Why do Democrats oppose immigration control?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
They exploit it for political theatre, whether it’s virtue-signalling or campaigning.

That's exactly what they're doing. Even when Trump offered them that DACA deal a few months ago, it was pretty much everything they wanted in exchange for the wall, they turned it down. "Who cares about DACA 'kids' getting their citizenship finally like we've been calling for? We need an issue to campaign and fundraise on!"

a reply to: Greven

Thank you for pointing out the hipocrocy on the left. When Obama said it good. When Trump said it bad.

a reply to: mkultra11

Stop it with all the facts.

It surprises me how many people on the left blindly followed Obama and Hillary and can't quote their policies. They defend people who actually said things and did actions that they claim to oppose because they don't spend the time to learn the truth.

It's not about facts, it's about feelings after all.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Whats funny is you think Hispanic immigrants are naturally democrats. Majority strict catholics and very conservative minded people. And white identity politics? Is that your new talking point? also, generalizing republicans like theyre all white.

I know this might blow your mind but I know quite a few republicans that aren't white. Several actually

What's not funny are the actual facts.

The electoral impact of immigration has been greatest in counties with large populations, where most im-migrants settle. In these locations, Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population. On average the immigrant share has increased 9.5 percent in these counties.

• In counties of at least 50,000, where the immigrant share increased by at least two percentage points from1980 to 2008, 62 percent saw a decline in the Republican percentage. In counties with at least a four percent-age-point increase, 74 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote. In counties with at least a six percentage-point
gain in the immigrant share, 83 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote share.

• Republicans have remained competitive in presidential elections because losses in high-immigration countieshave been offset by steady gains in low-immigration counties.

• Even in Texas and Florida, often thought to be an exception, the rising immigrant population across counties is associated with sharply diminished support for Republican candidates.

• In Texas, for example, the estimate shows that for every one percentage-point increase in the immigrant population in a county, the Republican vote share dropped by 0.67 percentage points, which is more than the decline nationally association with immigration.

• The decline does not seem to be associated with the local Republican Party’s position on illegal immigration.

The link is to the goolgle search as the link is a PDF and I don't want anyone to be downloading a PDF that doesn't want to.

www.google.com... &client=ms-android-metropcs-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Hopefully this clears up your confusion as to why the Democratic party wants open borders and/or more immigrants

Living in TX for awhile now and knowing quite a few hispanics (US citizens and other), I can tell you that in these cultures, family is everything.
In my personal opinion, I believe a large number of the folks crossing the borders are coming here to join family that are already in the US, at the behest of the family that's here. Entire networks of money-moving, logistics and scheduling exists to move them here (not legally).
Again in my opinion, the large separation of concerns regarding our political parties exists because of votes. One side realizes that there are a significant number of people here from the Southern countries who DO vote and this side wants those votes so what do you think they'll do?
Support initiatives to allow more people into the US so as not to piss off the folks who's votes they currently have.

I don't necessarily want open borders, and when someone makes this claim on behalf of the 'left' it's simply an outrageous lie, used for the purpose of inflaming and further dividing our citizens.

I don't appreciate seeing people turned away based on the color of their skin, or their country of origin.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: M5xaz
So again, call me stupid but is it really true that illegal immigrants get the right to vote in the US???
Seems nuts to me, they don't get that right in the UK, heck the only rights they get here are detainment centres, healthcare, and 3 meals a day while being processed.

They don’t have the right to vote. But when sanctuary cities aren’t requiring an ID to vote, it doesn’t take a genius to realize they would take advantage of our system and vote in their own favor.

You have been misinformed. States require ID to register. It has nothing to do with "sanctuary cities."

You're twisting my words. I'm referring to voter ID laws.

Oregan, California, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and Vermont are all states that require no document to vote.

NCSL

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Easy answer is...

The liberal masses have been brainwashed to think open borders is some kind of humanitarian thing.

