IA-At migrant invader caucus table, over 88% of non English speakers pick Bernie

[Anti Federalist]

Why are both Bernie and Trump so acceptable for this segment? Because of their DACA stances, universal healthcare or something else driving this

[h=1]Sanders supporters vow to support Trump if Bernie isn’t the nominee[/h]

Hee hee...No One But Paul for Bolsheviks with real numbers to back it up.

 

[Anti Federalist]

WTF is a "Bhutanese"?

Google says more dot-heads.........Why is there a large contingency in Cedar Rapids? Which branch of "our government" brought this large contingency across the ocean and deposited them in Ia.? Were they issued 7-11's and Motel 6's or section 8? Don't try to tell me there's some business in Cedar Rapids that recruited a large contingency of Bhutanese migrants.

Quite simply there is no need for migrant 'workers' until there are no more welfare checks being written.

Just more brought in to displace you.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Most people don't look into the issues and various candidates positions on them and do a rational decision process deciding who to vote for. To make the decision easier, they tend to stay with the party they usually vote for. Other than that, personality is a big factor. Ahnold- big personality. Reagan- big personality. Clinton (Bill)- big personality. Trump- yuge personality. Hillary- not much personality. That was a party line vote. Obama- big personality. Sanders and Buttigeig- personality. Biden- not much personality. He would get more "who I usually vote for" voters.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It must be the ten percent who are responsible for all of our problems- not the 90%.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40230326?seq=1

It only takes one last straw to break a camel's back.

And their numbers are being rapidly increased with the intent of making it possible to conquer us.

The biggest fault does lie with the X% of the natives who vote to bring them here/let them in with the intent of using them against the rest of us.

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-dont-make-california-blue



Blaming foreigners made things worse for Republican in California.

That's propaganda:

From 1967 to 2019, Republicans controlled the California governorship for 31 of 52 years. So why is there currently not a single statewide Republican officeholder? California also has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Only seven of California's 53 congressional seats are held by Republicans.
In 1994, then-Gov. Pete Wilson backed Proposition 187, which denied state social services to undocumented immigrants. The spin goes that it backfired, alienated the Hispanic community and thus marked the road to Republican perdition.
Not quite.
Prop 187 passed with 59 percent support. Wilson's endorsement of the bill helped its passage, and his support of it aided his landslide 1994 re-election. Among minority voters, 52 percent of Asian and African American voters supported Proposition 187. Some 27 percent of Latinos voted for it.
Liberal groups immediately sued in federal court. Just three days after the measure passed, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing Proposition 187 from going into effect. A month later, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction. Prop 187 never became law.


In effect, two judges nullified the wishes of more than 5 million California voters.
Arnold Schwarzenegger had supported Prop 187. Yet in 2003 he was elected governor. So what caused the Republican demise?
Ironically, radical changes in California demography may have been brought about by Prop 187 -- but not in the way many people think.
The state's population has increased by nearly 10 million in the last quarter century. Yet the growth has been marked by the exodus of some and larger influxes of others.
When Prop 187 passed, there were an estimated 1.5 million undocumented immigrants statewide. In the 25 years since, millions of others have entered the state, and the current number of those still undocumented exceeds 3 million.
Some 27 percent of current California residents were not born in the U.S. Traditionally, first-generation immigrants favor larger, not smaller, government.
A cynic might argue that once a federal judge allowed undocumented immigrants to enjoy the full array of state services and entitlements, there were incentives for millions of other immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally, and California in particular.


Statistics suggest they did just that -- often to the chagrin of Democratic politicians, the United Farm Workers and other liberal groups who worried about the negative effects of illegal immigration on entry-level wages, unionization and poor citizens' access to overtaxed social services.
Oddly, conservative businesspeople were likely to favor permissive immigration policies in hopes of finding an ample supply of low-cost laborers while simultaneously diminishing the power of unions.
A technological revolution sparked a lucrative Silicon Valley renaissance. Suddenly, coastal California became one of the wealthiest corridors in the history of the planet. Big Tech drew in hundreds of thousands of hip young workers eager to come to California and join what was thought to be a global revolution.
Silicon Valley was seen as a uniquely progressive corporate paradise where one could get rich and stay woke all at once. Most techies supported big government, higher taxes and open borders, and had the money and wherewithal to not worry much about the ensuing costs and the catastrophic results for others.


