ll instantly freeze into a fucking giant popsicle!

        That’s what we want you to think. Really they become The Others from GoT. Soon, all your states will belong to CANADA.

        1. I get it, you’re jealous of how Canadian I am. God no need to say it so loudly

          Yes, really I am too jealous of Canadians. Lol, well, I give you credit now Cyto, you do have a sense of humor after all.

          1. I’m jealous too. They have Tricia Helfer and Kathkeen Robertson.

    2. Canada lets in more immigrants into America (it is still too few and too hard to get in) and that is one reason we are more prosperous.

      No, you let in more LEGAL immigrants. Given that we have no control over our southern border and have like 15-20 million illegal immigrants living in this country, you sure as fuck do not have more total immigration.

      15 million is five percent of our total population, and that’s just illegal immigrants. Do you really think Canada has more immigration than legal and illegal American immigration combined?

      Please. The difference between Canada and America is that a much higher percentage of your immigrants are counted because a smaller percentage are illegal.

      1. 15-20 million illegal immigrants

        Uh no it’s 10 million.

        Canada’s rate of legal immigration is absolutely higher than America’s, and I am pretty sure that’s true overall as well.

        Given that we have no control over our southern border

        Most of your illegals are overstayed VISAs. People are coming across the border at a slower pace than in a long time.

        1. Uh no it’s 10 million.

          Uh, no, the lowest bound is 12 million from a census report with other estimates as high as 20.

          And it’s not like it’s possible for us to know given that we have no evidence who these people are.

          The New York Times cites the number at 12 million in September of 2013 and notes that the pace of illegal immigration was picking up again at that time. Since then, we’ve had massive waves of illegal Central Americans crossing the border, so the number is certainly far higher than the 11.7 million estimate, and 11.7 million is very likely an underestimate itself.

          Also, let’s look at who the immigrants in Canada are.

          Looking at the chart on that page, most of the Canadian immigrants come from America, China, India, and Western Europe. What’s the average income of a Canadian immigrant relative to an American immigrant, would you imagine? Because our immigrants are very poor Mexicans, whereas a huge percentage of your immigrants are from the US, wealthy parts of East Asia and Europe.

          Do you really not think there’s a difference there?

          1. Do you really not think there’s a difference there?

            I think the difference between your Mexican immigrants and our Indian immigrants is an accent. That and the fact that ours work in strawberry fields and yours in…all the other various foods you can grow when you don’t live in a frozen hellhole of a country.

            Point being, we also have these low-income immigrants you seem to dread so much and there is no problems.

            I remember reading that Canada’s rate of immigration is actually almost twice as high as America’s, but I cannot find the source. I has sad. I cannot stay on this forum because I am going to shit myself. My stomach is a little angry today.

      2. Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world. Unfortunately for them, 99% of the country is a frozen uninhabitable wasteland.

        The biggest country, Russia, suffers from a similar, although not as severe problem.

        So, now you see why those are the 2 biggest countries, no one wants most of the land.

        USA, China, and Brazil are much better as the 3rd, 4th, and 5th largest since most of their land is temperate or warmer.

        Brazil has immense natural resources and they would be a world power if they didn’t keep electing socialist morons like Dilma. I mean it’s one thing if you elect one Obama, but always electing an Obama will pretty much fuck you up economically.

        1. WE LIVE FOR THE ICE. I told you, they become The Others. They’re actually Canadians.

          Dilma: hilariously, she’s enacting all of the policies her opponent championed.

          1. I don’t even like to go outside when it’s below ~7 c. I have no idea how you freaks live through that stuff. I’m much happier in the 32 – 37 range.

          2. The only thing Dilma is doing is trying to dodge her involvement in the Petrobras scandal. And no, she’s not enacting any of the policies that Aecio Neves championed, she’s doubling down on the labor party stupid, she’s like the Obama of the South.

        2. Brazil has immense natural resources and they would be a world power if they didn’t keep electing socialist morons like Dilma. I mean it’s one thing if you elect one Obama, but always electing an Obama will pretty much fuck you up economically.

          So are you saying Brazil still hasn’t gone red (in the Team sense) the way Texas hasn’t gone blue?

          I’m shocked.

    3. “Canada lets in more immigrants into America (it is still too few and too hard to get in) and that is one reason we are more prosperous. It has not led to any kind of disaster wrt the welfare state. All your fears are baseless.”

      Er, more prosperous? We do okay but we’re not more ‘prosperous.’ And there is a very serious problem with our welfare.

      Notably something called ‘unfunded liabilities’.

      Surprised at this claim.

      1. Canada does take in immigrants but not sure about more and we certainly don’t have a massive issue like the U.S. has.

        We’re stable. I’ll give you that.

    4. Canada lets in more immigrants into America (it is still too few and too hard to get in) and that is one reason we are more prosperous.

