Reply to So, Republicans, fix immigration!

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "So, Republicans, fix immigration!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

NP.  Re: the bolded, this is very true.  And why aren't the Democrats/liberals "whining" or outraged about illegal ([b]NOT[/b] undocumented) immigrants?  Because they're too busy pandering to them and making sure they feel welcome in this country.  They protest against ending sanctuary cities.  They refuse to admit that illegal immigrants are here ILLEGALLY.  In short, they're defending people who are breaking the law.  I have zero respect for anyone who feel some people should get a pass when it comes to obeying the law.  They are utter hypocrites.[/quote]

OK. So, why aren't the Republicans doing something about it?[/quote]

It's already been answered several times, so stop asking.  Liberals are blocking their efforts every step of the way.  I'm just glad that Rep. Barbara Comstock introduced a bill to immediately deport gang members.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-passes-comstock-bill-targeting-immigrant-members-of-ms-13-gang/2017/09/14/71e97ce0-9956-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.599fb59e32e2   
But, oh look!  
"[b]The bill was slammed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued it would promote racial profiling, erode due process and unintentionally affect others, such as clergy who try to help gang members[/b]."  And this:

"Democrats speaking against the bill said they agreed there must be a way to curtail MS-13, but Comstock’s bill would have unintended consequences and face legal challenges. 
“We all agree MS-13 is a problem and I think she’d be better served by working in a bipartisan manner to find a responsible solution rather than doing something on her own that’s probably dead on arrival in the Senate,” Beyer said after the vote.
[b]Immigrant advocates objected to the bill, saying it would give law enforcement wide latitude in designating groups of people as gangs and seeking to deport, detain or block their asylum before a crime has been committed.
[/b]“This feels just like yet another barely thinly veiled attempt to criminalize and demonize immigrants in order to justify what this administration has consistently promoted as their commitment to a massive deportation regime,” said Avideh Moussavian, a senior policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

So you see, despite the best efforts of Republicans, liberals just can't stop themselves from declaring [i]even deportation of MS-13 members[/i], somehow wrong.  So liberals - take a good look in the mirror at exactly what's stopping our immigration laws from being enforced.  You.[/quote]

Don't have enough R votes, eh? Isn't that what you meant to say? 
[/quote]

Here's a question for you:  why do you defend illegal immigration and sanctuary cities?  Why do you support law breakers?  We'll wait.[/quote]

There is a guy out there on the internet who applies the idea of r/k  selection theory to the political left and right.  Arguably he has the best explanation for why the left seems to prioritize from the outgroup rather than the national ingroup as being biologically successful when a R strategist moves to a new population or see an influx of foreigners into their nation as the R selected individual is conflict averse (and if the R selected individual desires conflict will use governmental power rather than their own physical power to intervene on their behalf).

In an R selected environment, resources are plentiful. Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

In a resource limited environment, or K selected environment, the K type will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire limited resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Modern politics could easily be described as conflict between these two strategies.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics