Current Events > What's the liberal endgame on illegal immigration?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Admiral posted...

TIL: Calling out racist motives is racist

Where is your evidence of this motive?
---

The Admiral posted...

legendary_zell posted...

Y'all actually don't want more immigrants because of votes and often because of racism

Why do you think it's okay to casually assume people against illegal immigration do it because of racism, but then you acted outraged and cry conspiracy when people say the same about folks who are in favor of rampant illegal immigration?

Just look at the people in this topic. It's the usual suspects, including Capn, you, etc. You were the first person to bring race up in this topic. Your statements about race have lost you the benefit of the doubt loooong ago. You've been going further and further into the white victimhood rhetoric lately, you're only a few steps away from Capn and Southcoast at this point.

There's nothing casual about my assumption. You stated yourself it's about race in your mind. Research supports what I've said. https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/

I'm not saying that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is racist. I'm saying a lot of the sure are and a lot of the opposition is driven by race. There's ample evidence for one side, where is the evidence for yours?
---

EternalDivide posted...

Votes. Same thing with the catholic church. At least locally here in SoCal. Everyone wants to pull out their violins and cry their bleeding hearts dry over it. But it's all about votes and money. Period. If you can wave a wand and make all the illegals legal voting residents then you in theory have life long generational democrat voters. Same with the church. If you're the ones making a show saying prayers for them and helping them with paperwork, feeding them and giving sermon after sermon week after week about god's children blah blah bs bs. They'll give money.

Anyone who says it's genuinely about the greater good and feelings is full of shit. It's votes(power) and money..

This theory kind of falls apart when you consider that republicans aren't using this supposed strategy. And they would be if it worked since republicans are far better at politics than dems, as evidenced by them controlling most of government despite having far less popular ideas.
---

in case anyone was wondering why no one takes admiral seriously
---

It is creepy how racially exclusive the conservatives have become in this country. Like you cannot possibly find conservative arguments appealing if you are a certain color. You'll automatically vote for the Democrats in droves. Here is a hint - they don't vote for you because you don't even talk to them or make the argument. It is that assumption that hard-working Latinos wouldn't like a tax cut or less payroll tax taken out that makes you fail with them.

Regardless if immigrants are going to come in to this country or not, the people here legally are going to outnumber whites within a generation. Time to stop stormfronting.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Here is a hint - they don't vote for you because you don't even talk to them or make the argument. It is that assumption that hard-working Latinos wouldn't like a tax cut or less payroll tax taken out that makes you fail with them.

Hispanic immigrants use welfare at a much higher rate than native born Americans. The CIS did a study showing that 73% of their households use some form of welfare. Regardless of what the exact number is, that makes the debate much harder to win for small government minded people. How am I supposed to convince somebody to vote for me when the opposition is offering free stuff?

This is obviously the reason why people are suspicious of Democrats' desire to import relatively poor people into a wealthy 1st world country.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Hispanic immigrants use welfare at a much higher rate than native born Americans. The CIS did a study showing that 73% of their households use some form of welfare. Regardless of what the exact number is, that makes the debate much harder to win for small government minded people. How am I supposed to convince somebody to vote for me when the opposition is offering free stuff?

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants.

wah_wah_wah posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Hispanic immigrants use welfare at a much higher rate than native born Americans. The CIS did a study showing that 73% of their households use some form of welfare. Regardless of what the exact number is, that makes the debate much harder to win for small government minded people. How am I supposed to convince somebody to vote for me when the opposition is offering free stuff?

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants.

I read that before posting and posted anyway because nitpicking at the methodology doesn't seriously challenge the thesis that a huge portion of these households are not economically self sufficient. I used it to support the idea that it's hard to get this demographic to vote for a conservative, not to precisely quantify the bill natives are paying for immigrants. If somebody in your household is on government assistance, you'll tend to not vote to reduce that assistance.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Hispanic immigrants use welfare at a much higher rate than native born Americans. The CIS did a study showing that 73% of their households use some form of welfare. Regardless of what the exact number is, that makes the debate much harder to win for small government minded people. How am I supposed to convince somebody to vote for me when the opposition is offering free stuff?

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants.

I read that before posting and posted anyway because nitpicking at the methodology doesn't seriously challenge the thesis that a huge portion of these households are not economically self sufficient. I used it to support the idea that it's hard to get this demographic to vote for a conservative, not to precisely quantify the bill natives are paying for immigrants. If somebody in your household is on government assistance, you'll tend to not vote to reduce that assistance.

So how do you square all of those Republicans (who skew older) on Social Security and Medicare?

wah_wah_wah posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

Hispanic immigrants use welfare at a much higher rate than native born Americans. The CIS did a study showing that 73% of their households use some form of welfare. Regardless of what the exact number is, that makes the debate much harder to win for small government minded people. How am I supposed to convince somebody to vote for me when the opposition is offering free stuff?

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants.

I read that before posting and posted anyway because nitpicking at the methodology doesn't seriously challenge the thesis that a huge portion of these households are not economically self sufficient. I used it to support the idea that it's hard to get this demographic to vote for a conservative, not to precisely quantify the bill natives are paying for immigrants. If somebody in your household is on government assistance, you'll tend to not vote to reduce that assistance.

So how do you square all of those Republicans (who skew older) on Social Security and Medicare?

No republican politician is willing to cut that significantly. It's political suicide. That's why my generation is screwed.
---