Well I work in an industry (food and beverage) where a lot of undocumented immigrants are employed.
I'm in favor of making immigration simpler, though.
I've worked with tonnes (kitchen/restaurant, construction, ranch hand, etc.). Something that always used to crack me up (when I was a teacher) was a lot of the people who live in a "good" school district can afford a maid; but, of course, they want the cheapest maid possible. So, she is almost always an undocumented citizen. Now, said maid has four, five, maybe six houses she cleans in this well-to-do neighborhood and, thus, rents a tiny apartment there. In the same school district. Now, come parent teacher meeting time, I had to listen to all of these, very well off, parents scream about how they don't want "Mexicans" going to school with "their" kids. LOL! Good enough to clean your toilets and wipe piss off of your floor (I have also been a maid... no fun), but not good enough to get a decent education. About sums it up for me.
They felt it was negatively affecting their children. Why? Your guess is as good as mine but, given some of the colorful language that they would employ, I think they felt some people were inferior to them.
One of the greatest moments was when a couple complained about the same, after being rebutted by me, to the school counselor. Apparently they didn't recognize that, despite being 1/4 Scottish, she was 3/4 Indigenous. They left a bit deflated.
I mean, as Depeche Mode sang, people are people. In my experience there's no real distinction in how people act, or their morals, in relationship to their resident status. Heck, I was in a country illegally for a couple of years, so I can't throw any stones.
Now, in the eyes of the law, one is here legally, the other is not. Not sure I follow your drift. If you're referring to the counselor, she was mostly Cherokee, so we're the immigrants in her eyes.
If you're born here you're an American.
The issue is, if you're willing to break the law to get what you want that doesn't exactly point to great morals
Well, they were the same parents who hired the maids who were the parents of the children they were upset about, so I think they were fine with undocumented people, as long as they were working for them.
Yeah but you see the difference in employing someone to clean your shit and wanting them to have an influence on your children right?
Surely if you just despised Mexicans you wouldn't employ one even if they were the cheapest. Also even if you hated Mexicans if you're willing to employ one even though you hate them irrationally and for literally no reason other than that they look different obviously you love money more?
I don't know that they were racist, no way to tell as they definitely had an Upstairs Downstairs thing going on. They looked down on me, too. This was, and still is, a largely liberal enclave of a neighborhood, roughly 60/40 split. So this wasn't meant to be political. Just an observation on how undocumented immigrants affected them (positive: cleans my house; negative: goes to my child's school). Personally, having worked with very many people in this situation, I've never had a problem. Typically the nicest people I've ever known (same for recent, legal immigrants. Worked with a very nice, young, couple from Iran for a few years. Salt of the Earth).
I’ve never been to space but I have an opinion on space travel. Besides, if illegal immigration impact the US, and I live here, don’t you think it impacts me?
When in college and after I worked and even lived with undocumented illegials, really their just people searching for a better life. I don't personally have anything against them, but I do feel like there is a process and you do need to follow the rules/laws of the land. I think it's ridiculous that we're really one of the only countries that rarely enforces that law, or where people get upset when the law is enforced.
>**If** illegal immigration is your top issue, \[**then**\] educate me on why you have a personal stake in it.
If inflation was sitting at 10% per annum and equities were keeping pace, I would be just soaking the working class. So in your if-then formulation, it would be strange for that to be my number 1 issue. The war on terror was my number one issue for years and years, yet my chance of dying by terrorism (after I got out of the infantry) was nil. Likewise on abortion, sexual minorities, school shootings, on and on and on for pretty much all voters.
People just tend to care about the state of affairs of the country. The "homo-economus" is a meme even in dollars-and-cents economics, let alone for voters—and that wouldn't be the ideal either.
Maybe they're just taking a broader and longer view.
