We stopped most of it.
200k a year is a trickle compared to other periods of US immigration history.
We are in a time and place when we need to turn the faucet off for awhile again.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
200k a year is a trickle compared to other periods of US immigration history.
We are in a time and place when we need to turn the faucet off for awhile again.
Yes... duhhh.... lol
You'd be okay with 200k? Let me guess, because you like rounded numbers? Because you think it makes economic sense? Because you don't like brown people? Honestly Ricky, I'm curious why do you think reducing immigration will make your life better...
So we still need a wall, but at the same time you're going to take credit for having it under control. Oy 'vey. That's what I call a logical pretzel.
The country has been a period of mass immigration for decades.
We need a period of restricted immigration to assimilate the new population.
Its not a hard concept to grasp.
This makes no sense.
What have I taken credit for again?
You said "we stopped most of it." Who stopped most of it? Trump or are you talking about FDR?
I'm just trying to understand why you think we should cap immigration numbers at 200k? Did you pull that number out of a hat or what...
1925 to 1965.
Sleep tight everyone.
(The sky is not actually falling)
(The sky is not actually falling)
Bruddah IZ
DA
I hope this helps your understanding http://www.usdebtclock.org
See the "largest debt items" at almost top of left side under National Debt.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Maybe some pretzel understanding?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Is that possible?
Apparently, yes.
It sounds like, babbly babbling, but a little more babbly-ish.
???
Yes you said those dates already. But why I still don't understand is why you think they are important for me to know. How is going back to a 200k immigration level going to improve my life? I mean I like modern furniture and Frank Lyoid Wright, but I've never heard anyone claim the mid-century was the golden age of United States immigration policy?
Seems all it really means to me immigration has been great for America. From the foods we grow to the songs we sing and values enshrined in our Constitution. I'd certainly would be open to temp work visas and other ideas that forces the under the table labor force above board... but personally don't see any urgent reason to take our immigration policy backwards to those of 1925.
You didn't understand my joke? Or are you just badly trying to steal my material...
The 1925-65 era was when immigration law was intended to maintain the racial makeup of the then-current US population. Prospective immigrants had to apply for a slot that was identified for their declared race or ethnicity. Many more than 200,000 slots were open, but not all were filled by applicants of the appropriate race.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You're a giver.
Sheriff Joe
DA
More Ocasio-Cortez: Low unemployment rate is because more people have two jobs, you know
Ed Morrissey Jul 17, 2018 4:01 PM
“Meteors fizz out
Ed Morrissey Jul 17, 2018 4:01 PM
“Meteors fizz out
Sheriff Joe
DA
2013 “Lie of the Year” winner blasts politicians who “just make stuff up”
AllahpunditPosted at 3:31 pm on July 17, 2018
He hates it, he says, when shameless politicians are caught in a lie and double down.
See Also: Google denies a liberal bias, and yet keeps hiring high profile Democrats
Imagine how much he must hate it when they double down, like, 800 times.
TRENDING:
More Ocasio-Cortez: Low unemployment rate is because more people have two jobs, you know
Two clips worth watching from his appearance today in Johannesburg, delivering the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture. The first is aimed squarely at Trump, as was a later passage complaining about the rise of “strongman politics.” (Which isn’t unique to America, of course.) I don’t understand why he still insists on not criticizing POTUS by name when (a) everyone knows who he’s talking about and (b) Trump criticizes him by name practically every day on Twitter.
Obama would probably say that it’s about wanting to preserve the norms of presidential succession, in which the last chief executive declines to attack the new guy as a show of comity and a tribute to the peaceful transfer of power in democracies. But there’s no comity between the parties or between Trump and Obama as individuals. Trump explicitly questioned Obama’s legitimacy as president by harping on his birth certificate and rank-and-file Democrats have repaid the favor by questioning Trump’s legitimacy after Russia’s campaign meddling. How are the norms of presidential succession served when your “tribute” to them is crapping all over the new guy but simply withholding his name from your complaints? By November Obama will be out on the trail for Democrats claiming that “the guy whose name rhymes with ‘Monald Mump'” is a traitor and a threat to the republic. Just say it already. If you’re going to engage, engage.
He did keep it mostly light in that clip, at least.
The second clip is this one, for which righties are rightly praising him:
A good statement and not that surprising despite the Democrats’ leftward drift, particularly when you remember that he was addressing an audience of South Africans that had to confront the same problem of racial reconciliation in an unusually stark way. From time to time as president Obama would uncork some polite criticism of the left’s excesses: I remember him taking lefty campus fascists to task in September 2015 for trying to exclude conservative speakers from campus. He certainly has some far-left preferences, as he reminded us again today, but the left itself would eagerly tell you that he isn’t as fringey as they’d like, both economically and culturally. The last clip is a reminder that he and righty populists don’t disagree on everything. Right, NATO
AllahpunditPosted at 3:31 pm on July 17, 2018
He hates it, he says, when shameless politicians are caught in a lie and double down.
See Also: Google denies a liberal bias, and yet keeps hiring high profile Democrats
Imagine how much he must hate it when they double down, like, 800 times.
TRENDING:
More Ocasio-Cortez: Low unemployment rate is because more people have two jobs, you know
Two clips worth watching from his appearance today in Johannesburg, delivering the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture. The first is aimed squarely at Trump, as was a later passage complaining about the rise of “strongman politics.” (Which isn’t unique to America, of course.) I don’t understand why he still insists on not criticizing POTUS by name when (a) everyone knows who he’s talking about and (b) Trump criticizes him by name practically every day on Twitter.
Obama would probably say that it’s about wanting to preserve the norms of presidential succession, in which the last chief executive declines to attack the new guy as a show of comity and a tribute to the peaceful transfer of power in democracies. But there’s no comity between the parties or between Trump and Obama as individuals. Trump explicitly questioned Obama’s legitimacy as president by harping on his birth certificate and rank-and-file Democrats have repaid the favor by questioning Trump’s legitimacy after Russia’s campaign meddling. How are the norms of presidential succession served when your “tribute” to them is crapping all over the new guy but simply withholding his name from your complaints? By November Obama will be out on the trail for Democrats claiming that “the guy whose name rhymes with ‘Monald Mump'” is a traitor and a threat to the republic. Just say it already. If you’re going to engage, engage.
He did keep it mostly light in that clip, at least.
The second clip is this one, for which righties are rightly praising him:
A good statement and not that surprising despite the Democrats’ leftward drift, particularly when you remember that he was addressing an audience of South Africans that had to confront the same problem of racial reconciliation in an unusually stark way. From time to time as president Obama would uncork some polite criticism of the left’s excesses: I remember him taking lefty campus fascists to task in September 2015 for trying to exclude conservative speakers from campus. He certainly has some far-left preferences, as he reminded us again today, but the left itself would eagerly tell you that he isn’t as fringey as they’d like, both economically and culturally. The last clip is a reminder that he and righty populists don’t disagree on everything. Right, NATO