RSS
From the Washington Post opinion page:
The ‘missing’ immigrant voters whose absence might swing the election
Opinion by Catherine Rampell, Columnist
August 27, 2020 at 4:22 p.m. PDT… Meanwhile, in a truer reflection of President Trump’s immigration record, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 other would-be citizens are likely to be disenfranchised.
The absence of these hundreds of thousands of “missing voters,” many of whom live in swing states, could be sufficient to sway the election.
To be fair, the pandemic has made the work of all organizations more challenging. The agency that processes naturalization applications is no exception. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services offices were shuttered from March through early June, and since reopening have operated below capacity to accommodate social distancing. …
Hundreds of thousands more immigrants are just a step or two behind these newly minted citizens. In a normal year — and perhaps under a less hostile administration — these people would already have been background-checked, fingerprinted, interviewed, approved and “oathed” by now, but they haven’t been, because of office closures and persistent productivity slowdowns.
… Vanessa Solomon, a nurse from Saint Martin who works in a covid-19 intensive care unit in Texas, is further along. After one interview cancellation, and months of delays, Solomon was finally interviewed — and approved! — for citizenship last Friday.
Her “huge sense of relief,” unfortunately, was followed by deep disappointment.
Notification of her oath ceremony won’t even arrive for four to six weeks, she was told, and the ceremony will occur sometime in subsequent months. Meanwhile, Texas’s voter registration deadline is Oct. 5. She had been eager to vote for Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris — who, like Solomon, is a Black woman of Caribbean heritage.
In contrast, when the Clinton Administration rushed a huge number of immigrants through to voting status in 1996, that was what America is all about.
Good point, Post! Think how many of them there are, too. Billions.
Quickly naturalize European Liberals to make sure these elections go the right way! They can drop their mail-in ballots just in time.
A story sometimes told in Spain is that the Moors first arrived by invitation. There was a great deal of quarreling in Spain in those days, and one of the warring factions thought it would be clever to get a little help from some friends across the Strait. Those “friends” came and helped indeed; then they brought more friends and their families, and helped themselves to Spain for the next 1000 years.
A story sometimes told in Spain is that the Moors first arrived by invitation. There was a great deal of quarreling in Spain in those days, and one of the warring factions thought it would be clever to get a little help from some friends who lived across the Strait. Those “friends” came and helped indeed; then they brought more friends and their families, and helped themselves to Spain for the next 1000 years.
If there was just some way that when pneumonic plague 2.0 hits, it only affects NYT writers…..
“In contrast, when the Clinton Administration rushed a huge number of immigrants through to voting status in 1996, that was what America is all about.” BINGO
I remember Larry Klayman at Judicial Watch being all over the Clinton Era scandals like this.
Or the time the Canadian government rushed citizenship for immigrants in order to stop a Yes vote for Quebec independence. There was only a 1000 vote difference 54,288 vote difference.
Over 60% of Quebecois voted for independence, but immigrants and Anglophones stopped them. Similarly in Scotland, immigrants voted to suppress the self-determination of their hosts.
There is a clip of the ‘No’ side HQ that shows multiple foreign flags and an arab guy draped in an Egyptian flag on the edge of his seat, nice. You can ignore the rest of the piece, it’s rather familiar to those who followed Brexit. People wanted self-determination, the details were secondary, it’s not complex. The details to be worked out are all self-evident.
They were conquered yet retained their language and culture and had an organic sense of ethnicity and peoplehood far greater than Anglo Canadians and immigrants delivered more than enough votes to stop them having self-determination, sad.
You can see the Egyptian flag at the timestamped video below.
When Western Sahara was given by a referendum on independence, only the natives votes were counted, recent Moroccan colonists weren’t allowed one, for obvious reasons. But what was morally obvious to the UN then is a lost morality. Immigrants uber alles.
Mercilessly importing millions upon millions of third-world invaders: not election interference
Steve, I’d forgotten that whole Clinton immigrant-vote push until you jogged my memory about it. Now, I can picture myself reading this story in the newspaper or a magazine. Maybe it was the American Spectator that I subscribed to back then.
