Illegals Flooding Border Under Biden Is ‘Obama 2.0’

[detbuch]

Rise in illegal immigrants is obviously part of the plan.

https://www.gopusa.com/?p=106238?omhide=true

[Nebe]

Good. Well mowed lawns, cheap produce and most importantly, great burritos for all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

That God that we have a big beautiful wall that Mexico paid for to keep them all out.

[Nebe]

I can’t imagine a web like from GOP USA would be fair and biased either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Good. Well mowed lawns, cheap produce and most importantly, great burritos for all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That sounds very racist. Keep that kind of talk up and this site might get deplatformed or investigated or something. And we already have plenty of that stuff. Oh . . . but it might all get even cheaper since the new batches of illegals will have to compete with those already here.

Hmmmm . . . the minimum wage hike might make it harder to keep it all cheap . . . the greater burden on the health care and education and welfare systems could put a strain on the price of those as well . . . the further loss of "legal" jobs for legal poor folks could cause a raise in taxes or further government debt to sustain various government aid programs. And gotta get more vaccines . . . and import more diseases . . . and drugs . . . and terrorists . . .

. . . guess it's all good . . . keep 'em comin' . . .

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That God that we have a big beautiful wall that Mexico paid for to keep them all out.

They're coming through the places where the wall construction was stopped. If the government had gotten all on board on finishing construction, it would have made it a lot more difficult to cross illegally. Plus it would have signalled to illegals that they are not as welcomed as Biden indicates through his actions that they are.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I can’t imagine a web like from GOP USA would be fair and biased either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is fair and biased. The New York Times is unfair and biased.

Are you implying that what was reported is not true?

[Pete F.]

Eliminating any immigration, legal or otherwise was the former administrations plan.
When you cut legal immigration from 1,183,505 in 2016 to projected number of 601,660 in 2021 you will have unmet demand.
Add to that the reduction in support for Central American economies you will end up with more illegal immigration.
Pay one way or another.
Sorry, but without immigration the US economy will struggle to grow and when you spend 4 years hacking the existing system to death, it will take a while to get it to work again.
Stuart Anderson wrote in Forbes that "Immigrants and their children contributed more than one-half of workforce growth in the past two decades. The economy expands with growth in the labor force and its productivity. Due to the retirement of baby boomers and population aging in general, immigration will play an even larger role in workforce growth going forward than it has in the past. Absent offsetting increases in productivity growth, less immigration will, therefore, translate directly into slower gross domestic product growth.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Eliminating any immigration, legal or otherwise was the former administrations plan.
When you cut legal immigration from 1,183,505 in 2016 to projected number of 601,660 in 2021 you will have unmet demand.
Add to that the reduction in support for Central American economies you will end up with more illegal immigration.
Pay one way or another.
Sorry, but without immigration the US economy will struggle to grow and when you spend 4 years hacking the existing system to death, it will take a while to get it to work again.
Stuart Anderson wrote in Forbes that "Immigrants and their children contributed more than one-half of workforce growth in the past two decades. The economy expands with growth in the labor force and its productivity. Due to the retirement of baby boomers and population aging in general, immigration will play an even larger role in workforce growth going forward than it has in the past. Absent offsetting increases in productivity growth, less immigration will, therefore, translate directly into slower gross domestic product growth.”

If there is a demand for legal immigration, that can easily be satisfied. There are more than enough people with desired qualifications that want to emigrate here legally. If the Biden administration sees a need for more workers than our own unemployed who refuse to or are unqualified to fill employment needs, allow those who seek legal entrance to do so. That is the sane and safe and productive way to do it.

Just letting millions of unvetted people from one part of the impoverished and backward part of the world enter illegally, including children and others who will not be part of the needed workforce for some time, if ever, creates more of a burden, to say the least, than it does do to satisfy our workforce needs.

Better, much better, inner-city schools, as well as promoting a dominant culture that desires and highly values marriage with children, would go a long way to creating home grown productive "workers."

Anyway, we may soon enough be facing the challenge of AI produced methods of manufacturing and delivering most of the things we want, even including "healthcare." It will be enough of a challenge creating work for those displaced by that without adding millions more, poorly educated people into the mix. Not to mention allowing the illegal drugs and goods and criminal and terrorist types to flow in with the crowd.

[detbuch]

[Pete F.]

There is a reason, of course, that “everyone” wants to make a racial issue out of this. Because it is a putrescent pile of racist myths and cliches. Nearly every phrase of Carlson’s statement is the euphemistic expression of white-supremacist replacement doctrine. “The Democratic Party” means liberals, which translates into Jews. They are importing “new people” from the “Third World” means people with black and brown skin. Those kinds of people, in the racist trope, are “obedient,” meaning docile, backward and stupid. Their votes do not constitute real democracy because they are replacing the “current electorate” — which is presumably whiter and less docile. These paler, truer Americans are thus deprived of their birthright of political dominance. And fighting back — making sure the new Third World people have less power — becomes a defense of the American way.

