Republican Presidential Nomination

Cruz and Rubio Are On the Path to Mutually Assured Destruction on Immigration

Each is trying to paint the other as more pro-amnesty

|

Immigration has become not only a wedge issue between Republicans and Democrats in this election — it has also

Hispanics Love America
Ray_from_LA / Foter.com / CC BY

become a wedge issue between Republicans. Both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are on the path to mutually assured destruction with respect to the Hispanic vote — with each accusing the other of favoring amnesty more.

A big fracas broke out between the two during the Tuesday-night debate when Cruz, in an attempt to distinguish himself from Rubio's relatively less-hostile stance on immigration, declared that when it came to undocumented aliens: "I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization."

Rubio immediately pounced on him noting that in fact Cruz had done just that. He pointed out that Cruz had objected to granting citizenship to illegals in the ill-fated Gang of Eight bill that Rubio had co-written. But he was A-OK with handing them green cards, an accusation that Cruz hotly denied.

But, as it turns out, Rubio was right and Cruz had to eat some delish crow on the Bret Baier show. Reports MSNBC:

The host played a clip of Cruz in the Senate saying he "want[ed] immigration reform to pass" and that if his colleagues sought reform that "allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows," they should pass his amendment, in which case "the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically." He went on to read several similar quotes from the time.

"It sounded like you wanted the bill to pass," Baier said.

"Of course I wanted the bill to pass – my amendment to pass," Cruz answered.

"You said the bill," Baier said.

Cruz laid out his explanation more carefully. The amendment, he said, did not show he wanted Rubio's "Gang of Eight" bill to pass, or that he endorsed legalization. Even hardline conservatives like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama voted for his amendment. It was all a show, in Washington parlance a "poison pill," to help drag down the legislation by highlighting its citizenship component, which conservatives considered a ripe political target. Cruz has said in the past that the amendment also aimed to call Democrats' bluff: By opposing a path to legalization, Democrats would betray that they only cared about citizenship because it would increase the ranks of Democratic voters. 

"Bret, you've been around Washington enough, you know how to defeat bad legislation," Cruz said.

In other words, Cruz wanted the bill to pass but he also wanted it defeated.

But politicians always prevaricate and lie, so who cares? Right?

The interesting thing, however, is that while Republicans are tripping over themselves to prove who is tougher on keeping Hispanics and other unsavory groups out, Democrats are doing the opposite. Indeed, even as we speak, Rubio, is trying to rehabilitate himself with the restrictionist right by plotting a grand stand against an $1.8 trillion spending bill that is already a done deal. Why? Because, apparently, he wants to make sure ISIS doctors don't get foreign worker visas and sneak into the United States.

By contrast, among Democrats, even Bernie Sanders, who not too long was channeling his inner Marie Le Penn and condemning corporations asking for more foreign workers to meet labor shortages by saying stuff like this….

"Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them….Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first — not wealthy globetrotting donors."

….is now demanding a "fair and humane immigration policy." He cooes: "America has always been a haven for the oppressed. We cannot and must not shirk the historic role of the United States as a protector of vulnerable people fleeing persecution."

Be that as it may, Republicans, it seems, are not only prepared to kick the Statue of Liberty in the teeth but their own 2016 election prospects.

Since Romney lost the 2012 election because Hispanics came out and voted against him in swing states, about 3.5 million more Hispanics have reached voting age. What's more, in 2012 more than half of the eligible Hispanic voters didn't vote.

This time, Republicans' even uglier restrictionist turn is giving them even more reason to take a break from hanging drywall and picking fruit* and make the schlep to the polls.

*This was meant to be a sarcastic dig at the stereotypes about Hispanics, not an attempt to validate them, folks.

Advertisement

NEXT: On 'International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers,' Women Around the World Demand Rights, Not Rescue

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.

  1. The funny thing is, the demographics of Mexico pretty much guarantee we won’t see Mexican immigration at anything close to the levels we have in the past.

