Mavs: daily reminder that

[DMC]

You do realize sunny Southern Cal is formerly Northern Mexico, right? San Andreas, Los Angeles, San Mateo, San Diego, San Francisco, Baja, damn near all of California is Mexican/Spanish by nature.

[midnightpulp]

You do realize sunny Southern Cal is formerly Northern Mexico, right?

Sure. And before that, it belonged to a variety of Native American tribes.

I know you're being cheeky, but it always amuses me when militant Mexicans start with, "This is our land!" rhetoric. As if they have some moral claim to land that was taken from the Natives by their Spanish ancestors (who did all sorts of fun things to the natives: torture, forced them into work camps, biological warfare, etc).

[Splits]

Well done, refusing to answer the most potent questions I posed and cherrypicking. I'll do the same.

If what you think I'm espousing is Nationalism, you need to get more familiar with the concept.

So requiring immigrants to "wave" the American flag as a requirement for entry. That's not Nationalism? Do they have to chant U-S-A in our dialect or theirs?

That's great, but it's a false equivalency. Your experience as an American Expat in Europe is irrelevant to the United States' current immigrant situation.

no it is not, it is the same exact . I have to deal with zealots, nationalists, and we're the greatest country in the world people everywhere I live and the flag-waving-get-out-of-my-country loser you've shown yourself to be is always the most annoying and incoherent. We have treaties with almost every other industrialized country to allow our citizens to work in their country and theirs to work in ours without these ridiculous requirements you want to impose.

[Splits]

Sure. And before that, it belonged to a variety of Native American tribes.

I know you're being cheeky, but it always amuses me when militant Mexicans start with, "This is our land!" rhetoric. As if they have some moral claim to land that was taken from the Natives by their Spanish ancestors (who did all sorts of fun things to the natives: torture, forced them into work camps, biological warfare, etc).

"militant mexicans" while America bombs the out of 14 middle eastern countries in 20 years yet we are "promoting peace"

[DMC]

Sure. And before that, it belonged to a variety of Native American tribes.

I know you're being cheeky, but it always amuses me when militant Mexicans start with, "This is our land!" rhetoric. As if they have some moral claim to land that was taken from the Natives by their Spanish ancestors (who did all sorts of fun things to the natives: torture, forced them into work camps, biological warfare, etc).

Their ancestors were natives themselves until the Conquistadors came along with their salty penne.

[Splits]

I would just like to see some courtesy and manners.

[lefty]

Splits dropping truth nukes

[midnightpulp]

Well done, refusing to answer the most potent questions I posed and cherrypicking. I'll do the same.




So requiring immigrants to "wave" the American flag is a requirement for entry? That's not Nationalism? Do they have to chant U-S-A in our dialect or theirs?




no it is not, it is the same exact . I have to deal with zealots, nationalists, and we're the greatest country in the world people everywhere I live and the flag-waving-get-out-of-my-country loser you've shown yourself to be is always the most annoying and incoherent. We have treaties with almost every other industrialized country to allow our citizens to work in their country and theirs to work in ours without these ridiculous requirements you want to impose.

Nice emotional replay

Again, I never said I would require an immigrant to wave the American flag as a requisite for citizenship. I just think it's impolite when a Mexican is flying the Mexican flag in his front yard.

We have treaties with almost every other industrialized country to allow our citizens to work in their country and theirs to work in ours without these ridiculous requirements you want to impose.

But they require that person to have a work visa. How many Mexican immigrants have those?

And I addressed all your points/answered all your questions.

I answered your question of why I think an immigrant should know English.

I've corrected you on your mistaken belief that I think pledging allegiance to the US flag should be a requirement for citizenship.

I've detailed why the immigration situation of the early 1900s can't be compared to today. And also illustrated the strain it is putting on public services (in California)

You, on the other hand, just keep arguing from experience and appealing to emotion. I understand your "compassionate liberal" alarm goes off every time someone displays even a trace of conservatism and you automatically label that personal as a "flag waving loser," but you can at least try to humor me with a somewhat coherent counterargument rather than spouting leftist pla udes ("Nationalism is the most dangerous idea ever!").

[midnightpulp]

"militant mexicans" while America bombs the out of 14 middle eastern countries in 20 years yet we are "promoting peace"

What does that have to do with an immigration debate?