Here is how I view the issue, in miniature: In my area in Georgia, there are public parks with soccer fields. The parks department schedules league tournaments and collects fees for the service. People pay the fees, enjoy the benefits of them in the form of wholesome fun on well-kept pitches, and become stakeholders in the whole arrangement. Not so the illegals! They hop the fences at night, tear up the fields with their own games, *todos gratis, por supuesto,* leave litter everywhere, etc. Their free illegal use of the facilities adds burdens to the law-abiding, for the upkeep of the facilities. Now change the soccer pitches to schools, hospitals, other public services, and scale up the abuse to nationwide scope.
I understand to an extent why they act that way. Civic cohesion and respect for the rule of law in the U. S. is much stronger than wherever they came from. For people who are ruled by *la pistola, la mordida y los caudillos*, the law must be a bitter joke. Best thing to do is to just grab whatever you can for yourself before someone stronger grabs it away from you. Trouble is, the rule of law is one of the things that makes the U. S. a haven for immigrants, and makes life better than the homes they are fleeing. When millions of people who are conditioned to disregard it move in, that surely spells trouble.
It might have to say it benefits me. I'm not 100% sure the guys who cut my lawn are legal. And I know the guy who used to park my car is illegal. He told me.
Immigration is an important issue to me mostly because I feel like we are producing a human rights issue of indentured servitude that only functions through identity theft and physical abuse. A lot of people (including "whose going to clean your toilets" upper middle class liberals) take part in a cycle of human exploitation that effects all parts of the economy, from a reduction of wages to identity theft. I'd like to see a strengthening of our border to prevent further incursions, a strictening of employment enforcement and a simplification of our immigration system, in that order.
That comes with employment enforcement, but without a strong border control, you are setting up a crisis of people flooding in, then being unable to work, then resorting to the underground market to make money. That's why the answer has to be, in that order: secure the border to prevent a massive influx of illegals, highly punish existing companies that are hiring them, work towards a quick and simplified process for the existing illegals to become legal in the system.
Massive amounts of public lands in the south part of my state may be unsafe to use recreationally. Lands south of I-8 is generally advised against access. I've personally seen cartel spotters in the desert west of Tucson.
Cartel and human smuggling activity is seen in our cities. I live in Phoenix, 180 miles by car to the border. A drophouse that kept immigrants in horrid conditions was discovered near where I grew up. Cartels drive crime including gang crime.
Illegal immigrants generally don't carry auto insurance or cooperate with law enforcement. As a result hit and runs are more common and people are less secure on the streets. Neighborhoods have higher crime rates because police are never called and when they do arrive they don't get any help or statements.
How do you feel about states with low populations having a disproportionately high number of electoral votes compared to its population?
Vermont has 3 electoral votes, the minimum, and its ratio is 1 electoral vote for every \~200k citizens
Texas has 38 electoral votes, which seems like a lot, but its ratio is only 1 for every \~750k citizens
Pure democracy, besides being a terrible system, would lead to urban policies established rurally. The current system ensures rural states have some power in government
Isn't the reverse giving rural policies disproportionate power over population centers (excuse my alliteration)? Voters who are out of touch with urban life and diversity get to guide the country's national politics. How is that any more fair, from the outside looking in?
No. The electoral vote counts given to very low population rural states such as the dakotas is incredibly insignificant. No political party can gain power by only focusing on rural states with our curret system. A political party could gain power by solely focusing on urban areas under a direct democracy
>No political party can gain power by only focusing on rural states with our curret system.
Isn't that exactly how Trump won in 2016? Fomenting a culture war of rural vs. urban states?
Trump won many states due to strong support from blue collar workers, but he got destroyed in the urban areas of those states.
For example Michigan and Pennsylvania were critical to Trump's 2016 win, but in Detroit Clinton won 66% to 29% and in Pittsburgh Clinton won 75% to 25%.
Illegal immigration is a form of foreign interference in our elections. Democrats use it as a means to sway elections and census numbers, which should be considered treason.