By the turn of the century, the California treasury was relying on the tech industry for an enormous share of the taxes to fund its massive expansion of state services -- and politicians often bowed to Big Tech's political wishes.
As taxes climbed, schools eroded and funds for infrastructure were diverted elsewhere, millions of middle-class Californians fled. The total numbers of this continuing exodus are still in dispute. Many left in despair over climbing gas, sales and income taxes that seemed to worsen rather improve state infrastructure and services.
This tripartite demographic revolution proved disastrous for the Republican Party. The GOP lost much of its base to other states. Many conservative voters left for small-government, low-tax alternatives. Republican efforts to reduce taxes, limit some abortions and fund additional roads and dams had little appeal to the new gentry classes on the coast.
Will there ever again be a viable California Republican Party?
After three decades of radical progressivism, California residents are tiring of one-party straitjacket rule. The hard-liberal order normalized massive power blackouts, the nation's highest array of taxes, the forest mismanagement that fuels deadly fires, an epidemic of homelessness in major cities, eroding schools, ossified infrastructure and soaring energy costs.
The final irony?
Those most hurt -- and growing the most angry -- are the immigrants who once fled to a different California that now no longer exists.

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/what-happened-to-california-republicans/


So the destroyers leave the wreckage behind and move to destroy new places, just as they did when they fled their home countries and infested California.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Republicans prefer to attack them rather than try to recruit them- no wonder they prefer Democrats.

That's a lie.

Republicans have bent over backwards trying to recruit them, but Demoncrats always offer more free stuff.

 

[Zippyjuan]

That's a lie.

Republicans have bent over backwards trying to recruit them, but Demoncrats always offer more free stuff.

Link?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And inside joke in Democrat circles...

Q: What’s better than your standard ignorant American voter?
A: An imported ignorant voter that doesn’t even speak English.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Link?

Link to this?

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
Republicans prefer to attack them rather than try to recruit them

Anyone who has watched politics in my lifetime knows that Republicans have pandered to immigrants, including illegals, Reagan gave them amnesty.
We would be much better off if Republicans had had the instincts to be immigration hawks.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Link to this?


Anyone who has watched politics in my lifetime knows that Republicans have pandered to immigrants, including illegals, Reagan gave them amnesty.
We would be much better off if Republicans had had the instincts to be immigration hawks.

Thank you for the detailed link supporting your claim. I can always rely on you.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Thank you for the detailed link supporting your claim. I can always rely on you.

I supported mine better than you supported yours.

There is no need for links, you just try to hold people to unreasonable standards that you don't live up to, this is the kind of dishonest debate that you should be banned for.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Import them from another country or another state, the result is the same.

American Migration Patterns Should Terrify the GOP

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...migration-patterns-should-terrify-gop/598153/

Millennial movers have hastened the growth of left-leaning metros in southern red states such as Texas, Arizona, and Georgia. It could be the biggest political story of the 2020s.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

Derek Thompson
Staff writer at The Atlantic

Liberals in America have a density problem. Across the country, Democrats dominate in cities, racking up excessive margins in urban cores while narrowly losing in suburban districts and sparser states. Because of their uneven distribution of votes, the party consistently loses federal elections despite winning the popular vote.

The most famous case was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite her 2.4-million-vote margin. Clinton carried Manhattan and Brooklyn by approximately 1 million ballots—more than Donald Trump’s margins of victory in the states of Florida, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania combined.

But 2016 wasn’t a fluke. Neither was 2000, when Al Gore lost the election despite winning 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush. A recent paper from researchers at the University of Texas at Austin concluded that Republicans are expected to win 65 percent of presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.

Democrats can blame the Electoral College for these losses—as they should. But according to the Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden’s new book, Why Cities Lose, the problem isn’t just the districting. It’s the density. All over the world, liberal, college-educated voters pack into cities, where they dilute their own voting power through excessive concentration. “Underrepresentation of the urban left in national legislatures and governments has been a basic feature of all industrialized countries that use winner-take-all elections,” he writes.

So just imagine what would happen to the American political picture if more Democrats moved out of their excessively liberal enclaves to redistribute themselves more evenly across the vast expanse of Red America?

Or don’t imagine. Just … wait.