This is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like. Carlson is providing his audience with sophisticated rationales for their worst, most prejudicial instincts. And the brilliance of Carlson’s business model is to reinterpret moral criticism of his bigotry as an attack by elites on his viewers. Public outrage is thus recycled into fuel for MAGA victimhood. And so the Fox News machine runs on and on.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There is a reason, of course, that “everyone” wants to make a racial issue out of this. Because it is a putrescent pile of racist myths and cliches. Nearly every phrase of Carlson’s statement is the euphemistic expression of white-supremacist replacement doctrine. “The Democratic Party” means liberals, which translates into Jews. They are importing “new people” from the “Third World” means people with black and brown skin. Those kinds of people, in the racist trope, are “obedient,” meaning docile, backward and stupid. Their votes do not constitute real democracy because they are replacing the “current electorate” — which is presumably whiter and less docile. These paler, truer Americans are thus deprived of their birthright of political dominance. And fighting back — making sure the new Third World people have less power — becomes a defense of the American way.

This is what modern, poll-tested, shrink-wrapped, mass-marketed racism looks like. Carlson is providing his audience with sophisticated rationales for their worst, most prejudicial instincts. And the brilliance of Carlson’s business model is to reinterpret moral criticism of his bigotry as an attack by elites on his viewers. Public outrage is thus recycled into fuel for MAGA victimhood. And so the Fox News machine runs on and on.

So, since you can't refute the actual things Tucker says in the video, you resort to the standard accusation of racism and white supremacy. You concoct an intellectual sounding "putrescent pile" of elitist Progressive racialist demonizations to replace the actual content of the video with the mythical narrative that insisting immigration must be controlled, rational, and legal is actually some sort of racist dog whistling.

What Tucker spoke about was political power. Political party power. It is the kind of thing that could go the other way. If the mass migration from south of the border was an importation of millions who would mostly vote Republican, I don't believe the Dems would be so welcoming. And the Repubs might well be.

I believe the "replacement" (which Carlson shows that the Dems admit it is about) is not merely creating a many generation hold of Democrat control, but ultimately is the replacement of our constitutional system of government with a centralized Progessive system of unlimited government power. A switch from limited central government power to an unlimited central power. And, in terms of total power over "the people," it won't matter the name of the party at that point.

[Pete F.]

It’s just the same old story that now instead of a handout, has a prime time slot.

When Carlson worries about immigrants from the third world, he is talking about Hispanic, Asian and Black people who he worries will outnumber “current” voters. Current voters, in this formulation, are the white people who make up the majority of the American electorate.

Second, and revealingly, he is admitting that Republicans do not and will not appeal to new citizens who are immigrants.

But although white replacement theory is a conspiracy theory, the fact that the percentage of voters who are white in America is shrinking as a percentage of all voters is not. Neither is the fact that white supremacists are panicked about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The white nationalist site VDare called Tucker Carlson's monologue last night "one of the best things Fox News has ever aired" and praised it for being filled with "ideas and talking points" that VDare "pioneered many years ago."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s just the same old story that now instead of a handout, has a prime time slot.

???

When Carlson worries about immigrants from the third world, he is talking about Hispanic, Asian and Black people who he worries will outnumber “current” voters. Current voters, in this formulation, are the white people who make up the majority of the American electorate.

Actually, even though you seem to think you know what worries him, he has acknowledged that current voters are comprised of all races, and that one of the current races, Black, is disproportionately harmed by mass immigration of low skilled, cheap labor immigrants.

And over 40% of white voters voted Democrat. Race hustlers have accused various Blacks of being white supremacists, and various Jews of being Nazis. None of the races is an electoral monolith. There is an uptick in avowed Black Conservatives. There is a significant minority of Latino Republicans.

This notion of racial supremacy seems to be only attributed by leftists to whites. Even if actual white supremacists are a very small portion of the white population, if someone agrees with some white supremacist ideas, he is considered to be a white supremacist. By that metric, it would seem that all races are supremacist. Most blacks agree with some of the things that are spouted by Black nationalists. Asians and blacks prefer and agree with a superiority of their own cultures.

And in those countries ruled by Asians and Blacks who are a majority, their racial self superiority outdoes any such in White majority countries. In actuality, whites worldwide have been the least racist as a whole compared to Blacks and Asians. But, because only so-called white racism is recognized by the left as a critical problem here, it becomes convenient for leftists to point to this supposed racism as the motivation for all thoughts and actions by whites re non-whites which run counter to their political goals and objectives.