    However, the demographics of the Central American countries should mean that they take up some? a lot of? the slack.

    1. Mexico is changing, and not just demographically. They are becoming a serious economy, even with the crazy violence levels they have. The recent electricity and oil reforms are huge paradigm shifts.

      1. And CEMEX is one of the biggest companies in the world. Big employer of people in this country.

  2. Hillary has done one thing right so far (both in terms of policy and politics): support amnesty. She knows there’s no point appeasing the border nazies because 1) those people are insane and 2) you’ll just alienate normal America. It’s all she’s got right, and it might be all she needs.

    1. I’m going laugh so hard if Trump ends up becoming president.

      1. … Through my tears.

        1. Sure it might a huge disaster, but think about all those precious leftist, establishment, news media, etc tears. Yummy yummy tears.

          1. The establishment news media would love it if Trump was elected. They would get an actual they could rail against day after day. They would mock everything and anything about him, his wife, his children, his policies, whatever else.

        2. Don’t worry. Savor the decline. Worship Sithrak.

          1. Damn you!

            Sithrak is my god!

            And I can’t follow your link. oglaf is banned at work.

          2. I am a disciple of Ullr. See you on the slopes.

            1. Let’s keep the racism out of his thread, shall we?

            2. Skadi is my goddess, she’s like Ullr without all the back hair.

    2. It’s all she’s got right, and it might be all she needs.

      From my reading of the tea leaves, she doesn’t even need that.

    3. You forgot that she also has a vagina and a husband who was quite popular as president. That’s three things.

      1. Citation needed.

        1. Clinton was actually pretty durably popular during his term:

          Clinton’s job approval rating ranged from 36% in mid-1993 to 64% in late 1993 and early 1994.[1] In his second term, his rating consistently ranged from the high-50s to the high-60s.[1][2] After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton’s rating reached its highest point at 73% approval.[3] He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%,[4] higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman.[5]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..ll_Clinton

          Oh, you wanted a citation for the other thing? Can’t help you there. Huma probably knows for sure.

          1. A crook, but an adorable crook.

            1. A crook? Probably more likely than a gash. I’d put money on busted ravioli.

          2. You know I just realized Clinton is the anti-Trump. Sort of amiable with free markets and capitalism, not crazy on immigration, doesn’t pretend to be classy or anti-corruption, and instead of having a core support of fanatical retards he was actually popular. Geez I wonder lessons there are to be learned here?

    4. I’ve never so many people, so eager, for the opportunity to line up to present their papers.

      1. never underestimate the power of tribalism

  3. I’m here to protest you Shikha!

    My demands are simple.

    1) Blood for the blood god and
    2) Skulls for the skull throne.

    That is all.

    1. Liar! You also want Death to the Corpse God!

      I see through your hidden agenda!

      1. At least I’m not asking to pay for it with taxpayer money.

      2. The skull of the Corpse God will look nice upon Khorne’s mighty Throne of Skulls.

        1. Indeed, for as long as Changer of Ways allows it.

          1. Tzeentchian! Ha, I should have guessed it!

    2. Blood for the blood god

      So you’re on Team Hillary, then?

      1. I’m waffling. But essentially, yes. I believe the shrieking Hilldawg is the most likely to rain maximum hellfire upon the innocent and guilty alike. If you are one who prays for the end of days or some facsimile of the apocalypse the Hilldawg is the obvious choice with Trump a close second.

      2. Hil-Dog’s way past The Change, X-Dog. Idiot.

        1. Nice job, you called him an idiot, I don’t know how he’ll ever comeback from that. A real Socratic beat down! I think we’re all privileged to see you work your craft.

          1. X and I go way back. He’ll understand that I wasn’t literally calling him an idiot. Idiot.

          2. Dude, Warty and i have been calling each other idiots since 2007 or so. SugarFree even wrote a surprisingly non-sexual story about it.

            1. Dude, Warty and i have been calling each other idiots since 2007 or so.

              Ah, the Golden Age. Remember when we didn’t hate Tulpa? …Wait.