Their masters have brainwashed them because immigrants from the south are typically also brainwashed into thinking they must vote Democrat. Legal immigration is not bringing in new blood fast enough for the Dems to take over government, so they are trying to speed up the process. Dems are attempting to be sure that they never, ever lose another election.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country are remaining sensible and shaking our heads at the sheer stupidity.

Your level of propaganda is astounding. Also the fact that you don 't know what you're talking about.

"the liberal masses". lol. What a douche.

There is a simple solution to this, just have IQ standards for immigration, that way the immigrant engineers and doctors could come here and the rest, well sorry but we don't have endless resources, and to be honest, nobody wants you here.

a reply to: mkultra11

Re: Obama’s hemispheric free trade and open borders “vision”

Progressives will always seek the future and in so doing they are visionary. In this case, the reality is that the concept of open borders for economic and moral purposes is ahead of our fractious time.

(NOTE: iris NOT open citizenship or without border security to ensure criminals are not entering - just for economic purposes to work and live in another country, and for US citizens to be able to do the same. Not like going from state to state, but easier for migrant workers and professionals to go where the job market is, etc.)

Economists say this would increase the global economic health by adding trillions to our global economy. Progressives think in terms of the whole planet, and the potentials of creating a more evolved and advanced international system that would foster greater peace and prosperity. But the world isn’t ready for that. Mankind is not ready in enough numbers to make this kind of progress happen.

Here is an excellent article that looks at all sides of the issue: The Economist: The case for open immigration .

Then there is the free trade part of that. The vision is a larger, more stable economic engine that benefits Americans as well as other nations. A win-win. But it’s all the stuff of theory at the moment, and fears make walls against such ideas being implemented.


So yeah, visions are far-off watery things. This will eventually happen in some form if history and the principles of growth still apply, but it might take another 100 years unless we can understand the benefits for everyone outweigh the fears people have and the lies being told about it. What we don’t want is an Authoritarian version of it.

So when Obama says he has a vision, it’s more MLK type “I have a dream” and “someday in the future,” not tomorrow’s policy.

In the end, however, what Reps and Trump claim is meant by “open borders” is not what is really meant at all, but still even the real version is too far out of the American comfort zone to be seen as a viable path at this time.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Are you saying that Obama's goal for open borders was based on some progressive version of Utopia?

If being slaves to a Corporate Oligarchy is a progressive Utopia can I opt out?

Obama sold not only his soul but tried to sell yours and mine to our corporate overloards. This was anything but moral. Treason maybe, moral not even close.

a reply to: face23785

That's exactly what they're doing. Even when Trump offered them that DACA deal a few months ago, it was pretty much everything they wanted in exchange for the wall, they turned it down. "Who cares about DACA 'kids' getting their citizenship finally like we've been calling for? We need an issue to campaign and fundraise on!"

That's not at all how that went down. Trump had a televised meeting with a bipartisan group of congressmen back in January where he said things like this:

“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting with roughly two dozen lawmakers. “If they come to me with things that I’m not in love with, I’m going to do it, because I respect them.”

“When this group comes back with an agreement … I’m signing it,” he said. “I mean, I will be signing it. I’m not going to say ‘oh gee, I want this or I want that.’ I’ll be signing it.”

As you can see, he was literally saying he would sign whatever bipartisan deal they came up with. At that meeting, Sen. Feinstein proposed a clean DACA fix and Trump signaled approval of that. The WH touted the meeting, attendees said nice things about it after the fact — even CNN talking heads were giving it a thumbs up.

One group that wasn't terribly pleased however were the anti-immigration hardliners.

Then a couple days later, following a call between POTUS, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Dick Durbin, the two senators were invited to the Oval office to discuss where they were at with bipartisan immigration reform. When they arrived, to their surprise, they were greeted by POTUS and a cadre of anti-immigration hardliners from the House, including Rep. Tom Cotton and Rep. David Purdue. Also in attendance were CoS Kelly, Sec. Neilsen and Stephen Miller.

