Does there need to be enforcement? Absolutely yes.
Of course very little will be done. Most the anchor babies will eventually vote for the free party. Europe doesn't have anchor babies. That's the lefts blueprint yet for some reason they have yet to suggest coping that.
Really the US should split in two now. Half country can flood their country via open borders. That same half can attempt to provide everything to all those people. The other half can go in a better direction.
Looking at the issue exclusively as an enforcement problem is blinkered and self-limiting. Immigration is not all bad.
We already welcome a lot of people legally. Immigrants make up a large percentage of our country. Too much for my liking. Or if it's going to be be that high my standards would be higher.
Disunion Nathan.
We survived open borders until the 1890s. Had very little border enforcement per se until the 1940s and 1950s.
One might say that open borders policy is more distinctively American than not.
You can't mainstream that many people that quickly.
What are you assuming?
I didn't mention a number, and I didn't say who we were letting in.
What worked and what will are two different things.
Open borders doesn't work with the free platform. And some are pushing for both.
And yes I'd love to split the country now.
People always claim immigrants will vote en bloc for Democrats, what support is there for this? (Although with all the fear and hostility the GOP whips up about foreigners, I can see why that might be a self-fulfilling prophecy today)
And why the dire paranoia about the action on the southern border?
Immigration to the USA is increasingly Chinese and South Asian.
How would you like to split it up?
And what's so bad about immigration, while you're at it?
You mean the propaganda that conflates illegals with legals? The propaganda that pushes a racist narrative for not wanting illegals. And mainstream media that bend over backwards for a narrative that 1/1024 native American is in fact native American gets to push that nonsense on the public. "Self-fullfilling prophecy" at work.
And the voting Bloc isn't just recognition of the initial immigrant. Why ignore the obvious reality down the road?
Of course things could change in how they vote but even that becomes less likely with constant flow illegals and immigrants.
The entire east coast and a bunch of northeastern states plus a little should be Demolition Land. I could just see demolition land scrapping the entirety of the Cons ution on day 1. Opening borders on day 2. 100% tax implemented on day 3. It would be beautiful watching the current major hubs of America crumble.
wow, you're really bent out of shape about this Elizabeth Warren thing.
thanks btw, for admitting your hypothesis that immigrants will eventually vote en bloc for Dems is completely speculative.
that is really weird, man
what about the west coast, no animus against Cali?
every major city in Texas but Fort Worth is blue, would you build walls around them?
Sorry I meant the entire west coast.
No, if they don't want to live there they can go to Cali, Oregon, Washington, New York, and a number of other northeastern states.
No, just using recent example that displayed extreme bias.
I don't think so. It'd be quite entertaining watching a bunch of overconfident know-it-alls get what they want only for it to quickly crumble. I could just see silicon valley getting taxed to death and tech companies quickly fleeing Demolition Land. Same for numerous other companies. So as the rich flee they would simultaneously be taking in millions immigrants. All while ripping each other apart on social issues. Or it could play out differently but I don't expect a non-entertaining outcome.
I concur that the whole notion of free party stuff is non-sense in the historical sense. Reagan was the last president not only to outright amnesty illegals, but also turn what would otherwise be illegal Cuban aliens into insta-citizens, and the GOP was handsomely rewarded for that with Cuban-American votes for quite a few generations, in swing states like Florida.
There's no doubt that the system is and has been broken to an extent for a while, and that properly securing your borders for natsec reasons, especially at this point in time, makes sense. But as Winehole pointed out, the issue is fixing that system, not the libearal boogieman, tbh
Heck, if there's anything Latinos are largely known for is their absolute devotion for Christianity... Reagan was way ahead of his time in immigration politics, tbh...
Woods' head is up his ass, typical fact-free right wing asshole
USA has been ting on, destabilizing Northern Triangle into dysfunctionality, failed states, for decades, as well as causing AGW that is destroying coffee, chocolate crops down there.
Democrats don't support open borders. Democrats oppose a wasteful $40B wall for many reasons including because people this determined to enter the US probably aren't going to be stopped by it unless you also planning to use armed force. The reality is that people deserve a right to at least claim asylum and have their application reviewed and then approved or denied. If they're denied, then they're deported, so it's as simple as that.
the destruction zones you refer to would have most of the population and productive power of the country and all of the major seaports except for New Orleans and Houston.
are you sure you've thought this through?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