[midnightpulp]

[midnightpulp]

Their ancestors were natives themselves until the Conquistadors came along with their salty penne.

Don't think the Aztecs or Mayans were ever natives of California, to my knowledge.

[Splits]

(who did all sorts of fun things to the natives: torture,

forced them into work camps

biological warfare, etc

[midnightpulp]

What's that have to do with a debate on immigration?

[Splits]

What's that have to do with a debate on immigration?

Nothing, but you introduced this wildly (non) compelling argument...

As if they have some moral claim to land that was taken from the Natives by their Spanish ancestors (who did all sorts of fun things to the natives: torture, forced them into work camps, biological warfare, etc).

To which I called you out on your complete nationalistic hypocrisy...

[Splits]

Nice emotional replay

So your academic interpretation of immigration policy trumps my actual living through it on multiple occasions. Got it.

Again, I never said I would require an immigrant to wave the American flag as a requisite for citizenship. I just think it's impolite when a Mexican is flying the Mexican flag in his front yard.

your poor fee fees having to look at a flag that isn't blood red white and blue

But they require that person to have a work visa. How many Mexican immigrants have those?

About 5 million more thanks to Obama's executive action. Considering the Senate passed a bill by an overwhelming 68-32 vote 2 years ago, it should have been 11 million. And your hero Ronny Reagan proudly signed an amnesty bill and treated it as signature legislation saying:

"We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."

And I addressed all your points/answered all your questions.

No you didn't. What about: "It's one of the only reasons to be proud of this country, and you want to destroy that honor by putting some arbitrary language requirement on today's immigrants? Should they learn it before or after they immigrate? If after, how many years? Should we have an immigration police visiting people's homes and figuring out how far along they are on the "learn english" timeline?"

I answered your question of why I think an immigrant should know English.

I missed that one. Was it because you don't like having to repeat yourself at the Wendy's drive thru? Oh yeah, right, you did answer it. Nevermind.

I've corrected you on your mistaken belief that I think pledging allegiance to the US flag should be a requirement for citizenship.

Missed that one as well. Unless you're backtracking and relying on the "'Murica yeah" canard and you're offended by the lack of civility of the Mexican flag

I've detailed why the immigration situation of the early 1900s can't be compared to today. And also illustrated the strain it is putting on public services (in California)

No, you haven't. What has also gone unmentioned is that I, as an American citizen, has to file and pay taxes when I don't live in this country but only because I'm stricken by the fact that I hold a passport. We're the only country in the 1st world that requires our expats to pay taxes for services they don't receive.

You, on the other hand, just keep arguing from experience and appealing to emotion. I understand your "compassionate liberal" alarm goes off every time someone displays even a trace of conservatism and you automatically label that personal as a "flag waving loser," but you can at least try to humor me with a somewhat coherent counterargument rather than spouting leftist pla udes ("Nationalism is the most dangerous idea ever!").

My mistake. Actually living through the international immigration system, relaying those experiences first-hand, and pointing out the facts. That sure cons utes "appealing to emotion" whereas you're the armchair quarterback chicken who speaks in tongues without having any actual knowledge for how it works. So sorry I offended your imaginary world.

[midnightpulp]

Nothing, but you introduced this wildly (non) compelling argument...



To which I called you out on your complete nationalistic hypocrisy...

What "nationalistic hypocrisy?"

Because I want stricter immigration laws (which take no mind of race, creed, or culture), I'm a "nationalist?"

Tell me how it's a good thing that (I'll only speak on behalf of California's situation):

- California is projected to hit a population of 60 million people by the middle of the century. This while we're in the middle of one the most severe droughts in the state's history.

- 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

- Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

- 1 out of 3 students attend an overcrowded school, most of which are immigrants.

- Social services (namely healthcare) continued to be strained by immigrants. Many hospitals in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations experience overcrowding.

- English as a second language. Forces a sudden change in methodology (e.g., teaching, job training) and infrastructure that many businesses and communities can deal with.

“We have many places that had no immigrant children five, six years ago that now have those children,” said Fran Hoch, section chief for the Department of Public Instruction's English-as-a Second Language program.