Carlson has very often had on his shows Black, Latino, and Asian guests whom he praised, agreed with, and certainly did not "worry" about their kind becoming a majority. Like most "Conservatives," Tucker seems to be worried about how they will vote, not about the color of their skin.

Second, and revealingly, he is admitting that Republicans do not and will not appeal to new citizens who are immigrants.

Of course, it is obvious, not some revelation, illegals who depend on government turning a blind eye to, as well as actually abetting, their mass migration into the U.S., and who promise to eventually give them citizen status with the host of goodies such as health care, welfare, and education, and who are receptive to also accepting the chain migration of the whole train of their relatives, it is obvious which party they would vote for.

But although white replacement theory is a conspiracy theory, the fact that the percentage of voters who are white in America is shrinking as a percentage of all voters is not. Neither is the fact that white supremacists are panicked about this.

White supremacists may be panicked. I suppose they have always panicked. Anyone who wishes to maintain some form of supremacy will always have an underlying worry that they could lose it. That is the nature of being top dog. No doubt the Progressives get panicked about white supremacists. They're certainly ginning up a big to-do about the danger of white supremacy.

I cannot speak for Carlson about what worries him. I do not have this telepathic power you seem to think you have of what he is thinking. I can only go by his words. His words speak of political replacement, not race replacement.

I can speak for myself. I fear no immigrant who seriously wishes to abandon whatever hell-hole form of government he wishes to escape in order come here and uphold our constitutionally limited form of government. And does so in the way our laws require, not just bogard his way in. But, like Tucker, I also worry about political replacement. I am concerned that the Progressives are replacing our constitutionally limited form of government with an unlimited administrative state. Many things have been done politically toward that end. Abandoning the requirement to observe our laws and statutes on how to enter this country, as no other country has done, is another in a long train of ways. Which country in North, Central, and South America views immigration this way? Which European, Asian, African or Middle Eastern country does? And it is especially insidious that doing so is in order to gain political power.

[Pete F.]

By the way, it's Republicans not Democrats who are seeking to alter the current electorate. Republicans are trying to restrict voting and who are defending gerrymandering. Democrats want to let people vote and are willing to give up gerrymandering in the states they control.

It's Republicans who want to "replace" the current American electorate with a smaller, whiter electorate.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

By the way, it's Republicans not Democrats who are seeking to alter the current electorate. Republicans are trying to restrict voting and who are defending gerrymandering. Democrats want to let people vote and are willing to give up gerrymandering in the states they control.

It's Republicans who want to "replace" the current American electorate with a smaller, whiter electorate.

By the way, its Democrats who are seeking to alter the current electorate. Democrats are trying to make voting a farce and gerrymander as good as anybody. Democrats want anybody and everybody to vote anytime and anywhere they wish, and are willing to say they'll do or "give up" stuff. Like you, they are willing to just say all kinds of stuff.

It's Democrats who want to replace any portion of the American electorate that is not "progressive" enough or too stuck in the notion of any limitations on their ability to do whatever they want to us . . .

That was easy. Just say stuff.

[detbuch]

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By the way, its Democrats who are seeking to alter the current electorate. Democrats are trying to make voting a farce and gerrymander as good as anybody. Democrats want anybody and everybody to vote anytime and anywhere they wish, and are willing to say they'll do or "give up" stuff. Like you, they are willing to just say all kinds of stuff.

It's Democrats who want to replace any portion of the American electorate that is not "progressive" enough or too stuck in the notion of any limitations on their ability to do whatever they want to us . . .

That was easy. Just say stuff.

Except what you say is a lie. The Dems. don't do it as much as the Repubs. nor are they as good. They have never said they want "want anybody and everybody to vote anytime and anywhere they wish"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Except what you say is a lie. The Dems. don't do it as much as the Repubs. nor are they as good. They have never said they want "want anybody and everybody to vote anytime and anywhere they wish"

I was just mimicking Pete's method. It's easy. Sort of an example of his notion of the laziest of lazy argument. Your doing the same thing here. Just say stuff as if its true because you say it.

[Pete F.]

I could, like some, use the method of repeating 150 year old racist tropes in new language and gaslighting that now they are justified and some people should not be able to vote.

In practice, efforts to manipulate electoral participation - and specifically to suppress Black voters - have been and continue to be a prominent theme in the history of American elections.

Enslaved people could not vote. After the 1860s Civil War, newly freed African Americans seized the right to vote, sending several men to represent Southern states in Congress.

But as early as the 1870s, white Americans systematically disenfranchised Black voters (and also many poor whites) through a variety of regulations — including property and education clauses. The notorious “grandfather clause” decreed men could vote only if their grandfather was also eligible to vote in the years before 1867. Violence at the ballot box kept African American men, and African American women after 1920, away for decades.