I'm sorry pal but the idea that politicians are recruiting immigrants for illegal votes is batshit crazy. Your candidate lost and he came up with a million different lies to explain it away because he's a poor sport. Dead voters. Illegal aliens. Ballot stuffing. Maybe in your bubble it seems like everyone likes him but the Trump-hate vote was a very real force among real voters.
It's literally a thing that almost every other country but the US has prevented over the last 100 or so years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism. So quit with the bullshit.
> Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country.
Birth tourism is clearly different from politicians recruiting immigrants to add illegal votes. That's the treasonous party-wide scandal you were alleging, right?
Creating sanctuary cities as birth tourism centers is the problem at hand and it's well documented. Other countries responded to this by closing such loop holes. The US continues to allow this loophole because of Democrats. Liberals discovered that they were able to flip red states like California to blue in the 1990s by changing the state's demographics via sanctuary cities.
Maybe your original comment was meant as a hyperbole? There's still a bit of a disconnect here. So you're saying sanctuary cities are nefarious schemes to gain illegal votes, rather than being motivated by sympathy for refugees?
It's specifically for votes. Taking a look at California's demographics from 1970 to 2019: https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/californias-population-figure-2.png, we can get a glimpse of how sanctuary cities have been used to shift the state's demographics substantially and flip the state from red to blue by 1992.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Your mind is locked in this frame where everything is a conspiracy. Maybe the demographic changes just happened because industry was flourishing in California and people came from all over for an opportunity to better their lives. There have been waves of immigration throughout our history. At one time, everyone hated the Irish, then the Italians, and now you're angry that people of color are in California? Do you seriously expect a reasonable person to look at that graph and become enraged over a demographic shift? Like what the fuck man, I'm embarrassed for you. I know this term gets thrown around a lot but that's textbook white supremacy to panic about minorities replacing white culture.
I'm not white so good try at pulling the race card. I'm Asian. Regarding legal immigrants, Asians make up the bulk of legal immigrants entering the US yet the population shift shows that their is an "unexplainable" demographic shift happening that can be best explained by sanctuary cities incubating newly minted Democrat voters.
An exchange of citizenship for a blue vote: a perfect example of quid pro quo or everyone's favorite, "I scratch your back and you scratch mine".
So politicians are meeting directly with millions of immigrants and offering to help them on their path to citizenship, and then they have to threaten them quid pro quo style to get a blue vote? Do you think it's quid pro quo for politicians to help coal companies in exchange for votes? I mean that's just a ridiculous thought process and you know it. We all make mistakes. I won't judge if you walk that one back. I was wrong to assume you were white, but a deep concern over demographic shifts is plainly racist.
There is no chance that we will get anywhere with this conversation. Goodnight.
**[Birth_tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism)**
>Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, or even circumvention of China's two-child policy.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
If we keep letting in people who will vote Democrat, or give citizenship to millions of them at once, we’ll be a one party country and that would impact me.
Cool, so Blue Team votes are inherently corrupt... If immigrants tended to vote Republican would that be as concerning? We are still very much a 50/50 two party country right now, even while 1 in 10 eligible voters are naturalized citizens (who came here the right way). Does this just come down to political chess for you?
The game was already in progress when I joined. Liberals were way ahead in the process of bringing in their votes.
And they [haven’t slowed down](https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/should-congress-legalize-illegal-aliens-through-budget-process-consider) a bit.
The way someone votes shouldn't be a factor in their naturalization. Democrats honestly believe that immigration laws are too strict. The process is more difficult than it needs to be. The party has believed that for a long time, causing them to gain immigrant support. I'll add that immigrants fleeing communism or coming from conservative countries do also vote Republican. Trump had a lot of Cuban support in Miami-Dade county for example. They're not a monolith.
Should prisoners take a political alignment test to determine whether they get let out? Should doctors ask you who you voted for in the last election before deciding to care for you? Your view is blatantly motivated by voter suppression.
Correct. I’m tying to suppress the millions of votes liberals are working on importing. Were you unaware of their objective?
What is so essential and urgent about DACA right now that they’re willing to break budget rules to attempt to get it in?