Two weeks ago, I published an article on what I called the urban exodus. More specifically, it is a blue urban exodus, as left-leaning metros in blue states are losing population. The New York City metro area is shrinking by 277 people every day. Other areas bleeding thousands of net movers each year include Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Chicago, Boston, and Baltimore—all in states that routinely vote for Democrats by wide margins.

These movers are U-Hauling to ruddier states in the South and West. The five fastest-growing metros of the past few years—Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, and Orlando, Florida—are in states won by Trump. The other metro areas with a population of at least 1 million that grew by at least 1.5 percent last year were Las Vegas; Austin, Texas; Orlando, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; San Antonio; Tampa, Florida; and Nashville, Tennessee. All of those metros are in red or purple states.

It’s not just liberals moving to the South. After all, movers to Florida are often retirees who fit squarely in the Fox News demo, and some of the people moving from California to Texas are conservatives. But today’s domestic migrants are often college graduates of the exceedingly liberal Generations Y and Z. “The current migration to these suburbs is mostly people in their 20s and 30s, or Millennials, who are more diverse and liberal than the rest of the population,” said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. According to his research, Americans ages 20 to 40 are three times as likely to move as people ages 50 to 70.

This drip-drip-drip of young residents trickling down into red-state suburbs is helping to turn southern metros into Democratic strongholds. (Of course, migration isn’t the only factor pushing these metros leftward, but more on that later.) In Texas, Democrats’ advantage in the five counties representing Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin (the “Texas Five” in the graph below) grew from 130,000 in the 2012 presidential election to nearly 800,000 in the 2018 Senate election.

In Arizona, from 2012 to 2016, Democrats narrowed their deficit in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, by 100,000 votes. Two years later, in the 2018 Senate election, the county swung Democratic, with Democrats gaining another 100,000 net votes.

In Georgia, from the 2012 presidential election to the 2018 gubernatorial elections, the four counties constituting most of Atlanta and its suburbs—Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett—increased their Democratic margin by more than 250,000.

What’s remarkable about these changes isn’t just their size, but their resemblance to Trump’s 2016 margins. Trump won Texas in 2016 by 800,000 votes. He won Arizona by 90,000 votes. He won Georgia by 170,000 votes. If these states’ biggest metros continue to move left at the same rate, there is every reason to believe that Texas, Arizona, and Georgia could be toss-ups quite soon.

As noted above, migration isn’t the only reason southern metros might be shifting to the Democratic Party: Young southerners are surely pulling their region left, while older residents could be switching parties in response to Trump. Republicans have likely hurt themselves by moving further to the right to galvanize their white exurban and rural base, even as their support has thinned in the suburbs and among working-class white women.

But domestic migration is key. Just look at Texas. CNN exit polls for the state’s 2018 Senate election showed that Beto O’Rourke was buoyed by recent movers, winning more than 60 percent of those who had moved to Texas within the past 10 years. At current migration rates, the “Texas Five” counties could easily add another 200,000 votes from 2016 to 2020, putting more pressure on Trump’s margin in the state. A September poll conducted by Univision and the University of Houston found the top-six Democratic presidential contenders all leading Trump in Texas.

Outside of national elections, the blue flood of the Sun Belt could have other political implications, such as more showdowns between blue cities and red states. As The Atlantic’s David Graham has argued, North Carolina’s GOP-led general assembly has waged war against liberal cities such as Charlotte—for instance, by reversing a local ordinance that banned discrimination against LGBTQ people. This sort of state-city showdown could become a regular feature of southern politics. In the past six months, both the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer have run features bemoaning the Californication of northern Texas, with the former noting that “conservatives fear these domestic migrants will bring with them a liberal ideology that would disturb the Texas way of living.”

While such confrontations may be inevitable, over time the growth of liberal metros could force the Republican Party, which has lately been living off the fumes of retrograde xenophobia, to compete more aggressively for votes in the New South—that is, to be a party for moderates, black voters, and immigrants. The political shift could swing the other way too: Democratic transplants to Dallas and Houston could edge right toward Republican territory, won over by their conservative neighbors’ arguments for lower levels of state and local taxation.