The population increase is straining local school systems that are desperate for ESL-certified teachers, materials, and space to accommodate these children. Schools also struggle with a myriad of social problems, placing the heaviest burden on ESL teachers. Compounding the problem, the state has been slow to provide funding. New accountability tests for schools and students may condemn immigrant students to repeat grades or failure. The amount needed to help may reach as high as $80 million statewide."

I can quote more data, but I hope my point is now clear.

I don't think tightening immigration law to address a problematic situation is unreasonable, racist or "nationalistic."

[Splits]

What "nationalistic hypocrisy?"

Because I want stricter immigration laws (which take no mind of race, creed, or culture), I'm a "nationalist?"

Tell me how it's a good thing that (I'll only speak on behalf of California's situation):

- California is projected to hit a population of 60 million people by the middle of the century. This while we're in the middle of one the most severe droughts in the state's history.

- 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

- Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

- 1 out of 3 students attend an overcrowded school, most of which are immigrants.

- Social services (namely healthcare) continued to be strained by immigrants. Many hospitals in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations experience overcrowding.

- English as a second language. Forces a sudden change in methodology (e.g., teaching, job training) and infrastructure that many businesses and communities can deal with.

“We have many places that had no immigrant children five, six years ago that now have those children,” said Fran Hoch, section chief for the Department of Public Instruction's English-as-a Second Language program.

The population increase is straining local school systems that are desperate for ESL-certified teachers, materials, and space to accommodate these children. Schools also struggle with a myriad of social problems, placing the heaviest burden on ESL teachers. Compounding the problem, the state has been slow to provide funding. New accountability tests for schools and students may condemn immigrant students to repeat grades or failure. The amount needed to help may reach as high as $80 million statewide."

I can quote more data, but I hope my point is now clear.

I don't think tightening immigration law to address a problematic situation is unreasonable, racist or "nationalistic."

quoting statistics from a nativist organization
not even trying to hide the fact that "Numbers USA - for lower immigration levels" is partisan
hack
pretending to be affected by some imaginary problem
nativists

[Splits]

Controversy[edit]

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes NumbersUSA as part of a network of "anti-immigration" organizations created by Tanton.^[17] The Wall Street Journal also identifies NumbersUSA as one of a half dozen groups founded or funded by Tanton in order to stop immigration and promote population control.^[18] In February 2009, NumbersUSA was called a nativist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center's report "The Nativist Lobby",^[19] though the SPLC also stated that there is no evidence of racism on behalf of Roy Beck or his organization.^[20] NumbersUSA firmly denies having any racist or extremist views.^[21]

[Splits]

population control
living in the racist hatred ages of the 50's and 60s or before
hates mexicans for no reason other than to be racist
relies on racist propaganda for "facts"
probably is a secret Kirby lover
life totally unaffected by mexicans except he has to repeat his order at taco bell
pretends to understand the difficulties of living across borders
hack
stick to what you do well, kirby bashing and LOLing at Lakersground
don't try to with me
La Raza
living in a bastion immigration state but hates mexicans
should move to Oklahoma or South Dakota or some other racist state
probably denies climate change
GTFO

[Splits]

All Republican racists who hate Mexicans
No Democrats
"I can quote more data"

United States Congress:
Immigration Report Card Locator

A+ (3% of peer group)

King, Steve(Rep. - 4^th) R - IA 98%
Barletta, Louis(Rep. - 11^th) R - PA 97%
Cruz, Ted(Sen.) R - TX 96%
Grassley, Charles(Sen.) R - IA 96%
Lee, Mike(Sen.) R - UT 96%
Nunnelee, Alan(Rep. - 1^st) R - MS 96%
Sessions, Jeff(Sen.) R - AL 96%
Black, Diane(Rep. - 6^th) R - TN 95%
Boozman, John(Sen.) R - AR 95%
Brooks, Mo(Rep. - 5^th) R - AL 95%
Crapo, Michael(Sen.) R - ID 95%
Enzi, Michael(Sen.) R - WY 95%
Gingrey, Phil(Rep. - 11^th) R - GA 95%
Marchant, Kenny(Rep. - 24^th) R - TX 95%
Roberts, Pat(Sen.) R - KS 95%
Scott, Tim(Sen.) R - SC 95%
Shelby, Richard(Sen.) R - AL 95%
Vitter, David(Sen.) R - LA 95%
A (4% of peer group)

