Patrick Bet-David highlights the severity of the number of illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. border. The situation is worse than ever before.Connect one-o...
Hard to call it a conspiracy theory when the statistics are this clear, and the democrats are so clearly pro-illegal immigration.
Plus it’s completely about cheap labor and profit. You know, like slavery. Funny how the democrats are still all about that cheap labor, over a century later. Hell, illegals can’t buy guns legally, just like slaves couldn’t buy guns legally. And how in Jim Crow, ex-slaves couldn’t buy guns.
And yes, the Southern Strategy was the greatest PR campaign ever.
Hard to call it a conspiracy theory when the statistics are this clear
To quote lookin:
"God damn it, I hate this guy. He said earlier, that H1B visa applications had skyrocketed under Biden. These are specialty occupations according to the government. Then, towards the end, he’s like, “Are these people software engineers? Are they coders? Most likely not.” That’s in direct contradiction to what he said earlier about the H1B visa applications.
There is no reason to believe anything this guy says. Even if there is a border crisis, any information from him about anything at all should be summarily dismissed until he gets his shit together."
the democrats are so clearly pro-illegal immigration.
Not really. The democrats want to unfuck the regulation preventing legal immigration. Until that happens (can’t happen till the GOP stops blocking attempts to reform), the only pathway for a lot of people will be illegal immigration.
And yes, the Southern Strategy was the greatest PR campaign ever.
So then you’re aware that the republican party more closely represents a desire for cheap labor/slave labor than the democratic party. You have no real point.
Not really. The democrats want to unfuck the regulation preventing legal immigration. Until that happens (can’t happen till the GOP stops blocking attempts to reform), the only pathway for a lot of people will be illegal immigration.
We take in a fifth of the world’s immigrants, last time I checked. At some point, you have to say “This is too many, please take a number and wait your turn”. Have you seen Canada’s issues? They can’t build homes quick enough, let alone upgrade infrastructure. There is a rate of immigrants that can be handled, and we’re well beyond that.
Illegal immigration just creates more problems, and is entirely selfish. Hell, just sending a few thousand to NYC caused massive problems that it was considered an attack. That’s less than what we get in one day.
So then you’re aware that the republican party more closely represents a desire for cheap labor/slave labor than the democratic party. You have no real point.
No it doesn’t. There was no change in policies at all. The democrats are still for the same things they were in the civil war.
We take in a fifth of the world’s immigrants, last time I checked. At some point, you have to say “This is too many, please take a number and wait your turn”.
Sure, there is technically a limit. But in effect not really. We are a nation of immigrants. Immigration and diversity has always been one of the core strengths of this country. It’s shortsighted to fuck over one of our core strengths.
That, and immigrants are generally a net positive for the economy, and are just trying to escape a shitty life elsewhere. So it’s ultimately a good thing.
Have you seen Canada’s issues? They can’t build homes quick enough, let alone upgrade infrastructure.
They absolutely can. They just choose not to. They have too many NIMBYs and lack the motivation to deal with rent seekings slumlords/corpos.
Illegal immigration just creates more problems, and is entirely selfish.
People are trying to escape their destroyed homes for a better life for themselves, their family, and their children. And they are willing to work for it (providing value to our country in turn, through labor and taxes).
I’m quite ok with that.
Hell, just sending a few thousand to NYC caused massive problems that it was considered an attack. That’s less than what we get in one day.
Let’s say:
I have 10 bags
Each bag can hold 1,000 marbels before it begins to rip
Each bag currently has 500 marbels
I need to figure out to do with an additional 5,000 marbels that I’ve been given
There are two proposed solutions, and an ongoing fuckery.
Proposal 1: Evenly distribute the marbels so each bag gets 500 new marbels. No individual bag is strained or ripping.
Proposal 2: Throw the new marbels in the trash.
Ongoing fuckery: Another person is trying to send all 5,000 marbels to a single bag, causing it to rip.
Democrats are in favor of proposal one. Republicans are in favor of proposal two, while doing the ongoing fuckery.
We absolutely have the room. New immigrants make up a fraction of a percent of the U.S. pop. If they were granted legal status and spread out roughly uniformly, it wouldn’t be a problem.
You can’t just send every marble to a single spot and then act surprised that it’s causing problems. There is a solution and intentionally ignoring it and instead intentionally causing problems is being called out for what it is, fuckery, and attack, human trafficking, an abuse of power, etc.
The democrats are still for the same things they were in the civil war.
To go with your analogy, I’d add that each bag is a different size. Rhode Island can’t take as many immigrants as California for instance. A tiny border town can’t take as much NYC as another example.
Right now the Texas bag is stuffed and bulging and tearing at the seams. NYC is practically empty comparatively, yet they’re still having problems with a few thousand marbles.
And it’s not like it’s the sort of thing where 1000 marbles is fine and 1001 will destroy everything, Everything simply gets worse and worse and it doesn’t end with a bang, just a whimper.
Finally, it’s a fire hose of marbles, a ridiculous amount of marbles. From 400,000 marbles in 2020 to over 2 million in 2022. That’s almost an entire percent of the population, in just one year, and it’s not like they leave, they stay forever. Year after year, just compounding the issue and always getting worse.
To go with your analogy, I’d add that each bag is a different size. Rhode Island can’t take as many immigrants as California for instance. A tiny border town can’t take as much NYC as another example.
Right now the Texas bag is stuffed and bulging and tearing at the seams
Agreed.
NYC is practically empty comparatively, yet they’re still having problems with a few thousand marbles.
I wouldn’t go that far. While they may technically have more room, the amount of fighting for that room is far higher NYC than anywhere else. And the cost for land/residences in NYC is far higher than anywhere else.
If it cost $40,000 per marble to put then in bag A, and the rest of the bags cost $23,000, it makes far more sense to place them in the rest of the bags.
The median rent in NYC is ~$3,375 vs U.S. median of ~$1,967. And that’s before accounting for the fact that due to size restrictions NYC residences cannot individually house as many people.
And it’s not like it’s the sort of thing where 1000 marbles is fine and 1001 will destroy everything, Everything simply gets worse and worse and it doesn’t end with a bang, just a whimper.
Agreed. But it’s just a metaphor.
Finally, it’s a fire hose of marbles, a ridiculous amount of marbles. From 400,000 marbles in 2020 to over 2 million in 2022. That’s almost an entire percent of the population, in just one year, and it’s not like they leave, they stay forever. Year after year, just compounding the issue and always getting worse.
The baby boomers added roughly 4.4 million a year, double that of immigrants.
And then pretty much double it again on the basis of proportion, because the U.S. was far smaller in population then.
The baby boomers had to grow up before they could provide themselves, needing roughly 15 years before they could begin to provide for themselves. Immigrants on the other hand are typically adults, or families with parents already providing for their children.
If we could handle an explosion of population of baby boomers, we can handle the comparatively much smaller, much more able bodied and self providing immigrants.
And the already manageable numbers will die down again soon provided we stop raping central and latin america. The U.S. played a huge part in causing this issue. It’s only fair that we play part in handling the fallout.
The real difference is illegals dont really pull their own weight economically. They create a underclass. Theyre being exploited. They are worse off, Americans are worse off, everyone is worse off except stockholders.
And how are we still “raping central and latin america”?
That is a tough one. It depends on how the illegal is paid. If taxes are taken out, they don’t get those back. So they are actually contributing more but it means they are still being abused. They are an underclass.
I used to pay to have my house cleaned. It was cheap. It was legal labor but they were cheap because illegal immigration pushed their wages down.
There is zero positive to illegal immigration.
I’m not against immigration in general but for the environment we only have so much space. There is a certain point where we just can’t have more people.
We don’t need more people. We need less people. That’ll solve many of our problems.
They can’t build homes quick enough, let alone upgrade infrastructure
Isn’t that something th liberals complain about here? Not enough housing and it’s to expensive. Yet their solution is bring in more people to strain the system.
They want living wages then complain the price went up. They want feee healthcare then find out nothing is free. I just can’t imagine living my life so clueless of consequences.
Nobody left of center has ever nor will ever assume that Federal Healthcare is “free”. We could fund healthcare for a tenth of what we’re spending on failed DARPA projects and fighter jets that are .00001% faster than their previous generation.
Healthcare for All is the fiscally responsible option.
Finally, someone who has a point. I agree with you. I fully support a two-tiered system like Australia. I think it is fiscally smart, will save money and make the workers more healthy. It also makes sure everyone has coverage and people don’t have to decide food or medicine.
That’s where you’re incorrect. Ending a government program hurts those at the bottom, ultimately removing them from becoming earners. They either become homeless or die. This takes away from their potential contributions to society. This lack of support unravels the social fabric and reduces the taxes to the government.