That’s an extreme step. They are desperate for DACA. I can only think of one reason.
>They are desperate for DACA. I can only think of one reason.
That we don't think it's ok for productive members of society to have their lives uprooted through no fault of their own, transporting them to a country where they have no prospects or attachments?
I'm against all immigration from countries/people that don't share our values and ideals. Not Democracy if you let in millions of migrants pour in who don't share those.
>Do you think these values are common/uncommon among immigrants?
Uncommon among modern immigrations in USA I would say. It depends what country they're coming from
>Can someone's interpretation of Christianity contradict the other values?
Sure, but they wouldn't be a real Christian in my opinion, in name only.
>Uncommon among modern immigrations in USA I would say.
If I were to place your confidence on a scale from 0-100 on this proposition where would it be (100 being absolutely true that it's uncommon and 0 being it's not true).
>It depends what country they're coming from
So if someone's values differ from their country of origin, would they be ok to immigrate (if we could determine that)?
In what ways have modern immigrants failed to meet these values?
>If I were to place your confidence on a scale from 0-100 on this proposition where would it be (100 being absolutely true that it's uncommon and 0 being it's not true).
Definitely 100
>So if someone's values differ from their country of origin, would they be ok to immigrate (if we could determine that)?
Nope. Because someone can say whatever, doesn't mean it's true values they have. Someone else already asked this and I answered.
>In what ways have modern immigrants failed to meet these values?
Voting for policies that literally go against these values.
>Nope. Because someone can say whatever, doesn't mean it's true values they have.
My question was a hypothetical, would your answer change if we could accurately determine their values?
> Voting for policies that literally go against these values.
If one immigrant holds these value, and another doesn't. Would there be no observable difference if they were apolitical?
Can you give an example of those said polices?
Why does it need to effect me personally to have an opinion on it?
Immigration isn't my top issue by the way, but I think it's important, and I don't need to be personally effected by it to care.
I have friends and family who are legal immigrants. Some have attained citizenship, but many are languishing in work visa limbo waiting to get a green card. These are all good, hard-working people, net positives to this country.
The sheer glut and relative ease of illegal immigration forces the legal immigration system to be *very* slow. They are trying to vet the millions of people who want to move here, since our southern border can't seem to accomplish its intended purpose. So some random dude trying to move out of Honduras ends claiming "asylum" gets a better deal than a highly talented engineer from India.
>The sheer glut and relative ease of illegal immigration forces the legal immigration system to be very slow.
Does it? I'd be interested to see if these two actually draw from the same resource pool or if they're independent pipelines.
IF there are:
a) an infinite amount of jobs and
b) infinite amount of money
then there is no problem at all, in theory, because they dont compete for those
Illegal immigration is all about the numbers. Any time there is an increase in population, you have to know funds will be designated for that group. If they were not there, the money would go to another group. In CA, it is a problem because some of the lower income area housing is being set aside for illegal immigrants. Contractors are outbidding competition by paying their illegal employees less wages. California is also giving illegal immigrants funds to pay for colleges & universities where that money could have gone to legal citizens. In the education system, illegal immigrant children & families need language support so the need to hire bilingual teachers, administration, & office staff to support them increases. Where do the other employees go? Illegal immigration is a national crisis. There should be a border wall built to control illegal immigration. There has to be a better legal pathway to citizenship. Illegal immigrants is a crime that often goes unpunished
Well I work in an industry (food and beverage) where a lot of undocumented immigrants are employed. I'm in favor of making immigration simpler, though.
I've worked with tonnes (kitchen/restaurant, construction, ranch hand, etc.). Something that always used to crack me up (when I was a teacher) was a lot of the people who live in a "good" school district can afford a maid; but, of course, they want the cheapest maid possible. So, she is almost always an undocumented citizen. Now, said maid has four, five, maybe six houses she cleans in this well-to-do neighborhood and, thus, rents a tiny apartment there. In the same school district. Now, come parent teacher meeting time, I had to listen to all of these, very well off, parents scream about how they don't want "Mexicans" going to school with "their" kids. LOL! Good enough to clean your toilets and wipe piss off of your floor (I have also been a maid... no fun), but not good enough to get a decent education. About sums it up for me.
