Forums / Discussion / General

Legal immigrants, like people who have a green card, are technically not citizens, but they won't be or shouldn't be hampered by the question on the census. Illegal immigrants would be. So let me rephrase what you said with more accuracy.

"we're just upholding the law and illegal immigrants shouldn't be counted because they shouldn't be in this country to begin with"

Let me also be crystal clear on this:
to "political corruption is morally okay if Republicans do it.

My very first statement on this topic was:
"Both parties are guilty of gaming districting and gerrymandering. And BOTH should be condemned for it, absolutely."

How you concluded that I am excusing republicans from this is beyond me.

He's just a gaslighting SOB who can't handle people not agreeing with him. It's a growingly common tactic and disgusting to see.

Pro illegal stances: creating sanctuary cities, undermining ICE agents in their jobs, blurring the line between legal immigrants such as myself and illegal immigrants by changing the language used, such as "undocumented immigrants" or just lumping them all together with immigrants who came here legally. Favoring "path to citizenship" instead of "path to going to their native countries". Rewarding those who cross the border illegally with Amnesty and DREAM act.

Running on the issue of expanding Social Security to illegal immigrants.

Expanding health benefits to illegal immigrants

Growing number of Democrats calling to abolish ICE

Do I need to go on?

If illegal immigrants are counted then they can give congressional seats to Democrats.

So…in your view, Democrats adopting a pro illegal immigrants agenda, stand to benefit greatly from illegal immigrants being counted on the census, is perfectly fine because maybe just maybe that isn't their intent? Ok. Fine.

>Pro illegal stances:

thats all pro-immigration though…
The dream act specifically is an attempt to get them to be legal. if they were pro-illegal immigrant, then why would they be trying to make them legal?

>is perfectly fine because maybe just maybe that isn't their intent?

Yes.

Which is unfortunate.
I strive to be as respectful as I can, and I strive to make my positions as clear as I can. I hate being misconstrued and having to respond to that. It doesn't make discourse here any better.

And while I usually dislike down voting I'm glad that people here, regardless whether they like my views or not, can at least down vote such bad discourse. It signals that such things aren't welcome here and I like that

So thank you guys for that. <3 y'all

The absurdity of trying to lecture a immigrant on the plight of immigration is almost memeworthy. Can this be a term like mansplaining? Demsplaining political issues to those who actually go through those issues first hand.

It's literally not though.
The DREAM act has no bearing on legal immigrants.
It only is applicable to illegal ones.

Stop blurring the line and lumping illegal immigrants with legal ones. Legal immigrants do not have to worry about ICE. They receive benefits already. They don't need sanctuary cities.

to me a pro-immigration policy would be to reform how we give out visas, making it easier for people to legally migrate to the US. To me a pro-immigration policy would be to expand benefits to immigrants that are here legally. To me pro-immigration policy would be making the path to citizenship easier for legal immigrants.

Because there is a massive difference between a pro-illegal immigration policy and a pro legal immigration policy.

The fact that you can't separate the two is precisely the problem here.

>It only is applicable to illegal ones.

right…….
Its about making them legal.
Why would someone who is pro-illegal immigrant want to make them legal? If you support something/someone being illegal, why would you pass bills to legalize it/them?

>Stop blurring the line and lumping illegal immigrants with legal ones.

immigrants are immigrants whether they are legal or not.

> making it easier for people to legally migrate to the US.

Like the dream act.

>To me pro-immigration policy would be making the path to citizenship easier for legal immigrants.

That doesn't make sense. If you are a legal immigrant, then that means you are already a citizen. non-citizens are either illegally here, temporarily here, or want-to-be immigrants.

We are in agreement at that. They can not rebut our arguments, so they use that tactic out of desperation to avoid the reality they are on the wrong side of the debate.

My coworker, who is here on a student visa just finished his master's in computer science. He went to a US school, while working at my company as a developer. He made great money, and pays income taxes, SS taxes and a slew of other taxes that he will never benefit from. He loves and is fascinated by America and doesn't want to leave, but there are no paths for him to become a citizens so in less than a week he has to go back to Vietnam.