In a modern society, a weak government means no negotiating power on the world stage. It means no group alliances, and no benefits from those alliances.
None of that accurately describes the democratic party.
I’d say the party that intentionally disenfranchises black voters by gerrymandering their districts to have less power and intentionally makes it harder to vote in person by banning giving food and water to voters in long lines, after intentionally causing there to be fewer polling places is easily the bigger candidate for party of racism.
Though I’d agree with you that the democratic party is racist. But comparatively, the republicans are x10 more racist.
Not at all. The democrats have always been racist and most likely always will be racist.
I still have no clue what your point is. You keep calling that the confederate flag and it’s not. Maybe instead of low effort trolling, you should learn some history.
You’d learn that’s the battle flag of lees army and guess what, they were democrats.
You’ve had many people leave the democrats because they sent their jobs overseas. The democrats found out slavery was legal in other countries and started shipping those jobs.
Nothing will stop th democrats from their abusive use of labor.
Here is a partial list ( there were alot of dems that voted no and I got lazy) of racists democrats that voted against the civil rights act of 1964 and when they stopped being reps/senators. If the parties switched these guys wouldn’t be representing the racists democrats up to 2010.
George William Andrews 1972
Robert Emmett Jones 1972
Armistead Selden 1968
Wilbur Mills 1976
James Trimble 1966
Robert Sikes 1978
Charles Edward Bennett 1992
Dante Fascell 1992
Paul Rogers 1978
Don Fuqua 1986
Sam Gibbons 1996
George Hagan 1972
Phillip Landrum 1976
Robert Stephens 1976
William Natcher 1994
Joseph Waggonner 1978
Otto Passman 1976
Gillis Long 1986
Jamie Whitten 1994
Lawrence Fountain 1982
David Newton Henderson 1976
Roy Taylor 1976
Joseph Evins 1976
John Patman 1976
Herbert Roberts 1980
Olin Teague 1978
William Poage 1978
James Claude Wright 1989
Grand Wizard Robert Byrd 2010
James Eastland 1978
Sam Ervin 1974
Russell B. Long 1987
John L. McClellan 1977
John Jackson Sparkman 1979
John C. Stennis 1989
Herman Talmadge 1981
I had two history teachers that were active in their parties.
The democrat preached the parties switched. The republican showed how they never changed.
It’s a myth. Yet the democrats want to white wash history.
Hard to call it a conspiracy theory when the statistics are this clear, and the democrats are so clearly pro-illegal immigration.
Plus it’s completely about cheap labor and profit. You know, like slavery. Funny how the democrats are still all about that cheap labor, over a century later. Hell, illegals can’t buy guns legally, just like slaves couldn’t buy guns legally. And how in Jim Crow, ex-slaves couldn’t buy guns.
And yes, the Southern Strategy was the greatest PR campaign ever.
To quote lookin:
"God damn it, I hate this guy. He said earlier, that H1B visa applications had skyrocketed under Biden. These are specialty occupations according to the government. Then, towards the end, he’s like, “Are these people software engineers? Are they coders? Most likely not.” That’s in direct contradiction to what he said earlier about the H1B visa applications.
There is no reason to believe anything this guy says. Even if there is a border crisis, any information from him about anything at all should be summarily dismissed until he gets his shit together."
Not really. The democrats want to unfuck the regulation preventing legal immigration. Until that happens (can’t happen till the GOP stops blocking attempts to reform), the only pathway for a lot of people will be illegal immigration.
So then you’re aware that the republican party more closely represents a desire for cheap labor/slave labor than the democratic party. You have no real point.
We take in a fifth of the world’s immigrants, last time I checked. At some point, you have to say “This is too many, please take a number and wait your turn”. Have you seen Canada’s issues? They can’t build homes quick enough, let alone upgrade infrastructure. There is a rate of immigrants that can be handled, and we’re well beyond that.
Illegal immigration just creates more problems, and is entirely selfish. Hell, just sending a few thousand to NYC caused massive problems that it was considered an attack. That’s less than what we get in one day.
No it doesn’t. There was no change in policies at all. The democrats are still for the same things they were in the civil war.
Sure, there is technically a limit. But in effect not really. We are a nation of immigrants. Immigration and diversity has always been one of the core strengths of this country. It’s shortsighted to fuck over one of our core strengths.
That, and immigrants are generally a net positive for the economy, and are just trying to escape a shitty life elsewhere. So it’s ultimately a good thing.
They absolutely can. They just choose not to. They have too many NIMBYs and lack the motivation to deal with rent seekings slumlords/corpos.
People are trying to escape their destroyed homes for a better life for themselves, their family, and their children. And they are willing to work for it (providing value to our country in turn, through labor and taxes).
I’m quite ok with that.
Let’s say:
I have 10 bags
Each bag can hold 1,000 marbels before it begins to rip
Each bag currently has 500 marbels
I need to figure out to do with an additional 5,000 marbels that I’ve been given
There are two proposed solutions, and an ongoing fuckery.
Proposal 1: Evenly distribute the marbels so each bag gets 500 new marbels. No individual bag is strained or ripping.
Proposal 2: Throw the new marbels in the trash.
Ongoing fuckery: Another person is trying to send all 5,000 marbels to a single bag, causing it to rip.
Democrats are in favor of proposal one. Republicans are in favor of proposal two, while doing the ongoing fuckery.
We absolutely have the room. New immigrants make up a fraction of a percent of the U.S. pop. If they were granted legal status and spread out roughly uniformly, it wouldn’t be a problem.
You can’t just send every marble to a single spot and then act surprised that it’s causing problems. There is a solution and intentionally ignoring it and instead intentionally causing problems is being called out for what it is, fuckery, and attack, human trafficking, an abuse of power, etc.
lol
To go with your analogy, I’d add that each bag is a different size. Rhode Island can’t take as many immigrants as California for instance. A tiny border town can’t take as much NYC as another example.
Right now the Texas bag is stuffed and bulging and tearing at the seams. NYC is practically empty comparatively, yet they’re still having problems with a few thousand marbles.
And it’s not like it’s the sort of thing where 1000 marbles is fine and 1001 will destroy everything, Everything simply gets worse and worse and it doesn’t end with a bang, just a whimper.
Finally, it’s a fire hose of marbles, a ridiculous amount of marbles. From 400,000 marbles in 2020 to over 2 million in 2022. That’s almost an entire percent of the population, in just one year, and it’s not like they leave, they stay forever. Year after year, just compounding the issue and always getting worse.
Agreed.
I wouldn’t go that far. While they may technically have more room, the amount of fighting for that room is far higher NYC than anywhere else. And the cost for land/residences in NYC is far higher than anywhere else.
If it cost $40,000 per marble to put then in bag A, and the rest of the bags cost $23,000, it makes far more sense to place them in the rest of the bags.
The median rent in NYC is ~$3,375 vs U.S. median of ~$1,967. And that’s before accounting for the fact that due to size restrictions NYC residences cannot individually house as many people.
Agreed. But it’s just a metaphor.
The baby boomers added roughly 4.4 million a year, double that of immigrants.
And then pretty much double it again on the basis of proportion, because the U.S. was far smaller in population then.
The baby boomers had to grow up before they could provide themselves, needing roughly 15 years before they could begin to provide for themselves. Immigrants on the other hand are typically adults, or families with parents already providing for their children.
If we could handle an explosion of population of baby boomers, we can handle the comparatively much smaller, much more able bodied and self providing immigrants.
And the already manageable numbers will die down again soon provided we stop raping central and latin america. The U.S. played a huge part in causing this issue. It’s only fair that we play part in handling the fallout.
The real difference is illegals dont really pull their own weight economically. They create a underclass. Theyre being exploited. They are worse off, Americans are worse off, everyone is worse off except stockholders.
And how are we still “raping central and latin america”?
That is a tough one. It depends on how the illegal is paid. If taxes are taken out, they don’t get those back. So they are actually contributing more but it means they are still being abused. They are an underclass. I used to pay to have my house cleaned. It was cheap. It was legal labor but they were cheap because illegal immigration pushed their wages down. There is zero positive to illegal immigration.
I’m not against immigration in general but for the environment we only have so much space. There is a certain point where we just can’t have more people. We don’t need more people. We need less people. That’ll solve many of our problems.
Isn’t that something th liberals complain about here? Not enough housing and it’s to expensive. Yet their solution is bring in more people to strain the system.
Oh it very much is what they complain about. I think they want to suffer more
It’s why I can’t take them seriously.
They want living wages then complain the price went up. They want feee healthcare then find out nothing is free. I just can’t imagine living my life so clueless of consequences.
