Immigration

[Buster Bluth]

Yeah I'm sure terrorists dream of being banned from the United States and denied access to American targets.

No they dream and state openly their desire to illicit a reaction from the West that pits it in a showdown versus the Islamic world. They have spoken openly about their inability to ever occupy a square inch of North America but how they can send single terrorists to create a culture of fear.

You are afraid and the policies you support are exactly what terrorist organizations like ISIS want.

 

[Buster Bluth]

We can do all of that and still build a wall, deport as many illegals as humanly possible, and put severe restrictions on immigration to the country.

The first two are stupid and the last one already exists. A+ stuff again.

Also, repeating the word "xenophobe" doesn't make you right. In fact I often find that people fall back on labeling their opponents by calling them "sexist," "racist," "xenophobic," "homophobic," etc. when they have no valid points to make. Simply virtue signalling and demagouging your opponent doesn't make you right or smart.

But when your opponent is a clear xenophobe, you call him that. That is what you are. You've stated it clearly and repeatedly in just this thread.

 

[Legacy]

This is all nice and feel good but the bulk of them aren't true or are spun heavily. "Immigrants strength our ties with other nations?" That is debatable. Is Europe any closer to North African nations since they've let in a tidal wave of refugees? Are we that much closer to Syria since we've started admitting refugees from there?

• We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.

"Immigrants strengthen our linguistic and cultural resources." That is just feel good gobbledygook. Multiculturalism is an abject failure and lowers community bonds, trust, and cohesion. America went to the moon when nearly everyone spoke English, are we really than we were when Apollo 11 was completed just because we have to press "1" for English?

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.

"Immigrants and their children embrace American ideals and public values rapidly and help to renew them."
This is just blatantly false. Some may eventually embrace American ideals and values but it is not "rapidly." If they did, they wouldn't be strengthening our "linguistic and cultural resources" to put it in Fr. Hesburgh's words. America (which is not just an "idea" despite the claims of egalitarian neoliberals and neoconservatives) was founded on ideas like private property, individual rights, limited government, freedom of religious thought, freedom of political speech, etc. You know, ideas rooted in Western (particularly Anglo-Saxon) theory and idea. Poll after poll shows that recent immigrants favor big government, expanded welfare, collectivist ideas, etc. This is why Democrats are open border people, they see billions of potential voters out there outside the Anglosphere.

• Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.

The other points are economic points and for neoliberals like Fr. Hesburgh that is the most important thing to them. Neoliberals, neoconservatives, and the like view the world through the prism of economics. Flooding the West with millions of immigrants from nations, religions, and cultures that are vastly different than (if not diametrically opposed to) our way of life is worth it to them because they economically benefit from it. That is the same reason we pursue a free trade agenda though it has clearly ruined large segments of the U.S. economy.

• We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.

A nation without borders (or a country that has "borders" like we do but they exist only so we can say we have them), a common interest, a common culture, common ancestry, common ideas on religion, law, morality, virtue, governance, etc. is not really a nation but just a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area.

Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.

Human beings are unique beings with individual thoughts and passions that exist as part of larger structures like races, cultures, and nations. They are not interchangeable economic units as most of our business and political leaders see them, Fr. Hesburgh apparently thinks of them, and quite frankly how most people on this board and in this country see them. America is a unique nation with a unique culture and a unique heritage. Part of vetting process for immigration should be whether or not that individual would fit our culture.

• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.

The bolded quotes above are from that neo-liberal, Ronald Reagan, from:
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy, July 30, 1981.

 

[ickythump1225]

The first two are stupid

God, what a great argument. You know what? You've changed my mind.

(I hope italics aren't necessary)

 

[ickythump1225]

No they dream and state openly their desire to illicit a reaction from the West that pits it in a showdown versus the Islamic world. They have spoken openly about their inability to ever occupy a square inch of North America but how they can send single terrorists to create a culture of fear.

You are afraid and the policies you support are exactly what terrorist organizations like ISIS want.

I'm sure they're frustrated by countries like Germany and France where they have carte blanche to machete, bomb, shoot, and run over as many people as they like. If the West ever woke up and actually pitted itself against the Islamic world it would be a start. That is just an acknowledgement of reality. The Islamic world has been standing against the West since Islam was made up by Mohammad in between banging his children sex slaves.