Blackburn, Marsha(Rep. - 7^th) R - TN 94%
McClintock, Tom(Rep. - 4^th) R - CA 94%
Risch, Jim(Sen.) R - ID 94%
Gosar, Paul(Rep. - 4^th) R - AZ 93%
Graves, Sam(Rep. - 6^th) R - MO 93%
Jones, Walter(Rep. - 3^rd) R - NC 93%
Kingston, Jack(Rep. - 1^st) R - GA 93%
Westmoreland, Lynn(Rep. - 3^rd) R - GA 93%
Williams, Roger(Rep. - 25^th) R - TX 93%
Flores, William(Rep. - 17^th) R - TX 92%
Hartzler, Vicky(Rep. - 4^th) R - MO 92%
Woodall, Rob(Rep. - 7^th) R - GA 92%
Calvert, Ken(Rep. - 42^nd) R - CA 91%
Campbell, John(Rep. - 45^th) R - CA 91%
Cassidy, Bill(Rep. - 6^th) R - LA 90%
Culberson, John(Rep. - 7^th) R - TX 90%
Desjarlais, Scott(Rep. - 4^th) R - TN 90%
Pompeo, Michael(Rep. - 4^th) R - KS 90%
Smith, Lamar(Rep. - 21^st) R - TX 90%
A- (3% of peer group)

Barrow, John(Rep. - 12^th) D - GA 89%
Rigell, Scott(Rep. - 2^nd) R - VA 89%
Schweikert, David(Rep. - 6^th) R - AZ 89%
Stockman, Steve(Rep. - 36^th) R - TX 89%
Lankford, James(Rep. - 5^th) R - OK 88%
Posey, Bill(Rep. - 8^th) R - FL 88%
Rice, Tom(Rep. - 7^th) R - SC 88%
Rohrabacher, Dana(Rep. - 48^th) R - CA 88%
Burgess, Michael(Rep. - 26^th) R - TX 87%
Scott, Austin(Rep. - 8^th) R - GA 87%
Bilirakis, Gus(Rep. - 12^th) R - FL 86%
Carter, John(Rep. - 31^st) R - TX 86%
Fincher, Steve(Rep. - 8^th) R - TN 86%
Goodlatte, Robert(Rep. - 6^th) R - VA 86%
Roe, Phil(Rep. - 1^st) R - TN 86%
Rogers, Mike(Rep. - 3^rd) R - AL 86%
Salmon, Matt(Rep. - 5^th) R - AZ 86%
Sensenbrenner, James(Rep. - 5^th) R - WI 86%

[Splits]

B+ (8% of peer group)

Palazzo, Steven(Rep. - 4th) R - MS 85%
Sessions, Pete(Rep. - 32nd) R - TX 85%
Stivers, Steve(Rep. - 15th) R - OH 85%
Weber, Randy(Rep. - 14th) R - TX 85%
Bachmann, Michele(Rep. - 6th) R - MN 84%
Barton, Joe(Rep. - 6th) R - TX 84%
Bishop, Rob(Rep. - 1st) R - UT 84%
Broun, Paul(Rep. - 10th) R - GA 84%
Duffy, Sean(Rep. - 7th) R - WI 84%
Fleischmann, Charles(Rep. - 3rd) R - TN 84%
Foxx, Virginia(Rep. - 5th) R - NC 84%
Gohmert, Louie(Rep. - 1st) R - TX 84%
Harris, Andy(Rep. - 1st) R - MD 84%
LaMalfa, Doug(Rep. - 1st) R - CA 84%
Miller, Jeff(Rep. - 1st) R - FL 84%
Price, Tom(Rep. - 6th) R - GA 84%
Ribble, Reid(Rep. - 8th) R - WI 84%
Rokita, Todd(Rep. - 4th) R - IN 84%
Ryan, Paul(Rep. - 1st) R - WI 84%
Blunt, Roy(Sen.) R - MO 83%
Coats, Daniel(Sen.) R - IN 83%
Cochran, Thad(Sen.) R - MS 83%
Fischer, Deb(Sen.) R - NE 83%
Fleming, John(Rep. - 4th) R - LA 83%
Graves, Tom(Rep. - 14th) R - GA 83%
Harper, Gregg(Rep. - 3rd) R - MS 83%
Inhofe, James(Sen.) R - OK 83%
Johnson, Ron(Sen.) R - WI 83%
McConnell, Mitch(Sen.) R - KY 83%
Moran, Jerry(Sen.) R - KS 83%
Paul, Rand(Sen.) R - KY 83%
Pittenger, Robert(Rep. - 9th) R - NC 83%
Portman, Rob(Sen.) R - OH 83%
Thune, John(Sen.) R - SD 83%
Cotton, Tom(Rep. - 4th) R - AR 82%
Duncan, Jeff(Rep. - 3rd) R - SC 82%
Garrett, Scott(Rep. - 5th) R - NJ 82%
Kelly, Mike(Rep. - 3rd) R - PA 82%
Tiberi, Pat(Rep. - 12th) R - OH 82%
Wenstrup, Brad(Rep. - 2nd) R - OH 82%
Aderholt, Robert(Rep. - 4th) R - AL 81%
Neugebauer, Randy(Rep. - 19th) R - TX 81%
B (9% of peer group)