When Trump incited his followers to sign up as “election poll watchers”, he evokes this very history, which dominated Southern politics until the civil rights movement.

Since the movement, African American voters have selected the Democratic presidential candidate in huge majorities. As a result, new forms of suppression have emerged to stop them.

Since 2010, 25 states have introduced measures to make it harder to vote. For example, they require voters to register prior to the election and/or provide photo ID at the point of voting.

In 11 states, people convicted of felonies are banned from voting long after custodial sentences end or fines have been paid – and sometimes for life. These laws have seen 6 million adults lose the right to vote.

These methods all affect poorer and less well-educated Americans more than affluent Americans. Non-white Americans, especially African American, Native American and to a lesser extent Latino voters, have been most affected.

In Florida, where this disenfranchisement affected more than 20% of African Americans, voters overturned the ban. Republican state legislators soon found a way to ensure 775,000 people still cannot vote by deeming ineligible anyone with outstanding court fees.

In neighbouring Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp narrowly edged out popular Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams – who is African American – in the 2018 election for governor. His success came by ruthlessly disqualifying 53,000 voters – 70% of them African American and only 20% white – with dubious “signature matching” requirements.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I could, like some, use the method of repeating 150 year old racist tropes in new language and gaslighting that now they are justified and some people should not be able to vote.

But you do use a lot of tropes.

In practice, efforts to manipulate electoral participation - and specifically to suppress Black voters - have been and continue to be a prominent theme in the history of American elections.

American history, like all of world history, is full of ugly efforts.

Enslaved people could not vote. After the 1860s Civil War, newly freed African Americans seized the right to vote, sending several men to represent Southern states in Congress.

That was good. Republicans were sent to represent Southern states in Congress. The Dems sure did some really ugly stuff to turn that around.

But as early as the 1870s, white Americans systematically disenfranchised Black voters (and also many poor whites) through a variety of regulations — including property and education clauses. The notorious “grandfather clause” decreed men could vote only if their grandfather was also eligible to vote in the years before 1867. Violence at the ballot box kept African American men, and African American women after 1920, away for decades.

Yup, those Dem "white Americans" could be really nasty.

When Trump incited his followers to sign up as “election poll watchers”, he evokes this very history, which dominated Southern politics until the civil rights movement.

Actually, that didn't evoke old history, poll watching is a current thing. All parties do it. It's not a bad idea in this climate of voter manipulation that you seem to be concerned about

Since the movement, African American voters have selected the Democratic presidential candidate in huge majorities. As a result, new forms of suppression have emerged to stop them.

Since 2010, 25 states have introduced measures to make it harder to vote. For example, they require voters to register prior to the election and/or provide photo ID at the point of voting.

Is that a requirement for ALL voters, or just blacks? All states except ND require registration for All voters. ID is not hard to get. And you have plenty of time to do so. It's a canard to say it is, and there are more poor whites than Blacks.

In 11 states, people convicted of felonies are banned from voting long after custodial sentences end or fines have been paid – and sometimes for life. These laws have seen 6 million adults lose the right to vote.

Only about 25% of that 6 million are black. So most of that number are probably white. Voting is by raw number, so if more whites were disenfranchised, that would seem to be even a greater suppression of the white vote.


These methods all affect poorer and less well-educated Americans more than affluent Americans. Non-white Americans, especially African American, Native American and to a lesser extent Latino voters, have been most affected.

Apparently not.

In Florida, where this disenfranchisement affected more than 20% of African Americans, voters overturned the ban. Republican state legislators soon found a way to ensure 775,000 people still cannot vote by deeming ineligible anyone with outstanding court fees.

Again, what are the raw numbers? How many whites were included in the 775,000? Anyway, when comparing groups by number, complete parity is a highly unlikely outcome.

In neighbouring Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp narrowly edged out popular Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams – who is African American – in the 2018 election for governor. His success came by ruthlessly disqualifying 53,000 voters – 70% of them African American and only 20% white – with dubious “signature matching” requirements.

32 states do signature matching.

[Pete F.]

Sure, some groups are complaining that Biden hasn't done this or that as quickly or to the extent they would have liked....

But 100 days in, Biden has already delivered on the one thing his REPUBLICAN supporters wanted above all else: Not be Trump.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure, some groups are complaining that Biden hasn't done this or that as quickly or to the extent they would have liked....

But 100 days in, Biden has already delivered on the one thing his REPUBLICAN supporters wanted above all else: Not be Trump.

No doubt those Republicans are thrilled that Biden is being Biden. And if they are, then they're not really Republicans. And if they actually are happy with Biden, and they are really Republicans, then the adage that there's not a dimes worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans is true, and the whole charade of elections and voting isn't worth a dime.