Tweet
Froot, I used that sentence as an example of the private, not their public utterings, that some, not all, liberal minded folks view immigration. In public they support diversity and the diversity that immigration brings. In private they voice concerns about the cohort I listed encroaching on their daily lives. Of course, and that is typical of libs, the race card got brought out implying that by me using that example, I was a racist. Did I endorse that view? Nope, but you certainly worked hard, and continue to work hard, to ascribe that to my beliefs.
In the rational part of our post exchanges, myself, you and DSL where arguing our views on what importance "Immigration" will have in the 2020 elections. I offered it will be important - and I framed that take by saying this:
I saw a piece a couple of days ago, intended to highlight the terrible things happening to "the (immigrant) children" that flat out demonstrated, big time, how illegal crossings have dropped dramatically from May (their record highs) to September (near record lows). In the same piece, begrudging credit was given to the Trump administration in achieving that..... but, "the children." Oh, and don't forget that immigrants who have to remain in Mexico or El Salvador aren't safe and, of course, the US should take care of all this by shoveling money into jobs programs there according to the former Mayor of San Antonio and D presidential candidate, Julian Castro. GTFO. Yes, I know. It's cruel but sometimes tough measures are called for when folks do illegal things. The law and all that.
I'll reiterate, and I already think we've finally gotten to the point, where immigration, in particular the illegal portion of it - and that covers both illegal crossings and legal crossing where an immigrant over-stayed his visa illegally - can be a position that the R's, including Trump if he doesn't screw up his messaging on this (a big if) can win moderates from both sides of the political spectrum.
DSL brought up some good counter points to my position. He's clearly not part of this group and I don't think you are either, Froot, but only the whacko left is embracing ideas that include, let them come whenever and wherever the want - our country is based on the diversity that open immigration brings or providing sanctuary to immigrants now residing in the US who have failed to follow US immigration law or arguing for blanket amnesty for every illegal immigrant currently living in the US. Some of the D presidential candidates are pandering to those beliefs in safely cloaked tones but, make no mistake, the US will have a hella immigration problem if any of them get elected..... or, at least they'll try. And, thank you US Constitution for probably insuring that won't happen
talent put it more succinctly in describing the Ds by saying words to this affect, sure, run on free shit, run on open boarders, run on blanket amnesty ..... that is a kick the living shit out of whoever articulates that losing position to moderate voters who have a lick of sense on this matter.
In the rational part of our post exchanges, myself, you and DSL where arguing our views on what importance "Immigration" will have in the 2020 elections. I offered it will be important - and I framed that take by saying this:
I saw a piece a couple of days ago, intended to highlight the terrible things happening to "the (immigrant) children" that flat out demonstrated, big time, how illegal crossings have dropped dramatically from May (their record highs) to September (near record lows). In the same piece, begrudging credit was given to the Trump administration in achieving that..... but, "the children." Oh, and don't forget that immigrants who have to remain in Mexico or El Salvador aren't safe and, of course, the US should take care of all this by shoveling money into jobs programs there according to the former Mayor of San Antonio and D presidential candidate, Julian Castro. GTFO. Yes, I know. It's cruel but sometimes tough measures are called for when folks do illegal things. The law and all that.
I'll reiterate, and I already think we've finally gotten to the point, where immigration, in particular the illegal portion of it - and that covers both illegal crossings and legal crossing where an immigrant over-stayed his visa illegally - can be a position that the R's, including Trump if he doesn't screw up his messaging on this (a big if) can win moderates from both sides of the political spectrum.
DSL brought up some good counter points to my position. He's clearly not part of this group and I don't think you are either, Froot, but only the whacko left is embracing ideas that include, let them come whenever and wherever the want - our country is based on the diversity that open immigration brings or providing sanctuary to immigrants now residing in the US who have failed to follow US immigration law or arguing for blanket amnesty for every illegal immigrant currently living in the US. Some of the D presidential candidates are pandering to those beliefs in safely cloaked tones but, make no mistake, the US will have a hella immigration problem if any of them get elected..... or, at least they'll try. And, thank you US Constitution for probably insuring that won't happen
talent put it more succinctly in describing the Ds by saying words to this affect, sure, run on free shit, run on open boarders, run on blanket amnesty ..... that is a kick the living shit out of whoever articulates that losing position to moderate voters who have a lick of sense on this matter.
Comment