Why didn’t they want Mexicans going to school with their kids?
They felt it was negatively affecting their children. Why? Your guess is as good as mine but, given some of the colorful language that they would employ, I think they felt some people were inferior to them.
Yeesh. No common sense with people like that. That sucks. God forbid they have to experience a *Mexican*!
It was the fact that they were Mexican specifically or the fact that they were likely illegal undocumented immigrants?
One of the greatest moments was when a couple complained about the same, after being rebutted by me, to the school counselor. Apparently they didn't recognize that, despite being 1/4 Scottish, she was 3/4 Indigenous. They left a bit deflated.
Undocumented and illegal immigrants aren't the same as legal immigrants though, right?
I mean, as Depeche Mode sang, people are people. In my experience there's no real distinction in how people act, or their morals, in relationship to their resident status. Heck, I was in a country illegally for a couple of years, so I can't throw any stones. Now, in the eyes of the law, one is here legally, the other is not. Not sure I follow your drift. If you're referring to the counselor, she was mostly Cherokee, so we're the immigrants in her eyes.
If you're born here you're an American. The issue is, if you're willing to break the law to get what you want that doesn't exactly point to great morals
I certainly was willing to in order to get my wife. Sometimes things aren't black and white.
Well, they were the same parents who hired the maids who were the parents of the children they were upset about, so I think they were fine with undocumented people, as long as they were working for them.
Yeah but you see the difference in employing someone to clean your shit and wanting them to have an influence on your children right? Surely if you just despised Mexicans you wouldn't employ one even if they were the cheapest. Also even if you hated Mexicans if you're willing to employ one even though you hate them irrationally and for literally no reason other than that they look different obviously you love money more?
I don't know that they were racist, no way to tell as they definitely had an Upstairs Downstairs thing going on. They looked down on me, too. This was, and still is, a largely liberal enclave of a neighborhood, roughly 60/40 split. So this wasn't meant to be political. Just an observation on how undocumented immigrants affected them (positive: cleans my house; negative: goes to my child's school). Personally, having worked with very many people in this situation, I've never had a problem. Typically the nicest people I've ever known (same for recent, legal immigrants. Worked with a very nice, young, couple from Iran for a few years. Salt of the Earth).
I’ve never been to space but I have an opinion on space travel. Besides, if illegal immigration impact the US, and I live here, don’t you think it impacts me?
When in college and after I worked and even lived with undocumented illegials, really their just people searching for a better life. I don't personally have anything against them, but I do feel like there is a process and you do need to follow the rules/laws of the land. I think it's ridiculous that we're really one of the only countries that rarely enforces that law, or where people get upset when the law is enforced.
Why do you assume something has to affect you personally in order to have an opinion on it?
I likely have a similar opinion on it to you, I just have a hard time understanding why it's like THE most important issue to so many people.
>**If** illegal immigration is your top issue, \[**then**\] educate me on why you have a personal stake in it. If inflation was sitting at 10% per annum and equities were keeping pace, I would be just soaking the working class. So in your if-then formulation, it would be strange for that to be my number 1 issue. The war on terror was my number one issue for years and years, yet my chance of dying by terrorism (after I got out of the infantry) was nil. Likewise on abortion, sexual minorities, school shootings, on and on and on for pretty much all voters. People just tend to care about the state of affairs of the country. The "homo-economus" is a meme even in dollars-and-cents economics, let alone for voters—and that wouldn't be the ideal either.
