Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government

[jabowery]

One of the chief modes of activism in support of liberty is to dispatch the anti-liberty "libertarians" who are trying to flood the US with big government voters.

The one statistic that should shut them up -- at least if made publicly where their bullsh*t answers are going to make them look like the mendacious scum they are to the public they are trying to destroy -- is this statistic from Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project "When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity" figure 4.2:

"Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?"

US General population smaller/bigger 48% smaller 41% bigger
All Hispanics 19% smaller 75% bigger
First Generation Immigrant Hispanics 12% smaller 81% bigger
Second Generation Immigrant Hispanics 22% smaller 72% bigger
Third generation and higher 36% smaller 58% bigger

Moreover, this ignores the higher total fertility rates of the Hispanics hence their higher contribution to the eligible voting population.

 

[JCDenton0451]

And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...

Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

 

[tod evans]

Has PEW ran this type of study for Indonesian immigrants? Or Slavic, how about Irish....Maybe African?

WTF makes "Hispanics" special?

 

[JCDenton0451]

Hispanics Mexicans is by far the biggest immigrant group.

 

[erowe1]

When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

 

[erowe1]

Also, let's see some more polls on other issues. There's no need to single out social services.

How do Hispanic immigrants compare with the rest of the population in their views on policing the world and the war on drugs?

 

[fisharmor]

One of the chief modes of activism in support of liberty is to dispatch the anti-liberty "libertarians" who are trying to flood the US with big government voters.

So I gave you one pic for each strawman in that one sentence.
There are actually quite a few more pics online, so I'm sure we can produce them for as long as you refuse (or are unable?) to understand the only libertarian position on immigration.

 

[JCDenton0451]

When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

Tell that to the anti-abortion activists.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Also, let's see some more polls on other issues. There's no need to single out social services.

How do Hispanic immigrants compare with the rest of the population in their views on policing the world and the war on drugs?

Why are you arguing for more Mexican immigration? What's your angle erowe1? You hope to convert them to Evangelicalism or something?

 

[fisharmor]

Hey thanks for the neg rep, JCD.
So since apparently I'm the buffoon here, why don't we prove it by starting at the beginning again:

Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.

Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.

 

[JCDenton0451]

1. As far as I'm concerned Constitution is a useful tool/framework for libertarian politics, but my views aren't derived from the US Constitution.

2. I believe it's dumb to support a policy based on an abstract concept in philosophy, regardless of its real-world practical consequences.

3. The real life consequence of Mexican immigration is millions of poor people, dependent on the government services, who tend to elect socialists. Decidedly unlibertarian outcome. fisharmor may or may not be a true libertarian, but he is unquestionably an idiot for supporting unresticted immigration importation of poverty from Latin America.

4. For most voters pocketbook issues always trump foreign policy. For Mexican immigrants pocketbook issues include the free stuff they receive from the government. To think that Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world is absurd. erowe1 is a dumb person for thinking that way.

 

[fisharmor]

1. As far as I'm concerned Constitution is a useful tool/framework for libertarian politics, but my views aren't derived from the US Constitution.

Ok, good. So here's my apology: I'm sorry for assuming you held a position. I've run into crap constitutional arguments against immigration a hundred times here.
So tell me, where do your views against immigration come from? Do you appeal to a particular authority, or is it that you view it as pragmatic?
If you are appealing strictly to pragmatism, how do you intend to implement pragmatic ideas as pragmatically as possible?

2. I believe it's dumb to support a policy based on an abstract concept in philosophy, regardless of its real-world practical consequences.

It would appear that you do consider it pragmatic.

3. The real life consequence of Mexican immigration is millions of poor people, dependent on the government services, who tend to elect socialists. Decidedly unlibertarian outcome.

This requires a belief that democratic process can result in libertarianism.
If you want to go pragmatic with this, fine. Admit that the democratic process universally results in socialism regardless of who is participating in it.
This is manifest and obvious.

fisharmor may or may not be a true libertarian, but he is unquestionably an idiot for supporting unresticted immigration importation of poverty from Latin America.

I particularly like the vest on this one.

You're making the argument that not using the state to crush a thing is the same as supporting that thing.

4. For most voters pocketbook issues always trump foreign policy. For Mexican immigrants pocketbook issues include the free stuff they receive from the government. To think that Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world is absurd. erowe1 is a dumb person for thinking that way.

He asked what their positions are on other issues besides social services. At no point did he say "Mexicans would support a politician/party that wants to cut their food stamps in exchange for some promises that the US would stop policing the world".

 

[erowe1]

Why are you arguing for more Mexican immigration? What's your angle erowe1? You hope to convert them to Evangelicalism or something?