This is the meeting where Trump made the "#hole" comments. I kinda believe that what happened here was that Trump was serious (at least in the moment) and the hardliners got in his ear but maybe it was all a ruse from the beginning. Whatever the case may be, it turned out to be something of a bait and switch.

The following week, Sen. Schumer was still trying to keep things going and he put funding for the border wall one the table:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said early Saturday morning that, in a Friday meeting with the president, he offered to put the wall "on the table" in a potential deal to avoid a government shutdown.

Later Saturday, Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a longtime opponent of Trump's wall, told reporters that he would back off his opposition to the president's plan for the barrier, in order to protect recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.

"It's not about a wall. We'll build him a wall. Tell us how high you want it. But free the Dreamers," the lawmaker said, according to journalists on Twitter.

The expectation was that Trump would get the thing he wanted most (the wall), they'd come to an agreement and then POTUS would announce his support for moving forward with a compromise. Trump balked. Why? Probably because he had creepy Stephen Miller telling him that he had all the leverage (DACA recipients) and he shouldn't compromise.

Then a few days later, Schumer withdrew.

A couple days after that, POTUS made comments to the AP:

Trump said earlier that citizenship for the roughly 700,000 people whose legal protections run out March 5 is “going to happen, at some point in the future, over a period of 10 to 12 years.”

In response to that, Breibart ran a headline calling Trump, Amnesty Don.

Moderates in the GOP were ready to deal. The Democrats were ready to deal. Trump was indicating that he was ready to support legislation. The whole thing got tanked by anti-immigration hardliners.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Yea I couldn't even get past half the posts in this thread because of the amount of assuming / tin foil hatting / projecting etc etc.

If I lived in the states I would have probably voted Democrat, but I don't oppose boarder control. But what I do oppose is the fiasco the Republicans have gone about it.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
They exploit it for political theatre, whether it’s virtue-signalling or campaigning.

That's exactly what they're doing. Even when Trump offered them that DACA deal a few months ago, it was pretty much everything they wanted in exchange for the wall, they turned it down. "Who cares about DACA 'kids' getting their citizenship finally like we've been calling for? We need an issue to campaign and fundraise on!"

Dude read up a little. Tell me what exactly happened with the DACA deal. If you can do so then I won’t bother you. Something tells me you can’t/won’t.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Hopefully those hardliners on either side are part of the swamp being drained.

It's hard to know how much Trump is to blame but I imagine ultimately it is up to him to convince his party to jump on board the more popular stance which he has stated publicly he supports.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The idea that the Left is for "open borders" is a lie. I mean, I'm sure there are *some* people on the Left who are because we're talking about tens of millions of people and in a group that large, you can always find some examples of people having whatever position you're looking for.

Speaking of which, there is one group that has actually promoted open borders and they didn't use to be very shy about doing it — the Libertarian Party. It was literally part of their official platform back in the 80's when David Koch was running for VP on the LP ticket. Nobody really talks about how the Koch brothers, the most prominent and prolific of conservative donors in the country, actually have supported open borders. To many right-libertarians, borders are simply impediments to free markets like environmental regulations.

Even Bernie Sanders, the current most visible face of the further-left of mainstream politics in the US, came out against open borders.

Look at the responses in this thread. You can either take the word of a bunch of right-wing zealots repeating propaganda mantras or you can look at what left-wingers actually tell you about their opinions. Here's mine:

Of course we need border security. Of course we should be combating drug cartels (and a good start would be undercutting their profits by ending the War on Drugs) and nobody wants human trafficking except soulless human traffickers.

I want a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. It also sure seems like we should be augmenting visa programs to meet market demand and in the same stroke, come down hard on those who exploit illegal immigrants. I don't think we should be using immigration policy as a form of social engineering and allowing rich people to buy visas. We can and should maintain refugee programs. I want people, including those who are being deported, to be treated humanely. Most people coming here are coming for the same reason as my forebearers and many are fleeing from even worse circumstances.

