But then they would be gone. That won’t do. See post #39.
They certainly have not done anything very wrong by entering illegally or by overstaying their visas. And, many have done nothing wrong at all, their parents brought them here when they were little.
That proposal is not only contrary to the US Constitution, it is outside the bounds of reality. But it will ensure the election of Democrats over any other candidate who seriously proposes it, so, by all means, continue.
Only one aspect of it could be argued to be “contrary”. What law says that illegal immigrants are a protected class and must be served by private businesses?
Either way, it is the right thing to do for current American citizens and future law abiding immigrants who wish to come here.
Interesting you think not doing the right thing benefits the Democrats.
Only one? Do I need to find more ways your position violates the Constitution?
Just gravy. You know in your heart we are right.
This is somewhat of a non-sequitur. For the most part these children have family living in the US that they were planning to staying with, the problem is that those opposed to immigration are worried that if they go to live with those people, they will
BTW, why is this thread in Elections? It doesn’t belong here.
“Seal the border” isn’t even remotely realistic. You might as well say something about spells from Harry Potter: they’ve got about as much relation to this situation and this reality as “seal the border.”
To seal the border effectively, you’d need a MASSIVE increase in the number of border agents and technology. Based on the East German experience, you’d need to deploy a force roughly equal to the entire United States Army on the southern border to have anything even close to operational control, and even that would not eliminate all leakage.
You’d also need to close the border completely: no travel, no imports, no shopping trips, no allowing Mexicans into the country for school or medical care or employment, no trucks or trains hauling Mexican agricultural products or the output of maquiladores, no nothing. That would not be bitching and protests; that would be economic devastation on both sides of the border, with millions of Americans thrown out of work.
It would be somewhat difficult to convince an American who lost his job because the company could not get raw materials from Mexico that this was “for the best.” Similarly, American consumers are unlikely to find that big increases in the cost of food, or the utter unavailability of Mexican fruits and vegetables, to be very palatable.
The American Farm Bureau Foundation, e.g., estimated an enforcement-only approach to immigration would cut American food/fiber production by $60 billion, including halving fruit production and severely impacting livestock and other agricultural endeavors. Where are you seeing the political will for those kinds of economic disruptions?
What have you been smoking?:rolleyes:
Leaving aside the question of whether your heart is a thing perceptible without hallucination, you do know somewhere, I hope, that it would be a Very Bad Thing if all immigrants now in the U.S. illegally were to leave.
He’s certainly right about people not being able to trust the president. He’s a a flat-out liar. Immigration reform, which we need, would happen if one of two things were to happen:
the borders was secure
people could trust the president to secure the border as part of a larger deal
Number 1 makes too much sense for Dems to embrace. Number 2 is off the table as Obama lost the trust of the American people. He’s not believable any more. Add to that, the border is something we’ve been lied to about from multiple presidents, so no on is going to trust anyone on this any more. Least of all Obama.
Republicans will never win the Presidency again without immigration reform, so I guess that is a good thing for the country.
Not true. That is a commonly made assertion that lacks evidence beyond “An ethnic group that makes up 15% of voters won’t support Republicans.” As if the ethnic group that makes up 70% of the electorate is less significant.
There are places now where Republicans win 80%-90% of the white vote. I see no reason why that can’t be repeated nationwide.
Dream on.
If one ethnic group can vote monolithically, another can. If two can, they all can. And probably will, if the various ethnic groups see only one party as their champion. Whites are no more immune to this way of thinking than other ethnic groups. Especially if the Democrats keep on making explicitly racial appeals to minority groups about issues where whites see their interests threatened.
And if there was every a way for Republicans to start winning the black vote, the immigration issue is it.
Anything can happen, republicans can in theory win 99% of the vote next election. Just because it can happen does not make it a reasonable expectation. There is absolutely no reason to think you can win that much of the white vote.
You don’t actually need to. 70% guarantees victory in every election in the forseeable future. 65% wins you almost all of them. In 2012 the GOP candidate won 59% nationwide. It’s not hard to imagine explicitly racial appeals to Latinos pushing more white voters into the GOP camp.
“Explicitly racial appeals to latinos” like supporting immigration reform that is favored by the majority of the country, whites included?
The support in those polls is predicated on two things reform supporters don’t like to talk about:
Lest we get into another thread about the future of the GOP, let me just conclude with the statement that the assumption that opposing immigration reform dooms the GOP is based on Latinos voting monolithically while all other ethnic groups stay the same. It’s also predicated on Latinos continuing to grow in population faster than other groups. This is already untrue, as Asians started growing faster in the most recent census:
So the assumptions are just that: assumptions. There are many factors that can prevent this presumed Democratic dominance due to the Latino vote from occurring.
Oh, one last problem with the predictions: second and third generation white Hispanics tend to be regarded as white. Just ask George Zimmerman. Think the man’s a staunch Democrat?
Asians don’t really like you either.