What you want is some fantasy world where we can defeat terrorism with flowers and hugs and maybe some vague rhetoric about shaking down "extremist Islam" (which isn't REAL Islam of course) in a manner that doesn't offend anyone at some undefined point in the future.

This reminds me of you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM-SDNoI_8

False bravado in the face of a dangerous enemy isn't brave, it is just stupid.

 

[ickythump1225]

The bolded quotes above are from that neo-liberal, Ronald Reagan, from:
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy, July 30, 1981.

If you're expecting me to be impressed by Ronald Reagan who sold out the country and American workers with his amnesty and who really didn't a single damn thing that had any lasting effect while in office, you have no idea how wrong a tree you find yourself barking up.

I also included the phrase "neoconservative" which clearly what Reagan was. Irving Kristol may have been the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism but Ronald Reagan was their first poster child. Reagan's presidency has been since been a hamper on the Republican Party as most conservatives/Republicans are more interested in some sort of esoteric personality cult built around Reagan rather than building a winning party.

 

[Rizzophil]

Report: More Than 1,000 Known Child Marriages in Germany

German authorities are reportedly “sounding the alarm” over a sharp rise in child marriages after noting that more and more girl are disappearing from school. Justice Minister Heiko Maas has announced “drastic” new measures to tackle the problem.

The girls are usually married to older men, and the trend is being linked to the new wave of migrants who entered the country over the past 18 months. The state has logged over 1,000 child marriages, but N24.de reports that the number of unreported cases may dwarf this number.

In the Welt am Sonntag newspaper, Mr. Maas said he would be setting up a new working group which will begin its work on September 5th.

SPD parliamentary leader Thomas Oppermann said the protection of children is an absolute priority which must also apply to minors from a migrant background.

“Forced marriages are, in Germany, punishable,” he said. “…that’s how it should be.”

“No one, especially not a child should be forced into marriage.”

The marriages, the report notes, are often arranged. Oppermann notes that child marriages often result in girls becoming pregnant at a young age and subsequently leaving school. “[Y]oung refugees must be informed of their rights in Germany,” he said.

And officials are also contemplating a change in law to refuse to accept an underage marriage that took place in a different country before the migrants arrived.

In June a German judge ruled that the marriage of a 14-year-old Syrian girl to her 20-year-old cousin was valid, despite Germany law. The Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Higher Regional Court in Bamberg, Bavaria) decided the marriage must be recognised as the wedding has already taken place as was recognised as legal in their native Syria, conducted in accordance with Sunni marriage rites.

“These marriages have been recognized in Germany, although they violate our rights,” said Interior Committee Bundestag spokesman Armin Schuster.

The consequences currently being touted include prison terms of up to five years, even for marriages which are conducted privately in religious, cultural, or social ceremonies.

N24 notes that even UNICEF is concerned about the child marriages.

CEO Christian Schneider said. “For the welfare of refugee children who live in Germany, the state has a particular responsibility to protect – for them the same principles apply as for German children”.

In February, Breitbart London reported that dozens of child brides had arrived in Norway, with the youngest being just 11-years of age. The phenomenon has also caused concern in the Netherlands, prompted by the disappearance of the nine-month pregnant 14-year-old girl Fatema Alkasem and her 24-year-old husband.

Last month the German region of North Rhine-Westphalia, which has seen 188 marriages of migrants who are underage, saw calls grow for the government to intervene and stop the practice.

Meanwhile, the increasingly authoritarian and Islamist Turkey is flirting with the idea of allowing 12-year-olds to consent to sex.

 

[ickythump1225]

Man won't that be great when we start getting more child marriages? By "fully vetted refugees" of course.

 

[GoIrish41]

Man won't that be great when we start getting more child marriages? By "fully vetted refugees" of course.

That can only lead to great balls of fire sweeping the nation!

 

[ickythump1225]

Our new country is going to be so great. I'm glad liberals and cucked "conservatives" are allowing us to be enriched by such diversity.

 

[Legacy]

If you're expecting me to be impressed by Ronald Reagan who sold out the country and American workers with his amnesty and who really didn't a single damn thing that had any lasting effect while in office, you have no idea how wrong a tree you find yourself barking up.

No, I did not post so you could be impressed, just so that you could be more than dismissive. Issues and dialogue matter.

I also included the phrase "neoconservative" which clearly what Reagan was. Irving Kristol may have been the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism but Ronald Reagan was their first poster child. Reagan's presidency has been since been a hamper on the Republican Party as most conservatives/Republicans are more interested in some sort of esoteric personality cult built around Reagan rather than building a winning party.