I think it's also important that we recognize that the actual data shows that illegal immigration is a less of an issue than it's been in a generation and realize that the crisis mentality promoted by fearmongering demagogues is part of a international push by the far-right to seize political power using the boogeymen of "foreign invaders" and the "end of the West." Not only is the dehumanization and demonization disgusting on its face and toxic to society, if you actually look at what's transpiring in some of these countries (Poland for instance) where far-right regimes are coming into power, the anti-immigration agenda is part and parcel of a rise in far-right authoritarianism.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Maybe you should run that by Cortez and the head of the DNC. Maybe the majority don't want open borders, but those with the loudest voices and most influence seem to think it's the future of the party.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The actual deal-breaker, which you failed to mention, was chain migration & visa lottery.

The fact that Trump was willing to grant a path to citizenship to DACA and give limited chain migration, is commendable considering the image that they want to portray him. Trump gave them a great deal, But the Democrats wanted it all. He took major heat from some of his support, as you posted. The democrats are not interested in solutions, they could have voted on the changing the laws they themselves have legislated, for the last 8 years but never did. They want all illegals to be granted citizenship with unlimited chain migration and nothing less.

Democrats would be crazy to reject Trump's DACA deal

Gutierrez Willing to Strike DACA Deal That Leaves Out 'Chain Migration,' Visa Lottery Kills/

Trump also signed an Executive Order ending family separation, something Obama could have done and never did. Yet, he's still criticized because this is manufactured outrage.

originally posted by: TXRabbit
Living in TX for awhile now and knowing quite a few hispanics (US citizens and other), I can tell you that in these cultures, family is everything.
In my personal opinion, I believe a large number of the folks crossing the borders are coming here to join family that are already in the US, at the behest of the family that's here. Entire networks of money-moving, logistics and scheduling exists to move them here (not legally).
Again in my opinion, the large separation of concerns regarding our political parties exists because of votes. One side realizes that there are a significant number of people here from the Southern countries who DO vote and this side wants those votes so what do you think they'll do?
Support initiatives to allow more people into the US so as not to piss off the folks who's votes they currently have.

I live in the western regions of the Hill Country, 70% Hispanic, and I'd agree with your assessment.

I've given up on the immigration debate because its pretty much a lost cause at this point. Its inevitable that at some point Texas will turn Cali Blue; maybe just not in my lifetime. To add to your comments, I'd have to say that one truly weird distortion effect that the emergence of the Hispanic majority where I live has to do with elections. So for example, there are 8 old Hispanic guys running to replace our disgraced Texas Senator, who's heading off to jail. There will be a special election on July 30, I believe. Gallegos, long time Democrat political hack will doubtless win.

The "distortion" I speak of? There's no campaigning; no printed or public information about the candidates. The candidates haven't published anything in the local papers setting forth their agenda's or beliefs.......nothing. I've concluded that is because they spend all their "advertising" budge on ads in the Spanish language radio stations.

So basically, elections have gone "dark" as to any election information, entirely opaque. In a sense, its hilarious. In the last county election for example.........many offices were up for re-election with many candidates, all Hispanic surnames.....lots of yard signs for "Vote Hidalgo for County Treasurer" or Vote for Ruis for County Attorney. But absolutely no background information as to qualifications or position statements are ever published in the local print media.

And as you would expect............turnout is minuscule.

I"m old enough now I don't really give a crap and mostly don't vote anyway, but this distortion is going to lead to an utterly failed "Democratic Republic". This is how you end up with hacks like Sheila Jackson Lee in positions of power. Really sad.

a reply to: mkultra11

Thank you for the clarification and the links.

And it is quite insane that the left completely leave out the fact that Obama had a majority, could have fixed all the problems, but chose to do nothing.