              SugarFree even wrote a surprisingly non-sexual story about it.

              Which I still haven’t forgiven him for. NEVER FORGET.

              1. Yeah, i remember when Tulpa was just some dude. I was away from Hit’n’Run for a while, and when i came back, he was suddenly this personification of coplicking, authoritarian douchebaggery.

                As for the story, you’re only mad because i hunted you down and murdered you with a Ripper. Get over it.

          3. Also, you said “comeback” when you meant “come back”. Idiot.

            1. Your mom said… you know what, never mind.

            2. And he spelled cum wrong.

            3. This is exactly why my point stands. It’s amazing that you have the dexterity required to type given that you drag your knuckles so relentlessly.

              1. Wait a minute. Why does your poor diction support your point? Did you even have a point, or did you mistakenly believe you had an opportunity to score some kind of point against me? Why is my knuckle-dragging relentless? Why would me dragging my knuckles negatively affect my dexterity? You’ve left a lot of questions unanswered here. I don’t know why. It might be because you’re not very smart.

                1. Oh my gosh. Your words are so compelling that I might need to reevaluate my life. You really know how to cut to the core of any issue.

        2. Avatars of Khorne don’t have human ovulatory cycles, homie.

  4. This time, Republicans’ even uglier restrictionist turn is giving them even more reason to take a break from hanging drywall and picking fruit and make the schlep to the polls.

    Nice stereotype there, Reason.

    I suspect that many of those who do fit your stereotype, though, are not citizens. Whether that will affect their voting, or whether you care if non-citizens vote, is another issue or two.

    1. Nice stereotype there, Reason.

      To be fair to Reason, Shikha is in a league of her own. Also to be fair to Reason, they actually publish this multicultist, so they deserve any scorn that comes their way on this issue.

      1. Shikha has taken up the open-border mantle because she wants a live-in housekeeper from India that she pays less than minimum wage. It is a personal battle for her, which is fine. I also care most about the issues that have an effect on my day-to-day.

        It’s good that I can disagree with the authors here. They don’t tell me what to think. There is no wrongthink here.

      2. Shikna’s use of that stereotype makes me think that she doesn’t see these immigrants as her equal, but just props to use to boost her own inflated sense of moral superiority, sort of like how the left sees them.

        1. Exactly. That statement reeks of elitism. How could she be so lack self awareness to write something like that and not on second thought delete it?

          1. Imagine something similar like saying Obama will get all the blacks to quit playing basketball and put down their watermelons to come to the polls.

            1. I’m pretty sure you can eat watermelon in a polling place…

            2. “typical white woman”

    2. Perhaps Shikha would be better suited for hanging drywall and picking fruit then writing.

      1. Shikha would be better suited for hanging drywall and picking fruit then writing

        Is there something inspirational about hanging drywall or picking fruit that would make it better?

        1. I would derive a great deal of inspiration knowing that the intellectually uninitiated weren’t reading her articles.

        2. Personal experience says there is a lot of perspiration in hanging drywall.

    3. In 10+ years of visiting H&R, Ms Dalmia is far and away the worse writer to post here. Bad ideas expressed badly.

      1. Methinks you have forgotten Ms. Young. Ohh and Mr. JUST LIKE ADAM LANZA! Richman.

        1. It has been a while, but I don’t recall Ms. Young being completely and consistently incoherent like Ms Dalmia.

        2. No mention of the Weigel? I am disappoint.

        3. Ms. Young is one of the best writers here.

          1. Cathy Young was and is fine.

            1. Luv me sum Cathy.

        4. The absolute best writer was Cavanaugh.

      2. Seriously. That is so insulting. What a fucking bitch. Does she even know any Hispanics?

      3. Matty Y?

        1. Sad Beard didn’t post here did he? But yes, Dalmia is Sad Beard bad.

    4. I can’t speak for the fruit pickers, but the drywall hangers make good money, and need fake social security numbers to get those jobs. So they can vote.

