Republicans Opposing Legal Immigration

#129
#129
loggervol said:
This is bull ish, the liberal Dem's don't believe in legal immigration. They believe in a open borders policy and Republicans don't agree with it..?? Surely this is what the author of this grand thread meant..????
Click to expand...

We don't have open borders. We have government failure at the border. Saying that we have open borders and blaming it on dems is giving the entire government a complete pass for your own political purposes.
 
#131
#131
LouderVol said:
Your OP mentions Republicans as anti immigration deniers. Does that not include their politicians?
Click to expand...

Being a denier and being a hypocrite are two different things. There is some hypocrisy, but the point is that there are Republicans that are clearly opposed to legal immigration, and other Republicans have been denying that they exist. In some cases, people just aren't self-aware enough to realize they are actually opposing legal immigration (and that is hypocritical), but I'm mostly talking to those who don't realize they are aligned with people who oppose legal immigration.
 
#132
#132
n_huffhines said:
Being a denier and being a hypocrite are two different things. There is some hypocrisy, but the point is that there are Republicans that are clearly opposed to legal immigration, and other Republicans have been denying that they exist. In some cases, people just aren't self-aware enough to realize they are actually opposing legal immigration (and that is hypocritical), but I'm mostly talking to those who don't realize they are aligned with people who oppose legal immigration.
Click to expand...

There are Democrats that are clearly opposed to legal immigration, and other Democrats have been denying that they exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Vol since 77
#134
#134
JOEY’S ALL VOL !!! said:
Considering recent events and the reaction by both sides of the aisle (not just Republicans) to these events, the thread title is dumb as hell.
Click to expand...

The thread title is exactly what the thread is about. It's not about recent events or a point you want to prove. It's based on conversations I've had many times on VN with deniers here.
 
#136
#136
n_huffhines said:
We don't have open borders. We have government failure at the border. Saying that we have open borders and blaming it on dems is giving the entire government a complete pass for your own political purposes.
Click to expand...
Dude you have been shrill lately, but this post is spot on.
 
#137
#137
n_huffhines said:
Being a denier and being a hypocrite are two different things. There is some hypocrisy, but the point is that there are Republicans that are clearly opposed to legal immigration, and other Republicans have been denying that they exist. In some cases, people just aren't self-aware enough to realize they are actually opposing legal immigration (and that is hypocritical), but I'm mostly talking to those who don't realize they are aligned with people who oppose legal immigration.
Click to expand...

Set up a poll. If you're actually interested in seeing the numbers, why not set up a poll to see which republicans are against documented/legal immigration? Let's see these ominous proportions of evil right wingers who hate breathing the same air as brown people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C-south and AM64
#138
#138
SamRebel35 said:
Set up a poll. If you're actually interested in seeing the numbers, why not set up a poll to see which republicans are against documented/legal immigration? Let's see these ominous proportions of evil right wingers who hate breathing the same air as brown people.
Click to expand...

Now that wouldn't be anymore scientific than this thread. Remember how in that post you just quoted I said some people aren't even aware they are against legal immigration? What would the poll prove that at least half a dozen people ITT thread have already proven with comments like this:

TNVOLNAVY said:
Agree with Sabatini. We already have too many worthless lazy moochers.
Click to expand...

The point is proven. There is a significant portion of the right who, at the very least, wants to significantly reduce legal immigration.
 
#141
#141
n_huffhines said:
Being a denier and being a hypocrite are two different things. There is some hypocrisy, but the point is that there are Republicans that are clearly opposed to legal immigration, and other Republicans have been denying that they exist. In some cases, people just aren't self-aware enough to realize they are actually opposing legal immigration (and that is hypocritical), but I'm mostly talking to those who don't realize they are aligned with people who oppose legal immigration.
Click to expand...
This kind of goes with all political arguments. The media thinks everything is far right because they are far left...or are they...depends on where you draw the line of normal.

You probably think those that are anti-birthright citizenship are anti-immigration. But that means an entire hemisphere is anti-immigration. Maybe you think anybody who believes in borders is anti-immigration. It's a subjective moniker.

If I was dictator for a day and could control our approach to spending I'd probably be for wide open borders with some documentation of who is coming and where they are going so we don't burden certain states. But I think if your goal is European socialism, it needs to come with European immigration restrictions, including the removal of birthright citizenship.
 
#142
#142
Weezy said:
This kind of goes with all political arguments. The media thinks everything is far right because they are far left...or are they...depends on where you draw the line of normal.

You probably think those that are anti-birthright citizenship are anti-immigration. But that means an entire hemisphere is anti-immigration. Maybe you think anybody who believes in borders is anti-immigration. It's a subjective moniker.

If I was dictator for a day and could control our approach to spending I'd probably be for wide open borders with some documentation of who is coming and where they are going so we don't burden certain states. But I think if your goal is European socialism, it needs to come with European immigration restrictions, including the removal of birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...

It is subjective, I agree. I wouldn't go so far as to say just because you oppose one form of immigration that you are anti-immigration, but I would say that if you are seeking to reduce immigration on the net or you are never open to expanding it, then you oppose/do not support immigration. Again, over a 21 year span we have never seen more than 17% support for more immigration from Republicans (and I'm disappointed in Democrats and independents, too). No matter what's going on, the large majority are saying "we don't want more." Trump's own chamber of commerce was saying the economy was short 1 million workers, and even then, very few supported bringing them in.

1664466550847.png
 
#143
#143
n_huffhines said:
We don't have open borders. We have government failure at the border. Saying that we have open borders and blaming it on dems is giving the entire government a complete pass for your own political purposes.
Click to expand...