My good friend Mo who lived in the US for a decade under a student and work visa worked at a high pay, high skill, sound engineer job. Multiple times he tried to get a green card, multiple times! But he didn't. He didn't win the immigration lottery that this country has. So he had to go back to Hong Kong where he teaches music there. What a bloody loss for the US and the US economy.

No one, not the Republicans and especially not the Democrats are pushing any legislation that would make these two people have an easier time to stay in the US. No one is standing up for them. No one is talking about improving or reforming the process so we can hold on to immigrants like these. Instead all you have are Democrats scrambling to protect the rights of some unskilled illegal migrant that had the ability to just walk across the border. It's disgusting that "immigration advocates" almost exclusively focus on protecting illegal immigrants over people who struggled to get here, who struggle to remain here, legally. I'm so sick of it. I'm so sick of having people lump people like my Vietnamese co worker, my friend Mo, myself, with people who come here illegally, while pretending that they are our advocates.

I am honest with my thoughts and dialog and yet the certain groups seems to have to use down vote bots on my post so often. It's rather sad that they do.

Je suis heureux que le PEN sera le nouveau leader de la France, des gens comme vous ont gagné son leadership.

Vous êtes celui qui doit vivre avec le Stylo Le. Qui a été possédé maintenant ?

At least he didn't steal someone elses fucking name.

IMF denies pressuring Venezuela to release data, reports Reuters
-
@MS
Keep it civil m8.

@poochyena

Out of curiosity how familiar are you with the immigration laws and processes in the US?

>If you are a legal immigrant, then that means you are already a citizen. non-citizens are either illegally here, temporarily here, or want-to-be immigrants.

Actually, no. If you are a legal immigrant you are considered a Lawful permanent resident effectively, a green-card holder, and a legal immigrant. You are not a citizen though. And you can literally live your entire life in the US as a green-card holder (one of my friends is exactly that). From 1991 to 2004 I was a LPR, I had a green card. It was in 2004 that I got my citizenship, at the age of 19, so, technically, while I was 18, I still couldn't vote.

This is what I mean by "legal immigrants", they had to go through a process to apply for lawful permanent residency. To become naturalized (a citizen) takes 5 years minimum.

>Like the dream act.

Actually, not exactly, the DREAM act doesn't make it easier for people to migrate here. It makes it easier for people who came to the US under the age of 16 and are not legally supposed to be here because of their parents, a road to getting a permanent residency card. Making them a legal immigrant. I.e. it doesn't make it easier for people to migrate to the US, it makes it easy for young people who are children of illegal immigrants to gain legal-immigration status.

>immigrants are immigrants whether they are legal or not.

Except one is legally allowed to reside int he US. The other is not allowed to be here and is subject to deportation.

Chewybunny wins the brownies. Legal immigrants must wait a period of time before being considered a citizen (years, plus a citizenship test). By the legal definition, legal immigrants are not citizens (yet).

>Actually, no. If you are a legal immigrant you are considered a Lawful permanent resident effectively, a green-card holder, and a legal immigrant. You are not a citizen though.

I was unaware of that. What exactly is the purpose of that though? Why would they not be made citizens?

> it doesn't make it easier for people to migrate to the US, it makes it easy for young people who are children of illegal immigrants to gain legal-immigration status.

Right, it makes it easier for people to become legal immigrants. someone who is pro-illegal immigrant wouldn't want that.
Saying they are pro-illegal immigrant is like saying a pro-choice person is pro-abortion. They don't want them to be illegal, but help them anyways and want them to have legal options. Just like no one wants someone to have an abortion, but want them to have the options easily available.

btw, supporting strict legal immigration makes you anti-immigration, not pro-immigration.

Young people are voting more

This may be a problem for Republicans cause what used to happen is that adults when they were young wouldn't vote as much and then as they got older would vote more; with how liberal millenials and generation z are if young people do start voting now that'll be a drastic shift in politics. The reason why this is important is that if millenials and generation z vote at similar rates in 2020 as they did in 2018 then Republicans will get tsunami'd.