    1. That top Tweet is less than impressive. We should take on all the Syrian refugees we can handle because Syria has a history of taking in refugees… but it doesn’t say “as long as they come from regional neighbors, are predominantly Arab and Muslim and mostly during the period of the maligned Assad family’s rule from whom the current batch of refugees are supposedly fleeing”

      1. * “and they didn’t have, don’t have, and won’t have anytime soon, a welfare state that the refugees are eligible for which will perverse the incentives.”

      2. I read it as propaganda mainly targeted toward other Arab nations.

        1. Well after saying how great the Syrians were to refugees because theey kicked native Syrians out of their houses, renamed their cities and streets to make the refugees feel at home, the text goes on to specifically reprimand “the world” for closing their borders. (As if that were actually the case)

  5. Cruz and Rubio Are On the Path to Mutually Assured Destruction on Immigration

    Speak of mutually assured destruction? Nice story, tell it to Reader’s Digest!

    1. Speak of mutually assured destruction?

      I never thought I’d see the day when Curtis LeMay’s strategy is being appropriated by a bunch of brown people.

  6. I know she’s dishonest and prattling, but seriously

    even Bernie Sanders, who not too long was channeling his inner Marie Le Penn and condemning corporations asking for more foreign workers to meet labor shortages by saying stuff like this….
    “Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them?.Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first ? not wealthy globetrotting donors.”

    ….is now demanding a “fair and humane immigration policy.” He cooes: “America has always been a haven for the oppressed. We cannot and must not shirk the historic role of the United States as a protector of vulnerable people fleeing persecution.”

    How are the two statements in any way whatsoever disconnected? He wants government bringing in people for feels, but not to work for low wages. Leftist wants more welfare recipients, news at 11!

    1. Let’s see how Big Union accepts more foreign workers streaming into the U.S., then we’ll see where it takes Bernie and/or Hillary.

      1. the unions don’t care. They figure they can force the new workers to unionize and pay dues. And it is the dues that matter.

        1. “They figure they can force the new workers to unionize and pay dues. And it is the dues that matter.”

          This is true to a certain extent, but more workers also means the potential for lower wages, or at least reduced potential to raise wages. And more wages mean more dues.

          1. Uh, living wage?

            1. Huh?

      2. I actually think this is one of the fault lines on which the parties will start to realign.

        The coalition between unions and social liberals is roughly as uncomfortable as the coalition between economic liberals and social conservatives.

        As the Spectre of Communism wanes, the cement holding these coalitions together weakens.

        My grandfather, for example, and this is going back 20 years now, was a union Democrat going back to the ’40s. He ditched the party, by his account, when “Jesse Jackson started talking about Rainbow Coalitions and such nonsense.”

        Social liberals on the left are having to confront the cognitive dissonance with their opposition to economic liberalism (required to keep union support), while social conservatives and economic liberals on the right are having to confront their distaste for each other (gay marriage, drug laws, immigration, etc.).

        All it takes is a charismatic figure like William Jennings Bryan to completely change the definition of a party, and I think we’re going to see this happen within the next couple of decades.

        1. No one believes me but I cannot believe blacks are going to remain 90% Democrat much longer. Immigration hurts blacks more than anyone. And the Democrats have made it clear they don’t care.

          1. I actually think you’re right about that.

            On the whole, the black community does not seem to be super cool with Democratic social liberalism, either, and they perceive the hypocrisy and closet racism among white Democrats as much as anyone does – perhaps more-so.

            At the moment, the black community by and large doesn’t seem to regard the Republicans as even being on the menu, in part because they don’t believe Republican rhetoric about deregulation – they hear “deregulation for me, but not for thee.”

            Carson becoming such a major candidate may change that perception somewhat, and we might see this shift start to happen over the coming years.

            1. I would say at least 1/3rd of the black community is very socially conservative. They like big government but they are socially conservative. They fit better in the left half of the GOP than they do anywhere in the Democratic Party.