Collins, Doug(Rep. - 9th) R - GA 80%
Fortenberry, Jeff(Rep. - 1st) R - NE 80%
Mulvaney, Mick(Rep. - 5th) R - SC 80%
Royce, Ed(Rep. - 39th) R - CA 80%
Yoho, Ted(Rep. - 3rd) R - FL 80%
Bridenstine, Jim(Rep. - 1st) R - OK 79%
Cole, Tom(Rep. - 4th) R - OK 79%
Duncan, John(Rep. - 2nd) R - TN 79%
Jolly, David(Rep. - 13th) R - FL 79%
Lamborn, Doug(Rep. - 5th) R - CO 79%
Barrasso, John(Sen.) R - WY 78%
Chaffetz, Jason(Rep. - 3rd) R - UT 78%
Clawson, Curtis(Rep. - 19th) R - FL 78%
Ellmers, Renee(Rep. - 2nd) R - NC 78%
Gibbs, Bob(Rep. - 7th) R - OH 78%
Gowdy, Trey(Rep. - 4th) R - SC 78%
Hensarling, Jeb(Rep. - 5th) R - TX 78%
Hunter, Duncan D.(Rep. - 50th) R - CA 78%
Luetkemeyer, Blaine(Rep. - 3rd) R - MO 78%
McKinley, David(Rep. - 1st) R - WV 78%
Wolf, Frank(Rep. - 10th) R - VA 78%
Johnson, Sam(Rep. - 3rd) R - TX 77%
Walorski, Jackie(Rep. - 2nd) R - IN 77%
Lummis, Cynthia(Rep. - at large) R - WY 75%
Nugent, Richard(Rep. - 11th) R - FL 75%
Perry, Scott(Rep. - 4th) R - PA 75%
Ross, Dennis(Rep. - 15th) R - FL 75%
Smith, Jason(Rep. - 8th) R - MO 75%
Stutzman, Marlin(Rep. - 3rd) R - IN 75%
Chabot, Steve(Rep. - 1st) R - OH 74%
Franks, Trent(Rep. - 8th) R - AZ 74%
McIntyre, Mike(Rep. - 7th) D - NC 74%
Olson, Pete(Rep. - 22nd) R - TX 73%
Byrne, Bradley(Rep. - 1st) R - AL 72%
Lance, Leonard(Rep. - 7th) R - NJ 72%
Boustany, Charles(Rep. - 3rd) R - LA 71%
Collins, Chris(Rep. - 27th) R - NY 71%
Frelinghuysen, Rodney(Rep. - 11th) R - NJ 71%
Gerlach, Jim(Rep. - 6th) R - PA 71%
Hastings, Richard(Rep. - 4th) R - WA 71%
Huelskamp, Tim(Rep. - 1st) R - KS 71%
Joyce, David(Rep. - 14th) R - OH 71%
Latta, Robert E.(Rep. - 5th) R - OH 71%
LoBiondo, Frank(Rep. - 2nd) R - NJ 71%
Massie, Thomas(Rep. - 4th) R - KY 71%
Petri, Tom(Rep. - 6th) R - WI 71%
Rothfus, Keith(Rep. - 12th) R - PA 71%
Smith, Christopher(Rep. - 4th) R - NJ 71%
Southerland, Steve(Rep. - 2nd) R - FL 71%
Wittman, Robert J.(Rep. - 1st) R - VA 71%
B- (2% of peer group)