Overall, the southern suburbanization of Democratic votes could be a force for good, not only for Democrats but also, perhaps, for the future GOP—and therefore for the country at large. Without changes to the Electoral College or to the distribution of Democratic votes, the U.S. may be doomed to replay the 2016 election for several more cycles. Coastal liberals will remain justifiably furious that their votes are systematically discounted, while rural conservatives will remain justifiably indignant that the heart of American business and media has flocked to cities that regard the countryside as a xenophobic backwater. The southern blue flood is not a cure-all for this schism. But if more white rural families join liberal transplants and nonwhite families in America’s diverse southern suburbs, Americans might discover, through the sheer fact of neighborly proximity, a less vitriolic and more optimistic political future.

(How about that diversity joining US instead of the other way around? Why must I give up my history and way of life and not the other way around? - AF)

 

[Zippyjuan]

But if more white rural families join liberal transplants and nonwhite families in America’s diverse southern suburbs, Americans might discover, through the sheer fact of neighborly proximity, a less vitriolic and more optimistic political future.

Maybe.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe.

Go get them to give up on the idea of exterminating me and then we'll talk.

Maybe.

 

[tod evans]

But if more white rural families join liberal transplants and nonwhite families in America’s diverse southern suburbs, Americans might discover, through the sheer fact of neighborly proximity, a less vitriolic and more optimistic political future.

Maybe.

Go get them to give up on the idea of exterminating me and then we'll talk.

Maybe.

Maybe if the city folk live on a farm for a couple of years they'll learn self sufficiency, responsibility and trustworthiness making them worthy of being neighbors and possibly friends...

By that point they'll most likely have shunned the majority of their liberal beliefs making friendship more likely...

Even then, here in the Ozarks, you'll not be accepted first generation.....

 

[nobody's_hero]

You are correct on all counts.

I have lived in the south pretty much my whole life and have seen the damage internal migration has done from the yankee states. Unfortunately, I believe it was too late a long time ago with regards to us marching towards a European style socialism. That’s what our betters want. The only power I see against this is by living a peaceful and accepting life full of personal responsibility that invites others to ask how. I can’t convince anyone that personal liberty is worth fighting for if I am fighting with them.

I have a story about converting a 40 something immigrant Chinese woman into a Ron Paul YouTube speech watching liberty psycho. She subscibes to the Liberty Report for chrissakes. I think it would change a couple of minds about our fellow humans, no matter what brand of brainwashing they grew up with.

I truly appreciate your input!

There are people that are, unfortunately few and far between, who truly want something different when they come to America. There was a woman from Syria (or Iran?) who was a Ron Paul supporter who, if I recall correctly, became a delegate and gave a heartfelt speech about what our foreign adventurism costs these countries. We definitely need more of that. I will welcome it with all the smiling and open arms I can muster. Problem is that such people are an absolute RARITY. How do you let them in without letting in dozens more who don't share that sentiment? Try as I might, I can't stretch the math to see how that works favorably for us in the long term.

Maybe it does sound hateful, but it's not meant to be. It's just statistics.

 

[fisharmor]

WTF is a "Bhutanese"?

Google says more dot-heads.........Why is there a large contingency in Cedar Rapids? Which branch of "our government" brought this large contingency across the ocean and deposited them in Ia.? Were they issued 7-11's and Motel 6's or section 8? Don't try to tell me there's some business in Cedar Rapids that recruited a large contingency of Bhutanese migrants.

Quite simply there is no need for migrant 'workers' until there are no more welfare checks being written.

They are refugees. I found out about their situation by talking to some of them.

They've got quirks, sure - one of them was the result of a polygamous marriage. But they were all decent guys willing to help people out. And all three that I met are professionals with families who make enough money to be the ones footing all the bills here at this point.

 

[tod evans]

They are refugees. I found out about their situation by talking to some of them.

They've got quirks, sure - one of them was the result of a polygamous marriage. But they were all decent guys willing to help people out. And all three that I met are professionals with families who make enough money to be the ones footing all the bills here at this point.

If they're paying their own way then rock on!

Better than whole swaths of 'Murkins.......

 

[Sammy]

Republicans prefer to attack them rather than try to recruit them- no wonder they prefer Democrats.

LOL. The Republican Establishment is in favor of mass immigration & they want to give amnesty to 11 million inavders.
Most of them are socialist=Communist & it has nothing to do with immigration.

 

[Sammy]

Link to this?


Anyone who has watched politics in my lifetime knows that Republicans have pandered to immigrants, including illegals, Reagan gave them amnesty.
We would be much better off if Republicans had had the instincts to be immigration hawks.

Don't forget George W Bush he wanted to give amnesty to all illegal aliens.