Posts by Aetius

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • JENNIFER RUBIN: Trump, Cruz and Paul emerge as Todd Akin Republicans

    06/30/2015 6:54:17 PM PDT · 47 of 48
    Aetius to 2ndDivisionVet

    Rubin is a loathsome creature. She is a fanatical believer in unending and ever-increasing mass legal immigration. She ignores all evidence that most immigrants are natural democrats and clings to fantasies and outright myths to the contrary. That the Washington Post has someone who is so left wing on immigration as one of their token ‘conservatives’ is not surprising.

  • Coolidge Was Americaís Most Successful Conservative President

    06/30/2015 6:40:16 PM PDT · 18 of 19
    Aetius to TNMOUTH

    Coolidge beats Reagan easily on immigration. And I doubt Coolidge made such horrible choices for the Sup Court that Reagan did with O’Connor and Kennedy.

  • Coolidge Was Americaís Most Successful Conservative President

    06/30/2015 6:36:43 PM PDT · 17 of 19
    Aetius to newgeezer

    Coolidge also signed into law the National Origins Quota based immigration reform, which ended mass immigration and and ushered in an era of low-moderate immigration levels that lasted for forty years.

    That was one of the great conservative successes of his Presidency, and it is that more than any thing else that modern Republicans should seek to replicate by ending this current unending wave of mass, democrat-importing immigration.

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/30/2015 6:10:53 PM PDT · 58 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/29/2015 8:15:08 PM PDT · 52 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • Ted Cruz: States should ignore gay-marriage ruling

    06/29/2015 8:01:27 PM PDT · 84 of 128
    Aetius to snarkybob

    It would be good for the country if the people were educated about judicial review and the idea of judicial supremacy. Even though Cruz didn’t go there, it would be good if the people knew how Jefferson and Saint Lincoln rejected the idea of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all constitutional questions. It would be good if the people knew that it was the Sup Court that declared its rulings as final (how convenient) and that they didn’t do that until over 100 years after the nation’s founding.

    Having said all of that, I am a pessimist and don’t think it would amount to anything. The idea of judicial supremacy (and finality when the decision is a liberal one) is so firmly entrenched that I doubt it can be undone. Plus Cruz is almost certainly correct in saying that the GOP establishment secretly supports these terrible decisions and is glad to be able to say the matter is now settled we must move on (to the next crushing defeat).

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/29/2015 7:43:51 PM PDT · 49 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/29/2015 6:02:52 PM PDT · 46 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/29/2015 5:53:35 PM PDT · 45 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/29/2015 5:44:57 PM PDT · 43 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • Coulter to PJM: Cut Off All Immigration, Focus on White Voters to Win

    06/29/2015 5:38:11 PM PDT · 42 of 58
    Aetius 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.

  • French Economy In "Dire Straits", "Worse Than Anyone Can Imagine", Leaked NSA Cable Reveals (2012)

    06/29/2015 5:27:43 PM PDT · 10 of 28
    Aetius to dynachrome

    Clearly the answer is to bring in millions more Muslim immigrants. That’ll fix everything.

  • Bill Nye Tells the Kids There Are Too Many of Us

    06/29/2015 5:25:59 PM PDT · 7 of 53
    Aetius to markomalley

    Of course Nye only means people of European descent. He of course would never suggest there are too many Africams or Asians or Latin Americans or Middle Easterners.

  • Gary Bauer: CHANGE THE COURT!

    06/29/2015 5:23:21 PM PDT · 70 of 72
    Aetius to campaignPete R-CT

    I hope you’re right.

  • Gary Bauer: CHANGE THE COURT!

    06/28/2015 8:35:06 PM PDT · 42 of 72
    Aetius to GeronL

    But they won’t do so. If a GOP Congress that voted overwhelmingly for DOMA in 1996, and another riding high after the Presidential and Congressional victories in 2004 wouldn’t do so, then what hope is there now?

    Then they could have stripped the courts of jurisdiction and enjoyed public support for doing so. Now the public would oppose it, and besides, it’s too late. Our masters on the Sup Cpurt have spoken, and as Rubio, Bush, and all respectable Republicans say, we must meekly obey and move on.