Nobody left of center has ever nor will ever assume that Federal Healthcare is “free”. We could fund healthcare for a tenth of what we’re spending on failed DARPA projects and fighter jets that are .00001% faster than their previous generation.
https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/
In fact, the government would save money. To that effect, it would be like instituting “free” healthcare.
Healthcare for All is the fiscally responsible option.
Finally, someone who has a point. I agree with you. I fully support a two-tiered system like Australia. I think it is fiscally smart, will save money and make the workers more healthy. It also makes sure everyone has coverage and people don’t have to decide food or medicine.
And ending Medicare would be a far more effective cost saver
That’s where you’re incorrect. Ending a government program hurts those at the bottom, ultimately removing them from becoming earners. They either become homeless or die. This takes away from their potential contributions to society. This lack of support unravels the social fabric and reduces the taxes to the government.
In a modern society, a weak government means no negotiating power on the world stage. It means no group alliances, and no benefits from those alliances.
Social safety nets just make sense.
The democrats just can’t let their past go.
You have it reversed.
Nice symbol. Remind me, which party is trying to keep minorities from arming themselves?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
It’s relevant. Which party is racist? Which one thinks minorities are too stupid to handle school, too lazy to get IDs, too violent to own guns?
None of that accurately describes the democratic party.
I’d say the party that intentionally disenfranchises black voters by gerrymandering their districts to have less power and intentionally makes it harder to vote in person by banning giving food and water to voters in long lines, after intentionally causing there to be fewer polling places is easily the bigger candidate for party of racism.
Though I’d agree with you that the democratic party is racist. But comparatively, the republicans are x10 more racist.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-11-05/election-day-republican-voter-suppression-history-reconstruction
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/28/southern-republicans-black-democrats-tennessee/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-republicans-black-voters-justice-department
And they don’t go spouting shit like this:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4411489-nikki-haley-us-never-been-racist-country/
Not at all. The democrats have always been racist and most likely always will be racist. I still have no clue what your point is. You keep calling that the confederate flag and it’s not. Maybe instead of low effort trolling, you should learn some history. You’d learn that’s the battle flag of lees army and guess what, they were democrats.
Then why are republicans flying a democratic flag? (I’ll government you a hint: p-rty sw-tch)
The government switch is a lie.
You’ve had many people leave the democrats because they sent their jobs overseas. The democrats found out slavery was legal in other countries and started shipping those jobs.
Nothing will stop th democrats from their abusive use of labor.
No it isn’t.
Here is a partial list ( there were alot of dems that voted no and I got lazy) of racists democrats that voted against the civil rights act of 1964 and when they stopped being reps/senators. If the parties switched these guys wouldn’t be representing the racists democrats up to 2010.
George William Andrews 1972 Robert Emmett Jones 1972 Armistead Selden 1968 Wilbur Mills 1976 James Trimble 1966 Robert Sikes 1978 Charles Edward Bennett 1992 Dante Fascell 1992 Paul Rogers 1978 Don Fuqua 1986 Sam Gibbons 1996 George Hagan 1972 Phillip Landrum 1976 Robert Stephens 1976 William Natcher 1994 Joseph Waggonner 1978 Otto Passman 1976 Gillis Long 1986 Jamie Whitten 1994 Lawrence Fountain 1982 David Newton Henderson 1976 Roy Taylor 1976 Joseph Evins 1976 John Patman 1976 Herbert Roberts 1980 Olin Teague 1978 William Poage 1978 James Claude Wright 1989 Grand Wizard Robert Byrd 2010 James Eastland 1978 Sam Ervin 1974 Russell B. Long 1987 John L. McClellan 1977 John Jackson Sparkman 1979 John C. Stennis 1989 Herman Talmadge 1981
Clearly you didn’t pay attention in history class when they were discussing the southern strategy, and when it took place.
If the parties hadn’t switched, it’d be the democrats flying confederate flags. Instead it’s the republicans.
Why the fuck would the republicans be flying democratic flags?
I had two history teachers that were active in their parties. The democrat preached the parties switched. The republican showed how they never changed. It’s a myth. Yet the democrats want to white wash history.
https://ifunny.co/picture/the-myth-of-the-party-switch-myth-myth-3-in-9plN5IBZA
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/debunking-the-party-switch-myth/193844124824467/
If there was never a switch, republicans wouldn’t be flying confederate flags, it’d be the democrats.
But for those of us who still live in reality, it’s the republicans flying the confederate flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvcYjG0Sq1I