The Hispanic middle class doesn't buy the immigration crap from white liberals. — fishfry

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. What immigration crap from white liberals? Do you mean things like Daca, for instance?

And here's my source.

On the topic of illegal immigration, Trump’s opponents often conflated illegal immigration in particular with immigration in general, and using this as a basis to accuse him (and by extension, his followers) of being anti-immigrant. This was contrary to Trump’s own statements and even his life—Trump was so anti-immigrant he married and had children with two immigrants.

But this conflation is itself anti-immigrant, because it refused to recognize the difference between those who subvert the laws of the country with those who spend the time and effort to become American. I suspect this conflation will lead to a growing resentment among immigrants.

But this conflation is itself anti-immigrant, because it refused to recognize the difference between those who subvert the laws of the country with those who spend the time and effort to become American. I suspect this conflation will lead to a growing resentment among immigrants. — NOS4A2

That's a weird juxtaposition. Legal immigration to the US is not based on the comparative "time and effort" put in.

That's a weird juxtaposition. Legal immigration to the US is not based on the comparative "time and effort" put in.

That’s a weird red herring. It takes much more time and effort to go through the legal process of immigration than to refuse to do so.

That’s a weird red herring. It takes much more time and effort to go through the legal process of immigration than to refuse to do so. — NOS4A2

But the time and effort spend going through the process isn't the reason one is allowed to immigrate.

And, on the flipside, the reason people enter the US illegally is not to avoid paperwork.

But the time and effort spend going through the process isn't the reason one is allowed to immigrate.

And, on the flipside, the reason people enter the US illegally is not to avoid paperwork.

I never said the time and effort spent going through the process is the reason one is allowed to immigrate. I was merely differentiating between those who break into the country and those who do so legally. The larger point was that to conflate legal and illegal immigration is anti-immigrant.

Like I say I find argumentum at linkum, or argument by flinging links at each other, tedious.There are sources out there to support pretty much everything. I have in fact read several credible articles supporting the idea that Trump has African-American and Hispanic support. I'd ask you to stipulate that I'm making that statement in good faith and good will. I don't feel like going out on Google and curating the links for you, which you could just dismiss anyway as being not from approved sources, or outright lies or whatever. I'm just choosing to not even start that game. — fishfry

My original response to this was deleted, but I do want you to know this is exceptionally pitiful.

I never said the time and effort spent going through the process is the reason one is allowed to immigrate. I was merely differentiating between those who break into the country and those who do so legally. The larger point was that to conflate legal and illegal immigration is anti-immigrant. — NOS4A2

And I was merely pointing out that making this about "hard working legal immigrants" Vs "illegal immigrants" is misleading, because hard work is not what differentiates the two.

No one was making it about “hard working legal immigrants" Vs "illegal immigrants". But someone may find point relevant. Who knows?

My original response to this was deleted, but I do want you to know this is exceptionally pitiful. — Maw

It's tragic that I'm your only source of information about the world. I regret that I haven't the time to take on such a responsibility.

But this conflation is itself anti-immigrant, because it refused to recognize the difference between those who subvert the laws of the country with those who spend the time and effort to become American. — NOS4A2

Yes and no, mostly no. The problem is that the US demand for illegal labor far (far!) exceeds the supply of legal slots available by law.

One might think ok, pass a law raising the legal immigration quotas to accommodate all the demand for farm laborers and chicken pluckers and suburban lawn cutters, nannies, and housekeepers.

But that would defeat the purpose. The entire purpose of keeping immigration illegal is so that the workers can't organize, can't complain, can't report being underpaid or abused, can't ask for any of the normal labor protections that American workers take for granted. This is the entire point of the sick, depraved, immoral system.

The fruits and veggies need to be picked now, and the laborers need the work now. Nobody can wait for the legal queue. The incentives force economically desperate migrants to sneak across the desert to work to feed their families. And the employers are only too happy to have such a supply of below-market labor that can't complain no matter what.

That is the system that's evolved over the decades. Sure, in a rational world we'd balance immigration quotas with labor demand. But then the workers wouldn't be so cheap anymore.