  • Gary Bauer: CHANGE THE COURT!

    06/28/2015 8:25:44 PM PDT · 38 of 72
    Aetius to campaignPete R-CT

    What path do you see to right this? Congress declined to even try and exercise its Artcile III Section 2 power when Clinton would have been afraid to veto it had it been part of DOMA. The Senate shelved it when the GOP had all of Congress and a Bush in the White House in 2004. It’s almost as if the party leadership didn’t want to win this one and just played conservative Christians for fools...again.

    As to future elections, what did I say that was wrong? It’s not going to get any easier with immigration importing hundreds of thousands of future democrats every year.

  • Gary Bauer: CHANGE THE COURT!

    06/28/2015 8:17:53 PM PDT · 35 of 72
    Aetius to campaignPete R-CT

    Would it have mattered though? If Congress had passed jurisdiction stripping legislation what would have stopped legal challenges to that law? And then ultimately what would have stopped 5 Sup Court justices from saying that Congress’ action overstepped its Article III Section 2 powers?

  • Gary Bauer: CHANGE THE COURT!

    06/28/2015 8:12:39 PM PDT · 31 of 72
    Aetius to campaignPete R-CT

    It’s a nice thought, but it borders on a pipe dream.

    Hillary is likely to be the next president. Beyond that, unending mass legal immigration (not to mention amnesty for illegals) is changing the demography ever more in favor of the left, and making a conservative victory in the electoral college less and less likely.

    Also, the GOP is likely to lose the Senate in 2016. At a minimum they’ll lose 2 or 3 seats, leaving them unable to invoke the nuclear option and break a Dem filibuster if a Republican wins the Presidency and nominates a conservative judge. If the Dems retake the Senate in that scenario, they will vote in lockstep to defeat a conservative nomination. The left plays for keeps. They don’t have people like Lindsay Graham who votes for Sotomayir and Kagan, knowing full well that they’ll vote for irreversible decisions that are counter to things Graham claims to believe in.

    This Sup Court is the best we are ever likely to have again, and that is a depressing thought.

  • The Pope Says Nothing About The Supreme Court Ruling On Gay Marriage, but...(Vanity)

    06/28/2015 8:04:20 PM PDT · 29 of 35
    Aetius to CWW

    He is, however, supportive of European suicide via mass African and Middle East immigration.

  • US Military Bases Named After Confederate Leaders

    06/28/2015 8:02:40 PM PDT · 22 of 36
    Aetius to nickcarraway

    They will be renamed within the next 10 years.

  • Why Justice Kennedy's Gay Marriage Opinion Is a Bigger Liberal Victory Than You Think

    06/28/2015 7:56:54 PM PDT · 16 of 38
    Aetius to Ray76

    How so? Even though this Sup Court is falsely labeled as a conservative one, it is sadly the most conservative we are ever likely to have again.

    Hillary will likely be the next President, and the GOP will likely lose the Senate. Past that, mass immigration driven demographic changes are making a conservative victory in the electoral college less and less likely. So it will likely be a democrat replacing Scalia and Kennedy within the next 10 years. Then the Sup Court is lost forever pretty much, and they will invent all sorts of new rights that the left desires, and they’ll gut real constitutional rights like those found in the First and Second Amendments.

    Even now there isn’t much hope. Kennedy is getting progressively (no pun intended) worse. Lost amid the high profile marriage and obamacare cases was another where Kenedy cast the deciding vote to uphold the use of disparate impact in Housing cases. This suggests that the reason the High Court didn’t take the opportunity presented by the Fisher case in Texas to strike down racial preferences is that Kennedy has changed his mind on this and moved left. Otherwise, with all else being equal, there should be five votes to strike down preferences.

    I think it would be foolish to expect any good ruling from Kennedy going forward, including support for the Second Amendment where he has been good up to now.

  • Walker Jumps the Marriage Shark

    06/28/2015 6:50:34 AM PDT · 47 of 67
    Aetius to Cincinatus' Wife

    That won’t matter one bit. For one thing, blacks and Hispanics are moving left on this issues just like whites. For another, even if they don’t like it, history has proven that it won’t dampen their support for democrats. They are solidly leftist constituencies. That’s not going to change.

