Are sanctuary cities legally possible? How about Roe vs. Wade? Was it a lawful ruling?
I think you are confusing ethnic pride with political commitment to the PAN or the PRI.
I think I have eyes and can see as far as California. BTW, isn't McCain planning to speak at the La Raza convention this summer?
Even if every illegal alien in America were handed full citizenship tomorrow, they would not have enough votes to force a merger.
That's why I said it will occur a few decades from now. That's after the next couple of amnesties (which will be inevitable after we amnesty 12 million or more illegals and allow them to import their relatives).
False on two counts: (1) The 1965 immigration law has almost nothing to do with demographic shifts in the USA;
Then try to repeal it. No one dares to even suggest that because they would immediately be accused of trying to suppress non-white immigration.
(2) plenty of reputable conservatives recognized it as bad law - like Bill Buckley who was rightly contemptuous of the JBS. Cranks like the JBS were mostly concerned over whether or not there were enough controls to ensure that the new immigrants were not communists.
Do you know how many GOP senators voted against the bill? Three. That's right, only three. So it didn't exactly have mainstream conservative opposition, did it?
Demographic shifts in America between 1965-1985 were due to two causes:
Which you list as abortion/BC and illegal immigration. You're correct that those have added to the problem. But recall that the reason a blind eye has been turned to illegal immigration is precisely because the illegals are non-white, and everyone's afraid to control it because that would involve keeping "people of color" out of America. Look how freely you accuse debate rivals here of not liking brown people. How many politicians have the courage to take a stand on an issue like this when that's the level of discourse they can expect? This attitude was inevitable once the 1965 act passed and its key "landmark" provision was its ability to admit lots and lots of people from the third world.
Demographic shifts occurred because white Americans chose not to reproduce.
Why would they reproduce when they have to carry a high tax burden to subsidize aliens, have to work for lower wages because of aliens, and especially when they know their offspring will grow to adulthood in a nation where they're increasingly outnumbered.
There was zero discussion in the 1965 debates over immigration about even the possibility of tens of millions of illegal immigrants. One of the signal failures of the 1965 bill was to not even bother to consider US demographic trends nor to project what long-term incentives the bill was creating. Both the bill's proponents and opponents, in retrospect, were absolutely clueless about the real issues involved.
You're naive if you believe the Dems who pushed that bill through didn't know exactly what they were doing. You think Ted Kennedy & Co. were just trying to do what was right, but tragically messed up? The Republicans who voted for it were clueless, but not the Dems.
No one at the time, not even cranks, predicted massive illegal immigration or massive failure of border enforcement. You are reading our current situation back into an historical period that did not anticipate it.
Well, I'll take your word for that, but I don't recall the bill being universally popular.
What's amusing about your argument is this: (1) You proceed on the (correct) assumption that the 1965 immigration bill was terrible law. So far so good. (2) You then make the (completely incorrect) assumption that our current immigration situation was contemplated and designed by the 1965 bill. It wasn't at all.
That's like saying the proponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't intend quotas and that the Planned Parenthood types who gave us Griswold didn't foresee Roe. Or that the people who wanted sodomy legalized weren't positioning themselves to demand same-sex "marriage" a few years down the road. They may not have seen everything in exact detail but they knew they were positioning us for something else. Liberals are always positioning us for something else, in case you haven't noticed.
(3) Your solution is, apparently, to solve our existing immigration crisis by . . . enforcing that terrible 1965 bill!
Now, that's amusing! I'd repeal that bill.
So, the correct policy is to treat the well-behaved, productive Mexicans in the US as a suspect class that can never be loyal and never have citizenship?
If they're illegally here, yeah.
There does not exist in this country the political will to deport 6 or more million people.
That's called a fait accompli.
What does exist is the political will to deport a million or so convicted criminal aliens and to erect a system of border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out.
Border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out, but not anybody else? Everyone else is just free to waltz in?
Murdering unborn children and sodomizing people are not morally equivalent to trespassing. Sorry.
??????
In the absence of federal laws requiring municipalities to cooperate with ICE investigations, many municipalities will refuse. One of the features of our federal system.
How about Roe vs. Wade? Was it a lawful ruling?
It is a clear violation of the XIVth Amendment.
Of course, neither of these tolerated illegalities contemplate the dissolution of the US Executive or the Senate - which the scenario of an "NAU" requires.
BTW, isn't McCain planning to speak at the La Raza convention this summer?
If he spoke to the NAACP would that mean McCain supported reparations?
There were only 31 GOP Senators in 1965, and most of them belonged to the liberal Northeastern Rockefeller wing of the party. Conservatism and the GOP were not as closely linked in 1965 as they were in 1985. Goldwater had negative coattails in 1964.
Look how freely you accuse debate rivals here of not liking brown people. How many politicians have the courage to take a stand on an issue like this when that's the level of discourse they can expect?
That will be the level of discourse they have earned when they complain about "Mexicans", calling people "illiterate peasants", "Turd Worlders" etc.
Why would they reproduce when they have to carry a high tax burden to subsidize aliens
Cart before the horse.
Widespread illegal immigration did not become a noticeable phenomenon culturally or fiscally until the early 80s. By that point, white Americans had been contracepting themselves out of existence for almost 20 years and aborting themselves out of existence in the Northeast for almost fifteen years and nationally for ten.
Their demographic attempted suicide was a precondition for illegal immigration, not the consequence.
You're naive if you believe the Dems who pushed that bill through didn't know exactly what they were doing. You think Ted Kennedy & Co. were just trying to do what was right, but tragically messed up?
Kennedy was pushing a bill that he imagined would enable his urban ethnic voter base to grow through family reunification policies.
He was not trying to do the right thing.
But he never imagined that the restrictive quotas in his bill coupled with an unprecedented demographic morbidity among white Americans would create conditions would create a perfect economic incentive for mass illegal immigration. If Kennedy's career illustrates anything, it illustrates his complete ignorance of basic economics.
I don't recall the bill being universally popular.
It wasn't universally popular at all. The people who complained about it did not anticipate that it would provide an incentive for massive illegal immigration. Previous immigration law provided generous encouragement for immigration from Europe and the 1965 bill provided tight quotas on European immigration.
That's what bothered people - and they saw family reunification as benefitting Irish, Italian and Central European Americans over Northern European Americans since the former were more recent immigrants with stronger family connections in the Old World than English, German, Scottish and Scandinavian Americans who had very few uncles, nephews, first cousins, etc. in Europe.
In other words, a bill that was good for northeastern liberals.
That's like saying the proponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't intend quotas
(1) Some did. Some did not.
(2) There is a difference between wanting to implement a specific future policy and being able to predict how a current law is going to interact with larger social forces - like the adoption of the pill.
Border enforcement that keeps violent criminals out, but not anybody else? Everyone else is just free to waltz in?
No, only people with clean records and a clean bill of health who are young and who have sponsored employment.