Anonymous wrote:I am pretty far left but I would prefer the Democrats move to the right on immigration. We cannot have what we want- medicare for all, low cost college, maternity leave, higher wages, stronger unions, low cost childcare- unless we have pretty strict limits on immigration. The Democrats' Wall Street and Silicon Valley stand in the way. I am waiting for common sense to break through.

Fail. Real progressives wants everyone to have access to those things, not just to redraw the line between the haves and have-nots to include themselves at the expense of others. But good on you for trying to imitate.

I am pretty far left but I would prefer the Democrats move to the right on immigration. We cannot have what we want- medicare for all, low cost college, maternity leave, higher wages, stronger unions, low cost childcare- unless we have pretty strict limits on immigration. The Democrats' Wall Street and Silicon Valley stand in the way. I am waiting for common sense to break through.

I know that Jon Tester is still pretty moderate on immigration. Any other Democrat or Independent senators that are as well?

Anonymous wrote:Some people learn from their mistakes and some people seem to make the same mistakes over and over again. No one specific group can be identified as one or the other. Anyway the argument is moot in this case because HRC lost the popular vote. DJT is where the north of Mexico buck stops.

She won the popular vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immigration is good.

OP here, and I agree. Legal, merit-based immigration is good.

Has she ever outright stated that illegal immigration is good? I know she is for DACA, but so are many Americans.

I don't know about Hillary but yes some Dems have outright praised illegal immigrants (looking at you Nancy) as if it's a virtue.

At the beginning of his campaign Bernie even had some frank speak on how illegal immigrants undercut wages for low income Americans... And then the party got to him and he shut up pretty quickly on that line.

Some people learn from their mistakes and some people seem to make the same mistakes over and over again. No one specific group can be identified as one or the other. Anyway the argument is moot in this case because HRC lost the popular vote. DJT is where the north of Mexico buck stops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Immigration is good.

OP here, and I agree. Legal, merit-based immigration is good.

Has she ever outright stated that illegal immigration is good? I know she is for DACA, but so are many Americans.

Anonymous wrote:“What if” goppers weren’t racist loons?
“What if” businesses were actually fined harshly enough to prevent them from hiring undocumented workers?
“What if” billionaires hadnt secreted away their money out of circulation?
“What if” you had put your source?

what are "goppers?"

Anonymous wrote:Immigration is good.

OP here, and I agree. Legal, merit-based immigration is good.

Anonymous wrote:“What if” goppers weren’t racist loons?
“What if” businesses were actually fined harshly enough to prevent them from hiring undocumented workers?
“What if” billionaires hadnt secreted away their money out of circulation?
“What if” you had put your source?

That's what passes for an "intelligent" response?
And the link was included immediately after the OP. Keep up.

Immigration is good.

woah this is from the atlantic?

“What if” goppers weren’t racist loons?
“What if” businesses were actually fined harshly enough to prevent them from hiring undocumented workers?
“What if” billionaires hadnt secreted away their money out of circulation?
“What if” you had put your source?

Interesting article containing a lot of truth about how HRC *might* have won in 2016 if she had taken a more serious approach to immigration, both legal and illegal. Of course, she would never have done this, but it's an interesting "what-if".

"In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today."