              1. Interesting thought…what does that do to GOP? Their small gov claims are already BS, if you added in 1/3 ofblacks, there would be no pretense any more.

                Which would lead to GOP dividing.

                Hail Eris!

                1. It would pull the GOP more left and more populist I think.

                  1. Yes, and then the small gov, liberty caucus types wouldnt have a home.

                    1. “Yes, and then the small gov, liberty caucus types wouldnt have a home.”

                      If the Republicans lurched left in a populist way, they may well pick up/court union supporters. This could, if things shook out right, lead the Democrats to embrace economic liberalism, which is their Ancient Heritage.

                    2. If the Republicans lurched left in a populist way, they may well pick up/court union supporters. This could, if things shook out right, lead the Democrats to embrace economic liberalism, which is their Ancient Heritage

                      I’m not gonna say you’re wrong, but is there a good example of this happening anywhere? Last I checked, Tory lurching left economically just made Labour move to the socialist left.

                    3. Quiet – I’m fantasizing.

                    4. That is quite the combo bank shot.

                      I think the Cowboys have a more likely scenario to make the playoffs.

                  2. “It would pull the GOP more left and more populist I think.”

                    ^ This.

          2. We are 30+ yeats put from last major shift, when blud dog dems left the party in droves. Its time for the next shift.

            1. “Blud for the blud dogs”?

          3. Nonsense. Unfortunately, that voting block is not only monolithic, but is fed a steady diet of “they wanna put y’all back in chains” from birth. Team Blue selecting Obama in 2008 guaranteed 90 percent returns for the next 30 years. And that is why Team Blue can focus on the immigrant population and continue to ignore voters that they can continue to take for granted.

            1. Could be. I think what Obama really did, though, was goose turnout in the black community to a level nobody else will be able to match.

              I mean, in some inner-city districts, close to 100% of the voters went to the polls in 2012!

              1. The problem with Obama is that he was the carrot. The Democrats finally gave the black community a black President and it resulted in them getting shafted even worse. It is going to be impossible for Democrats to ever again get the turnout and numbers of black votes they got in 08 and 12. I think some will vote Republican but many more are just disillusioned and won’t vote.

                1. “The Democrats finally gave the black community a black President and it resulted in them getting shafted even worse”

                  And it’s telling that the very next opportunity the Democrats run *nothing but* old rich white people.

                  It’s almost like their “concern” for racial issues is some kind of political cover.

                  Meanwhile, the Democrats could only drool over the diversity happening in the Republican field right now.

              2. In some 110%

          4. Immigration does not hurt blacks in the slightest.

        2. All it takes is a charismatic figure like William Jennings Bryan to completely change the definition of a party, and I think we’re going to see this happen within the next couple of decades.

          This is what Trump is working on, of course.

          1. Donald Trump is literally the only person running who has a shred of charisma. Ponder that on the Tree of Woe.

          2. I think you are right about that Nikki. I think a lot of black people and even more Hispanics than you would think are digging Trump. The media likes to pretend his supporters are all angry old white men but they are not.

            1. It seems clear to me that he is bringing together the socially conservative, fiscally liberal group. You know, the anti-libertarians.

            2. In fairness to the media they try to portray every Republican voter as an angry old white guy.

          3. Trump may be the guy.

            Beating Trump’s authoritarianism and protectionism could redefine the Democratic Party in much the way that combatting Bryan transformed McKinley from an anti-business crusader to a pro-business establishment insider.

  7. This time, Republicans’ even uglier restrictionist turn is giving them even more reason to take a break from hanging drywall and picking fruit and make the schlep to the polls.

    That is one of the most racist and insulting things I have ever read in a mainstream publication. Fuck Dalmia. I have Hispanic friends in Texas who likely have more than her yearly salary in the cushions of their couch.

    Reason calls everyone who objects to total open borders racist. Then they apparently think that every Hispanic in America is some illiterate low skill worker. Talk about projection. It is appalling. It really is.

