Immigration & Welfare

[timosman]

Why don't we just go back to the war of northern aggression? (The civil war for stupid yankees)
Immigrants of any race are more socialist than Americans they were back in FDR's time as well.
Americans=bad does not disprove immigrants=worse.

Americans fail purity test.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Americans fail purity test.

Yankees did from the start, the south should never have joined the union, the first thing that happened was the yankees dumped their war debts on the south.

 

[otherone]

Why don't we just go back to the war of northern aggression? (The civil war for stupid yankees)
Immigrants of any race are more socialist than Americans they were back in FDR's time as well.
Americans=bad does not disprove immigrants=worse.

"Americans" are FAR worse. Beaners don't MAKE policy.
You're afraid Mexicans will make this country socialist?
Jeebus! Where ya' been? Look around!

 

[Swordsmyth]

"Americans" are FAR worse. Beaners don't MAKE policy.
You're afraid Mexicans will make this country socialist?
Jeebus! Where ya' been? Look around!

They vote, They vote Demoncrat, They will make things worse if we let them in without any limits.

 

[otherone]

They vote, They vote Demoncrat, They will make things worse if we let them in without any limits.

Poor people vote for free stuff. The wealth disparity that keeps increasing will only drive more "Americans" to vote for free stuff (FDR).
The problem is the government-controlled economy. Deporting Latinos won't fix it. Protectionism isn't the answer; the free market is.
Pedro didn't put the shitstains in office. Your neighbors did. Identity politics only distracts from the real enemy.

 

[Ender]

Poor people vote for free stuff. The wealth disparity that keeps increasing will only drive more "Americans" to vote for free stuff (FDR).
The problem is the government-controlled economy. Deporting Latinos won't fix it. Protectionism isn't the answer; the free market is.
Pedro didn't put the $#@!stains in office. Your neighbors did. Identity politics only distracts from the real enemy.

^^THIS^^

 

[Swordsmyth]

Poor people vote for free stuff. The wealth disparity that keeps increasing will only drive more "Americans" to vote for free stuff (FDR).
The problem is the government-controlled economy. Deporting Latinos won't fix it. Protectionism isn't the answer; the free market is.
Pedro didn't put the $#@!stains in office. Your neighbors did. Identity politics only distracts from the real enemy.

^^THIS^^

So you want to bring in poorer, more brainwashed people?

 

[Ender]

So you want to bring in poorer, more brainwashed people?

I want free markets & liberty for all. I do NOT want gov interfering in my life or anyone else's.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I want free markets & liberty for all. I do NOT want gov interfering in my life or anyone else's.

Immigrants generally don't want that.
They want to take what little freedom you have and turn us into the EU.

 

[Ender]

Immigrants generally don't want that.
They want to take what little freedom you have and turn us into the EU.

Not my experience.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not my experience.

Exceptions exist in any trend, Statistics show they vote Demoncrat by a far larger margin than Americans.

 

[Ender]

Exceptions exist in any trend, Statistics show they vote Demoncrat by a far larger margin than Americans.

My experience is also that we have a 1 party system- no big diff between Repubs and Dems.The answer in to end the FED, bring back free markets and end the welfare/warfare system, then - we will all be freer.

 

[Krugminator2]

I want free markets & liberty for all. I do NOT want gov interfering in my life or anyone else's.

Not all immigrants are the same. A Russian immigrant is far different from a Hispanic immigrant. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanders-trump-russians/477045/

Hispanics as a whole are antagonistic to capitalism and 1st generation Mexicans are especially bad. Voting for Democrats does interfere with my life and is an act of aggression. "Ninety percent of Hispanics who primarily speak Spanish identify as Democrats." http://fortune.com/2016/10/29/hispanic-voters-generation-divide/

The default should be for open immigration provided the immigrant is here either 1.illegally or 2. on a work visa or Green Card and not a citizen who can vote. No 1st generation immigrant should be able to become a citizen unless they purchase citizenship. Immigration should be curtailed from cultures they have proven not to mix with Western values. There is no reason to have open immigration from the Middle East. Islam and liberalism are irreconcilable.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Why don't we just go back to the war of northern aggression? (The civil war for stupid yankees)
Immigrants of any race are more socialist than Americans they were back in FDR's time as well.
Americans=bad does not disprove immigrants=worse.