Poe, Ted(Rep. - 2nd) R - TX 70%
Rooney, Tom(Rep. - 17th) R - FL 70%
Cramer, Kevin(Rep. - at large) R - ND 69%
Long, Billy(Rep. - 7th) R - MO 69%
Burr, Richard(Sen.) R - NC 68%
Chambliss, Saxby(Sen.) R - GA 68%
Coburn, Tom(Sen.) R - OK 68%
Isakson, Johnny(Sen.) R - GA 68%
Johanns, Mike(Sen.) R - NE 68%
Toomey, Patrick(Sen.) R - PA 68%
Hall, Ralph(Rep. - 4th) R - TX 67%
Stewart, Chris(Rep. - 2nd) R - UT 66%
C+ (16% of peer group)


Bentivolio, Kerry(Rep. - 11th) R - MI 65%
Johnson, William(Rep. - 6th) R - OH 65%
Pearce, Steve(Rep. - 2nd) R - NM 65%
Issa, Darrell(Rep. - 49th) R - CA 64%
Messer, Luke(Rep. - 6th) R - IN 64%
DeSantis, Ron(Rep. - 6th) R - FL 63%
Marino, Tom(Rep. - 10th) R - PA 63%
Wicker, Roger(Sen.) R - MS 63%
Amash, Justin(Rep. - 3rd) R - MI 62%
Barr, Andy(Rep. - 6th) R - KY 62%
Benishek, Daniel(Rep. - 1st) R - MI 62%
Boehner, John(Rep. - 8th) R - OH 62%
Buchanan, Vern(Rep. - 16th) R - FL 62%
Bucshon, Larry(Rep. - 8th) R - IN 62%
Camp, Dave(Rep. - 4th) R - MI 62%
Capito, S ey Moore(Rep. - 2nd) R - WV 62%
Cook, Paul(Rep. - 8th) R - CA 62%
Crawford, Rick(Rep. - 1st) R - AR 62%
Crenshaw, Ander(Rep. - 4th) R - FL 62%
Daines, Steve(Rep. - 1st) R - MT 62%
Davis, Rodney(Rep. - 13th) R - IL 62%
Fitzpatrick, Michael(Rep. - 8th) R - PA 62%
Gibson, Christopher(Rep. - 19th) R - NY 62%
Granger, Kay(Rep. - 12th) R - TX 62%
Griffin, Tim(Rep. - 2nd) R - AR 62%
Griffith, H. Morgan(Rep. - 9th) R - VA 62%
Guthrie, Brett(Rep. - 2nd) R - KY 62%
Hanna, Richard(Rep. - 22nd) R - NY 62%
Herrera Beutler, Jaime(Rep. - 3rd) R - WA 62%
Holding, George(Rep. - 13th) R - NC 62%
Huizenga, William(Rep. - 2nd) R - MI 62%
Hurt, Robert(Rep. - 5th) R - VA 62%
Jenkins, Lynn(Rep. - 2nd) R - KS 62%
Kline, John(Rep. - 2nd) R - MN 62%
Labrador, Raul(Rep. - 1st) R - ID 62%
Latham, Tom(Rep. - 3rd) R - IA 62%
Lucas, Frank(Rep. - 3rd) R - OK 62%
McAllister, Vance(Rep. - 5th) R - LA 62%
McCarthy, Kevin(Rep. - 23rd) R - CA 62%
McHenry, Patrick(Rep. - 10th) R - NC 62%
McKeon, Howard(Rep. - 25th) R - CA 62%
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy(Rep. - 5th) R - WA 62%
Mica, John(Rep. - 7th) R - FL 62%
Miller, Gary(Rep. - 31st) R - CA 62%
Mullin, Markwayne(Rep. - 2nd) R - OK 62%
Murphy, Tim(Rep. - 18th) R - PA 62%
Noem, Kristi(Rep. - at large) R - SD 62%
Paulsen, Erik(Rep. - 3rd) R - MN 62%
Pitts, Joseph(Rep. - 16th) R - PA 62%
Reed, Tom(Rep. - 23rd) R - NY 62%
Renacci, James(Rep. - 16th) R - OH 62%
Roby, Martha(Rep. - 2nd) R - AL 62%
Rogers, Mike(Rep. - 8th) R - MI 62%
Rogers, Harold(Rep. - 5th) R - KY 62%
Runyan, Jon(Rep. - 3rd) R - NJ 62%
Sanford, Mark(Rep. - 1st) R - SC 62%
Scalise, Steve(Rep. - 1st) R - LA 62%
Shimkus, John(Rep. - 15th) R - IL 62%
Shuster, Bill(Rep. - 9th) R - PA 62%
Simpson, Mike(Rep. - 2nd) R - ID 62%
Smith, Adrian(Rep. - 3rd) R - NE 62%
Terry, Lee(Rep. - 2nd) R - NE 62%
Thompson, Glenn(Rep. - 5th) R - PA 62%
Thornberry, Mac(Rep. - 13th) R - TX 62%
Turner, Michael(Rep. - 10th) R - OH 62%
Wagner, Ann(Rep. - 2nd) R - MO 62%
Walberg, Tim(Rep. - 7th) R - MI 62%
Walden, Greg(Rep. - 2nd) R - OR 62%
Webster, Daniel(Rep. - 10th) R - FL 62%
Wilson, Joe(Rep. - 2nd) R - SC 62%
Womack, Steve(Rep. - 3rd) R - AR 62%
Young, Todd(Rep. - 9th) R - IN 62%
Farenthold, Blake(Rep. - 27th) R - TX 61%
Coble, Howard(Rep. - 6th) R - NC 60%
Forbes, Randy(Rep. - 4th) R - VA 60%
Jordan, Jim(Rep. - 4th) R - OH 60%
Meadows, Mark(Rep. - 11th) R - NC 60%
Hultgren, Randy(Rep. - 14th) R - IL 57%
Roskam, Peter(Rep. - 6th) R - IL 57%
Schock, Aaron(Rep. - 18th) R - IL 57%
Tipton, Scott(Rep. - 3rd) R - CO 57%
Young, Don(Rep. - at large) R - AK 57%
Whitfield, Edward(Rep. - 1st) R - KY 56%