Rather than personalities, are you satisfied with any legislation or constitutional amendments in the last fifty years? Are you an advocate of obstructing any legislation that does not meet those principles you espouse?

You may have noted that Strom Thurmond, John Conyers, and Orrin Hatch sat on that Immigration Committee - and that William Buckley's attitude towards the "poster child" Reagan was different than yours.

Are you more aligned with a segregationist attitude towards other races and cultures? Did America begin the slow slide towards an abyss when Catholics and Jews immigrated?

A nation without borders (or a country that has "borders" like we do but they exist only so we can say we have them), a common interest, a common culture, common ancestry, common ideas on religion, law, morality, virtue, governance, etc. is not really a nation but just a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area.
Human beings are unique beings with individual thoughts and passions that exist as part of larger structures like races, cultures, and nations. They are not interchangeable economic units as most of our business and political leaders see them, Fr. Hesburgh apparently thinks of them, and quite frankly how most people on this board and in this country see them. America is a unique nation with a unique culture and a unique heritage. Part of vetting process for immigration should be whether or not that individual would fit our culture.

Hesburgh does note:

The fact is that about 45 percent of the people now in this country either arrived here from afar or are descendents of people who came here within the last four or five generations.

Is that what you mean by "a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area." but not a nation?

(Bolding in your quote is mine.)

 

[Rizzophil]

Clinton Refugee Plan Could Bring In 620,000 Refugees In First Term At Lifetime Cost Of Over $400 Billion - News Releases - Senator Jeff Sessions


WASHINGTON— An analysis by the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest finds the refugee plan of presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced her desire to admit at least 65,000 refugees from Syria – on top of the existing refugee flow already entering the United States. What Clinton has not explained, however, is that in addition to the clear national security implications related to accepting more refugees, there are massive financial costs that would be borne by federal, state, and local governments.‎

Assuming Clinton's desire to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees is in addition to the Obama Administration's current goal of admitting 10,000 this fiscal year (out of 85,000 total refugees), that would amount to an increase of 55,000 refugees. ‎55,000 on top of 85,000 totals 140,000 refugees. The Obama Administration's target for FY 2017 is actually 100,000 refugees, meaning that adding 55,000 refugees to that would result in 155,000 refugees each year. Due to statutory flaws in our Refugee Admissions Program, the number could be as high as Hillary Clinton desires. Assuming her goal is to admit 155,000 refugees each year during a hypothetical first term in office, a Clinton Administration would admit at least 620,000 refugees in just four years – a population roughly the size of Baltimore.

Although some have attempted to say that the ‎cost of the Refugee Admissions Program is encapsulated in the annual budget provided to the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services for refugee resettlement, the actual costs are exponentially greater – as the annual budget for refugee resettlement does not include costs related to Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, and other programs, as the Obama Administration admits. Nor does that budget include the costs imposed on state and local governments for social services. Furthermore, that budget does not include the costs of future benefits use after refugees become lawful permanent residents and citizens. The true lifetime cost of admitting a single refugee must include an accounting of all benefits received by that refugee - at the federal, state, and local levels, and over the course of that‎ refugee's lifespan. Any other calculation is akin to saying that the total cost of owning a new car is encapsulated in the down payment.

‎Undoubtedly, the resulting costs of admitting the refugees under Clinton’s plan will be enormous. Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has estimated that the total lifetime cost of admitting 10,000 refugees is $6.5 billion. This estimate encompasses costs to taxpayers at the federal, state, and local levels. ‎Using Mr. Rector’s numbers as a baseline, admitting 155,000 refugees in one year would result in a total lifetime cost to the taxpayers of $100,750,000,000. If those levels were sustained over the course of four years – a hypothetical first term in office – the lifetime cost to the taxpayers according to Mr. Rector’s analysis would be $403 billion.

Importantly, Mr. Rector’s numbers reflect an estimate of the net taxpayer cost for admitting a defined number of refugees to the United States. As such, they do not account for aliens granted asylee status in the United States (approximately 25,000 are granted asylee status every year), nor do they account for the fact that refugees will be able to – and do – bring in additional family members after being admitted to the United States. Indeed, if an individual refugee’s spouse or unmarried children were not admitted at the same time as the refugee, they are eligible to “follow-to-join” and be admitted to the United States for two years after the individual refugee’s admission. One year after being admitted to the United States, refugees are eligible to adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status (i.e. obtain a “green card”), enabling them to petition for additional family members. And assuming that a refugee becomes a Lawful Permanent Resident, he or she is further eligible to naturalize five years after being admitted to the United States, enabling them to bring in additional relatives. Thus, the total cost of admitting a certain number of refugees in any given year could be even higher than Mr. Rector predicts.