Who do you think controls the DC swamp? Hint: look at the political demographics of the surrounding areas (NoVA, MD, and DC itself). Appointed people at the top (figureheads) come and go, but the swamp stays. Policies come and go, but the swamp policy stays. Some things happen promptly and some just sit in files littering offices - the swamp runs DC. It's just a continuation of getting things done easier when you have friends in low places, and in the federal government those people in low places are dems.
 
#144
#144
AM64 said:
Who do you think controls the DC swamp? Hint: look at the political demographics of the surrounding areas (NoVA, MD, and DC itself). Appointed people at the top (figureheads) come and go, but the swamp stays. Policies come and go, but the swamp policy stays. Some things happen promptly and some just sit in files littering offices - the swamp runs DC. It's just a continuation of getting things done easier when you have friends in low places, and in the federal government those people in low places are dems.
Click to expand...

Like I said, government failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#145
#145
n_huffhines said:
It is subjective, I agree. I wouldn't go so far as to say just because you oppose one form of immigration that you are anti-immigration, but I would say that if you are seeking to reduce immigration on the net or you are never open to expanding it, then you oppose/do not support immigration. Again, over a 21 year span we have never seen more than 17% support for more immigration from Republicans (and I'm disappointed in Democrats and independents, too). No matter what's going on, the large majority are saying "we don't want more." Trump's own chamber of commerce was saying the economy was short 1 million workers, and even then, very few supported bringing them in.

View attachment 495505
Click to expand...

To define why we would actually need more legal immigration, then you would actually have to determine why we need more immigrants. The first part of that study would have to center on why we seem to have jobs without people to fill the jobs, why we have so many people who are no longer in jobs, and how in the hell people can manage to live without working for an income. I think the shocking answer would come back to DC and all the dem inspired "safety nets". As an economist (as I recall), you'd also have to appreciate government sponsored financial terrorism known as minimum wage that is nothing more than state sponsored inflation; jobs and wages should be set by market conditions, and government should keep it's filthy hands out - including incentives that keep people from having to work. Work that out, and then we can talk about necessary legal immigration. Maybe the rest of us are just saying hit the pause button on everything until we get the nonsense figured out - that's my position and seems to be that of several others here anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#146
#146
AM64 said:
To define why we would actually need more legal immigration, then you would actually have to determine why we need more immigrants. The first part of that study would have to center on why we seem to have jobs without people to fill the jobs, why we have so many people who are no longer in jobs, and how in the hell people can manage to live without working for an income. I think the shocking answer would come back to DC and all the dem inspired "safety nets". As an economist (as I recall), you'd also have to appreciate government sponsored financial terrorism known as minimum wage that is nothing more than state sponsored inflation; jobs and wages should be set by market conditions, and government should keep it's filthy hands out - including incentives that keep people from having to work. Work that out, and then we can talk about necessary legal immigration. Maybe the rest of us are just saying hit the pause button on everything until we get the nonsense figured out - that's my position and seems to be that of several others here anyway.
Click to expand...

You're explaining why you don't support legal immigration, which is the point of the thread, so thanks.

You're saying you won't even talk about it until the government jumps thru hoops (which will never happen). This is akin to saying, "we shouldn't have the right fo bear arms until we figure out how to properly deal with mental illness." It's easy to say you would welcome more immigrants if something that will never happen happens.

Ironically, you have no problem with the government putting their filthy hands all over the labor maket in terms of who we can hire, but have a major problem with minimum wage (which is just another form of labor market regulation). Saying "f your minimum wage" and paying immigrants under the table is perfectly acceptable civil disobedience due to unjust laws, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#147
#147
n_huffhines said:
Now that wouldn't be anymore scientific than this thread. Remember how in that post you just quoted I said some people aren't even aware they are against legal immigration? What would the poll prove that at least half a dozen people ITT thread have already proven with comments like this:



The point is proven. There is a significant portion of the right who, at the very least, wants to significantly reduce legal immigration.
Click to expand...

and Replacement Theory is not a theory.
 
#148
#148
n_huffhines said:
Being a denier and being a hypocrite are two different things. There is some hypocrisy, but the point is that there are Republicans that are clearly opposed to legal immigration, and other Republicans have been denying that they exist. In some cases, people just aren't self-aware enough to realize they are actually opposing legal immigration (and that is hypocritical), but I'm mostly talking to those who don't realize they are aligned with people who oppose legal immigration.
Click to expand...
And this is why I hate the two party system. Everyone from one side gets lumped in with one wacko because he has a certain letter next to his name. And everyone defends one whacko instead of holding him accountable because of that letter.

Is it hypocrisy to deny something exists if to the best of your knowledge it doesnt exist, but turns out it does? Or if you disagree with the parsing of a definition?

I am sure this hypocrisy exists, and exists in this forum, but I dont think it's as wide spread as you think from the examples posted here.
 
#150
#150
LouderVol said:
And this is why I hate the two party system. Everyone from one side gets lumped in with one wacko because he has a certain letter next to his name. And everyone defends one whacko instead of holding him accountable because of that letter.

Is it hypocrisy to deny something exists if to the best of your knowledge it doesnt exist, but turns out it does? Or if you disagree with the parsing of a definition?

I am sure this hypocrisy exists, and exists in this forum, but I dont think it's as wide spread as you think from the examples posted here.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it was. Once again, I've been trying to say that pointing out hypocrisy is not the point of the thread.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top