It's about time they did something other then complain on twitter about how unfair things are. It's refreshing to see a lot of whiny citizens actually using their rights instead of just complaining about how little say they have on twitter.

@Black Graphic T
dude are you ok? Your past dozen posts have been VERY aggressive. Much more than usual.

Yes, I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is adding a Citizenship question to the Census because it's politically advantageous to your party, while hurting the other party. Which is pretty much what the dead Republican Gerrymanderer was trying to do.

I also don't agree with inflicting abuse and trauma on immigrants because you want a "deterrent".

Telling young Democrats that if they don't vote in 2020 that Trump will certainly win re-election is a hell of a way to get people out and vote.

@adegeneratefurry

Why is it so bad for Republicans that young people are voting more?
I mean, it's 16 days ago I posted the Zogby poll.

I even @ you then. So I'll re-iterate the main points.

"President Trump scored well with younger Millennial voters aged 18-29 (51% approve/46% disapprove) and Generation Z voters aged 18-24 (49% approve/51% disapprove)…he received a majority job approval rating from older Millennial voters aged 25-34 (53% approve/43% disapprove) and middle aged voters aged 35-54 (59% approve/38% disapprove)."

How exactly are the Millenials, who largely approve of Trump, by slim margins, going to "tsunami" the President or the party he belongs to?

I don't agree with that either.
But as I have spent the last day highlighting, the absence of the question is politically advantageous to Democrats. I'm not drinking any cool aid either, as i have pointed out, in quite detail, how congressional districts and congressional seats, not to mention federal funding is affected by population count during the Census. That in places like California, which is primarily democratic, the Democrats would stand to win greater congressional seats in Congress, by simply having illegal aliens counted as part of the population.

Precisely what abuse and trauma are legal immigrants going to face by that question? Even if they answer no it's not going to raise any suspicion of their legal status in the US, and even if it does, they have all the identification and paperwork that says otherwise.

Do you believe that illegal immigrants are going to be deterred by the question because it may raise suspicion of their legal status? That is precisely what is being suggested without directly saying so.

Because the reality is, why would a legal immigrant be deterred by a question that has no bearing on their legality of being in the US?

Cause +35 points of 18 to 29 year olds voted Democrat in 2018

Essentially Democrats have a monopoly on Millenials and Generation Z. Only 23% of Generation Z is Republican

Just for contextual sense, the poll you used is from exit polls specifically for how they voted for the House of Representatives in 2018. That makes sense as the House gained some major seats for the Democrats, but the Senate itself was hardly touched Specifically, exit polls done by Edison Research, which also provided exit polls for National Election Pool. Of which the AP and Fox News effectively abandoned the use of for it's massive unreliability. In fact, even in places like Australia Exit Polls were horrifically misleading, as what people "say" they voted doesn't reflect "what" they actually voted on.

Perhaps this is why a Zogby poll that I linked (that I feel you purposefully ignore, since you've yet to comment on it) is so radically different.

Report finds Canada guilty of genocide in Indigenous deaths and disappearances
RIP Canada memes , its been a while since it lasted

While I totally get that this negligence was horrible on the side of Canada, to be sure…I do find the loose use of the word genocide here a bit disconscerning. If this was genocide then what would one call what happened to Native Americans in the 19th century? What would we call what Saddam wanted to do to the Kurds? What would we call what happened to the Jews in WW2? Or the Armenians by Turkey?

Chewybunny said:

Precisely what abuse and trauma are legal immigrants going to face by that question? Even if they answer no it's not going to raise any suspicion of their legal status in the US, and even if it does, they have all the identification and paperwork that says otherwise.

It's not the question, it's the treatment they're currently facing from DHS, CPB, and ICE. Caged kids who can't even remember who their parents are, and even children dying while in custody!

The Justice Department is defying a judge's orders to hand over information regarding Michael Flynn.