The Washington Post article refers to the new citizens’ being “fingerprinted.” Is this standard procedure? Anybody know since when?
Anglo-Americans were invited to settle Texas by the Mexican government and ended up taking it with them.
After the successful 1824 Mexican independence the Mexicans continued the same practice as the Spanish Crown. In order to have at least somebody other than nomadic warrior Indian tribes there.
After Santa Anna took over Mexico, abrogated their 1824 constitution, during that period almost all of Mexico's states rebelled against Santa Anna. But he had an army and was a pretty good military commander so he put down most of the rebellions. With brute force.
See the massacre at Zacatecas for a taste of Santa Anna's forces following his orders.
News travels fast even in those days. After that, The Alamo, and Goliad Massacre, The Texians weren't going to allow Santa Anna to wipe them out. They and Sam Houston caught him napping, literally, at San Jacinto after a Fabius The Delayer style campaign.
It was an un-fair fight, Santa Anna had far more resources. The underdogs won that time.
Lots of immigrants vote anyway. I believe this because, in a consumer attitudes study in which more than 200,000 people were paid to fill out a long questionnaire, a significant number of non-citizens indicated that they had voted in local and national elections.
The “Have you ever voted in an election?” questions are asked because the answers speak to the psychology of the consumer.
Over 60% of Quebecois voted for independence, but immigrants and Anglophones stopped them. Similarly in Scotland, immigrants voted to suppress the self-determination of their hosts.
There is a clip of the 'No' side HQ that shows multiple foreign flags and an arab guy draped in an Egyptian flag on the edge of his seat, nice. You can ignore the rest of the piece, it's rather familiar to those who followed Brexit. People wanted self-determination, the details were secondary, it's not complex. The details to be worked out are all self-evident.
They were conquered yet retained their language and culture and had an organic sense of ethnicity and peoplehood far greater than Anglo Canadians and immigrants delivered more than enough votes to stop them having self-determination, sad.
You can see the Egyptian flag at the timestamped video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHKhoe0EBNQ&t=1m24s
When Western Sahara was given by a referendum on independence, only the natives votes were counted, recent Moroccan colonists weren't allowed one, for obvious reasons. But what was morally obvious to the UN then is a lost morality. Immigrants uber alles.Replies: @BenKenobi
Russian Facebook ads: election interference
Mercilessly importing millions upon millions of third-world invaders: not election interference
I keep having fantasies like that, with various variants. I know it’s not right, yet I persist. This must be what it’s like to be a junkie, or a perv, or a pathological liar, or other democrat.
Same the Romano-Celts of 5th-century southern Britannia … now England … for a while longer …
Same thing happened in Ireland where some native Chieftain invited English help in some native internecine squabble. Easy invite in but almost impossible riddance!
I didn’t pay attention, but did anyone utter that magic phrase during the convention?
According to legend, the Celtic British king Vortigern invited the Saxon chieftains Hengist and Horsa into Britain to help him fight the Picts. Hengist married his daughter to Vortigern.
Interesting theory, but of course we’ll never know, because the dems have already lost the election by nominating a geriatric mental case who named a radical poser (who performed extremely poorly in the same primary race that he won) as his running mate. No, the WaPo isn’t looking for answers, they’re looking for excuses or justification or motivation for the more extreme members of their audience to riot after the election.
Applicants for naturalization have to go through a criminal background check. Felonies and other major crimes are disqualifications from citizenship. (Just as felons can not vote ). That requires fingerprint. (Ink) Fingerprint was old technology; now it is (digital) finger scan like at DMV for Real ID.
OT: IHME projections for deaths till Dec 1 are 317,000
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america?view=total-deaths&tab=trend
End immigration now: legal, illegal, work visas, refugees, “temporary protected status,” student visas, diversity visas…(did I miss any?). Give Green card holders a year to naturalize or leave.
Just end it. We never needed them, we certainly don’t need them now — America is full already.