  • I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me

    06/03/2015 7:48:21 PM PDT · 6 of 85
    Aetius to 2ndDivisionVet

    Will the Left really suffer tremendous electoral defeats when unending mass immigration has altered the demography so much with its importation of natural democrats? Many non-white immigrants will eagerly buy into this anti-white nonsense and general identity politics. And young whites are internalizing the Left’s narrative on such matters more and more.

  • Boehner opponent in NC may get primary

    06/03/2015 7:39:56 PM PDT · 6 of 13
    Aetius to ObamahatesPACoal

    Jones is one of the best in the House. I only wish he had ousted Hagan from the Senate instead of Tillis. It’d be great to have Jones and Sessions fighting the good fight on immigration in the Senate. Tillis will show his true colors on immigration in time. I’m sure of that.

  • Critics remain silent on Tony Abbottís revival (Australia's conservative Prime Minister)

    06/03/2015 7:32:22 PM PDT · 2 of 4
    Aetius to naturalman1975

    Abbott is worthy of admiration for his policy on turning back boatloads of illegal aliens. Europe should follow his example before it’s too late.

  • Karl Rove surrenders to ObamaCare

    05/08/2015 10:54:54 PM PDT · 36 of 70
    Aetius to The Ghost of FReepers Past

    They also promised to stop Obama’s illegal executive amnesty during the campaign. We saw how quickly they caved on that.

  • Cop Did a Nice Thing When Political Commentator Forgot Her Wallet. She Called Him Racist For It

    05/08/2015 10:45:52 PM PDT · 4 of 65
    Aetius to Impala64ssa

    She is vile.

  • Donít forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:43:02 PM PDT · 40 of 132
    Aetius to dead

    True. I should have said that it was astonishing that they were able to keep fighting after sustaining such losses.

    I guess they were one of only a few nations that had the population to do so.

  • Donít forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:34:52 PM PDT · 31 of 132
    Aetius to tcrlaf

    It’s astonishing the number of casualties the Germans inflicted on the soviets in the first two years, and yet they kept fighting.

  • Donít forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:30:58 PM PDT · 27 of 132
    Aetius to re_nortex

    Didnt Patton make comments about wanting to push the soviets out of Europe after Germany’s defeat?

  • Donít forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler

    05/08/2015 10:22:19 PM PDT · 21 of 132
    Aetius to MinorityRepublican

    There is no doubt that the Soviet Union took the heaviest hit and did most of the fighting and dying against Germany. The scale of the war on the eastern front dwarfed that on the western.

    I’m not so sure they saved the world from Hitler though. Certainly Europe would have been lost, but with the American mobilization to fight Japan, I wonder how much of a threat Hitler would have been to us. It would have taken Gemany years to build a navy strong enough to attempt a highly unlikely invasion, plus we would have still had a large advantage in manpower. On the other hand, if German scientists had more time and resources to develop advanced weapons systems and, of course, a nuclear bomb, then no country would have been safe. And Hitler would have controlled vast natural resources in Ukraine and Russia, plus possibly the Middle East too, giving him tremendous economic power.

    It’s interesting what-if analysis.

  • Congressman Gowdy Grills John Kerry Over Stealth Muslim Refugee Program

    05/08/2015 6:56:15 PM PDT · 29 of 63
    Aetius to concernedcitizen76

    Good for Gowdy, but unfortunately Republican leaders are almost as terrible on unending mass immigration - of which admittance of unsuitable Muslim refugees is a part - as Obama and the Democrats. This problem has been growing for decades. Bush could likely have ended this insanity after 9-11but unfortunately he was worthless on immigration.

    Now even though refugee and asylum visas are bringing in garbage like the Boston marathon bombers and the wannabe Somali jihadists out of Minnesota, those programs rarely receive any critical examination.

  • Concerns Of Muslim Immigration Surge Into Western World Come Into Focus

    05/08/2015 9:38:46 AM PDT · 12 of 15
    Aetius to george76

    Bush had the perfect chance to end this madness after 9-11. He could have either pushed for an end to mass immigration in general, or targeted Muslim nations for exclusion. Instead he was atrocious on the issue. Instead of getting good, conservative immigration reform, he helped popularize the nauseating “religion of peace” nonsense. And since 9-11 Muslim immigration into the US has increased, which is just insane. Of course no one, not even Sessions (who is the best Senator on immigration) will broach the subject.