 

[woolybug25]

Please reference your articles.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Clinton Refugee Plan Could Bring In 620,000 Refugees In First Term At Lifetime Cost Of Over $400 Billion - News Releases - Senator Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions making assumptions and drawing conclusions using numbers provided by the freaking Heritage Foundation.

Forgive me for thinking that neither the 620,000 figure or $400,000,000,000 figure will ever be reached. But hey, it got passed around on the internet by folks who read the paragon of journalism known as Breitbart, so mission accomplished.

 

[RDU Irish]

Anyone following this NYC imam shooting? Latest bit I saw indicated Hispanics and muslims in that neighborhood have been feuding and this was some type of retaliation.

I am curious to see this story develop as you can tell the media REALLY wants someone with an NRA MAGA hat doing a perp walk.

 

[Legacy]

A Tour of Five Refugee Camps: Boar Traps, Beaches, and a Baseball Stadium (Video tour)

Some 57,000 refugees are living in Greece, and most of them aren’t happy about it.
They were fleeing wars in Syria and elsewhere, on their way to other European countries. The border closed in March, and they were stranded. The majority now live in more than 40 camps scattered around Greece, in a crazy variety of places.

A team from This American Life visited, and sent a group of architects and engineers to capture each camp in the architectural renderings that follow. Take a tour to see how people live on the third base line and what others do to deal with the wild boars that roam around at night.

 

[Legacy]

America's immigrant economy: more work, less pay (CNN Money)

Immigrants in America work more, search for jobs more and get paid way less than native-born U.S. citizens.

They're a big chunk of the U.S. job market too. Documented and undocumented immigrants make up nearly 20% of America's labor force, according to a report by Goldman Sachs (GS).
Immigrants have a lower unemployment rate (4.3%) than native-born U.S. citizens (4.9%). They also participate more in the economy, meaning they're either working or looking for work.

But they make far less than native-born citizens. Immigrants weekly income is about $681. Native-born Americans earn $837 a week, according to Goldman.

Immigration is a major factor in the economy's ability to grow more jobs, policymakers say.

Related: Trump's old school: immigration policy would kill 4 million jobs.

"If we were to allow more immigration into this country, of course that would augment the supply of labor so you could actually have more sturdy payroll gains," William Dudley, President of the New York Federal Reserve, said Thursday.

It's not just Dudley. Moody's Analytics economist Mark Zandi estimates that 77% of the potential job gains under Hillary Clinton's economic plan would come from immigration reform. Clinton has called for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers and visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

Increasing the U.S. population is one key factor to creating more jobs and immigrants play a major role. According to the Pew Research Center, immigrants have made up 40 to 50% of the population gains in recent years....

Why American Cities Are Fighting to Attract Immigrants (Atlantic)

This time, too, there is ample evidence that immigrants are creating businesses and revitalizing the U.S. workforce. From 2006 to 2012, more than two-fifths of the start-up tech companies in Silicon Valley had at least one foreign-born founder, according to the Kauffman Foundation. A report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, which advocates for immigrants in the U.S. workforce, found that they accounted for 28 percent of all new small businesses in 2011.

Immigrants also hold a third of the internationally valid patents issued to U.S. residents, according to University of California (Davis) economist Giovanni Peri. In a 2012 article published by the Cato Institute, the libertarian (and pro-immigration) think tank, Peri concluded that immigrants boost economic productivity and don’t have a notable impact—either positive or negative—on net job growth for U.S.-born workers. One reason: Immigrants and native-born workers gravitate toward different jobs.

 

[pumpdog20]

I'm sure they're frustrated by countries like Germany and France where they have carte blanche to machete, bomb, shoot, and run over as many people as they like. If the West ever woke up and actually pitted itself against the Islamic world it would be a start. That is just an acknowledgement of reality. The Islamic world has been standing against the West since Islam was made up by Mohammad in between banging his children sex slaves.

What you want is some fantasy world where we can defeat terrorism with flowers and hugs and maybe some vague rhetoric about shaking down "extremist Islam" (which isn't REAL Islam of course) in a manner that doesn't offend anyone at some undefined point in the future.

This reminds me of you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM-SDNoI_8

False bravado in the face of a dangerous enemy isn't brave, it is just stupid.

I'm assuming your willing to send your own kids for this battle with Islam?

 

[Legacy]

Refugee Girls: The Invisible Faces of War (Women's Refugee Commission) 48 pages

Refugee Girls: An Invisible Population
Because of their powerlessness, adolescent girls in refugee situations are more vulnerable to forced marriage, sexual
slavery and forms of gender-based violence, among other abuses. They are also the least likely to be offered education
and reproductive health care, putting them at greater risk for HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortions.
Mary Diaz, in a letter to the New York Times

First Section:

Girls are rarely featured in the coverage of armed conflict. Given their invisibility, one might assume that girls are
somehow spared involvement in war.

Yet, not only are girls commonly targeted in armed conflict, in many ways their lives are more profoundly affected by it
than other groups. However, their special needs are frequently overlooked or ignored.

More than 140 million girls live in fragile states affected by armed conflict. Of the 42 million people who have had to flee
their homes because of war, 80 percent are women, children and young people. At least 10 million are estimated to be
girls and young women.

When war breaks out, people may flee their homes in search of safety. They face harrowing journeys, sometimes taking
weeks or months to reach the relative safety of a refugee camp in another country or a camp for internally displaced
persons in their own country. They may seek refuge in an urban area, often in slums on the outskirts of a city.
As they flee from war, girls face many dangers, including rape, landmines, gunfire and hunger. They may be recruited
into armed forces or captured by traffickers, or they may fall ill. As they try to navigate through the chaos and confusion
around them, family members may be left behind. Men and boys may stay and fight, or remain to protect the family’s
land and possessions.

Once refugees have reached a place of relative safety, they may stay there for years: the average length of time refugees are displaced is now 17 years — a lifetime for those displaced as young children or born during displacement.
War forces girls into unfamiliar roles. A girl not yet in her teens may suddenly find herself in charge of an entire
household or forced to provide most of the economic support for her family. A girl who has spent her young life shrouded
and kept behind closed doors by her family to ensure her “virtue” may find herself suddenly thrust into a very adult
world of sexual exploitation and abuse inflicted by war. Even as a young child, a girl may be spurned and rejected by
her family if she has been raped. Or, a daughter’s young body might be bartered by her family as a desperate means of
getting money, food and other vital goods and services.

At the same time, the unexpected new roles and responsibilities thrust upon girls during conflict confer a significant
measure of independence for the first time in their lives. They may have access to education and skills training for the
first time when they become refugees. Regular health care may be available, which may not have been true in their
former lives. There is potential, in fact, for these new life patterns to be transformative.

This book is an attempt to tell the untold story of the millions of refugee girls whose voices are almost never heard. While
much of the refugee experience for girls is difficult and depressing to read about, refugee girls are resilient and strong. Their lives are not easy, yet they strive to make the most of the opportunities they are offered.

Contents
Refugee Girls: An Invisible Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
“Collateral Violence” Suffered by Girls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Girls as Targets and Instruments of War. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fighting Isn’t Just for Boys: Girls Go to War. . . . . . . . . 6
Girls for Sale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 8
Defending the Family Honor. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 9
Close Quarters: Life in a Refugee Camp. . . . . .. . . . . . 11
The Hazards of Cooking a Meal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 13
All We Want Is to Go to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Their Bodies Are Not Their Own. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Not Only Measles: Special Health Risks for Girls. . . . . . 20
Making a Living. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Finding a Permanent Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Seeking Asylum, Finding Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 27
Why There Is Cause for Great Hope. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 29
Women’s Refugee Commission: Working to Improve the Lives of Displaced Girls Everywhere. . . . . . . . . 32

 

[ickythump1225]

I'm assuming your willing to send your own kids for this battle with Islam?

I'm a vet myself, and yes I would. Islam isn't just another religion like Buddhism or whatever, it is an existential threat to Western Civilization. Fans of a Catholic (though with how things are going they are Catholic in name only at this point) school should understand religious history better.

Look, if I had it my way we would have never invaded Iraq or destabilized Libya, Syria, and Egypt thrusting the ME into chaos and creating ISIS all while allowing radical Islam to spread like a wildfire. It is time to put out the fire. We need to be smarter about our foreign policy. Putin and Assad may not be saints, but they are better than the alternative. If they want to combat ISIS we should absolutely aid them in doing so. We need to learn from the past, instead of trying to oust Assad we should be aiding him. We never should have ousted Gaddafi. We shouldn't have removed Saddam. Our actions in the ME have created the mess that is over there right now.

But we're at a point where we can't wish away what is happening. Europe is at risk of being completely overrun and ceasing to exist as a unique entity. America isn't at that grave of a risk yet, though Hillary has her way and we allow in 620,000 "refugees" in her 1st term we'll be well on our way. Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino will become the norm.

 

[ickythump1225]

Rather than personalities, are you satisfied with any legislation or constitutional amendments in the last fifty years? Are you an advocate of obstructing any legislation that does not meet those principles you espouse?

You may have noted that Strom Thurmond, John Conyers, and Orrin Hatch sat on that Immigration Committee - and that William Buckley's attitude towards the "poster child" Reagan was different than yours.

Are you more aligned with a segregationist attitude towards other races and cultures? Did America begin the slow slide towards an abyss when Catholics and Jews immigrated?

If you look at the happiest, healthiest, and most productive nations they are the most homogeneous. Diversity kills trust, cooperation, and civic life in a community. Even Robert Putnam (hardly a segregationist) even couldn't avoid this conclusion despite running his study twice.
The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe
(It is worth noting I do not believe this study would be published if ran today, and if it was it would be completely ignored by the mainstream media.)

Far from being a strength, diversity is a big weakness. America is more diverse than ever yet are we really a better nation that we were when conquered a continent, built the transcontinental railroad (yes I am aware of the various contributions to the railroad from all different types of people), helped win WWI and WWII, went to the moon (on several occasions), and won the Cold War just because we were less diverse?

We were able to take in small amounts of immigrants historically (the hype about German and Irish immigrants is overblown, the numbers were small compared to what we take in every year now) because they were Europeans who had some understanding of Anglo-Saxon culture and ideas, and also because we required assimilation into our culture.

Hesburgh does note:


Is that what you mean by "a hodgepodge of people. A group of strangers that exist together in a loosely defined geographic area." but not a nation?

(Bolding in your quote is mine.)

Yes, more or less. There is a corporate push behind this as well. Globalism, a force that is being driven by elitist billionaires, transnational corporations, and their political puppets, is a force that is destroying the diversity of the planet by creating a monoculture throughout the world. Corporations like this because it is easier to craft marketing towards 1 global culture rather than 100s of unique cultures. A world without borders is a world in which giant corporations can exploit cheap labor anywhere in the world and create a race to the bottom in which other nations strip away worker protections and rights in order to cheapen labor all while importing millions of low skill, low paid foreign labor to displace expensive domestic labor.

Then they fund studies by foundations that they bankroll to state what wonderful economic effects free trade, open borders, and globalism have on economies. And it is true that the top 1-5% benefit immensely from the current paradigm, but the average America worker is far worse off than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. Wages have stagnated or declined against inflation, housing, food, healthcare, etc. is all more expensive than ever.

Corporations hold us hostage by threatening to leave unless we fling open the border, remove worker protections, and lower their taxes. Even when we meekly comply with their directives they still end up leaving because no matter what we can't out cheap China, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, etc.

The left does nothing about it because they see millions of new voters arriving on our shores yearly and the right does nothing because it has been coopted by free trade true believers and their corporate paymasters tell them not to.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm a vet myself, and yes I would. Islam isn't just another religion like Buddhism or whatever, it is an existential threat to Western Civilization.

You're too scared to be taken seriously. It's like you don't know what the term existential threat means.

Fans of a Catholic (though with how things are going they are Catholic in name only at this point) school should understand religious history better.

I think you could use a history book or two on Islam, so you can see that clearly the existence of al-qaeda and ISIS is a new development.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims. They aren't a monolithic entity. The vast majority of Muslims do not care about much more than local matters. Given that most Muslim nations are poor, most people care about farming and don't have a shit about committing to being an existential threat to people thousands of miles away. (That's the reason why the Pentagon has said in multiple reports that Global Warming is our biggest threat, the more droughts wreck the livelihoods of poor farmers, the more instability. The more instability, the more likely a strongman lunatic will lord over them with bad intentions, like revolution and/or terrorism.)

Look, if I had it my way we would have never invaded Iraq or destabilized Libya, Syria, and Egypt thrusting the ME into chaos and creating ISIS all while allowing radical Islam to spread like a wildfire.

Libya, Syria, and Egypt all had revolutions without the help of the US. I don't know what you're getting at in Egypt specifically.

It is time to put out the fire. We need to be smarter about our foreign policy.

This is great coming from a poster who shows zero ability to not broad brush people by the billions.

Putin and Assad may not be saints, but they are better than the alternative. If they want to combat ISIS we should absolutely aid them in doing so. We need to learn from the past, instead of trying to oust Assad we should be aiding him. We never should have ousted Gaddafi. We shouldn't have removed Saddam. Our actions in the ME have created the mess that is over there right now.

If you knew anything about what's happening you'd know that Putin and Assad aren't bombing ISIS very much because they're still trying to win their civil war. There are four sides fighting in Syria, not two.

If you stopped polluting your head with alarmist media you'd learn the unfortunate fact that no government over there considers removing ISIS to be their #1 priority, except maybe Iraq. No only is ISIS not an existential threat to the West, they're not even an existential threat to a country like Jordan. Supposedly radical Islam is spreading like wild fire...yet the facts say that ISIS has been stymied for two years and everyone is just wrestling for better position in the post-ISIS Middle East. That stalemate has disastrous consequences for people on the ground of course, but outside of the warzone the surrounding countries view this as better than removing ISIS.

Helping Putin and Assad remove ISIS would be asking our current allies to accept Iranian domination in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Considering that Turkey is now sprinting away from the West's orbit and has warmed relations with Russia, and the picture looks awful for Saudi Arabia and Co.....who by the way are the ones who started ISIS in the first place.

You would do well to read about Wahhabism/Salafism and how Saudi Arabia uses it to further their interests. Maybe check out the recently declassified 28 pages of the 911 Commission report while you're at it.

But we're at a point where we can't wish away what is happening. Europe is at risk of being completely overrun and ceasing to exist as a unique entity. America isn't at that grave of a risk yet, though Hillary has her way and we allow in 620,000 "refugees" in her 1st term we'll be well on our way. Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino will become the norm.

Holy hell you are one scared man. Without question you are the definition of success for a terrorist.

 

[calvegas04]

Holy hell you are one scared man. Without question you are the definition of success for a terrorist.

Well so far they have been carrying out attacks across the west and the west is still allowing them to flood across the boarders.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If you look at the happiest, healthiest, and most productive nations they are the most homogeneous. Diversity kills trust, cooperation, and civic life in a community. Even Robert Putnam (hardly a segregationist) even couldn't avoid this conclusion despite running his study twice.
The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe
(It is worth noting I do not believe this study would be published if ran today, and if it was it would be completely ignored by the mainstream media.)

Harvard Sociologist Says His Research Was ‘Twisted’ – Percolator - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Even the guy you cite disagrees with your broad bushing bullshit.

Far from being a strength, diversity is a big weakness. America is more diverse than ever yet are we really a better nation that we were when conquered a continent, built the transcontinental railroad (yes I am aware of the various contributions to the railroad from all different types of people), helped win WWI and WWII, went to the moon (on several occasions), and won the Cold War just because we were less diverse?

We were able to take in small amounts of immigrants historically (the hype about German and Irish immigrants is overblown, the numbers were small compared to what we take in every year now) because they were Europeans who had some understanding of Anglo-Saxon culture and ideas, and also because we required assimilation into our culture.

I can't remember the last time I've read someone twist history so absurdly. I could write for an hour about all of the incorrect assertions here.

Then they fund studies by foundations that they bankroll to state what wonderful economic effects free trade, open borders, and globalism have on economies. And it is true that the top 1-5% benefit immensely from the current paradigm, but the average America worker is far worse off than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. Wages have stagnated or declined against inflation, housing, food, healthcare, etc. is all more expensive than ever.

Corporations hold us hostage by threatening to leave unless we fling open the border, remove worker protections, and lower their taxes. Even when we meekly comply with their directives they still end up leaving because no matter what we can't out cheap China, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico, etc.

The left does nothing about it because they see millions of new voters arriving on our shores yearly and the right does nothing because it has been coopted by free trade true believers and their corporate paymasters tell them not to.

Here you've shifted from #badhistory to #badeconomics, but each with your signature xenophobia.

 

[ickythump1225]

Well so far they have been carrying out attacks across the west and the west is still allowing them to flood across the boarders.

He sees people getting slaughtered in San Bernardino and Orlando and his response is to keep letting them in and doesn't see how he is a terrorist's wetdream.

 

[ickythump1225]

Harvard Sociologist Says His Research Was ‘Twisted’ – Percolator - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Even the guy you cite disagrees with your broad bushing bullshit.



I can't remember the last time I've read someone twist history so absurdly. I could write for an hour about all of the incorrect assertions here.



Here you've shifted from #badhistory to #badeconomics, but each with your signature xenophobia.

"Wow, just wow. I literally can't even. You're wrong, but I'll do nothing to actually refute your claims. Don't worry my retort to this statement will be, 'wow, just wow. #Toostupid to answer. hehe"

 

[ickythump1225]

Buster, I recommend you study the 1965 Immigration Act and see how it fundamentally transformed our immigration policy, our nation's demographics, and the essence of our country. Prior to 1965 70% of our allotted immigration spots were required to go to immigrants from England, Germany, and Ireland.

Prior to 1965 Americans at large did not think of the country as a "nation of immigrants." America was a nation founded to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The Immigration Act of 1924 limited immigration to no more than 2% of the U.S. population which was actually lower than the previous threshold of 3%. Every year untold numbers pour over the southern border, the mainstream lowball estimate is 12 million illegals living the U.S., but other figures have it between 20-30 million. It's really quite impossible to guess how many are in the country at any given time.

If one could trace a single point in history that the U.S. began to decline it would the 1965 Immigration Act. In 51 years from the signing of the act more people have immigrated (legally) to the U.S. than the previous 180ish years of the republic COMBINED. The elites want the pace to pick up as well. Hillary wants to allow 620K refugees into the country by the end of her 1st term.

Immigrants and refugees come to America and use welfare at rates higher than native born Americans. They elbow themselves into food stamps, Affirmative Action, TANF, housing assistance, etc. Many of these Great Society programs were designed to assist African-Americans as a way to right the wrongs of the past. African-Americans have a historical grievance against the U.S., 1st generation Central and South American, North African, and Middle Eastern immigrants do not.

Some further reading:
Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act | Center for Immigration Studies
Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households | Center for Immigration Studies
https://www.numbersusa.com/resource-article/immigration-world-poverty-and-gumballs-updated-2010
Nearly 20 million illegal immigrants in U.S., former Border Patrol agents say - Washington Times
30 Million Illegal Immigrants in US, Says Mexico's Former Ambassador
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

 

[ickythump1225]

You're too scared to be taken seriously. It's like you don't know what the term existential threat means.

You don't even know what "scared" means bro. You just keep repeating that and "xenophobic" and hope that makes your lack of substance meaningful. Your responses are the worst parodies of leftist SJW outrage, "wow, just wow. I literally can't even" about sums up 99% of your responses. On occasion you do give food for thought and decent counterpoints, but it is washed out by John Oliver-esque smugness and mock outrage. You're like a Trojan begging for the horse to be brought in because it would be xenophobic to refuse their gift.

 

[Legacy]

Jeb Bush rips 'morphing,' 'abhorrent' Trump on immigration

Bush, whose own campaign hands have expressed similar sentiments, remarked that he could not specifically comment on Trump's views because "they seem to be ever, ever changing, depending on what crowd he's in front of."

"Sounds like a typical politician, by the way, where you get in front of one crowd and say one thing, and then say something else to another crowd that may want to hear a different view," Bush continued. "All the things that Donald Trump railed against, he seems to be morphing into — it’s kind of disturbing.”

As far as whether he sees Trump coming around to his views, Bush could not say.
“I don’t know what to believe about a guy who doesn't believe in things. I mean he doesn't ... this is all a game," Bush said. "He doesn't ... his views will change based on the feedback he gets from a crowd, or, you know, what he thinks he has to do. Life is too complex. For me I couldn't do that. I have to believe what I believe, and if it’s popular, great, if it’s not, I try to get better at presenting my views. But shifting my views because, because it’s political to do it? That’s what politicians do in this country, that's what Trump is trying to do right now. I find it abhorrent.”

 

[RDU Irish]

Jeb Bush rips 'morphing,' 'abhorrent' Trump on immigration

He sounds way more like a drunken uncle than a "typical politician". WTF Trump - there is no upside in responding to some Jeb comment that literally NOBODY is listening to.