    1. C’mon, John. Shikha had to get off a Sati funeral pyre, pray to an elephant-headed god, shove her way past mobs of shudra, and finish her guru-suggested meal of dry bark and twigs before she could start writing this article. Cut her some slack for relying on a shopworn cliche of an immigrant people and let her finish applying her bindi, for Vishnu’s sake.

      1. Imagine the kittens reason would have if Trump made a statement like that? They really are progs who don’t like paying taxes. Racist stereotypes are totally okay when their side does it.

        And the entire article is one giant insulting collectivization of Hispanics. Around a third of Hispanics are against immigration. Why wouldn’t they be? It is their jobs that the new immigrants often compete for.

        1. It’s completely ridiculous. Out of my entire extended family, I’m probably the most pro-immigration person — and I’m sure as hell not in the open borders bandwagon. I’d be hard-pressed to find many Hispanics who are, especially when you start considering Syrian refugees and whatnot.

          1. The Hispanics I know are Mexicans and have been here at least one generation. Not only are they not open borders, they can’t stand the central Americans who are coming across right now. Mexicans have a very low opinion of Central Americans. Shika clearly has never actually met any Hispanics.

            1. The engineer across the hall is from El Salvador (by way of Texas where he grew up). I suppose I should ask him what he thinks of Mexican immigrants. 😉

              1. Not a lot Kinnath. Everyone in Latin America hates Mexicans. It is one of the things that brings them together.

                1. Shocking. It’s almost as if Hispanics were like Europeans. Lots of little enclaves that don’t like each other.

        2. Speaking of Hispanics opposed to immigration – a friend’s mother is running for Congress here in Texas.

  8. Piling on: mutually assured destruction? She thinks this is a bad strategy? It maynot be morally right, but its an electoral winner.

  9. WHYCOME DOES SHIKA NOT NO FORINERS CARRY DISEASE

    1. Shieka figures they are all too busy picking fruit and hanging dry wall to spread any of the diseases they have. You know that Warty. Every Hispanic is a poor peasant with no skills slugging it out for $7 an hour. Shika told me.

      1. “Every Hispanic is a poor peasant with no skills slugging it out for $7 an hour. Shika told me.”

        And she’s apparently unaware that a union-scale drywaller in CA pulls in about $40/hr *after* taxes and union dues.

        1. STILL not worth it. I tried once. Horrid.

  10. I’m not complaining about seeing a pic of two Latina cuties, but . . .

    Google “La Raza Rally” if you want to see a different sort of pro-immigration optics.

    1. I’m disappointed this was the first post about the cuties.

      The one in the white t-shirt: two thumbs up.

      (TIWTANFL)

  11. Of course they are both pro-amnesty. They are both running for president yet neither is a natural born Citizen.

  12. A thought:

    I would feel less like I’m getting intellectually pissed on if the open borders posts were coming from guys like Bryan Caplan, who whatever else you can say is a good advocate for his position.

    Reading Shikha or Gillespe on open borders is somehow worse than if Cytotoxic and Richman had an open-border thought baby abortion.

    1. Nick has really been mailing it in for the last few months. His articles are a sad mixture of snark, social signaling and conventional wisdom. It is like he is auditioning for that new job at Vox. I wish Nick would realize those douche bags just are not that into him and go back to being a Libertarian.

      1. You are right.

        IIRC, last week you agreed with my take on a horrible sentence he penned. I think he wrote (I’m paraphrasing) that “government gets smaller when it efficiently manages its core responsibilities.”

    2. Tell us about THE INVASION.

  13. Since Romney lost the 2012 election because Hispanics came out and voted against him in swing states,

    Pretty sure this is an urban legend. One promoted by propagandists for their own purposes.