End dual citizenship. Stop giving immigrants with loyalty to other countries a safety net. You either owe allegiance to the US or you don't. If a prospective citizen is not willing to renounce his previous citizenship, or a US citizen is willing to declare loyalty to another country, that is their country. This includes dual citizenship with Israel, Mexico, Hungary or any other country.
Could someone please inform the perennial blackpillers who continue to insist that Trump has done nothing on immigration?
There's no doubt that from the policy perspective Trump has been much, much, much better than Hillary. (Whether better for the nation?--Who knows, that's in the realm of alternative history. Hillary's sheer unpleasantness certainly would have turned a lot off people off.)
But the point is that Trump could have and should have been much more effective.
Most obviously: the Xi virus was a gift opportunity for a full immigration moratorium.
The Democrats own rhetoric is about shutting everything down--except government spending--and locking everyone up. So there's absolutely no reason to be admitting people from foreign countries to come live here! And then there is jobs. The economy is in the tank, millions are out of work. The only reason for immigration is ... to continue to balkanize the nation and import Democrat (big state) voters. In this situation, any nationalist politician who can't rhetorically defend a complete moratorium and savage the Democrats over their obviously anti-American position/hypocrisy is incompetent. So where is the hard moratorium and vigorous take-no-prisoners defense of it? (We've still taken in immigrants and actually taken in refugees! Insane.)
Again, any white or any clear thinking non-white who appreciates America, and American heritage like republicanism and rule-of-law must vote for Trump. This election is basically a "shit test" for American--is it still America or some pathetic 3rd world kleptocracy.
But "must vote for Trump" is far, far different than "Trump's done a good job" or "Trump's always in our corner" or "Trump has really delivered for us". Fact is Trump's all over the map. It's just he's the nationalist we've got.
Which implicitly brings up the question of whether full citizenship status should be determined by how closely the prospective citizen tracks the prevailing political trend. There should be a class of immigrant which grants full personal rights, such as criminal and property rights, to the foreigner, but denies him and his progeny voting or political rights. Part of their proscriptions would prevent them from contributing directly or indirectly to a political campaign. It doesn’t make sense to allow a shift in the governing ethos by simply importing “citizens” with a predictable viewpoint.
I believe this sort of treatment is extended to Iranian Jews, who enjoy full personal freedoms (as much as Iran allows any citizen) and full protection, but limited or nonexisting voting rights.
Any immigrant unhappy with that status will not be forced to immigrate against his will.
Study the history: Jews were the enablers of the Moorish conquest of Spain.
Somehow that becomes “great deal of quarreling… and one of the warring factions thought…”
This is one of those subjects like the “Jewish slaves built the pyramids” where ignorant shabbos goys perpetuate the lies long after the Jews themselves have published the facts.
Jews are proud of what they did in Spain. It was a grand success they call the Golden Age. Check the encyclopedia of Jewish history etc for the prideful accounts of this and many other interesting Jewish victories of history that castrated gentiles pretend never happened.
KEEP POLISHING THOSE BOOTS SHABBOS
Move on to DNA testing, enforcement, deportation for all the frauds that come though as phoney children, as fake family members. Somalis especially guilty. And they are the most useless immigrants/refugees ever, though I must check out the recent Congolese upsurge.
I would also plant an ID chip on all legal immigrants and refugees.
No, to be fair, immigrants who would change the outcome of an election have no business voting — or immigrating in the first place.
"Immigration" of the sort that is sacred today makes absolutely no sense, is deeply un-natural and is historically unprecedented.
What has happened historically is not "immigration" but "conquest". A people move in and take over a territory from some weaker--perhaps even more civilized but just militarily weaker--group.
"Immigration" to the Americas was not today's immigration, but rather "conquest"--Europeans taking control of territory from the natives. America's historic immigration was in this vein. In part to secure territory quickly to ward off competition from Spanish/Mexicans or British/Canadians and secure it for Americans. But the frontier closed 130 or 140 years ago. There was no reason for any immigration after that. It's presence was mostly motivated by the age old "cheap labor" shilling. And now--taking true foreigners from other civilizations--it is flat out invasion, taking America from Americans.