In the 19th century, immigrants were voting for Jefferson's laissez faire Democrats, natives for Hamilton/Lincoln's proto-progressive GOP.

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 3"][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Religion[/TH]
[TH] % Dem[/TH]
[TH] % Rep[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 3"]Immigrants[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Irish Catholics[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]All Catholics[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Confessional German Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]German Reformed[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]French Canadian Catholics[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Less Confessional German Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]English Canadians[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]British Stock[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]German Sectarians[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Norwegian Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Swedish Lutherans[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]85[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Haugean Norwegians[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 3"]Natives[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: center"]Northern Stock[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Quakers[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Free Will Baptists[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Congregational[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Methodists[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Regular Baptists[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Blacks[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Presbyterians[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Episcopalians[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: center"]Southern Stock[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Disciples[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Presbyterians[/TD]
[TD]70[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Baptists[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[TD]25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Methodists[/TD]
[TD]90[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Source: Paul Kleppner, The Third Electoral System 1853-1892 (1979) p. 182

It changed in the 20th century, of course, with the Jeffersonians being pushed out and the Dems adopting the progressivism of the GOP. From that time forward, they were quite similar, fighting over power rather than ideology. The 16th Amendment was proposed by a Republican President and passed by a Republican Senate and a Republican House. The Federal Reserve Act was passed with broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate (and was really just a rehashed version of GOP Senator Nelson Aldrich's plan from a few years earlier - what Republican opposition there was to the bill was based on wanting the bank to be less accountable to Congress). Both income tax and a central bank had been part of the GOP platform from the beginning of the party, in any event. Hoover was as bad as FDR (just not as good at winning elections), FDR's psychotic relative Teddy was as bad as Wilson. No one has anything to brag about in the 20th century.

The theory that the US was originally inhabited by liberty lovers, who were corrupted by immigrants simply doesn't correspond to reality. A better, short account of US history might go as follows: In the beginning, there were nutjobs in New England, and rational Whiggish people in the South. Then immigrants arrived and sided with the South. But by about 1900 the nutjobs outmaneuvered and converted the others, the original Southerners and the immigrants, and now everyone's a nutjob. Of course, behind the ideology of the nutjobs is a great deal of self-interest, from boodle-seekers, which would have ultimately expressed itself in a growing state regardless. So, in that sense, the nutjobs don't really matter, things would have played out about the same anyway, but if you want to blame anyone for corrupting the American liberal tradition, you should blame that faction of natives known as Yankees, not immigrants.

 

[Ender]

Not all immigrants are the same. A Russian immigrant is far different from a Hispanic immigrant. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanders-trump-russians/477045/

Hispanics as a whole are antagonistic to capitalism and 1st generation Mexicans are especially bad. Voting for Democrats does interfere with my life and is an act of aggression. "[FONT=&]Ninety percent of Hispanics who primarily speak Spanish identify as Democrats." [/FONT] http://fortune.com/2016/10/29/hispanic-voters-generation-divide/

The default should be for open immigration provided the immigrant is here either 1.illegally or 2. on a work visa or Green Card and not a citizen who can vote. No 1st generation immigrant should be able to become a citizen unless they purchase citizenship. Immigration should be curtailed from cultures they have proven not to mix with Western values. There is no reason to have open immigration from the Middle East. Islam and liberalism are irreconcilable.

History does repeat itself:

“[T]hey steal, they are cruel and bloody, full of revenge, and delighting in deadly execution, licentious, swearers and blasphemers, common ravishers of women, and murderers of children.” —Edmund Spencer

“The emigrants who land at New York, whether they remain in that city or come on in the interior, are not merely ignorant and poor—which might be their misfortune rather than their fault—but they are drunken, dirty, indolent, and riotous, so as to be the objects of dislike and fear to all in whose neighbourhood they congregate in large numbers.” —James Silk Buckingham

These are not quotes from a Trump rally or an “alt-right” message board. These are historical statements from yesteryear describing a despised race of people in America. They are indicative of the sentiment of white people throughout this country who thought a subhuman species good for nothing but work and servitude might ruin America with their crime, poverty and interbreeding with white women. They were not referring to Africans, Mexicans or Muslims.

They were talking about the Irish.

First, we should get this out of the way: One of the favorite recurring themes of racists in America is the idea that the Irish came to America as slaves and had it as bad as, or worse than, Africans. According to these “racialists,” the European blood in the Irish made them pull themselves up by their bootstraps and integrate themselves into the opening arms of American liberty. They never bitched and moaned about their situation, so ...

All of this is wrong. In fact, it is too stupid to give space, credence or words, so read where it is debunked here and here.

But as we celebrate the first St. Patrick’s Day of the Trumpian era, we should remember when America passed laws against another group of immigrants. We should recall when this country tried to ban another group of people based on their religion. We should never forget that both “American” and whiteness are sociopolitical constructs that have evolved over a long period of time, always seeking exclusion and supremacy, and it was not so long ago that Irish Americans were on the outside looking in.

In his book The Renegade History of the United States, Thaddeus Russell explains that the first large wave of Irish immigrants worked low-paying jobs—mostly building the canals along the Canadian border—that other Americans wouldn’t do. Like finding out a song you thought was new is actually a 100-year-old remake, the Irish were simultaneously accused of stealing all the good jobs and branded as “lazy” and “shiftless.” They were also thought to be the nonwhite “missing link” between the superior European and the savage African based on stereotypes from the early American media, according to the Boston Globe:

In the popular press, the Irish were depicted as subhuman. They were carriers of disease. They were drawn as lazy, clannish, unclean, drunken brawlers who wallowed in crime and bred like rats. Most disturbingly, the Irish were Roman Catholics coming to an overwhelmingly Protestant nation and their devotion to the pope made their allegiance to the United States suspect.

In 1798, Congress passed three “Alien Acts” based mainly on fears of Irish-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment. These new laws gave the president the power to stop immigration from any country at war with the U.S. and the right to deport any immigrant, and made it harder for immigrants to vote. Then, again in the late 1840s, a nationalist political group called the Know-Nothings sprang from a populist movement of poor whites who were dissatisfied with the two-party system and started the American Party, intent on preserving America’s culture by restricting immigration, especially from Catholic countries—including by Irish Catholics. They managed to get candidates elected into the highest political offices in America, including a president.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

So how did the Irish become white?

Russell suggests they did it by coalescing their political power while simultaneously assimilating into the American mainstream, specifically with jobs in civil service (which is why most cities’ St. Patrick Day parades are ostensibly celebrations of police and fire departments):

In 1840, at the beginning of the great wave of Irish immigration, there was only a handful of Irish police officers on the force. ... By the end of the year, Irish made up more than one-quarter of the New York City police, and by the end of the century, more than half the city’s police and more than 75 percent of its firefighters were Irish Americans. In addition, Irish were disproportionately represented among prosecutors, judges and prison guards. Soon, the Irish cop was a stock figure in American culture. Once known as apelike barbarians, the Irish were now able to show themselves as the most selfless and patriotic civil servants.

http://www.theroot.com/when-the-irish-weren-t-white-1793358754

The refugees seeking haven in America were poor and disease-ridden. They threatened to take jobs away from Americans and strain welfare budgets. They practiced an alien religion and pledged allegiance to a foreign leader. They were bringing with them crime. They were accused of being rapists. And, worst of all, these undesirables were Irish.

http://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis

 

[William Tell]

Again, the point is that their presence/absence has no effect on political outcomes, since they vote the same as natives.

I did not know that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Walter Jones were all elected with majority support from immigrants. This changes everything. Or else you're simply wrong.

 

[Krugminator2]

History does repeat itself:

Those are fine examples to demonstrate hysteria against immigration in general. I would certainly use the same examples against people who are for restricting immigration from Mexico, which I am against. I think it should be very easy to come to the US to work.

None of those arguments apply to support Islamic immigration. Islam is a religion, not a race or ethnicity. The ideas of even "moderate" Muslims, have nothing in common with a free society. Only 2 Muslim majority countries rank in the top 50 in economic freedom. An insane percentage of Muslims (80%+ in some countries) believe in Sharia Law as well as killing people for adultery, renouncing the religion, drinking alcohol, a woman wants a divorce and even being the victim of rape. I am not tolerant of those views and see no reason to allow people who do tolerate those views into the country.

All religions have anti-liberty underpinnings. The difference is Jews and Catholics don't actually believe what their religions say and have never believed the insane parts since the founding of the US. If you polled European Jews in 1920, the majority wouldn't have thought stoning someone to death for working on the Sabbath was a very good idea. Whereas getting put to death for drinking is apparently just dandy for many in the Islamic world. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-sentenced-death-drinking-alcohol-times.html

 

[William Tell]

With enough money anyone can win anywhere

Wrong. If this was true there would be no such thing as solid red or solid blue districts. Hillary Clinton will never win in Oklahoma. Ever. Donald Trump will never win in Harlem. Ever. Not with a billion dollars per precinct short of handing individual voters $10,000 cash each to sell out their neighborhoods.

but in reality, the odds of a liberty candidate winning anywhere is very, very small.

No, it isn't. Liberty candidates win when they work hard enough and are well enough funded to get their messages out. Slapping an Ayn Rand meme up on your facebook page won't get you elected however, you have to meet with the individual voters and share how you will stand up for some of the things they care about.

The odds of them winning in a GOP district drop as nativism (a competing ideology) gets stronger.

Not really. The odds of someone like you winning in a GOP district might drop, but not those liberty guys who agree with the nativists that our RINO's have sold out to foreign interests. Just go to Breitbarf and see if Massie or Paul Ryan is more popular. Any issue a candidate can find overlap with the voters wishes is a winning issue in each district.

 

[Ender]

Those are fine examples to demonstrate hysteria against immigration in general. I would certainly use the same examples against people who are for restricting immigration from Mexico, which I am against. I think it should be very easy to come to the US to work.

None of those arguments apply to support Islamic immigration. Islam is a religion, not a race or ethnicity. The ideas of even "moderate" Muslims, have nothing in common with a free society. Only 2 Muslim majority countries rank in the top 50 in economic freedom. An insane percentage of Muslims (80%+ in some countries) believe in Sharia Law as well as killing people for adultery, renouncing the religion, drinking alcohol, a woman wants a divorce and even being the victim of rape. I am not tolerant of those views and see no reason to allow people who do tolerate those views into the country.

All religions have anti-liberty underpinnings. The difference is Jews and Catholics don't actually believe what their religions say and have never believed the insane parts since the founding of the US. If you polled European Jews in 1920, the majority wouldn't have thought stoning someone to death for working on the Sabbath was a very good idea. Whereas getting put to death for drinking is apparently just dandy for many in the Islamic world. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-sentenced-death-drinking-alcohol-times.html

Dude- the hatred of the Irish was because they were:

CATHOLIC.

The same things were said about them as reasons to hate and ban them from coming.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Not all immigrants are the same. A Russian immigrant is far different from a Hispanic immigrant. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanders-trump-russians/477045/

How are trump supporters a good thing or even meaningfully different from democrats?

Hispanics as a whole are antagonistic to capitalism and 1st generation Mexicans are especially bad.

So are non-Hispanics. Y'all keep ignoring this.

Voting for Democrats does interfere with my life and is an act of aggression. "Ninety percent of Hispanics who primarily speak Spanish identify as Democrats." http://fortune.com/2016/10/29/hispanic-voters-generation-divide/

Um, so what? Voting for Republicans also interfere's with your way of life and is also an act of aggression. I can't find the pew poll referenced, but 95% of whites voted for Clump, so what difference does it make?