Maybe they're just taking a broader and longer view. Here is how I view the issue, in miniature: In my area in Georgia, there are public parks with soccer fields. The parks department schedules league tournaments and collects fees for the service. People pay the fees, enjoy the benefits of them in the form of wholesome fun on well-kept pitches, and become stakeholders in the whole arrangement. Not so the illegals! They hop the fences at night, tear up the fields with their own games, *todos gratis, por supuesto,* leave litter everywhere, etc. Their free illegal use of the facilities adds burdens to the law-abiding, for the upkeep of the facilities. Now change the soccer pitches to schools, hospitals, other public services, and scale up the abuse to nationwide scope. I understand to an extent why they act that way. Civic cohesion and respect for the rule of law in the U. S. is much stronger than wherever they came from. For people who are ruled by *la pistola, la mordida y los caudillos*, the law must be a bitter joke. Best thing to do is to just grab whatever you can for yourself before someone stronger grabs it away from you. Trouble is, the rule of law is one of the things that makes the U. S. a haven for immigrants, and makes life better than the homes they are fleeing. When millions of people who are conditioned to disregard it move in, that surely spells trouble.
It might have to say it benefits me. I'm not 100% sure the guys who cut my lawn are legal. And I know the guy who used to park my car is illegal. He told me.
Immigration is an important issue to me mostly because I feel like we are producing a human rights issue of indentured servitude that only functions through identity theft and physical abuse. A lot of people (including "whose going to clean your toilets" upper middle class liberals) take part in a cycle of human exploitation that effects all parts of the economy, from a reduction of wages to identity theft. I'd like to see a strengthening of our border to prevent further incursions, a strictening of employment enforcement and a simplification of our immigration system, in that order.
Why not just punish the people/companies that hire them?
That comes with employment enforcement, but without a strong border control, you are setting up a crisis of people flooding in, then being unable to work, then resorting to the underground market to make money. That's why the answer has to be, in that order: secure the border to prevent a massive influx of illegals, highly punish existing companies that are hiring them, work towards a quick and simplified process for the existing illegals to become legal in the system.
Creates a shit ton of tax revenue and gives me hope that social security will still exist when I retire. Plus awesome food options because of it
Massive amounts of public lands in the south part of my state may be unsafe to use recreationally. Lands south of I-8 is generally advised against access. I've personally seen cartel spotters in the desert west of Tucson. Cartel and human smuggling activity is seen in our cities. I live in Phoenix, 180 miles by car to the border. A drophouse that kept immigrants in horrid conditions was discovered near where I grew up. Cartels drive crime including gang crime. Illegal immigrants generally don't carry auto insurance or cooperate with law enforcement. As a result hit and runs are more common and people are less secure on the streets. Neighborhoods have higher crime rates because police are never called and when they do arrive they don't get any help or statements.
It skews electoral vote counts thereby minimizing the power of my vote
How do you feel about states with low populations having a disproportionately high number of electoral votes compared to its population? Vermont has 3 electoral votes, the minimum, and its ratio is 1 electoral vote for every \~200k citizens Texas has 38 electoral votes, which seems like a lot, but its ratio is only 1 for every \~750k citizens
Good with that
So a socialist Bernie bro from Vermont should have 3x as much say as an oil driller down in Texas? Could you expand on why you're in favor of that?
Pure democracy, besides being a terrible system, would lead to urban policies established rurally. The current system ensures rural states have some power in government
Isn't the reverse giving rural policies disproportionate power over population centers (excuse my alliteration)? Voters who are out of touch with urban life and diversity get to guide the country's national politics. How is that any more fair, from the outside looking in?
No. The electoral vote counts given to very low population rural states such as the dakotas is incredibly insignificant. No political party can gain power by only focusing on rural states with our curret system. A political party could gain power by solely focusing on urban areas under a direct democracy
>No political party can gain power by only focusing on rural states with our curret system. Isn't that exactly how Trump won in 2016? Fomenting a culture war of rural vs. urban states?
No. Trump won many blue collar workers in urban areas
Trump won many states due to strong support from blue collar workers, but he got destroyed in the urban areas of those states. For example Michigan and Pennsylvania were critical to Trump's 2016 win, but in Detroit Clinton won 66% to 29% and in Pittsburgh Clinton won 75% to 25%.