There is absolute no necessity for any immigration. But say you wanted to invite a sprinkling of very smart talented people--"oh, this guy's becoming an expert on thorium cycle, let's keep him"--who strongly support America's founding principles and want to join us. Even then, a reasonable policy to protect the nation's integrity would be that immigrants do not vote. Perhaps do not vote for generations until they are part native through their parents marrying into native stock. If you had such policies real immigrants of the sort you wanted--people who actually wanted to join the nation--would understand.
Some states are permissive about granting voting rights to (legal im)migrants, e.g. to Californians who fan out across the US. Rights can become vested in just several months.
That does not bother me.
It does bug the heck out of me, however, that legal access to “free” (tax-funded) services, such as public preK-12, occurs immediately.
US citizens, who domicile in a state different from their legal one and intend to acquire residency there, who do not yet qualify for in-state tuition at new-State U, should also be made to wait to qualify for free public services.
While I strongly believe that such services need to be abolished, a five year waiting period doesn’t sound unreasonable.
But immigrants from foreign lands should never be allowed to acquire the tax leeching rights of native borns.
Naturalized, US citizens should not be eligible for:
• government employment. I don’t want any more lectures, in impossibly thick accents, coming at me from behind the counter at the DMV.
• public school attendance. I don’t want to pay for anyone else’s kids, and especially not for them to learn to speak English.
• primary care at ERs. Eight hours in the waiting area (that’s off-peak) is ridiculous.
Etc and so forth.
You lost me.Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Muggles
Are you living in the 19th century, or do you have sources that this is being revived? It's true some municipalities now allow non-citizens to vote in their local elections, but not for state or federal offices.Replies: @Abolish_public_education
And this is how you want to treat immigrants who have become citizens? You can't be serious.
If you don't want a lot of tax dollars to go to immigrants, we have to have a lot fewer immigrants. That I actually agree with. But once they're here we are stuck. That's just the reality of the situation.Replies: @Charon
Somehow that becomes "great deal of quarreling... and one of the warring factions thought..."
This is one of those subjects like the "Jewish slaves built the pyramids" where ignorant shabbos goys perpetuate the lies long after the Jews themselves have published the facts.
Jews are proud of what they did in Spain. It was a grand success they call the Golden Age. Check the encyclopedia of Jewish history etc for the prideful accounts of this and many other interesting Jewish victories of history that castrated gentiles pretend never happened.
KEEP POLISHING THOSE BOOTS SHABBOSReplies: @RonaldB, @Anonymous
I hate to break it to you, but although Jews may have worked with Muslim rulers during the Moorish rule of Spain, it was actually Spanish nobles who invited the Muslims into Spain to help with the internecine wars. Check it out: https://smile.amazon.com/History-Jihad-Muhammad-ISIS/dp/1682616592/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2UBG1N636OOH4&dchild=1&keywords=history+of+jihad+robert+spencer&qid=1598648104&sprefix=history+of+jih%2Caps%2C163&sr=8-1
Just end it. We never needed them, we certainly don't need them now --- America is full already.Replies: @RonaldB
Yeah, you missed one.
End dual citizenship. Stop giving immigrants with loyalty to other countries a safety net. You either owe allegiance to the US or you don’t. If a prospective citizen is not willing to renounce his previous citizenship, or a US citizen is willing to declare loyalty to another country, that is their country. This includes dual citizenship with Israel, Mexico, Hungary or any other country.
That is Trump’s action on Naturalization.The immigrants are already here. Trump’s real action on immigration is in shutting down visa offices abroad and immigration offices here in U.S. It also helps that airline shutdown/travel restrictions mean no foreigners of any kind coming over. If Covid continues, immigration will wither away. High unemployment, especially in service businesses, is also a good thing in repelling immigration. All in all, Covid is not an unmitigated disaster.
