Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win
PJ Media ^ | June 27, 2015 | Nicholas Ballasy

Posted on 06/29/2015 1:36:45 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Author and political commentator Ann Coulter said there should be a 10-year freeze on immigration to the U.S. since the federal government has demonstrated it cannot enforce current law.

“There’s a law on the books that says if a country will not take a criminal back the attorney general shall, not may, shall deny visas, any visas coming from that country – that is on the books right now. Has it been enforced by Republicans or Democrats? No, it has not,” Coulter said during an interview with PJ Media.

“There’s a law on the books right now that says an immigrant who has been convicted of a crime in America who does not cooperate in being sent home, that itself is a crime, not signing the papers, not showing up when you’re supposed to, that itself is a crime punishable by 4 years in prison – that’s never enforced. It’s just not enforced. Three times Congress has voted to build a fence and it never gets built,” she added.

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 33,007 illegal immigrants with criminal records in 2013. Following these releases, 121 were charged with homicides.

Based on the research Coulter conducted, she concluded that a legal fix is not going to improve the immigration system.

“The entire thing has to be shut down. No more immigration for 10 years. We get our books in order. We assimilate the ones already here. Build a fence. Repeal anchor babies and then we start up with the pre-1970 immigration policies,” Coulter said....

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 2016; aliens; amnesty; anncoulter; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: DaveA37

400 yrs ago the U.S. didn’t exist & we weren’t involved in the M.E. the way we’ve been in the last 100 yrs & more since WW2.


41 posted on 06/29/2015 12:41:50 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Okay. Don’t cut it all off then. But we could still drastically reduce legal immigration and still take in the cream of the crop.

We could, and should cut off all of the democrat-importing categories; Diversity Visas, extended family chain migration, refugees and asylum seekers.

There is simply no denying that most immigrants are natural democrats, and that decades of mass immigration has imported millions of democrat voters. If the influx isn’t cut off, then conservatism will be demographically buried.


42 posted on 06/29/2015 5:38:11 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: odds

That may be so about the cause of middle eastern immigration to the West, but the West isn’t obligated to allow any of them in. It’s madness to think advanced Western nations can take in millions from a backwards, failed society and not be impacted negatively. When the Western nations are also infected with white guilt and refuse to demand and enforce assimilation, then it only makes matters worse.

That Muslim immigration to the U.S. has increased since 9-11 is insane, but Europe faces a much more imminent danger. They can be swamped out of existence by the masses in the ME and Africa who want to come.


43 posted on 06/29/2015 5:44:57 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: impimp
is no simpler or more certain blueprint for the decline of the USA than to cut off all immigration.

What a bunch of globalist BS . So we should destroy ourselves to save ourselves??

44 posted on 06/29/2015 5:45:21 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I doubt that JFK ran on a platform of massive increases in legal immigration and a resulting ethnic transformation of the country. After all, his brother had to lie and say those things wouldn’t happen as he pushed the bill in Congress.


45 posted on 06/29/2015 5:53:35 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

How long has it been since Republicans actually opposed racial preferences? The establishment either sat on their hands or actively opposed the ballot initiative in Michigan a decade ago that banned preferences in that state. It was funny then when the initiative passed overwhelmingly even as the GOP got shellacked that year.

The GOP doesn’t even pay lip service to opposing racial preferences anymore. Their corporate masters favor it, and so they keep silent and do nothing. Plus they have bought into the new official state religion of Diversity, so why would they oppose preferences. That it is absolutely insane to have policies of racial preferences, and an immigration policy that brings in millions who are eligible for those preferences seems not to have crossed the minds of the GOP leadership, or even of grassroots heroes like Cruz and Walker.


46 posted on 06/29/2015 6:02:52 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

Did you read post 39?


47 posted on 06/29/2015 6:05:37 PM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
Mitt Coulter. “I’ll gladly fix immigration tuesday for amnesty today”.

I recognize my old libertarian saying.

48 posted on 06/29/2015 6:07:58 PM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Yes. I admit I haven’t read JFK’s book, but I’d be surprised if he outright called for a return to mass immigration and an immigration policy that would alter the nation’s ethnic balance. I say that because the loathsome Ted Kennedy explicitly said that the 1965 bill would not do either of those things. If I’m wrong then I could at least respect JFK’s honesty on that front, but I figured he just wanted to make it easier for Irish to immigrate.