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE=Splits;7691585]

So your academic interpretation of immigration policy trumps my actual living through it on multiple occasions. Got it.

Yep. Data trumps an anecdotal "argument from experience" every time.

your poor fee fees having to look at a flag that isn't blood red white and blue

No, I just see as a revealing look into their actual mentality and/or lack of manners. It tells me you're here but would rather be somewhere else. Call it a personal pet peeve, whatever. I know I wouldn't fly the American flag in Germany out of respect for being a guest/immigrant in their country.

About 5 million more thanks to Obama's executive action. Considering the Senate passed a bill by an overwhelming 68-32 vote 2 years ago, it should have been 11 million. And your hero Ronny Reagan proudly signed an amnesty bill and treated it as signature legislation saying:

But it wasn't 11 million.

Reagan isn't my hero, and his plan didn't work out too well (see the statistics I've provided).

No you didn't. What about: It's one of the only reasons to be proud of this country, and you want to destroy that honor by putting some arbitrary language requirement on today's immigrants? Should they learn it before or after they immigrate? If after, how many years? Should we have an immigration police visiting people's homes and figuring out how far along they are on the "learn english" timeline?"

Yes I have. What don't you get about the difference between 90 million and 320 million people, an industrialized/agricultural based economy compared to a service sector based economy, and millions of square miles of uninhabited resource rich land compared to limited land space? If you can't figure it out, the US was a lot more capable of handling a mass influx of immigrants in the 1900s than it is today, a reality you're consciously neglecting in favor of an ideal.

Yes, I think a prospective immigrant should at least be a somewhat capable English speaker before immigrating. And no, I don't believe an "English language police" or other such fascists measures should be implemented. I can put this question back on you and ask, "Why should I (or an American) be the one to have to learn another language to accommodate ESL citizens?" And if you think this doesn't happen, see the scrambling to find educators who can speak Spanish (or train them to) in order to handle the growing immigrant population in schools.

I missed that one. Was it because you don't like having to repeat yourself at the Wendy's drive thru? Oh yeah, right, you did answer it. Nevermind.