I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it, yes, that's one very good reason.

But even apart from that, I wasn't arguing for more Mexican immigration. Whether more or fewer Mexicans want to move out of Mexico City's tax jurisdiction and into Washington DC's, is not really of any concern to me. I argue neither for nor against it. But I do argue against the policies that people who want to impede that immigration would put in place to do so. Notice how in this thread, there's no specification about what those policies ought to be. It's all in the abstract of whether immigration is good or bad. But once you get to the question, "What do you want to do about it?" then the anti-immigration folks really have nothing to offer that isn't clearly unethical. And my angle is looking at the ethics of these policies.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it, yes, that's one very good reason.

But even apart from that, I wasn't arguing for more Mexican immigration. Whether more or fewer Mexicans want to move out of Mexico City's tax jurisdiction and into Washington DC's, is not really of any concern to me. I argue neither for nor against it. But I do argue against the policies that people who want to impede that immigration would put in place to do so. Notice how in this thread, there's no specification about what those policies ought to be. It's all in the abstract of whether immigration is good or bad. But once you get to the question, "What do you want to do about it?" then the anti-immigration folks really have nothing to offer that isn't clearly unethical. And my angle is looking at the ethics of these policies.

Its not complicated. Let them come, but forbid them from voting or getting welfare. Simple enough, IMO.

 

[BamaAla]

Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.

 

[fisharmor]

Well, we better get to work converting them because they ain't going away.

That sounds.... pragmatic.

 

[BamaAla]

That sounds.... pragmatic.

Aren't those fighting words 'round here?

 

[JCDenton0451]

[h=1]Undocumented LA County Parents on Pace to Receive $650M in Welfare Benefits[/h]

[h=2]Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has announced that illegal alien parents in the county will collect a projected $650 million in welfare benefits in 2013. The data was collected from the Department of Public Social Services, which also stated that more than $376 million in CalWORKs benefits and food stamps combined were given to illegal alien parents for their native-born children.[/h]

Every month roughly $54 million is forthcoming in welfare payments, nearly $20 million in CalWORKs and $34 million in food stamps. The assistance is given to an estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents in the county.


Antonovich said that the $54 million issued in July 2013, as compared to the $53 million in July 2012, was further evidence of how much illegal immigration is costing the U.S. He said:

When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year. These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.

​

 

[jabowery]

Hey thanks for the neg rep, JCD.
So since apparently I'm the buffoon here, why don't we prove it by starting at the beginning again:

Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to control ingress and egress in this country.
Show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government is granted the power to deport people.

Now bear in mind that I know exactly what you're going to say: it's the same illogical word-twisting "living document" style crap that everyone else says.
Go ahead, bring it out... I'm waiting.

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I cited "their bullsh*t answers". I'm sure they have some bullsh*t answer to the uniform naturalization clause of the US Constitution, but it really doesn't matter. This goes beyond the US Constitution to the very nature of sovereignty. It is clear looking at the geographic distribution of male (Y) DNA vs female (mt) DNA that males are naturally territorial -- and this, unsurprisingly, applies across species. So we can safely say that in a state of nature, males are prone toward aggression toward immigration of males and not so much immigration of females. In nature, a man's individual sovereignty includes, unsurprisingly, initiation of force. So now that our anti-liberty "libertarians" have pissed their pants, let me point out that duels were practiced by high officials among the founders of the US government, including the anti-central bank president, Andrew Jackson.

So we can safely say that prior to women's suffrage, there was an implicit contract between males and their sovereignty which was that, in general, males would give up their right to demand "satisfaction" in male aggression -- and I don't mean fist fights but downright mortal conflict of one individual sovereign against another individual sovereign -- only on condition that the sovereignty to which they gave up that right protected their natural rights to territory that existed prior to any artificial notions of law or property rights.

Naturally, when women got the vote, the end result was a lowering of immigration barriers, which was a violation of the primordial agreement between men and their sovereignty to contain individual masculine aggression.

The relatively lax attitude toward immigration early in US history was due to vast territories available for homesteading on the strength of collective military superiority.

Those territories were, for all intents and purposes, gone by the Civil War, which, interestingly, also marked the outlawing of duels in almost all jurisdictions.

So the anti-liberty "libertarians" are really, I suppose, the most radical libertarians of all since they are taking down civilization by breaching the founding contract between men and their sovereignty -- thereby returning sovereignty to the individual

They'll last all of 3 picoseconds in nature -- so great is their self-sacrificial altruism to those of us who would prefer genuine individual sovereignty rather than the faux "individual sovereignty" professed by the Austrian School with its non-aggression "axiom".

 

[puppetmaster]

The bell curve strikes again.