Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We have been giving ESOL and special education to Italians, Irish and others who immigrated in big numbers in the past too.

I'm just responding to this - as a first-gen and an educator.

My family learned English ("off the boat" Italians) in night school and on their own. It was "sink or swim" through the 1960s. However, event though we formalized the process, my family didn't have the opportunity NOT to learn b/c nothing was translated for them. So they arrived poor, worked their ass*es off, and learned the language.

So you are a brown person yourself. How can you now judge the Hispanic brown people? If at all anything Italian is the closest language to Spanish.

I think any immigrants are hardworking whether they are brown immigrants from Italy or Mx, Or white immigrants from Sweden, Or black immigrants from Jamaica.

Italians are not considered brown, and not all of us have olive complexions.

I am not judging; I am stating facts. My family didn't have it easy coming over. Once they arrived, they did everything they could to retain their culture w/in the home (and among their family and friends), but outside of the home, they were proud Americans.

You see - there came a point when building resilience and resourcefulness in people was replaced by enabling. I see it in the school system. We have created a Me Me nation where many are expecting handouts. You don't build people up by giving them everything.

Enter through legal avenues.
Learn English.
Work your a** off.
Be a role model for your kids.

Not all people are the same. I have had many students - majority Hispanic and African - who agree with me. When you enter a new country, you bend for the country, as it's providing you opportunities you supposedly didn't have in your country of birth, right? b/c if life was so good back home, why leave?

My family escaped poverty. My father barely had a home; it was crumbling. Christmas gits consisted of winter fruits. When he was alive, he had fond memories of Italy despite the obstacles that faced him, but he was proud of his accomplishments in the U. S. (Mom was luckier in that she was a "middle class" Italian, but the family knew that they could move ahead in the States.)

So the neo-libs can preach it all they want! You don't speak for all of us. And that assumption that we're all the same will be a negative force in 2020.

Italians were considered brown and were racially targeted by whites a hundred years ago. many still consider Italians brown. Italians are often confused with Syrians, Turks, Persians and even Indians. Now, would you call Persian or Indian white? But they are white.

You see what I am driving at, race is a social construct. A hundred years ago Italians weren’t considered white but today they are. What has changed? Just the social acceptance. The same Applies for Hispanics. Brown is the new white.

The immigrant blue collar Hispanics are struggling just like your uneducated, blue collar parents. Many work very hard and prosper. Some won’t. But that’s like any people. So they are no different than your Italian parents. But what you are not giving is the same benefit of the doubt you readily give your parents. Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We have been giving ESOL and special education to Italians, Irish and others who immigrated in big numbers in the past too.

I'm just responding to this - as a first-gen and an educator.

My family learned English ("off the boat" Italians) in night school and on their own. It was "sink or swim" through the 1960s. However, event though we formalized the process, my family didn't have the opportunity NOT to learn b/c nothing was translated for them. So they arrived poor, worked their ass*es off, and learned the language.

So you are a brown person yourself. How can you now judge the Hispanic brown people? If at all anything Italian is the closest language to Spanish.

I think any immigrants are hardworking whether they are brown immigrants from Italy or Mx, Or white immigrants from Sweden, Or black immigrants from Jamaica.

Italians are not considered brown, and not all of us have olive complexions.

I am not judging; I am stating facts. My family didn't have it easy coming over. Once they arrived, they did everything they could to retain their culture w/in the home (and among their family and friends), but outside of the home, they were proud Americans.

You see - there came a point when building resilience and resourcefulness in people was replaced by enabling. I see it in the school system. We have created a Me Me nation where many are expecting handouts. You don't build people up by giving them everything.

Enter through legal avenues.
Learn English.
Work your a** off.
Be a role model for your kids.

Not all people are the same. I have had many students - majority Hispanic and African - who agree with me. When you enter a new country, you bend for the country, as it's providing you opportunities you supposedly didn't have in your country of birth, right? b/c if life was so good back home, why leave?

My family escaped poverty. My father barely had a home; it was crumbling. Christmas gits consisted of winter fruits. When he was alive, he had fond memories of Italy despite the obstacles that faced him, but he was proud of his accomplishments in the U. S. (Mom was luckier in that she was a "middle class" Italian, but the family knew that they could move ahead in the States.)

So the neo-libs can preach it all they want! You don't speak for all of us. And that assumption that we're all the same will be a negative force in 2020.

How were your parents able to immigrate?

Dad and my grandfather worked. They saved money, hopped on a boat & came through Ellis Island. They rented an apartment in PG County and worked as stonemasons. When they saved up enough money, they brought the others over - grandmother, aunts & uncle. My father & uncle served in WWII.

Eventually, their business grew and they parted ways, each opening up his own business.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

They helped each other and bc they were honest & talented, their businesses grew.