    It wouldn’t be hard to end this madness, and it wouldn’t even require targeting of Muslim nations. We should (1) end extended family chain migration by eliminating adult siblings as a category (2) absolish the absurd Diversity Lottery visas and (3) severely restrict, to almost zero, refugee and asylum visas.

    Taken together these things would drastically reduce Muslim immigration.

  • Sen. Jeff Sessions: Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority (Covert Immigration Bill)

    05/06/2015 10:31:47 AM PDT · 17 of 21
    Aetius to Wolfie

    In the hands of someone like Obama, or of most leading republicans today, immigration would likely prove to be among the biggest, if not the biggest, problems with TPP.

  • CNN anchor Chris Cuomo: The First Amendment doesnít protect hate speech, you know

    05/06/2015 10:21:36 AM PDT · 50 of 86
    Aetius to 7thson

    Exactly. The Left comes up with the Constitutionally unfounded idea that ‘hate speech’ can be excluded from First Amendment protections, and then, of course, the Left gets to define ‘hate speech’.

    It is a scary proposition. If a Democrat wins in 2016, or if a Republican wins and is unable (or unwilling) to get a conservative Sup Court nominee approved, then once Scalia or Kennedy retire then there will be at least a 5 vote majority to strip destroy Free Speech by making exceptions for so called ‘hate speech.’ And leading the way in defining ‘hate speech’ will be far-left, radical, loathsome, despicable groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

  • Sen. Ted Cruz is the least likely choice for 2016 presidential election (Wait'l you hear why)

    05/04/2015 8:33:39 PM PDT · 31 of 65
    Aetius to 2ndDivisionVet

    Senator Hatch is increasingly worthless, so quoting him means nothing.

    If the government had shut down over Obama’s executive amnesty then it would have been Obama and the Democrats shutting it down, nit Cruz and the GOP.

    Where does he get the idea that Cruz would be a big deportation guy? I wish he would, but I don’t get that sense from him.

    And I doubt that Cruz denies climate change - everybody knows that the climate changes - he’s probabaly just guilty of denying that it’s man-made, and of not supporting ruinous policies that won’t do much to alter temp changes anyway.

    And to say that opposing more gun control hurts Criz is nonsense. This is one of the few areas where conservatism hasn’t been badly beaten in the culture war.

  • Healthcare For Those In U.S. Illegally Could Cost California $740 Million A Year

    05/04/2015 8:24:01 PM PDT · 22 of 38
    Aetius to Steelfish

    I’m sure it will be much more than that.

  • Jeb Bush 2016: 5 Immigration Quotes That Explain (Most) Of The Candidateís Views

    05/04/2015 8:22:10 PM PDT · 2 of 4
    Aetius to 2ndDivisionVet

    Scaling back unending extended family chain migration is a good idea, but who believes Bush would really push for that? He’d drop that the second the professional ethnic grievance groups took serious aim at him.

  • Belgistan? Sharia showdown in Brussels?

    05/04/2015 8:12:42 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    Aetius to Capt. Tom

    Muslim immigration to the United States has increased since 9-11. That’s just insane. Bush had a great chance to end mass immigration in the aftermath of that, but sadly he was about as bad as any leftist on immigration.

    I have no hope for Europe.

  • On Immigration, Scott Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus

    05/04/2015 8:10:17 PM PDT · 50 of 51
    Aetius to DoughtyOne

    I agree with all of your preferred policy changes on immigration.

    As to Walker; maybe you’re right, and he is unworthy of trust. I hope his recent comments on immigration represent a genuine reflection and change of heart on his part, but maybe it is all just a lie. After all, he left himself wiggle/weasel room to later decide that unending mass legal immigration is great for Americans.

    Cruz is probably better on illegal immigration, though isn’t he okay with allowing a legal status for some illegals without citizenship? Whatever the case on that, Cruz is bad on legal immigration. I’ve yet to see him criticize any element of it. He did vote against the Gang of Eight bill, but during the debate over it he proposed an amendment to increase H1B five fold, and voted against a Sessions amendment to limit overall legal immigration.

    Rubio can’t be trusted. Jeb is atrocious. Jindal has called for huge increases in legal immigration too. Snyder and Kasich would likely be horrible on the issue too.

    So if you are right about Walker, then it seems there is no hope at all for good, conservative comprehensive immigration reform from any of the candidates.

  • Columba Bush, Wife of Jeb Bush, Takes on Greater Role in Campaign

    05/01/2015 1:54:14 PM PDT · 5 of 19
    Aetius to jimbo123

    Great. I can’t wait to hear her echo Jeb on how immigrants are so superior to native born Americans and that the country is doomed if we don’t join Jeb in allowing in even more future Democrats.

  • Gay activists claim redefining marriage wonít hurt anyone, but thatís a lie. Just ask Canadians.

    05/01/2015 1:48:05 PM PDT · 21 of 46
    Aetius to wagglebee

    It’s hard get a feel for what Americans even think of the obvioius attacks on true liberty. Regarding the question of whether or not wedding vendors should be forced to take part in gay weddings, I’ve seen polls showing drastically different results, with the more recent ones being worrisome. Is it the wording, or is that more and more people are accepting the far left narrative that these small business people are ‘haters’ who should either conform, or be destroyed?

  • Belgistan? Sharia showdown in Brussels?

    05/01/2015 1:43:33 PM PDT · 5 of 8
    Aetius to Capt. Tom

    They’re not exactly hiding their plans either. ISIS openly admits that they will use migration as a weapon against the West.

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:38:42 PM PDT · 52 of 60
    Aetius to Lakeshark

    I wish Walker had gone all the way and called for a reduction in legal immigration. But you’re right, just by saying that the interests of Americans should be considered, and that the reflex/default position shouldn’t necessarily be ever-more legal immigration, that put Walker to the right of Cruz on legal immigration. And it put him firmly in the mainstream of the views held by Republican voters and Americans overall.

    To be fair, Cruz has been mostly good and consistent on illegal immigration. And to be fair, he’s been consistent on legal immigration, but he’s been consistently bad because he apparently supports unending and increasing mass legal immigration.

    Also to be fair, Walker has not been consistent on illgal immigration, and I don’t trust him on it. And he hasn’t always taken a more populist tone on legal immigration. He has made comments in the past suggesting he too would support huge increases in legal immigration. But from he’s saying now it seems as though he has actually thought about the issue and changed his mind, and that should be commended.

    I like Cruz. I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination. But it seems some of his supporters take any criticism of him very personally. I mean, are we not supposed to notice that he’s so liberal on legal immigration?

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:24:48 PM PDT · 51 of 60
    Aetius to impimp

    You want to increase legal immigration above the million or so we already admit each year? Considering that this million or so already consists mostly of natural Democrats, wanting to increase that influx is like saying you want to hasten the demographic destruction of conservatism.

    Unless of course you think an increase can happen that somehow changes the current natural Democrat makeup? How so? What category could be increased and not increase the number of future Democrats? H1Bs?

    If there are categories you think should be increased, then why necessarily call for an increase in overall legal immigration? Why not call for an increase in a desirable category set against a decrease in others? Why not abolish the ridiculous Diversity Lottery visas Ted Kennedy came up with? Why not severely restrict refugee and asylum slots? Why not limit family migration to spouses and minor children?

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:12:34 PM PDT · 50 of 60
    Aetius to ClearCase_guy

    Illegal immigration is a huge problem, but it’s unending mass legal immigration that is altering the nation’s demography in the Left/Democrat’s favor.

  • Scott Walker, labor market protectionist

    05/01/2015 1:11:30 PM PDT · 49 of 60
    Aetius to American in Israel

    What do you mean about drastically limiting legal immigration? We admit over one million legal immigrants per year, most of which are natural Democrats by the way. We have unending extended family chain migration. We have Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas. We have refugees. We have asylum seekers. We have H1B visas. We have all sort of ‘temporary’ worker permits.