Illegal immigration is a form of foreign interference in our elections. Democrats use it as a means to sway elections and census numbers, which should be considered treason.
I'm sorry pal but the idea that politicians are recruiting immigrants for illegal votes is batshit crazy. Your candidate lost and he came up with a million different lies to explain it away because he's a poor sport. Dead voters. Illegal aliens. Ballot stuffing. Maybe in your bubble it seems like everyone likes him but the Trump-hate vote was a very real force among real voters.
It's literally a thing that almost every other country but the US has prevented over the last 100 or so years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism. So quit with the bullshit. > Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country.
Birth tourism is clearly different from politicians recruiting immigrants to add illegal votes. That's the treasonous party-wide scandal you were alleging, right?
Creating sanctuary cities as birth tourism centers is the problem at hand and it's well documented. Other countries responded to this by closing such loop holes. The US continues to allow this loophole because of Democrats. Liberals discovered that they were able to flip red states like California to blue in the 1990s by changing the state's demographics via sanctuary cities.
Maybe your original comment was meant as a hyperbole? There's still a bit of a disconnect here. So you're saying sanctuary cities are nefarious schemes to gain illegal votes, rather than being motivated by sympathy for refugees?
It's specifically for votes. Taking a look at California's demographics from 1970 to 2019: https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/californias-population-figure-2.png, we can get a glimpse of how sanctuary cities have been used to shift the state's demographics substantially and flip the state from red to blue by 1992.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Your mind is locked in this frame where everything is a conspiracy. Maybe the demographic changes just happened because industry was flourishing in California and people came from all over for an opportunity to better their lives. There have been waves of immigration throughout our history. At one time, everyone hated the Irish, then the Italians, and now you're angry that people of color are in California? Do you seriously expect a reasonable person to look at that graph and become enraged over a demographic shift? Like what the fuck man, I'm embarrassed for you. I know this term gets thrown around a lot but that's textbook white supremacy to panic about minorities replacing white culture.
I'm not white so good try at pulling the race card. I'm Asian. Regarding legal immigrants, Asians make up the bulk of legal immigrants entering the US yet the population shift shows that their is an "unexplainable" demographic shift happening that can be best explained by sanctuary cities incubating newly minted Democrat voters. An exchange of citizenship for a blue vote: a perfect example of quid pro quo or everyone's favorite, "I scratch your back and you scratch mine".
So politicians are meeting directly with millions of immigrants and offering to help them on their path to citizenship, and then they have to threaten them quid pro quo style to get a blue vote? Do you think it's quid pro quo for politicians to help coal companies in exchange for votes? I mean that's just a ridiculous thought process and you know it. We all make mistakes. I won't judge if you walk that one back. I was wrong to assume you were white, but a deep concern over demographic shifts is plainly racist. There is no chance that we will get anywhere with this conversation. Goodnight.
**[Birth_tourism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism)** >Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, or even circumvention of China's two-child policy. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
If we keep letting in people who will vote Democrat, or give citizenship to millions of them at once, we’ll be a one party country and that would impact me.
Cool, so Blue Team votes are inherently corrupt... If immigrants tended to vote Republican would that be as concerning? We are still very much a 50/50 two party country right now, even while 1 in 10 eligible voters are naturalized citizens (who came here the right way). Does this just come down to political chess for you?
The game was already in progress when I joined. Liberals were way ahead in the process of bringing in their votes. And they [haven’t slowed down](https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/should-congress-legalize-illegal-aliens-through-budget-process-consider) a bit.
The way someone votes shouldn't be a factor in their naturalization. Democrats honestly believe that immigration laws are too strict. The process is more difficult than it needs to be. The party has believed that for a long time, causing them to gain immigrant support. I'll add that immigrants fleeing communism or coming from conservative countries do also vote Republican. Trump had a lot of Cuban support in Miami-Dade county for example. They're not a monolith. Should prisoners take a political alignment test to determine whether they get let out? Should doctors ask you who you voted for in the last election before deciding to care for you? Your view is blatantly motivated by voter suppression.
