Sorry about that. But, yeah: that is an alternate universe worth contemplating.
Fwiw, I’d happily support a law that imposes crippling fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, thus undercutting American labour.
For starters, she’s managed to be a Washington insider for over two decades without being involved in any scandals. That’s pretty impressive.
As to the OP"s question, this is the more or less correct answer. The zeitgeist has shifted leftward and Clinton is running on a respectably progressive platform on bread and butter socioeconomic issues.
Really? And what has she done with those positions? What has she achieved with those offices?
^ This.
Also, I find jumping off of cliffs abhorrent, both for myself and for my country.
Several important things, including:
nvm
I agree with the thrust of your message, but both Obama and Bernie were criticized for lack of achievements, at least in these sort of online discussions. Bernie supporters pushed the idea of him being the Amendment King and had ready made lists whenever the discussion came up.
Is that what I said? The nature of the nation is a derivative of the people of the nation. It’s silly to think any nation won’t be altered by unlimited illegal immigration. Which is why every country on this planet has some form of immigration law and policy. You don’t think if China was on our border and 80+ million immigrated across the nation’s character wouldn’t change?
[/quote]
That’s swell. But even when receiving that statue and after the US still tried to restrict immigration to manageable amounts. Why? Because it’s on the nation’s best interest to only accommodate a finite number that can be assimilated. Otherwise you have the Texas situation and the Crimea situation. Where a local majority or large local minority agitates for new borders.
And yes what is the point of borders if they aren’t going to be defended?
The real reason that the left is in favor of unrestricted immigration is they feel that this will result in a permanent set of favorable demographics. Well, in the long term that won’t work.
In the case of Obama, I agree there were legitimate concerns, but they weren’t often raised. As for Bernie, anyone who bothered to review his legislative record would easily see that Bernie was a constant and consistent advocate for his issues and causes – again, within the framework of the offices he has held.
By that measure alone, Trump has no leg to stand on. As a private citizen, he contributed little over his 70 years on this planet to better the circumstances of US citizens. By comparison, Hillary’s achievements tower over anything he can offer. For anyone – including Trump – to attempt to claim equivalency here is, to me, laughable.
Good luck with that. Plus with global telecommunications and giant container ships you can easily undercut American labor without illegal immigration. That said, carrots and fruit aren’t going to pick themselves so let’s all turn a blind eye.
The American consumer gives 0 cares about the American worker. People honestly think everyone in this nation has the brain power to be a high paid STEM or health care worker? What are the 50% of the nation that have 100 or below IQ going to do to compete in a global market?
This is a large part of the discontent felt towards globalization. Due to regulatory policy a LARGE portion of American workers aren’t competitive at the legal wage.
The thing is, Mrs. Clinton is going to be good for business. There is no doubt about that. She will say leftish things to placate the Bernie Bros but she will govern center right. The only question is how is she going to get the US to ratify the TPP. That will signal what she really thinks.
You folks honestly think Mrs. Clinton is going to enact progressive policy? With a Republican congress?
I’m not sure if anyone is advocating for literally “unlimited” immigration of any sort. As to the nature of our nation, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, or religion, or even language. I think the liberal position on immigration will improve the “nature of the nation” significantly, by bringing great would-be Americans into the open to take part fully in the society they already live in.
I already addressed this. Do you think I’m lying? Am I just the only liberal who feels the way I do? It bugs me endlessly when a liberal tells a conservative (or vice versa) why they feel a certain way about an issue and they don’t believe it. No, it’s not about “favorable demographics” (or at most that’s a small part of it) – it’s that there are millions of potentially wonderful Americans hiding in the shadows in the country, and they are hard working and decent, and the country will be much improved when we can bring them out in the open to be proud American citizens. Conservatives know more about why conservatives believe certain things. It’s the same for liberals – we really do know better why we support certain issues.
It seems like you aren’t really interested in the answer to this question since you’re asking it after it has been answered in many posts in this thread.
I’m getting the same vibe.
Heck, I’d vote for her just based on the quality of her opponents. And I don’t mean the people running against her.
That’s fine but how often are we going to have amnesties or special considerations for 10’s of millions of unlawful inhabitants? Sure, up the numbers that can come over legally or something if that’s the wish. But de-facto open borders is bad policy.
Admittedly, it’s a broad brush. But you put too much stock into needing to be part of a group to understand the group. First of all, neither side is a hive mind. Liberal A and liberal B probably have differing reasons why they feel what they feel. You know what you know but your ability to know what motivates anyone else isn’t heightened or diminished based upon party registration. You honestly think that a socially conservative black pastor who votes (D) is anything more than an ally of convenience with not much shared thought with a flaming LGBQTx (in case I missed a letter) activist? That pastor and the activist don’t have any great insights into each other points of view. They just know they need each other politically to got ahold of some pork.
It’s like saying you know what the pope and every other Catholic thinks because you may be Catholic. It doesn’t work that way. Each person has their own motivations. That said, and even if it doesn’t apply to you, the left is salivating about having another large demographic they can manipulate.
Kudos to the left though for associating the idea of border control with xenophobia. The race card evidently still works.
Who is advocating for open borders? We should have a controlled border. We should legalize all non-criminal undocumented workers in the US who want to stay, while charging them for the privilege, and offer them a chance towards citizenship.
I don’t know what every liberal thinks – I’m just disputing your broad brush statement about what liberals want. Maybe that’s the prime motivation of some Democrats in office (though some of them are undoubtedly human and might have human feelings about these sorts of issues), but I don’t believe it is for the left at large.
This has nothing to do with anything I said. Kudos for slipping in an unrelated general attack on the left.
There’s no clamor for a wall along the *Canadian *border, is there?
OK, among Canadians, there may be.
As a Texan, I’d like more info on “The Texas Situation.” Details, please.