The hypocrisy is the entire point of the system. It's a lie to say that illegal crossers are bad people subverting the system. They're responding responding rationally to the incentives presented by a hypocritical and immoral system.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. What immigration crap from white liberals? Do you mean things like Daca, for instance? — praxis

The people who came in legally and worked to establish themselves resent those who jump the line and are rewarded for it. Isn't that perfectly sensible?

I understand your belief about the Hispanic middle class, such as it is. The neighborhood I live in is middle class and predominantly Hispanic. I was just curious about the white liberal crap they’re supposedly not buying.

It's tragic that I'm your only source of information about the world. — fishfry

What does this even mean?

It's tragic that I'm your only source of information about the world.
— fishfry

What does this even mean? — Maw

It means that if you get your news from MSM sources you're missing a lot.

Here's a story from yesterday that caught my eye. A UN report came out on Monday saying that the US has more children in detention than any other country. Multiple news outlets reported this along with criticism of Trump's immigration policy.

Then the UN issued a correction pointing out that the numbers were from 2015, when Barack Obama's administration had more children in detention than any other country in the world.

Did these news outlets issue a correction and then mention that oh by the way, Obama had a hellacious humanitarian crisis on the border in 2014-2015 and separated families and put kids in cages?

Of course not. These media outlets all simply retracted and memory-holed the story. [Some did make the correction but others did not].

This is a problem. The MSM is committed to a particular political point of view; and if you don't read alternative sources, you become an ignorant pawn in a larger political game.

This article's from the National Review, conservative but anti-Trump. I'd love to find a more mainstream link but there isn't one. The public must not know of Obama's caged kids lest they see the cynical hypocrisy of the Dems' immigration rhetoric.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/multiple-outlets-retract-stories-on-trump-admin-child-deportations-that-relied-on-obama-era-data/

It means that if you get your news from MSM sources you're missing a lot. — fishfry

I get my news from a wide number of sources, but thanks for your concern. I've already pointed out in this very thread that mainstream sources such as the New York Times, CNN, WaPo, etc. ran stories about Obama's immigration policies, as well as the criticisms of it that came from immigration advocacy groups. You're like a broken record on this subject, it's the only thing you've talked about in the last year.

it's the only thing you've talked about in the last year. — Maw

Too bad you still haven't heard it. A while back someone screeched, "Trump put kids in cages!" as evidence that Trump is uniquely bad. It's a very common refrain from the left. They're willfully ignorant on the subject but love to morally preen. I'll keep mentioning it till they get it. I have hopes the present insanity of the left is only a temporary phase.

Today AOC voted to renew the PATRIOT act. [It was cynically buried in a larger appropriations bill]. So goes what passes for the left in this country. Didn't make the MSM, or if it did the links are hard to find. Some lefty sites with their integrity and human decency still intact reported on the matter.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155793/hell-democrats-just-extend-patriot-act

My remarks are general, not specifically aimed at you. I quoted your post because it provided a convenient hook for a post I wanted to make anyway. If anything it's aimed at whoever originally made that inane "Trump caged kids!" remark as a substitute for actual critical thought about US policy at the Mexican border.

ps -- AOC reportedly tweeted against the bill. I had read that she voted for the bill. I could not find a definitive account of her vote just now. The larger point stands regarding the state of the Democratic party.

Too bad you still haven't heard it. — fishfry

I literally commented about it over a year ago here. And 6 months ago we had this exact same conversation here, where even then I told you we had had this conversation before and that you routinely forget and bring it up, honestly are you OK? Do you have memory problems?

Today AOC voted to renew the PATRIOT act. [It was cynically buried in a larger appropriations bill]. So goes what passes for the left in this country. — fishfry

God damn, AOC, Ilhan and Tlaib voted against the bill, you are an embarrassment. Just log off and go away, please.

@Maw, modded, tone it down a little please.

ok but please tell fishfry to do better.

Baden ok but please tell fishfry to do better. — Maw

If you have a reference to the roll call for the Continuing Resolution I'd appreciate it. I had read that AOC voted for the bill and then that she tweeted against it. I can't find the actual roll call. I read that 10 Dems voted against it but can't find the actual vote. But as I say the larger point stands. Those who rail only against Trump are missing the larger picture of how our government actually works. The Dems supported the Patriot act since day one and never stopped.