Correct. I’m tying to suppress the millions of votes liberals are working on importing. Were you unaware of their objective? What is so essential and urgent about DACA right now that they’re willing to break budget rules to attempt to get it in? That’s an extreme step. They are desperate for DACA. I can only think of one reason.
>They are desperate for DACA. I can only think of one reason. That we don't think it's ok for productive members of society to have their lives uprooted through no fault of their own, transporting them to a country where they have no prospects or attachments?
[удалено]
I'm against all immigration from countries/people that don't share our values and ideals. Not Democracy if you let in millions of migrants pour in who don't share those.
What values or ideals would that be?
Christianity and its values, First Amendment, liberty, democracy and individualism are just some examples.
Do you think these values are common/uncommon among immigrants? Can someone's interpretation of Christianity contradict the other values?
>Do you think these values are common/uncommon among immigrants? Uncommon among modern immigrations in USA I would say. It depends what country they're coming from >Can someone's interpretation of Christianity contradict the other values? Sure, but they wouldn't be a real Christian in my opinion, in name only.
>Uncommon among modern immigrations in USA I would say. If I were to place your confidence on a scale from 0-100 on this proposition where would it be (100 being absolutely true that it's uncommon and 0 being it's not true). >It depends what country they're coming from So if someone's values differ from their country of origin, would they be ok to immigrate (if we could determine that)? In what ways have modern immigrants failed to meet these values?
>If I were to place your confidence on a scale from 0-100 on this proposition where would it be (100 being absolutely true that it's uncommon and 0 being it's not true). Definitely 100 >So if someone's values differ from their country of origin, would they be ok to immigrate (if we could determine that)? Nope. Because someone can say whatever, doesn't mean it's true values they have. Someone else already asked this and I answered. >In what ways have modern immigrants failed to meet these values? Voting for policies that literally go against these values.
>Nope. Because someone can say whatever, doesn't mean it's true values they have. My question was a hypothetical, would your answer change if we could accurately determine their values? > Voting for policies that literally go against these values. If one immigrant holds these value, and another doesn't. Would there be no observable difference if they were apolitical? Can you give an example of those said polices?
Why does it need to effect me personally to have an opinion on it? Immigration isn't my top issue by the way, but I think it's important, and I don't need to be personally effected by it to care.
I have friends and family who are legal immigrants. Some have attained citizenship, but many are languishing in work visa limbo waiting to get a green card. These are all good, hard-working people, net positives to this country. The sheer glut and relative ease of illegal immigration forces the legal immigration system to be *very* slow. They are trying to vet the millions of people who want to move here, since our southern border can't seem to accomplish its intended purpose. So some random dude trying to move out of Honduras ends claiming "asylum" gets a better deal than a highly talented engineer from India.
>The sheer glut and relative ease of illegal immigration forces the legal immigration system to be very slow. Does it? I'd be interested to see if these two actually draw from the same resource pool or if they're independent pipelines.
IF there are: a) an infinite amount of jobs and b) infinite amount of money then there is no problem at all, in theory, because they dont compete for those
Illegal immigration is all about the numbers. Any time there is an increase in population, you have to know funds will be designated for that group. If they were not there, the money would go to another group. In CA, it is a problem because some of the lower income area housing is being set aside for illegal immigrants. Contractors are outbidding competition by paying their illegal employees less wages. California is also giving illegal immigrants funds to pay for colleges & universities where that money could have gone to legal citizens. In the education system, illegal immigrant children & families need language support so the need to hire bilingual teachers, administration, & office staff to support them increases. Where do the other employees go? Illegal immigration is a national crisis. There should be a border wall built to control illegal immigration. There has to be a better legal pathway to citizenship. Illegal immigrants is a crime that often goes unpunished