I'm pro immigration. From all places. Our lopsided aging population needs them desperately. People who are willing to uproot themselves and their families have a good track record over the past 300+ years. As for illegals. They come here for jobs. So give them work permits. Am I being too simplistic? There has ALWAYS been a political constituency for hating immigrants in our country. And they have, so far, ALWAYS been on the wrong side of history.
In percentage terms, the wave from Europe in the years 1880 - 1920 FAR exceeds anything in our recent history. And they weren't described merely as from S-hole countries. They were described as "subhuman". Did they cause Americans to "lose their jobs"? No. They caused an economic explosion. Crisis at the border? NOT!!
There is a hypocrisy in the American consumer/worker. We want inexpensive produce, but we aren't willing to stoop down to pick strawberries. We hate the Chinese for unfair trade practices but we buy "made from China" without even noticing that we are doing so, let alone that we just made a choice. I used to buy New Balance sneakers back in the day because they were made in America. When shopping for cleats to play baseball in I asked the store clerk if there were any that were made in America or at least not in China. They looked at me like I had 3 heads.
Americans, sadly, are hypocrites.
News Flash. Just about everyone is pro-immigrant. The left appears to be pro-illegal immigrant. For the votes I assume. Let's not debate whether illegals vote. In spite of the evidence, you are firmly in denial. But with an easy path to citizenship for illegals, what percentage do you suppose would vote lib-dem? 80+%? Probably more. Libs generally can't sell their agenda via the legislative process with the current demographics, so they have worked hard to change the demographics over the last few decades, and it's working.
I am all for allowing legal entry into this country. I think entry criteria should include merit. What is the likelihood that an applicant will be productive and contribute. I think an engineer should get entry before an unskilled worker. We have plenty of unskilled workers and with automation, that problem will get worse.
And what is the cost of production/harvest in produce as a factor of the price on the shelf? If we pay more for harvest, how many cents per pound would that cost us? If cheap labor was not so readily available, how long would it take us to automate much of the harvest process?
Yes let's not debate illegal voting (you just did) even though you provide zero evidence. Unless getting a drivers license is "evidence" of millions of voters.
Which is worse. Dems POTENTIALLY gaining the lion's share of future citizens? Or Republicans unjustly denying votes to current citizens of the Democratic party and BRAGGING ABOUT IT!
You are big on evidence, right? Show me evidence of republicans denying legitimate voters.
All the news stories about voter suppression in Georgia & N. Carolina were fake news, right?
In spite of your need to believe it, not allowing ineligible voters a vote is not a denial of rights. Abrams was really counting on illegal/ineligible votes and was very upset when existing laws (written and passed by dems BTW) spoiled things for her. Her threatened law suit has not materialized and I strongly suspect it will not. The last thing she wants is for her "charges" to be scrutinized in the light of a day in court.
I am quite familiar with the charges in Ga. Now, you can be too :-)
"In fact, what we see in Georgia is the result of a patchwork of federal, state, and local laws governing voter registration requirements and verification. First, consider the cache of pending voter registrations. A federal law passed by Congress in 2002 requires states to maintain an official voter registration list and to regularly remove duplicate or ineligible voters. In Georgia, individual counties administer elections, including voter registration, but the secretary of state’s office manages the verification process for those registrations."
Oh yeah? Well put this in your pipe & smoke it.
it's all fake news, right?
Most of your referenced sources are opinion pieces with a left leaning bias. The article I provided gives an honest view of what happened, IMO. But I am betting you did not read it.
The court ruling went against long established rules and laws (which were written and passed by DEMS, BTW) that reject absentee ballots for assorted discrepancies. Things like signature mismatches and incorrect birthdays. ANd the 3000 ballots allowed were not all for democrat voters. Tho it does appear more dems than pubs get confused over when their actual birthday is.
"Most of your referenced sources are opinion pieces with a left leaning bias."
Do you have any evidence of such? Where's the beef?
Do a google search and you will find dozens more.
Good grief man! Do you even read your own links?
"They are only allowed to vote in the city school board race, and the fear that their information may reach U.S. officials appears to be stronger than the desire to have a say in their children’s education. Only 35 noncitizens have signed up to vote as of Monday, the registration deadline in California, according to San Francisco’s Department of Elections.
Noncitizens must provide their address and date of birth to register for the school board race. They can’t vote in state or federal elections."
From this link I can understand how a Trump slobbering conservative would conclude that "millions of illegals voted"
What a waste of time this all is.
I think this response is in the wrong thread. Must have something to do with your advanced level of education.
And that was one of the links. Did you see any of the others? And, as a "Learning experience", in a state where they feel illegal aliens should vote in local elections, how serious do you feel they will be in making sure they don't vote in other elections?
Did you see the video about the (according to you, nonexistent) illegal alien who voted 5 times? Guess that at least puts to rest your assertion that illegals NEVER VOTE!!! Now it's time for you to move on to step two of the liberal debate playbook.
Finally, if you want to familiarize yourself with the facts of the Ga "Voter Disenfranchisement Case", you'll want to avoid publications like Mother Jones and NYT. Surely they'll have well reasoned arguments to support their opinions, but they'll be missing a lot of facts.