Immigration doesn’t work that way anymore.

really?

It worked that way for my nanny (El Salvador). It worked that way for my friend's husband (Italy). . . for my neighbor (Russia) . . . for my niece's boyfriend (Ireland)

No one says it's an easy process, and based on what little I know, it could be simplified. But again, if there's a will, there's a way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. And look, I disagree with you and I resent your assumption that Democrats (and people, in general) who disagree with you on this issue are somehow stupid or gullible. We don’t know each other, but I can tell you that I’m just as educated and capable of critical thinking as you. I agree that the current situation on the border (“children in detention camps”) is horrible and unsustainable. Where I disagree with you is that we need to fix the system in the long term by disincentivizing people to cross the border in the first place. We need to stop rewarding bogus asylum seekers, many of whom are just economic migrants, by allowing them to cross the border in the first place. They should apply in their home countries or wait in Mexico to be approved so that we’re not in the business of housing them and their children at all. And of course we should continue to enforce immigration laws and criminalize unlawful entry. And, frankly, I am fine with deporting those who have knowingly and willfully violated our immigration laws and skipped the line where plenty of highly-skilled would-be immigrants from other countries are waiting to years to do it the right way. I don’t agree that simply “wanting a better life” is appropriate justification - we cannot help all of the world’s poor, and there are plenty of poor Americans that the government should help first. And unfortunate as it is, many of the Democratic candidates simply refuse to acknowledge this. So while Trump is not going about it the right way, and the situation at the border is awful, he is at least articulating something the Democrats won’t, and I’m afraid that he’s going to win because of it. While none of the Democrats are officially arguing for open borders, please review Julian Castro’s immigration plan (it’s on his website) and let me know how, functionally, that is different.

1) "We need to fix the system in the long term by disincentivizing"

Well, the bad conditions on the border and removing babies from parents IS the GOP strategy to disincentivize border crossing. That's the GOP policy. So - own it. You want to take away babies from mothers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-ending-family-separation-practice-was-a-disaster-that-led-to-surge-in-border-crossings/2019/04/28/73e9da14-69c8-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

In contrast, under Obama, border crossings fell to a 40-year low. Illegal entry FELL under Obama from it's high under the GOP administration: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics. It's not necessary or acceptable to engage in human rights abuses to "deter" illegal entry.

2) "We need to stop rewarding bogus asylum claims...they should wait in Mexico"

Guess who first started the "turn back" policy to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico? The Obama administration. https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/10/AmendedComplaint.pdf

3) "We should enforce immigration law"

Here is the official Democratic party platform on immigration: "The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security. People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers. Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken."

https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/#broken-immigration

4) "Criminalize unlawful entry"

All this would mean would be that immigrations who cross illegally are deported, not incarcerated. Not sure why you think we should incarcerate them at great expense to the taxpayer? This is a policy idea that should be fully fleshed out - the costs and benefits - but it's hard to see how it's SO unreasonable that it would make you vote for Trump? Y

http://theconversation.com/democrats-debate-the-repeal-of-section-1325-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-immigration-law-that-criminalizes-unauthorized-border-crossings-119587

5) "I am fine with deporting people who enter illegally ..."

OK - see above. That's the aim of decriminalizing illegal entry. Just deport people.

6) "We cannot help all the world's poor.'

OK then, you need to GET ONBOARD with the policies that will increase global stability and stem the flow of economic and climate migrants., because otherwise they will continue to try to save themselvs and their families by migrating (as humans have done since humans first evolved). I don't see the GOP's policies doing this -- do you? It's all interrelated. Here again please don't be gullible and see that the GOP is using immigration as a way to foment xenophobia and rally the base - not as a legitimate attempt to fix the problems that lead to migration.

7) "He is at least articulating something the Democrats won't"

Again - see above the official Democratic party platform on immigration, and the Obama record. Democrats are in favor of legal immigration and treating illegal migrants humanely. What Trump is articulating is xenophobia. This has been his MO since he was a candidate, and before the GOP shamefully sold out, they recognized it. https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2015/07/08/divide-and-conquer. Remember too that Bannon declared being called a xenophobe is a "badge of honor." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/opinion/bannon-language-france-fascism.html

8) Julian Castro's immigration plan

Well, he's one candidate out of 20, and there are big differences in the field. And our liberatarian friends at Reason say it's a "far cry from open borders" and seem to think it's a good step in rationalizing our immigration system:

https://reason.com/2019/06/27/julian-castros-bold-plan-to-decriminalize-immigration-changed-the-terms-of-the-debate-last-night/

SUMMARY:

Anyone who thinks Trump is speaking any kind of legitimate truth about immigration and that Democrats want open borders has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the plan to leverage xenophobia into a voting advantage set out by Bannon, Miller, and Trump from day 1 of the Trump administration. Never forget that Trump's first official act was to block Muslim migration in a way purposefully calculated to create the most confusion, fear, and reaction ... and then the counter-reaction, which is "Democrats want open borders"! https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/29/14431332/steve-bannon-muslim-refugee-ban-explained

That's what the GOP is articulating, at its core: brown people are scary; vote for me, and I will save you from them. And it's working - Americans are now more xenophobic: https://psmag.com/social-justice/trump-anti-immigrant-rhetoric-making-americans-more-xenophobic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wait... just to recap... you’re actually equating driving a few miles over the speed limit to people *illegally entering and living in the US*? Wow. Just when I thought I had heard all possible liberal excuses.

What, you think not having your paperwork in order is like murder or something? If anything, speeding is slightly more dangerous.

You officially win the Looney Liberal of DCUM award. Well, you and the insane "Cult45, Russian puppet, Australian channel" poster. Congrats!

Your spluttering doesn't really address the substance of my position. Failing to get the proper stamp on your paperwork doesn't amount to a serious crime in my estimation. I'm probably more of a libertarian than you are. Statists tend to value government bureaucracy more than liberty.

Such an understatement of the immigration issue...

Hey, I broke into your house this weekend. You just forgot to put me on your invite list. Just an insignificant technicality. No big deal, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wait... just to recap... you’re actually equating driving a few miles over the speed limit to people *illegally entering and living in the US*? Wow. Just when I thought I had heard all possible liberal excuses.

What, you think not having your paperwork in order is like murder or something? If anything, speeding is slightly more dangerous.

You officially win the Looney Liberal of DCUM award. Well, you and the insane "Cult45, Russian puppet, Australian channel" poster. Congrats!

Your spluttering doesn't really address the substance of my position. Failing to get the proper stamp on your paperwork doesn't amount to a serious crime in my estimation. I'm probably more of a libertarian than you are. Statists tend to value government bureaucracy more than liberty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. And look, I disagree with you and I resent your assumption that Democrats (and people, in general) who disagree with you on this issue are somehow stupid or gullible. We don’t know each other, but I can tell you that I’m just as educated and capable of critical thinking as you. I agree that the current situation on the border (“children in detention camps”) is horrible and unsustainable. Where I disagree with you is that we need to fix the system in the long term by disincentivizing people to cross the border in the first place. We need to stop rewarding bogus asylum seekers, many of whom are just economic migrants, by allowing them to cross the border in the first place. They should apply in their home countries or wait in Mexico to be approved so that we’re not in the business of housing them and their children at all. And of course we should continue to enforce immigration laws and criminalize unlawful entry. And, frankly, I am fine with deporting those who have knowingly and willfully violated our immigration laws and skipped the line where plenty of highly-skilled would-be immigrants from other countries are waiting to years to do it the right way. I don’t agree that simply “wanting a better life” is appropriate justification - we cannot help all of the world’s poor, and there are plenty of poor Americans that the government should help first. And unfortunate as it is, many of the Democratic candidates simply refuse to acknowledge this. So while Trump is not going about it the right way, and the situation at the border is awful, he is at least articulating something the Democrats won’t, and I’m afraid that he’s going to win because of it. While none of the Democrats are officially arguing for open borders, please review Julian Castro’s immigration plan (it’s on his website) and let me know how, functionally, that is different.

+1 my thoughts as well

This

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. And look, I disagree with you and I resent your assumption that Democrats (and people, in general) who disagree with you on this issue are somehow stupid or gullible. We don’t know each other, but I can tell you that I’m just as educated and capable of critical thinking as you. I agree that the current situation on the border (“children in detention camps”) is horrible and unsustainable. Where I disagree with you is that we need to fix the system in the long term by disincentivizing people to cross the border in the first place. We need to stop rewarding bogus asylum seekers, many of whom are just economic migrants, by allowing them to cross the border in the first place. They should apply in their home countries or wait in Mexico to be approved so that we’re not in the business of housing them and their children at all. And of course we should continue to enforce immigration laws and criminalize unlawful entry. And, frankly, I am fine with deporting those who have knowingly and willfully violated our immigration laws and skipped the line where plenty of highly-skilled would-be immigrants from other countries are waiting to years to do it the right way. I don’t agree that simply “wanting a better life” is appropriate justification - we cannot help all of the world’s poor, and there are plenty of poor Americans that the government should help first. And unfortunate as it is, many of the Democratic candidates simply refuse to acknowledge this. So while Trump is not going about it the right way, and the situation at the border is awful, he is at least articulating something the Democrats won’t, and I’m afraid that he’s going to win because of it. While none of the Democrats are officially arguing for open borders, please review Julian Castro’s immigration plan (it’s on his website) and let me know how, functionally, that is different.