I also feel that way because politicians even today are rarely honest and upfront about a desire to massively increase legal immigration. During the debate over the Gang of Eight bill, the supporters of it, from the gang members, to Pelosi, to Obama, to the mainstream media, none of them every spoke about how the bill would at least double legal immigration. They certainly never bragged about it like they did the phony enforcement and punitive measures in the bill.


49 posted on 06/29/2015 7:43:51 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

You are missing Ann’s point. Republicans have lost 4 of the last six presidential races because a good percentage of middle-class and blue-collar whites did not vote. They are being demonized and ignored because Republicans keep listening to Democrooks that they need to “get the Latino vote.”


50 posted on 06/29/2015 7:53:13 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

JFK and his brothers were anti-america, democrat scum, who wanted to change immigration to kill america, why would JFK be telling America what the purpose of his chain immigration and changes was about?


51 posted on 06/29/2015 7:53:36 PM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Fair enough. But what I’m saying is that they weren’t honest about it. Maybe I’ll look into it sometime. But I doubt JFK was open about such desires and motives immigration reform.

Ted Kennedy was never asked to account for the false promises he made to pass the 1965 bill. And in some truly twisted cruel turn of events, anyone who does question the ethnicity altering effects of the bill today will be demonized as a racist.

The American people never wanted a resumption of mass immigration. But it happened anyway, and all presidents and congresses since then have been complicit. Even now though, support for reducing legal immigration is a much more popular position than support for increasing it. But the political expression of this very mainstream position is almost non-existent outside of rather tame calls from Senator Sessions, and very tentative comments from Walker.


52 posted on 06/29/2015 8:15:08 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.

In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.

After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”

HERE IS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM THAT JFK RAN ON IN 1960.
IMMIGRATION:

“We shall adjust our immigration, nationality and refugee policies to eliminate discrimination and to enable members of scattered families abroad to be united with relatives already in our midst.

The national-origins quota system of limiting immigration contradicts the rounding principles of this nation. It is inconsistent with our belief in the rights of man. This system was instituted after World War I as a policy of deliberate discrimination by a Republican Administration and Congress.

The revision of immigration and nationality laws we seek will implement our belief that enlightened immigration, naturalization and refugee policies and humane administration of them are important aspects of our foreign policy.

These laws will bring greater skills to our land, reunite families, permit the United States to meet its fair share of world programs of rescue and rehabilitation, and take advantage of immigration as an important factor in the growth of the American economy.

In this World Refugee Year it is our hope to achieve admission of our fair share of refugees. We will institute policies to alleviate suffering among the homeless wherever we are able to extend our aid.

We must remove the distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens to assure full protection of our laws to all. There is no place in the United States for “second-class citizenship.”

The protections provided by due process, right of appeal, and statutes of limitation, can be extended to non-citizens without hampering the security of our nation.

We commend the Democratic Congress for the initial steps that have recently been taken toward liberalizing changes in immigration law. However, this should not be a piecemeal project and we are confident that a Democratic President in cooperation with Democratic Congresses will again implant a humanitarian and liberal spirit in our nation’s immigration and citizenship policies.”


53 posted on 06/29/2015 8:25:20 PM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

I agree mostly with what you said, particularly about assimilation. Mind you, that assimilation needs to also apply to those who were born in Western countries, and are, say, 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants.

My main points are:

1) Immigration to most Western countries started to increase compared to previous years/decades since WW2. And again, since the Lebanese Civil war, and late 1970s and throughout the 1980s (Soviets in Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq war & Khomeini in Iran), and you’re right since 9/11, post Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and again since 2011 so-called Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, and now ISIS.

In the above, I am not including pre-WW2 and colonization of many countries in the M.E. and Africa, and even South East Asia. Because most immigrants fairly easily allowed to immigrate to Western countries such as France and the UK were from past colonies; for example, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Tunisia, Algeria, the West Indies, etc..

Nor have I included immigrants from South and Central America, or Eastern Europe to the West.

2) Any time there is a major & ongoing war, and or political instability, which consequently, more often than not, lead to economic downturn, there is an influx of immigrants to the West. There is hardly ever immigrants from West to East or Middle East, etc..

