I understand that you don't care about this issue, have various preconceived notions and don't follow news that doesn't make it into your sphere. The wall is important, but is also a complex set of problems distilled into in a slogan and tangible thing for masses of rallygoers and people with television attention spans. To claim that a wall is the only immigration objective for the administration or GOP is false (again, this is not me rah-rahing for either - I'm for policies, not politicians or parties). A small news item from February 20th, for example:bulletmagnet wrote:nothing of significance has been done, and nothing else will be done, full stop.
Employers who hire undocumented immigrants could lose licenses under Iowa GOP bill
What else do you call people who support an invasion, and why do you think this is a joke? If you let in millions of illegal immigrants, some will game the system (imagine people who disregarded rules to get in disregarding more rules when they are in). Some places specifically permit non-citizen voting. Who knows how many non-citizens are voting in total. Do you think any amount of non-citizens should be voting? Do you think that might undermine the faith people have in our 'sacred' democracy?bulletmagnet wrote:except the traitors who want to sneak millions of illegals in to somehow vote
Pennsylvania admits to 11,000 noncitizens registered to vote
...Because illegal immigration does not begin at a meat packing plant in Ohio. It's the point where they've already made their way around the board and collected the 200 bucks under the table. Why does the country's invasion prevention strategy need to hinge on America being cured of unscrupulous business owners, as if that is a possibility? How about in addition to not enticing the invader who can't control himself, we don't entice the unscrupulous business owner who can't control himself, and not allow the libertarian fantasy of a free flow of Third World serfs. Like, can you at least pretend to be serious?bulletmagnet wrote:Third, to expand on something I said earlier: where in heaven's name do you get off calling illegal employment an "end-of-the-line item?"
Whatever percentage creates an outcome like this:bulletmagnet wrote:Just what percentage of people do you think sneak in ... to deal drugs
![Image](http://i68.tinypic.com/i5danr.png)
Whatever percentage creates an outcome like this:bulletmagnet wrote:Just what percentage of people do you think sneak in to ... drop an anchor baby
![Image](http://i67.tinypic.com/2cqzi8o.png)
Would you say that there was a "plot" for Europeans to take the bulk of the North American continent in the 17th century, or was it something that wasn't on the mind of every settler and just happened by degrees? Plot ("reconquista") or no, the outcome is effectively the same - the southwest transforming into a demographic extension of Latin America and, worse still, the problems not being contained in that region. For Mischief Maker and others who believe Alaska is somehow immune from what is happening in the country that Alaska is a part of:bulletmagnet wrote:or plot to retake the Southwest for Mexico
Man who fled after Anchorage shooting injured toddler was arrested in Dominican Republic, police say
But as for the seriousness of a plot or ideology, blut und boden/reconquista rhetoric is seeping into mainstream American politics.
To be clear, reconquista/Aztlan is a fantasy for a struggling people, kind of like Wakanda - claiming territory and having a realistic ability to defend it are two separate things. They did not live here in great numbers at their time of defeat (1% of Mexico's population was in the Mexican cession, the population of a mid-size town spread over half a million square miles), and the southwest transformed by white Americans is a foreign land, entirely reshaped by engineering projects they never would have conceived of and that allow for numbers far greater than a scattered 1%.In a recent speech, Miss Ocasio-Cortez attacked ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which more and more Democrats say should be abolished. After declaring “human mobility” a “right,” she argued that Hispanics should be exempt from immigration laws on racial grounds. “Because we are standing on native land and Latino people are descendants of native people,” she said, “and we cannot be told [sic] and criminalized simply for our identity and our status. Period.”
By calling all of America “native” land, she casually delegitimized the creation of the United States.