      By what measure?

      per capita GDP (for what that’s worth) shows the US with about a 25% edge – $53K v. $43K.

    5. Lol, you are too dumb for words. Canada lets in 220,000 per year, the US lets in 447,000 per year.

      You are a goddamned moron.

  10. I see that reading and facts are lost on this lot. Insults and name calling don’t change my facts. Stop the handouts here in the U.S. Make people uncomfortable in their poverty and they will look for work. Take away the incentive for those who cross our border illegally and we need nothing more on the books. We cans still have legal immigration but who in their right mind trust’s this bunch we have now.

    1. Gaultomatic|1.16.15 @ 8:13PM|#
      …”Insults and name calling don’t change my facts”…

      The reason for that is simple; you have stated opinions and claims. Facts? Not so much, idiot.

      1. No, don’t you get it? Gault’s so awesome that his anecdotes are equivalent to empirical facts.

      2. And yet you have refuted nothing except making a unreasoned statement.

        1. You keep using words you don’t understand.

          1. I love this Gaultomatic guy because he’s barely literate but likes to babble about ‘facts’ and ‘reason.’ It’s like watching a child learn to walk.

            1. Funny you say that, as I’ve hacked into the live stream off of Gault’s webcam. Have a look.

    2. Shockingly, referring to people as ‘invaders’ and discussing random anecdotal ‘facts’ are not actual decent facts. My anecdotal experiences with immigrants is that in general they’re harder workers and all around are better people than most of the lazy natives. Which anecdotal experience is true? It’s almost like you have to back your statements up with more than random personal experiences.

    3. Take away the incentive for those who cross our border illegally and we need nothing more on the books.

      For many, the incentives to moving to America are that A) there are jobs to be had, even if they’re menial ones that Americans don’t apparently want, and B) there aren’t drug cartels beheading people in the streets.

  11. Fact) remove welfare and the instinctive not to work and people will find a way to eat (work)

    Fact) Remove the incentive for employers to hire people who are here illegally and they will leave.

    Fact) people who come across a border who are not invited and do so unlawfully are in fact invaders. Is that simple enough for you ?

    Go ahead and show some more stunningly brilliant comments but the facts remain.

    1. You like declaring things facts without evidence don’t you?

      Fact) You need to provide evidence before unilaterally declaring something a fact.

    2. in?vad?er
      in?v?d?r/Submit
      noun
      noun: invader; plural noun: invaders
      a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.
      “it is a country that has repelled all invaders”
      synonyms: attacker, aggressor, raider, marauder; occupier, conqueror; intruder, interloper

      In case you couldn’t read it the first time!!

      1. “In case you couldn’t read it the first time!!”

        You need to read what I wrote and add more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. Well since you’re stupid enough to keep repeating this point, you are aware that the land you’re talking about in West Texas is historically Mexican land right? See, there was this thing called the Mexican-American War, where the United States invaded Mexico and carved off chunks of territory, including areas Texas claimed.

        So by your logic you’re just the spawn of invaders who took Mexican land, and now you’re squatting on it and whining about its rightful owners moving into it. If we’re taking your ‘invaders’ idiocy seriously, why are you entitled to land that was acquired by invaders?

        1. No no no, you see it is *different* because the invaders are largely brown people.

    3. First, I really have to point out that in order for anyone to bother refuting a “fact”, it really needs some relevance to the argument. I’m sure you’re find that confusing, but consider it for a bit’

      Gaultomatic|1.16.15 @ 8:34PM|#
      “Fact) remove welfare and the instinctive not to work and people will find a way to eat (work)”
      Irrelevant wrt the question at hand.

      “Fact) Remove the incentive for employers to hire people who are here illegally and they will leave.”
      Irrelevant wrt the question at hand.

      “Fact) people who come across a border who are not invited and do so unlawfully are in fact invaders. Is that simple enough for you ?”
      An opinion and a pretty stupid one besides.

      “Go ahead and show some more stunningly brilliant comments but the facts remain.”
      Wanna try again, you fucking ignoramus?

      1. And I rest my case. I thought I might come here to find some reasoned debate instead of a bunch of Internet Mighty Mouse wanna be’s hiding behind their keyboards. Thanks for the welcome, I will take my leave gentlemen.

        1. It’s always rich to see a fool fail to provide any substantial argument, then just pat themselves on the back and march off, content in their own superiority. The Dunning-Kruger Effect continues to help the self-esteem of the intellectually slow.

        2. Gaultomatic|1.16.15 @ 8:56PM|#
          “And I rest my case.”

          Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
          (fucking ignoramus…)

        3. I thought I might come here to find some reasoned debate

          Thanks for the drink, my good man!

    4. Fact) Typing “Fact)” in front of something does not magically make it true.

      1. Fact(197% of scientist believe that the world is warming, that is it the fault of capitalist humans, that it will take trillions in new taxes to stop it and even then it can’t be stopped, unless, of course there are more new taxes, but even then we are already doomed, but … you know, maybe a 99.9% tax could help, well ok, it won’t, we’re fucked, but let’s do that anyway.)

      2. Typing “Fact)” in front of something does not magically make it true.

        No, but typing “PROTIP:” does.

    5. People who come across a border who are not invited and do so unlawfully are in fact invaders.

      Again, if you are a descendant of Europeans, you’re really in no position to call other people ‘invaders’ negatively when you yourself are the product of invaders by your own definition. In which case, get the fuck off the Navajo’s land, will you?

      1. Again, if you are a descendant of Europeans

        I put a sticker over the web camera on my Dell Precision mobile workstation so no one can tell that I am of European descent.

        I think this is the best you can buy. I made a decision a while back not to own and manage both a desktop and a laptop. I still own a few desktops, but I just sprinkle them around. You can buy a refurb desktop with Win7 for a $100. This puppy’s $2800.

  12. Just want to commend Irish for destroying a brain dead prog AND a Canadian in the same thread.

    1. A thousand times this ^^

  13. This meme has been going around for while. You can have 2 of these 3.

    Liberty
    Open Boarders
    Democracy

    It’s a thought experiment and will take some pretzel logic to get all 3.

    1. Why the fuck would anyone want a Democracy? I’ll stick with a Republic.

    2. Yes, but think of democracy as government by consent of the governed. Direct democracy is absurd, but whether it is direct of by proxy is not important to the experiment.

    3. widget|1.16.15 @ 10:00PM|#
      “This meme has been going around for while. You can have 2 of these 3.

      Liberty
      Open Boarders
      Democracy

      It’s a thought experiment and will take some pretzel logic to get all 3.”

      So the borders between, say Kentucky and Tennessee will have to be closed?
      Sorry, there are unstated presumptions built into that claim. Until you state them clearly, it’s bullshit and you’re a bullshitter.

      1. I’m willing to close the California border. Reuse those damn agriculture inspection stations.

    4. It’s a thought experiment and will take some pretzel logic to get all 3.

      Either pretzel logic or the observation that the US had all three (save for liberty for slaves and open borders for Chinese and Japanese and voting for women) for a century and a half.

      1. America also had all three when it was a British colony! (save for democracy and liberty for colonists)

        Derp.

  14. Western civilization is but about immigration.

    Historians still debate whether Germanic tribes crossing the limes into the Roman empire was a sudden invasion or slow moving over centuries. I suspect a similar discussion will happen with the United States over Mexican immigration.

    Either way, we all know how it ended up with Rome. A Germanic king managed to get to become Emperor.

    1. Make that “managed to become Emperor”.

  15. This website is banned in some places and certainly not safe for work.

    http://gatesofvienna.net/

  16. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

    Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

    Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

    1. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time

      Very true. So why would you want a welfare state?

      1. I am perfectly happy to have complete open borders with free association for all. That means a baker can refuse to bake a cake for whatever reason he wants. But our welfare system has to be reined in before complete open borders is possible.

    2. Well then, we’d better revoke the citizenship of everyone who wants bigger government!

  17. Wrap it up man, lets roll with it.

    http://www.Anon-Best.tk

  18. my roomate’s aunt makes $83 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her check was $20229 just working on the computer for a few hours. read more……….
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  19. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  20. up to I looked at the check 4 $9975 , I did not believe that my brother woz like they say trully taking home money in there spare time from their computer. . there best friend has done this less than 10 months and a short time ago paid for the depts on there home and purchased themselves a Ariel Atom . have a peek at this website………..
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  21. I think Shikha went too far in blowing her cover as a Stormfront false flag. No immigration booster could be this stupid.

  22. Americans will do whatever work there is to do, but they won’t necessarily do it for the dirt cheap prices immigrants will. Importing cheaper foreign labor undercuts wages of Americans and is a boon to corporations looking to exploit cheap labor. This fact shouldn’t be controversial. The primary purpose of Immigration law should to benefit the individual Americans already here, not a foreigners who aren’t here or aren’t here legally.

    1. Are not the people who run corporations individual Americans as well?

  23. “It’s hard for the Republicans to call themselves ‘pro-family’ when they repeatedly vote to rip families apart,” lambasted Dan Pfeiffer, a senior Obama advisor, immediately after the vote. “This policy isn’t just unwise, it’s cruel, immoral and it is not who we are as Americans.”

    Who can argue with that?”

    Lots of murderers have kids, too. Is it really fair for us to break up a family just because dear old dad killed somebody? That’s not who we are as Americans.

  24. Ella . even though Paula `s artlclee is terrific… I just purchased Mazda MX-5 after having made $6168 thiss month and-also, ten-grand this past month . this is certainly the best-job Ive ever had . I started this four months/ago and practically straight away began to bring in over $86… per-hour . read ………
    ????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.