That struck me too. “Would-be citizens” means “non-citizens”, i.e. foreigners.
And if these “would-be citizen” votes would “sway the election” that suggests they are voting strongly *against the interests of the native populations* which mathematically/logically suggests they are an unfriendly, invading presence. Not people you want.
The verbal logic of this isn’t exactly rocket science.
I thought this gal was maybe one of these silly herd-following fellow-traveller young white women. Rampell, to me, seemed like maybe an Anglo-Norman type name. Didn’t strike me as Jewish. But … sure ‘nough.
There just seems to be a nasty anti-native tick–“f’you yokels”–for Jews that’s “in the blood” or comes with their mother’s milk … or something. It seems to take almost a dissident personality type–Stephen Miller–to think of your fellow citizens as “my fellow citizens” and be a patriot.
Michael, this is true, but misses the point.
There’s no doubt that from the policy perspective Trump has been much, much, much better than Hillary. (Whether better for the nation?–Who knows, that’s in the realm of alternative history. Hillary’s sheer unpleasantness certainly would have turned a lot off people off.)
But the point is that Trump could have and should have been much more effective.
Most obviously: the Xi virus was a gift opportunity for a full immigration moratorium.
The Democrats own rhetoric is about shutting everything down–except government spending–and locking everyone up. So there’s absolutely no reason to be admitting people from foreign countries to come live here! And then there is jobs. The economy is in the tank, millions are out of work. The only reason for immigration is … to continue to balkanize the nation and import Democrat (big state) voters. In this situation, any nationalist politician who can’t rhetorically defend a complete moratorium and savage the Democrats over their obviously anti-American position/hypocrisy is incompetent. So where is the hard moratorium and vigorous take-no-prisoners defense of it? (We’ve still taken in immigrants and actually taken in refugees! Insane.)
Again, any white or any clear thinking non-white who appreciates America, and American heritage like republicanism and rule-of-law must vote for Trump. This election is basically a “shit test” for American–is it still America or some pathetic 3rd world kleptocracy.
But “must vote for Trump” is far, far different than “Trump’s done a good job” or “Trump’s always in our corner” or “Trump has really delivered for us”. Fact is Trump’s all over the map. It’s just he’s the nationalist we’ve got.
For example, what free public service should the US citizen of Texas not be able to receive when he moves to Colorado?
You lost me.
If the Texan wants freebies, he’s welcome to stay put.
(My larger point was that those “free” services should not be available to bona fide residents, either).
Government "services" provided to citizens are often restricted to state residents who have to prove residency for a certain period of time (this varies by state of course.) Even local school district, city and county services are sometimes restricted. There aren't that many "free" services either.
A major one is "in state tuition" for college students, which is always much lower, or free for residents than for non residents. Another is hunting and fishing licenses. For some game you have to be a state resident for X length of time to get a license, or in some cases pay a much higher permit fee. Certain welfare benefits are restricted to state residents (Medicaid, special grants, etc.).
And if you manage to lift your head high enough you might see a foreign country to the north or south. Do you think you can waltz into Mexico or Canada to get the same "free services" their citizens get? Obviously you didn't bother to think or check the facts.
You probably don't treat strangers the same way you treat your family members either. Or is your home stuffed full of "homeless" and random people? Humanity has always been like that, for good reason.
This was true in the 19th century, but died out when Arkansas was the last to repeal such a privilege in 1926.
Are you living in the 19th century, or do you have sources that this is being revived? It’s true some municipalities now allow non-citizens to vote in their local elections, but not for state or federal offices.
In my previous comment, the abbreviated term “legal im[..]” was meant to include naturalized citizens (sorry if that confused) among the population segment that can legally migrate from state to state (and quickly acquire voting rights).
But back to the present, when legal Californians migrate to WA, if their kids attend UW, they do not immediately qualify for in-state tuition. Why should their kids in preK-12 immediately qualify for zero tuition?
Well said, Ben. This can’t be repeated enough.