    Yup, here you go:

    Republicans have a major Latino problem, but it didn’t cost them the 2012 election.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-election/

    And, Latino turnout was not up in 2012, either:

    But a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau Wednesday shows that the Latino voter turnout in 2012, 48 percent, was actually proportionately lower, by nearly 2 percentage points, than in 2008 at 49.9 percent.

    http://latino.foxnews.com/lati…..bers-show/

    1. Romney got something like 27% of the Latino vote. That seems to be about the Republican floor. Even though Shika doesn’t like to admit it, Latinos actually have minds of their own and not all of them are pro open borders or vote based on that issue even if they are. And not a very high percentage of Latinos vote. The idea that they are going to be the new black and vote 90% Democrat and hand the Democrats a permanent majority is wishful thinking or outright bullshit put out by the various cronies who want open borders.

      1. All you have to do is look at the collapse of the Dem party outside the deep blue enclaves to know that Latinos aren’t carrying them to a new era of dominance.

        1. Exactly. And at some point the Democrats are going to have to admit they have a white voter problem. People like Dalmia are loath to admit that white people still can vote and have interests they want represented but they still are the largest voting block and still turn out at a higher percentage than any other group. You cannot win at the national level while losing 70 or 80% of the white vote, which is what the Democrats are doing in a lot of places.

          1. at some point the Democrats are going to have to admit they have a white voter problem

            Kinda like how 60% of women voting Dem shows the Repubs have a “gender gap” problem, but 60% of men voting Repub never seems to mean the Dems have a gender gap problem.

            1. Or when male votes turn an election it is because a bunch of “angry men” showed up and ruined everything. Apparently men always vote angry.

              1. It’s only an angry vote if it’s for the wrong party. I think the left lives in such a bubble that they truly can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with them, and so when they do it’s always because there was something wrong with that person. They’re either angry, stupid, racist, homophobic, etc etc They’re never considered just people who have a different opinion or point of view.

  14. Of course Democrats tend to be pro-immigration: they are busy electing a new people, who will happily vote for more statism. That’s the fucking plan. Labour got caught admitting in the UK. It’s insane for the GOP and libertarians to go along with it, especially because voters do not want it. Hence the success of Trump.

    Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. Using one principle (“freedom of movement”) to hurt all other libertarian principles is idiotic.

    Oh, and the new spending bill has $1.6 billion to resettle more refugees. It’s completely insane. We have an ever-decreasing need for unskilled labor, a broke welfare state, and we’re importing more unskilled, often semi-literate foreigners at taxpayer expense. Stats show many or most of them will suck up welfare funds for years.

    Not to mention to idiocy of importing Muslims at all, when stats show that they or their kids and grandkids are at hugely higher risk of being terror supporters. (Not to mention misogynist, gay- and Jew-haters who don’t really believe in Western values like free speech, etc.)

    So we are paying money we don’t have, to increase welfare costs, to increase the need for counter-terror surveillance, to make America “more diverse” (and less socially-trusting), and increase the proportion of the population that is poor and dislikes libertarian values. BRILLIANT!

    1. the new spending bill has $1.6 billion to resettle more refugees

      I eagerly await the principled libertarian denunciation of using tax money to import and manage refugees.

    2. “Not to mention to idiocy of importing Muslims at all, when stats show that they or their kids and grandkids are at hugely higher risk of being terror supporters. ”

      Instead of virtually zero, it’s ALMOST virtually zero. HORRORS.

      “Stats show many or most of them will suck up welfare funds for years.”

      Not anymore than native Americans.

      “increase the proportion of the population that is poor and dislikes libertarian values.”

      No evidence immigration increases proverty or turns any place against libertarianism. Texas is a more conservative place now than it was before Amnesty I.

      Your pants-shitting tendencies are your problem. Don’t expect the USG or anyone else to feel obligated by it.

      1. I’ve already disproved every one of your assertions with links, but you simply ignore them, so there’s just no point in engaging with you.

        1. No you haven’t. Stop lying.

  15. “When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants ? from anywhere ? as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people ? usually in the poorest parts of Britain ? who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.” ?Peter Hitchens

    1. The idea is to get rid of American values and freedom by replacing the people who hold those values with people who don’t.