Disobeying a judge is incredibly dangerous, and can result in a not-so-friendly visit from the US Marshalls.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II, 1948

All of the situations you listed here should count as genocide due to the definitions outlined here, including this situation which you labelled as a loose use.

Good news everyone, renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels

Yeah. I can see that. Understand it too.

The reason I say it's loose is more personal. LA has a large Armenian population, my first boss, my grandma's nurse, and my current superior are all Armenians. And obviously, growing up Jewish with stories of the Holocaust and various pogroms. The word genocide has a bit of a harder tone for me. When I hear it, I think of tens of thousands of not millions being killed for their ethnicity.

Guess it's a bit strange seeing such a broad meaning to it.

@Degenerate

You OK there? We have been over that not too long ago. Or Did you just forget about it? In any case, no, the Republican base isn't going to go moderate anytime soon. They are just going to hold their ground while the Left takes a flying leap off the edge into deepening Socialism. If anything, the Republicans might even start edging more to the right as a reaction to the Left's direction.

I sincerely hope the Republicans don't budge. They are already close to the edge from the late 2000's/early 2010's. Any further on either party is when a lot of dead bodies start piling up because of "Muh Philosophy" and "Muh Ideology"

You guys might get a chuckle out of this: you know how Bernie has been losing support the last couple of months? Apparently what's been happening is that Bernie isn't progressive enough for Democrats and isn't socialist enough for Democrats either. Bernie has fallen from on average about 40% of Democrats all the way down to now about 15% of Democrats. The other Democrat that has been consistently polling double digits besides Biden and Bernie is Harris; she's been consistently polling about somewhere between 12% and 15% cause she's very progressive.

Irony: when a party has gone so far left that not even a open socialist is far enough left.

"Well why is Biden doing so well?"
Cause we recognize that Biden has the highest chances to beat Trump. Even Fox News' polls show Biden beating Trump.

Demonstrators bare nipples outside Facebook in censorship protest

President Trump has a Safe Space.

Imagine a candidate that opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving police officers and threatened to imprison the parents of truant children, who are disproportionately poor and non-white. A candidate who's office fought a proposed parole program that would release prisoners early if they served half their sentences, arguing that “prisons would lose an important labor pool.”

A candidate that overruled a false imprisonment because the prisoner didn't fill out the paperwork in time. A candidate that when California’s death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, appealed that ruling. She opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving police officers. She laughed when a reporter asked her if she’d support the legalization of marijuana.

A candidate, who decided to put another innocent man in jail, who was falsely convicted of sexual abuse, with numerous evidence suggesting his innocence, just on a technicality. A candidate that opposed mandating police body cams.

Now imagine if you will, in 2019, calling this candidate "very progressive".

That candidate, by the way, is Kamala Harris. Who's now more progressive than Bernie. I am laughing my ass off.

Biden's still riding Obama's coattails at this point. If he get's to the general swing voters will realize he's just great value republican and most of them will go with Trump. Biden can't even give the illusion of being progressive.

This past weekend was the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Yeah, but she happened to randomly be born with a vagina, with an exotic name and kinda darkish skin, making her obviously more progressive and objectively superior to some old white male.

/Sarcasm

✓ supports greatly expanding state run social welfare plans
✓ supports massive tax increases to redistribute the resources to the state
✓ supports expanding the police force
✓ overrules innocent prison sentences to protect the prison labor force
✓ laughs about wanting to imprison poor families for frivolous breaking of laws.
✓ against legalizing substances which would release a ton of prisoners

It's almost like an ideology that has a name, but I forgot the name off…

I think it starts with a F but I forgot what it is about

But then again…The great progressive FDR was highly admired by the likes of Mussolini. So I guess birds of a feather ay?

^
Straight-up calling FDR a fascist to own the libs.

Transportation Secretary and wife of the Senate Grim Reaper Mitch McConnell, was planning on using her position to funnel money into her husband's campaign through her family's international shipping company.

It was canceled after they got caught.

House Oversight Committee will vote to hold William Barr and Wilbur Ross in Contempt.