+1 my thoughts as well

This a million times over:

“I agree that the current situation on the border (“children in detention camps”) is horrible and unsustainable. Where I disagree with you is that we need to fix the system in the long term by disincentivizing people to cross the border in the first place. We need to stop rewarding bogus asylum seekers, many of whom are just economic migrants, by allowing them to cross the border in the first place. They should apply in their home countries or wait in Mexico to be approved so that we’re not in the business of housing them and their children at all. And of course we should continue to enforce immigration laws and criminalize unlawful entry. And, frankly, I am fine with deporting those who have knowingly and willfully violated our immigration laws and skipped the line where plenty of highly-skilled would-be immigrants from other countries are waiting to years to do it the right way. I don’t agree that simply “wanting a better life” is appropriate justification - we cannot help all of the world’s poor, and there are plenty of poor Americans that the government should help first. And unfortunate as it is, many of the Democratic candidates simply refuse to acknowledge this. So while Trump is not going about it the right way, and the situation at the border is awful, he is at least articulating something the Democrats won’t, and I’m afraid that he’s going to win because of it. While none of the Democrats are officially arguing for open borders, please review Julian Castro’s immigration plan (it’s on his website) and let me know how, functionally, that is different.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. And look, I disagree with you and I resent your assumption that Democrats (and people, in general) who disagree with you on this issue are somehow stupid or gullible. We don’t know each other, but I can tell you that I’m just as educated and capable of critical thinking as you. I agree that the current situation on the border (“children in detention camps”) is horrible and unsustainable. Where I disagree with you is that we need to fix the system in the long term by disincentivizing people to cross the border in the first place. We need to stop rewarding bogus asylum seekers, many of whom are just economic migrants, by allowing them to cross the border in the first place. They should apply in their home countries or wait in Mexico to be approved so that we’re not in the business of housing them and their children at all. And of course we should continue to enforce immigration laws and criminalize unlawful entry. And, frankly, I am fine with deporting those who have knowingly and willfully violated our immigration laws and skipped the line where plenty of highly-skilled would-be immigrants from other countries are waiting to years to do it the right way. I don’t agree that simply “wanting a better life” is appropriate justification - we cannot help all of the world’s poor, and there are plenty of poor Americans that the government should help first. And unfortunate as it is, many of the Democratic candidates simply refuse to acknowledge this. So while Trump is not going about it the right way, and the situation at the border is awful, he is at least articulating something the Democrats won’t, and I’m afraid that he’s going to win because of it. While none of the Democrats are officially arguing for open borders, please review Julian Castro’s immigration plan (it’s on his website) and let me know how, functionally, that is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

DP. Wow, you've really fallen hard for the propaganda of the left, haven't you? You *actually* believe the bolded. Aren't you the party who thinks you're so much better educated than everyone else? Hint: you're not - and it shows.

You need to wake up and stop with the right wing propaganda. The bolder by the pp is the truth.

Anonymous wrote:My ancestors came to this country as emigres. Followed the laws (legal immigrants). Shot a few Indians. Shot more than a few British soldiers.
We have nearly 30 million illegals living in this country.
We don’t take care of our impoverished US citizens, but I know why democrats want open borders.
I’ll never vote democrat again.
Ever.

You are an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

DP. Wow, you've really fallen hard for the propaganda of the left, haven't you? You *actually* believe the bolded. Aren't you the party who thinks you're so much better educated than everyone else? Hint: you're not - and it shows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.

Then you're completely gullible and have fallen for the Bannon/Miller long play to inflate immigration into a voting issue. Please, think more critically. What the Democrats are reacting to is the Trump administration's purposefully vicious acts -- arbitrarily pulling visas on the basis of religion; separating children; putting children in detention camps instead of better shelters. They did this on purpose, to get a reaction out of Democrats, so they in turn could create the specter of the "emergency at the border" and claim that the Democrats' reaction TO THEIR VICIOUSNESS constitutes being "too far left on immigration."

So please, actually look at the record of the Democratic party on immigration, as well as the candidates. Literally nobody is calling for open borders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's why many low-income Americans will choose Trump. They feel left out with the current favoritism of illegals by the Democrat party.

Mostly just the white ones. Non-white low income Americans by and large favor the Democrats. So, Trump support is mostly a function of being white; not being poor.

I’m not white and also not poor and am closer to Trump than to the current crop of Dems on immigration. I loathe Trump and don’t think I can bring myself to vote for him, but I might sit out the election (as a PA voter) if the Democratic candidate is too far left on immigration. And there are lots more like me.