“Immigration” of the sort that is sacred today makes absolutely no sense, is deeply un-natural and is historically unprecedented.
What has happened historically is not “immigration” but “conquest”. A people move in and take over a territory from some weaker–perhaps even more civilized but just militarily weaker–group.
“Immigration” to the Americas was not today’s immigration, but rather “conquest”–Europeans taking control of territory from the natives. America’s historic immigration was in this vein. In part to secure territory quickly to ward off competition from Spanish/Mexicans or British/Canadians and secure it for Americans. But the frontier closed 130 or 140 years ago. There was no reason for any immigration after that. It’s presence was mostly motivated by the age old “cheap labor” shilling. And now–taking true foreigners from other civilizations–it is flat out invasion, taking America from Americans.
There is absolute no necessity for any immigration. But say you wanted to invite a sprinkling of very smart talented people–“oh, this guy’s becoming an expert on thorium cycle, let’s keep him”–who strongly support America’s founding principles and want to join us. Even then, a reasonable policy to protect the nation’s integrity would be that immigrants do not vote. Perhaps do not vote for generations until they are part native through their parents marrying into native stock. If you had such policies real immigrants of the sort you wanted–people who actually wanted to join the nation–would understand.
I think you are misinformed. Please study a book on American civics and government.
Stephen Miller is one in a thousand–possibly one in a million. If he didn’t look quite so ghoulish he could leverage his intellect and his perspective into a real career in politics. As things stand, I don’t know.
One of the strange things about elections–especially elections won by Democrats–is that they are played in the media as total, nationwide renunciations of everything the losing opposition stood for. Even if the election result is 51% to 49%.
So I don’t know what career options will be open to any patriots after November. The Dems have promised a scorched-earth policy, and this is before they’ve even won.
Here they are freely admitting their plan.
“To be fair…”
Hahaha haha haha
I believe this sort of treatment is extended to Iranian Jews, who enjoy full personal freedoms (as much as Iran allows any citizen) and full protection, but limited or nonexisting voting rights.
Any immigrant unhappy with that status will not be forced to immigrate against his will.Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
Iran requires that there be a Jewish representative in their legislature, interestingly. They can’t hold the highest offices or be head of state, but neither can women.
Prior to that, the Spanish Crown invited Americans into the basically empty area of Northern New Spain called “Tejas” because the Spaniards had deliberately de-populated the place due to the the circa 1800 rebellion against the Crown.
After the successful 1824 Mexican independence the Mexicans continued the same practice as the Spanish Crown. In order to have at least somebody other than nomadic warrior Indian tribes there.
After Santa Anna took over Mexico, abrogated their 1824 constitution, during that period almost all of Mexico’s states rebelled against Santa Anna. But he had an army and was a pretty good military commander so he put down most of the rebellions. With brute force.
See the massacre at Zacatecas for a taste of Santa Anna’s forces following his orders.
News travels fast even in those days. After that, The Alamo, and Goliad Massacre, The Texians weren’t going to allow Santa Anna to wipe them out. They and Sam Houston caught him napping, literally, at San Jacinto after a Fabius The Delayer style campaign.
It was an un-fair fight, Santa Anna had far more resources. The underdogs won that time.
You lost me.Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Muggles
The new Coloradan should not be allowed to use that state’s public schools, state mental/health services, etc. for at least five years.
If the Texan wants freebies, he’s welcome to stay put.
(My larger point was that those “free” services should not be available to bona fide residents, either).
Are you living in the 19th century, or do you have sources that this is being revived? It's true some municipalities now allow non-citizens to vote in their local elections, but not for state or federal offices.Replies: @Abolish_public_education
I wasn’t referring to bygone days when new, US (now known as illegal) immigrants were allowed to vote (although I do not oppose such allowances).
In my previous comment, the abbreviated term “legal im[..]” was meant to include naturalized citizens (sorry if that confused) among the population segment that can legally migrate from state to state (and quickly acquire voting rights).
But back to the present, when legal Californians migrate to WA, if their kids attend UW, they do not immediately qualify for in-state tuition. Why should their kids in preK-12 immediately qualify for zero tuition?
I can’t agree with you. I don’t want to live in a country full of uneducated illiterates who can’t speak English who only have crime as a way to support themselves. Same thing with ERs. Keep the immigrants out of them and you have disease spread like crazy and sick and injured people on the street with nowhere to go.
And this is how you want to treat immigrants who have become citizens? You can’t be serious.
If you don’t want a lot of tax dollars to go to immigrants, we have to have a lot fewer immigrants. That I actually agree with. But once they’re here we are stuck. That’s just the reality of the situation.
And of course the North American Indians who figured these pathetic Europeans weren’t much of a threat, why not use some of their cool stuff to get a leg up on that annoying neighboring tribe.
I guess they’re done with the Mail-In Voting/Trump’s Post Office thing, and they’ve pivoted to New Citizen Voting/Trump’s Immigration & Naturalization, but once again, they’re being stymied by Covid and bureaucratic inefficiency.
FWIW, my wife became a citizen ten years ago, and her humiliating treatment by a string of black women during the arduous, lengthy process turned her away from the Democrat party forever.
You lost me.Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Muggles
Have you tried a web search using the term “state residency requirements” or similar? I thought not.
Government “services” provided to citizens are often restricted to state residents who have to prove residency for a certain period of time (this varies by state of course.) Even local school district, city and county services are sometimes restricted. There aren’t that many “free” services either.
A major one is “in state tuition” for college students, which is always much lower, or free for residents than for non residents. Another is hunting and fishing licenses. For some game you have to be a state resident for X length of time to get a license, or in some cases pay a much higher permit fee. Certain welfare benefits are restricted to state residents (Medicaid, special grants, etc.).
And if you manage to lift your head high enough you might see a foreign country to the north or south. Do you think you can waltz into Mexico or Canada to get the same “free services” their citizens get? Obviously you didn’t bother to think or check the facts.
You probably don’t treat strangers the same way you treat your family members either. Or is your home stuffed full of “homeless” and random people? Humanity has always been like that, for good reason.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-banksy-alarm/italy-sends-help-to-banksys-overloaded-migrant-rescue-boat-idUSKBN25P0EP
Italy, which just a generation or two ago was one of the most delightful places on earth, is now being consistently trashed. And the Italian government is welcoming it.
And this is how you want to treat immigrants who have become citizens? You can't be serious.
If you don't want a lot of tax dollars to go to immigrants, we have to have a lot fewer immigrants. That I actually agree with. But once they're here we are stuck. That's just the reality of the situation.Replies: @Charon
Yes, let’s keep the immigrants out of the country to begin with and we won’t have to deal with them wrecking everything.
I could see 50,000 or even 100,000 a year on merit or even humanitarian grounds, but not 1.5 million or more year after year.
We’re turning into just another third-world toilet like the ones they came from. Who could have predicted this?
Somehow that becomes "great deal of quarreling... and one of the warring factions thought..."
This is one of those subjects like the "Jewish slaves built the pyramids" where ignorant shabbos goys perpetuate the lies long after the Jews themselves have published the facts.
Jews are proud of what they did in Spain. It was a grand success they call the Golden Age. Check the encyclopedia of Jewish history etc for the prideful accounts of this and many other interesting Jewish victories of history that castrated gentiles pretend never happened.
KEEP POLISHING THOSE BOOTS SHABBOSReplies: @RonaldB, @Anonymous
The Golden Age of Spain is a 19th-century invention, part of the Kulturkampf struggle between Germany’s Catholics and Protestants. The Protestants were looking to paint their Catholic opponents as hidebound conservatives by playing up the persecution under the Spanish inquisition, and the German Jews threw in their lot with the Protestants because they expected more help from them towards gaining full emancipation. During that time many Jews converted to Protestant Christianity, almost no Jew converted to the Catholic religion.
Rome conquered Greece when the Aetolian League asked for help against the Macedonians.