    We are limiting legal immigration in the sense that with open borders the 1 million or so we admit each year would be many times that, but with all we allow it’s hard to say we aren’t very generous.

    There is too much illegal immigration, and there is too much legal immigration.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    05/01/2015 1:02:06 PM PDT · 38 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    I didn’t realize I was trying to make rules. I was just requesting responses to specific points, to which you’ve sort of done, so thank you.

    Cruz may have won 40% of Hispanics in 2012, but he won the race because of his overwhelming share of the white vote. There is no denying that. If it were up to Hispanics in Texas, Cruz wouldn’t be a Senator today. Cruz can go on about Hispanics being natural conservatives because of work ethic, but they don’t vote that way, and they don’t take conservative views on most of the big issues when polled on them.

    Republican dominance in Texas has come from the realignment of the state’s conservative white population. This is why Texas hasn’t gone the way of California; it’s not because Texas Hispanics are a little less Democrat than their California counterparts, but rather because Texas whites are a lot more conservative than whites in California.

    But this won’t hold forever. If the GOP can hold onto 70+% of the white vote in Texas then they’ll avoid a California-like collapse into near irrelevance, but eventually 70% of whites won’t be enough guarantee victory. It definitely won’t be able to deliver landslide victories that the GOP has become accustomed to in Texas for too much longer.

    These pro-Democrat demographic shifts are largely driven by the excessively high levels of legal immigration, year after year, decade after decade, that Cruz supports.

    I don’t know which will play a bigger role in the election in the end - illegal or legal immigration, but ideally both would be big considerations. If Cruz (or Bush, or Christie, or Rubio) is the nominee, then it will probably be a rhetorical war between him and Hillary to see who can wax most poetic about how much they love legal immigration, with no consideration at all given to the idea that there can be too much of it. Cruz may think his calls for increasing legal immigration will give him an edge with immigrant groups, but Hillary could just match him on that, and then the issue is neutralized with Hispanics and Asians and those two groups just go back to their default pro-Democrat position.

    And when it comes to illegal immigration, all will say they oppose amnesty, some will say there should be a path to citizenship, some will say no to a path to citizenship, and none of them will call for most illegal aliens to back to their country of origin.

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/30/2015 2:11:14 PM PDT · 33 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    If you don’t want to go back and forth anymore that’s fine, but if you’re going to respond, then why not respond to specific points or questions?

    This thread is about legal immigration. So a focus on that issue here is logical. And anyway, legal immigration is not some little hobby horse of an issue or concern. It shapes the nation’s demography, and what is more important than that?

    And you have no answer to question about the long term consequences of mass legal immigration. That’s good in one sense, because it suggests that you accept the reality of immigrant community preference for the Democrats. But again, what do you think is going to happen? What will happen in Texas when 70% of the white vote can no longer carry the day for Republicans? Do you think Cruz is a transformative figure who will convince immigrant communities to turn away from their support for big government Democrat policies?

  • Scott Walker is Right About Reducing Legal Immigration

    04/30/2015 1:54:35 PM PDT · 29 of 38
    Aetius to JRandomFreeper

    What you’re saying about one man deciding something makes no sense. That’s obvioulsy true that one man can’t decide an issue, unless we’re talking about Obama and his executive amnesty that is. But people have positions. By your logic, if I can’t criticize Cruz for being liberal on legal immigration because he can’t control it anyway, then why can we praise him for being good on the Second Amendment? He doesn’t control that either. As a Senator, he has one voice and one vote. On the Gang of Eight bill, he used his voice forcefully against the bill and voted against the bill. But in debate over the bill he also used his voice and vote to strike against not even reducing legal immigration, but simply capping it at very high level. It wasn’t high enough for him!

    There is no confusion about legal and illegal immigration. Cruz has been good on the latter, though surely a man as smart as he is knows that legalization without citizenship would not be able to stand. But on the former, Cruz is quite liberal.

    As far as an agenda goes, I really don’t understand this whole hero worship. Is Cruz infallible to you? Is he perfect? Is he beyond criticism?

    And I ask you again, what do you think is going to happen if we continue a legal immigration policy that imports millions each decade, the majority of which are natural Democrats?