If you can't do it right, don't copy me.
First of all, you're an idiot if you can "turn off the supply of voters" and maintain any semblance of freedom. The only way you could do so would be to turn US territory into a militarized prison, and even then it wouldn't work. If you really learned anything from the Roman example you should have learn that. I find it funny that you're ilk are ranting about leftism, Marxism, and big government when what you are proposing is only possible through a massive expansion of federal power, increased authority to the state, a denial of basic human liberties, and Nationalism- a Marxist/Fascist ideology. You give the State absolute power to deny basic human rights to property, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of speech, rights to trail by jury, rights to defense, not just of the immigrant you're imprisoning but of all those, such as myself, who would wish to associate with them. In order for either a state or national entity to have a right to control who enters and leaves an area they would have to own it, meaning you're arguing that people don't own their land, the government does. I could continue, but, in short, You and your nativist kind are the Leftists and Marxists.
As for your polls, I'll just quote myself.
"Of course they do. Because that is their default experience. But that doesn't refute anything I've said because:
1. I've acknowledge that form the beginning. This is a natural pool for libertarians though because they already have seen socialism fail and are trying to escape it. They just need education, and their situation makes them open to more education for those not dimwitted enough to see it. You just have connect the dots for them, something people like you are too busy violating their basic human rights to do.
and
2. How does this make them any different than the average American? Sure Republicans answer they want "smaller" government in these types of polls, but they also want endless warfare, protected welfare programs, Social Security, and more when you actually ask about those by name and purpose. The reality is that Mexicans are no more socialist than the average party voting American of either stripe, they're just more honest about to themselves than Republicans in denial are. Outside of Sanders, the biggest socialists in the current Presidential campaigns are Republican (Trump, Rubio, and Jeb.) So this point is one without meaning if you're trying to argue that more immigrants would how somehow change AMerican politics. Sounds like you're more delusional about the reality of the situation than anything. "
It is funny how your ilk denounces the law, yet the first power you run to in order to enforce your narrow views on immigration is the state. You protest the state while wanting to empower it to violate basic human liberties in an absolutely authoritarian manner, using the protection of immoral statist law as your shield. Just because it is legal doesn't make it smart or just.
Arguing you'll be "replaced in our own nation" is so dumb. Who is replacing you where? Are the evil immigrants stealing "your job" Bernie? Well, you don't have a right to a job and if you can't compete for it then you don't get it. That is how the free market works. Of course, you would understand this if you supported the free market, but I doubt you do. Instead you want to use state power to enforce a protectionist law to regulate the labor market through immigration restriction. You can't compete, you just want to stop others from doing better than you for a cheaper price. So, thank you for proving my point about how the nativist "small government" argument is just a facade for Leftist-Marxist central planning.
Your "culture" is not threatened either. What a Mexican does has no bearing on what you do.You see, cultures co-exist quite easily. You let someone else live their life and you live your own. No problem. The delusion of it being a threat to your "American" -read White- culture, because you certainly are obsessed with Mexicans and Asians, just exposes your brand of Marxism- National Socialism.
Yes, very good. You linked to a book that just reiterates a bad interpretation of history. Not only does that not refute my point, it doesn't even respond to it. Can you not do your own thinking?
The irony is that your article just proves my point. Here, I quote:
"There are two major lessons to be learned from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and these are made apparent in Heather's book. First and foremost is the danger of uncontrolled hostile immigration. That the empire could absorb large groups of immigrants is beyond doubt. It could and did do so over several centuries. But even the Roman Empire, with its vast territory and unprecedented wealth, had a limit to the number of people it could absorb and Romanize.
Eventually, the immigrants grew more powerful than the existing Roman authority and, maintaining to some degree their independence of spirit and character, were unwilling to relinquish their own culture and adopt the Roman. Vast blocs of once-Roman territory eventually became foreign and even the preexisting Roman population, eventually outnumbered, had to make peace with the newcomers"
The Empire didn't have a limit to how many people it could absorb, it just had a limit to how many people it could forcible Romanize. If Rome hadn't been set of forcing those immigrants to accept its culture there wouldn't have been a problem. Rome had vast immigrations of people for centuries without a problem. Let the immigrants in, let them find their own work and live their own way, maybe draft some into the army in exchange for land, otherwise no problem. Everyone co-existed quite well. It only became a problem when Rome tried to force those people to think, act, and live in violation of their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness by trying to make them into Romans through violence in order to protect "Roman culture" that immigration became an issue. Do you know what that means? Immigration wasn't the issue, hadn't been for centuries. It was nativism that was the problem, people who thought the immigrants were a "threat to their culture" and had to be violently dealt with- convert, be expelled, or die. Just shows the foolishness of nativism.
Yes, and what they want is to not be locked up in rape cages like animals for crossing an imaginary line to find a better, freer, more economically prosperous life. What they want is to not have everything they own seized by state power in violation of their property rights. Of course they'll vote for the people who promise them that. Who wouldn't?
What is sad is you're so caught up in your silly need to protect something that doesn't need protecting that you can't see that. I'm confident enough that liberty is an idea that will win in the free-market of ideas. It doesn't need your "protection" and in fact your protection is nothing less than hypocrisy and foolishness. Violating human liberty to protect it is idiocy, it makes no sense. Instead of resorting to Statism, collectivism, and Marxist communal property (aka "public" property) arguments, allow the free market to work and liberty will flourish.