I don't. I also don't like when a non-English speaker needs to be assisted with their forms for half-an-hour and other such inconveniences that arise from a person unable to speak this country's host language. You can regale me with tales of grandpappy all you want, but the social and economic reality is very different today, with communication being more important (and needing to be more efficient) than ever.

Missed that one as well. Unless you're backtracking and relying on the "'Murica yeah" canard and you're offended by the lack of civility of the Mexican flag

Not offended. More like annoyed. It's the same thing as you getting annoyed with overt displays of American patriotism because ebil murrica sucks the bloods from dead Palestinian babbys We both have that right to annoyance.

No, you haven't. What has also gone unmentioned is that I, as an American citizen, has to file and pay taxes when I don't live in this country but only because I'm stricken by the fact that I hold a passport. We're the only country in the 1st world that requires our expats to pay taxes for services they don't receive.

And I don't agree that you should pay taxes in that situation.

My mistake. Actually living through the international immigration system, relaying those experiences first-hand, and pointing out the facts. That sure cons utes "appealing to emotion" whereas you're the armchair quarterback chicken who speaks in tongues without having any actual knowledge for how it works. So sorry I offended your imaginary world.

I've been the only one backing up my argument with facts, to which you still haven't addressed.

And you're still making a false equivalency. You, presumably being an educated and skilled person, emigrating to Germany or somewhere, is not the same as a 250 Mexicans getting trafficked across the border by Los Zetas. Okay, you have to deal with nationalists. And? Is your (and other skilled immigrants') presence there putting a strain on that country's social services? Is it forcing a transformation of the country's service sector and education system? Is it overcrowding emergency rooms?

Simple question: Why do you support open borders and unfettered immigration?

Because of some ideal that is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to realize?

You're the one living in an imaginary world.

[midnightpulp]

Oh yeah, SPLC is the bastion of impartiality.

The SPLC has been mum on the issue, despite the fact that in 2000, it included the New Black Panther Party among its annual list of hate groups. In fact, what is most shocking is that the SPLC has spent far more resources hounding conservative organizations, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, and prominent citizens like CNN's award-winning anchor Lou Dobbs, than it has protecting the civil rights of American voters, which includes white people as well as black. The unrelenting attacks on Mr. Dobbs and others are shameless. The once venerable organization wages war against conservative individuals, principles, and organizations. How unfortunate for America. How unfortunate for the organization's founders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-..._b_255029.html

"Don't try to with me!"

Quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center

"When you can't argue against the data, attack the source."

[Splits]

Oh yeah, SPLC is the bastion of impartiality.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-..._b_255029.html

"Don't try to with me!"

Quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center

"When you can't argue against the data, attack the source."

defending Lou Dobbs

Talk about attacking the source, there are 200+ Repubs and 2 Dems on that list of NumbersUSA A+ to B grades, with Steve King, the nations most prolific racist at the top.

[midnightpulp]

population control
living in the racist hatred ages of the 50's and 60s or before
hates mexicans for no reason other than to be racist
relies on racist propaganda for "facts"
probably is a secret Kirby lover
life totally unaffected by mexicans except he has to repeat his order at taco bell
pretends to understand the difficulties of living across borders
hack
stick to what you do well, kirby bashing and LOLing at Lakersground
don't try to with me
La Raza
living in a bastion immigration state but hates mexicans
should move to Oklahoma or South Dakota or some other racist state
probably denies climate change
GTFO

Thinks 60 million people in one state is a good idea
living in Michael Moore fantasy land
Hates America because Middle East
Relies on far leftist propaganda from an organization that has lost all its respect among academics as a "rebuttal to those facts."
probably a secret kirby lover (see his avatar)
life isn't affected by Mexican immigration but speaks like he has authority on the matter while living in Europe
willing oblivious to the potential problems of open borders because it'll offend his delicate liberal worldview
not even a hack. I don't know if I'm talking to a real human or bot programmed to spout liberal cliches
stick to what you do well: nothing
you've already been ed with
Palestinian Babies
Wanting tighter immigration means I must hate Mexicans
should move to Sweden or some other leftist haven so he enjoy semen shielding for Somalis and Muslims
I don't deny climate change. I also don't deny that 60 million in one state is probably not a wise idea
GTFO