New York Times: Trump’s Immigration Policy Wins Black Votes

What is so tedious is that one has to remind some Republicans about their party's very history. Some disparage old time Southern racist Democrats as an isolated chapter and then totally ignore that these are the very people [Dixiecrats] who enmasse entered the Republican party. The Trump base are these same people who can easily identify their roots in the Democratic party going back several decades.

There are some Republican posters who value honesty, always use citations and refrain from hysterical nonsense. But there is an equal number who repeat over and over ridiculous falsehoods of intentional distortion. When confronted, some of these Trumped-up Republicans cry victimhood in the most absurd misuse of the word.

 

Illegal immigrant most negatively affects blacks, particularly lower income blacks. Illegal immigrants most often move into minority neighborhoods for the lower rent. This drives up rent costs while reducing available housing. As the number of Latinos grows, employers prefer bilingual employees, meaning the immigrants are taking their housing and their jobs, while changing the very nature of their community. They also see Democrats pouring money into helping illegal immigrants rather than helping poor blacks.

There are real life reasons increasing numbers of blacks, low income Americans and blue collar workers increasingly are recognizing the Democratic Party's love affair with mass illegal immigrant equates to the Democratic Party's war against them.

 

Care to back up your opinion with any scrap of evidence?

 

Until it can actually be verified that those with minors in their possession are indeed family members, rather than human traffickers, the minors in question are potential victims of international human trafficking efforts. Therefore separating them from the adults is a legitimate course of action to partake in.

 

Except for the simple fact that they are not seeking asylum. International law dictates that one seeking asylum applies in the closest available country, which would be the nation of Mexico, not the united states. These individuals are simply seeking a better quality of life, which is not legal grounds for them to be admitted into the united states.

 

Really, can you post that law.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_shopping

Such defines what asylum shopping amounts to, while the following citations demonstrate how such is not acceptable or legal.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AsylumShopping.aspx

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldeucom/84/8407.htm#n35

https://web.archive.org/web/2005031...ecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604#d1e1042-31-1

Other countries do not tolerate asylum shopping. Why should the united states be expected to differ in that regard? Let them apply in the nation of Mexico where the quality of life is already better than where they are fleeing from.

Beyond that particular matter, simply wanting a better quality of life is not legal grounds for someone to be granted asylum anywhere.

 

Ok that is the EU, but these folks are not in the EU.

Such defines what asylum shopping amounts to, while the following citations demonstrate how such is not acceptable or legal.

 

it seems more like lousy right wing management. there is no immigration clause in our Constitution and we could be generating revenue on a per capita basis instead of losing money on right wing fantasy that only denies and disparages Individual Liberty.

 

Yes, it is. Besides, it is our crime, drug, and terror wars that are creating more refugees.

 

it omits natural rights.

 

Because there aren't any, that's why. Obama administration didn't lose track of any children or parents, thus making reunification impossible. Sadly, the Orange Buffoons admin is responsible for many permanently separated families due to their total ineptness.

 

No I am not "making up stuff", outrageous or otherwise. Obama administration did not separate children from their parents and detain them on anywhere near the level that Trump did and that is a well known fact. Trump attempted to use taking the children away as a deterrent for refugees seeking asylum. That was his motivation and they screwed it up to the point they lost track of many children as well as parents of children and in many cases, reunification is not possible due to Retrumplican ineptness. This did NOT happen during Obama administration. They didn't lose any children at all.

 

Yes, of course you are. Otherwise provide evidence. You need to back up your claim with some actual proof.

I'll wait.

 

B.S. The reasons those children were taken had nothing to do with human trafficking and everything to do with trying to keep refugees from seeking asylum at our southern borders. Less than one percent of children detained were with people that were not verified as their guardian. All of the children were taken. How do you explain that?

 

Prove it. Cite the DHS reports and the comments from the Secretary...... Go ahead.

Seriously, the spread of fake news needs to be stopped so prove what you claim is actually true.

 

You do that. I dont have to submit proof. What i am stating is fact and anyone with a scintilla of brain matter already knows this. It doesnt matter whether you are aware of the obvious truth or not because you wouldn't care anyway.. You would just start on justifications through whataboutism or some other retrumplican nonsense because the truth is, some Trump supporters will justify anything he does, even if they had criticized former administrations for the very same thing. People like that cannot be reasoned with because they live in a bubble of delusion, disregarding the truth and believing whatever Trump tells them to believe. Its bizarre to say the least.

 

I already know it is true so I dont have to look it up. You are the one ignorant of the facts so why don't you take the initiative and educate yourself? The only fake news is coming from Trumps side of the aisle. It's kind of pathetic really, the way some people will blindly believe what they are told to believe, not unlike a mindless cult member. Seriously, google it. You will see results showing I am correct and then you will just say that is fake news too. SMH. Hopeless.

 

Good lord another democrat that believes dixiecrats went over to the Republican party.

 

A good example of why discussions on this forum mostly go nowhere.

 

What does the law say about releasing people who have been apprehended, requested amnesty, and are awaiting hearings on their application?

 

Unemployment compensation is there to assist someone who has been legally employed, and thus contributed to the fund that provides it. It is not there for people who have been illegally employed, or never employed. "At Will" has nothing to do with it.

 

Everyone in a discussion supposedly "knows" that they are correct, or that something which supports their position is factually correct. But very few of those are actually able to present evidence that proves their position is correct.

 

equal protection of the law has everything to do with it.

 

With what? Never worked, not unemployment pay.

Perhaps the argument should be that taxpayers need to be protected from having to pay for freeloaders.