      1. Destroy tradition and American identity, or at least water it down significantly and then you get to create a new one. Oh the arrogance of people who think they know better then centuries of tradition.

        1. You mean like the American tradition of open immigration?

      2. That may be the idea, but the problem is that it never actually happens. Ever.

    1. Hey when the people don’t vote the way the government wants then it’s time for the government to vote for a new people.

      1. I guess I should have read your first post before posting this.

    2. BTW the great multicultural experiment in Europe is over, the politicians there don’t seem to get it yet, but the people do, some have already burnt down some buildings for housing refugees. How long do the French establishment think they can keep Le Pen and the National Front down with their little electoral games? They’re only delaying the inevitable.

      1. Of course it’s not “over,” because barring a bloody civil war, they’ll never get entirely rid of Islam and its inevitable problems. But for Europe and the US on mass immigration, the First Rule of Holes applies.

        1. ” they’ll never get entirely rid of Islam and its inevitable problems. ”

          They’ll also never experience those problems.

          1. Are you seriously claiming that Europe has no problems with Muslims? Are you totally insane?

            1. They have problems with a welfare state that creates social dysfunction. That and the existence of ISIS/AQ is why this bad stuff happens. There are countries with more Muslims as %pop and none of these issues.

      2. “How long do the French establishment think they can keep Le Pen and the National Front down with their little electoral games? ”

        Probably forever, because they can. Le Pen Sr came second in prez elections over a decade ago. Didn’t herald a further rise for the FN. It looked like FN was going to sweep up regional elections recently and…they didn’t. Seems to always be a mirage.

    3. Good. The British are an awful sheep like people in general and Britain needs to have its Britishness washed out.

      1. You know, I try hard not to descend to the insult-flinging level, but you are really a despicable person to say such a thing. Or maybe just totally crazy, if you think replacing Britishness with Pakistaniness is some sort of improvement, or a victory for liberty.

        1. It’s not. Good thing they have immigrants from all over, like Poland.

        2. Watching Prime Suspect makes me wonder if it hasn’t already happened…

      2. No amount of washing will save their teeth.

  16. I’ve heard about this “Latino demographic wave” since the early 2000’s. Its almost 2016 now, and outside of presidential election, they were largely unable to stop the recent red wave. More often than not, their eligible voters don’t come out to vote.

    Although Romney lost Latino votes compared to 2008, he actually won more overall votes than Mccain. In terms of strategy, it’s a really bad idea for a GOP candidate to go full amnesty. They would risk alienating their most active base to chase the elusive Latino vote.

    The Latinos are reliable progressive voters. They’re not swing voters who might be swayed by a couple issues. There’s not much difference between an average Mexican democrat and a loony lefty professor. Their votes will be driven by the some world view and ideology. Shikha might insist that immigration reform will be some gateway to conversion, but it’s not.

    1. HM has many times linked to studies regarding this. The data does not support what your statements.

      1. Which statement?

  17. Seeing that Romney lost the 2012 election by 126 electoral votes and almost five million popular votes, it’s pretty safe to say Latino votes didn’t cost him the election, although they may have cost him Florida and New Mexico.

  18. I see the usual trogs have come out with ‘data’ and assumptions disguised as ‘wisdom’ that are pure horseshit.

    1. And here you are, with your usual low-IQ insults.

      1. Still pwning U.

  19. I want to like Cruz but he’s starting to sound like an establishment politician. Rubio is already dead to me.

  20. They are not for open borders!

    They are doomed I tell you doomed!

    \ShikhaWhenTheWallsFell

  21. While it IS true that looter politicians can be counted on to prevaricate and lie, it is not obvious that barring entry to foreigners alienates immigrant voters. The immigrants I know want their relatives admitted but the rest of their countrymen kept out. Look, suppose you had moved to a country with a low-tax government committed to the defense of individual rights. Would you really want the sort of people who vote for the likes of Cruz, Rubio and the DemoGOP to move there and ruin everything?

  22. Ironic, coming from Reason magazine.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.