3) Whilst the West is not always responsible for causing immigrants to flood into Western countries, when we start wars directly or via proxy, and or invade countries, we do play a role in creating conditions that lead to immigration (mostly refugees & political asylum immigrants).

As a rule, fairly stable and prosperous countries produce significantly less immigrants, and if they do, those immigrants tend to more ‘quality’ ones, not refugees and political asylum seekers.

Whilst we can simply shut the door and say no more immigrants (which I hardly think is going to happen), in my view, we should help create conditions that encourage people to stay put in their current country. And be more selective both in screening new arrivals Before they arrive, combined with far better assimilation programs.

I’m looking at Australia right now. Whilst Australia 3 decades ago needed to increase its population, since early 2000’s, we’ve had an influx of immigrants from South East Asia and India. It is extremely noticeable, particularly in more traditionally middle class & affluent suburbs of main cities such as Sydney. Whilst immigration is not entirely a bad thing, it needs be in proportion to availability of jobs, housing, and other infrastructure. It has to be better controlled, pre and post immigration.


54 posted on 06/29/2015 8:48:38 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: odds

Gain a restaurant, lose a country.


55 posted on 06/29/2015 9:41:17 PM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

20-year moratorium on all immigration

including H1B and UN “refugees”


56 posted on 06/29/2015 9:43:18 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

You are either seriously retarded or an agent provocateur.


57 posted on 06/29/2015 9:47:22 PM PDT by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Thank you, that’s very interesting. Their platform was more honest than I thought.

But still, and I’m sure you are aware, Ted Kennedy promised that the 1965 bill would not alter the ethnic balance, nor would it result in a large increase in overall immigration. Promises made to pass a specific bill mean more than the nonsense on the party platform.

Plus we shouldn’t forget that it was the first President Bush that made matters even worse. The 1990 immigration bill (again with Ted Kennedy’s dirty fingerprints all over it) expanded legal immigration even more, in part by the creation of the absurd Diversity Lottery visas.

The last time there was real hope for good immigration reform was with the Jordan Commission in the mid 90s. It called for cutting legal immigration significantly and for stepped up enforcement against illegal immigration. Bill Clinton expressed clear support for these recommendations upon their initial release. Senator Simpson and Congressman Lamar a Smith (???) wrote up legislation to implement these conservative reforms. Then it all fell apart. Clinton flip flopped once Asian ethnic grievance groups started whining (and once he realized how much fundraising he stood to lose with Asians) and then declared he opposed reducing legal immigration by ending chain migration. In Congress, the efforts were torpedoed by Gingrich and other cheap labor/big business whores like Senator Abraham, Dick Armey, and Sam Briownback. They could have forced Clinton in a situation where he stood by his original word, or vetoed a popular, bipartisan bill. But the GOP proved itself to be the Stupid Party and chose not to stave off demographic destruction.

Thus died the last good chance for good, conservative comprehensive immigration reform. Now it is inconceivable that good, pro-American immigration reform of that sort could get even a handful of democrat votes.


58 posted on 06/30/2015 6:10:53 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: odds

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I don’t disagree with most of what you say.

Though I don’t think we have any obligation to do so in most cases, I would support effective measures to make the third world less hellish and therefore lessen the exodus of people from those lands. Ideally that would be combined with strong enforcement and deportation that makes it clear that anyone who illegally enters Europe (or the U.S. or Australia) that they will not get to stay; they will be sent home.

I don’t disagree about western actions, military and otherwise, leading to some of this. It’s one of the reasons I opposed invading Iraq or getting involved in Syria, or helping topple Kadafi. It was obvious all those things would increase the number of refugees, and it was obvious that the West would be suckers and take in those refugees.


59 posted on 06/30/2015 7:39:16 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

>>”It was obvious all those things would increase the number of refugees, and it was obvious that the West would be suckers and take in those refugees.”<<

Yes. Perhaps, the West should have stayed out of that part of the world entirely in the last 60 yrs or so; though it’s too late now, and the West obviously won’t stay out.

So, if the West does continue to wage wars, then the West equally is *morally*, at least, obliged to take in the refugees that result. History is often a continuation; we also are and have been paying for the consequences of our own actions in those parts of the world for the last 60 yrs, if not more.


60 posted on 07/03/2015 4:59:46 AM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson