patrick.net

The wall is meat for his base, pure and simple. It's good political rhetoric. But horrible actual policy.

Left doesn't want their cheap indentured servants deported. They fight for replacing Americans with cheap labor harder than for anything else.

FortWayne says

Left doesn't want their cheap indentured servants deported. They fight for replacing Americans with cheap labor harder than for anything else.

Actually that's capitalists, not the left. Capitalists want, in the following order
1. Slavery
2. Indentured servitude
3. Child labor
4. Economic slavery in the form of outsourced third world powerless labor
5. Illegal immigrants that have no bargaining power because of their illegal status
6. Legal temporary workers that are routinely kicked out of the country and replaced by others before they can establish bargaining power.

Numbers 1 to 3 have been outlaw thanks to progressives. 4 is used whenever it can be. When it can't 5 is used. 6 is the fallback position, but it's harder to implement.

Illegal immigration is utterly a failure of capitalism and Reaganomics and deregulation. Put simply, Fort Wayne, YOU are the cause of the problem. Your economic positions are the direct, central, and sole cause of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration has been fostered by both the Right and the Left. The Right wants cheap labor, and the Left wants their votes. It's corruption on both sides.

We can't make healthcare for everyone work unless we have strong immigration policies and enforcement.

just any guy says

Illegal immigration has been fostered by both the Right and the Left. The Right wants cheap labor, and the Left wants their votes. It's corruption on both sides.

We can't make healthcare for everyone work unless we have strong immigration policies and enforcement.

I agree with both statements.

First step, we jail the employers of illegal aliens

That's because the limosine libbys would be forced to indenture their jobless worthless kids for those tasks, and suffer the peer group shameing that would entail...
FortWayne says

Left doesn't want their cheap indentured servants deported.

> bob2356

You are dodging the argument and moving to irrelevancies AGAIN.
1. Whether voter is responsible or not doesn't address the point. Your insistence on voter's responsibility (an irrelevancy used as a step towards the high ground maneuver) shows that you don't have an argument that actually does.
2. For the point at hand, there is something in common between buying products made using illegal labor and paying taxes: you can't really avoid either one in a practical way. With buying, you simply don't know if a product wasn't made using illegal labor (at least in CA); with taxes, there is the almighty IRS. One may support illegal employment, the other one Guantanamo, but as an individual you simply don't have the right to refuse. At the very least, it would mean extreme hardship (legal problems in one case, hunting and gathering and never shopping in the other - for hunting, make your own bow and arrows first). When you wrote that Patrick, as a consumer, is just as much part of the problem - it smelled like BS from miles away, because for all practical (and legal) reasons responsibility stops at the employer.
3. "Can't follow your mumble jumble." - I'm not surprised. The problem is at your end.

Patrick,

It pleases me to see you not ripping into President Trump, and giving him a chance, 👍

It appears we have many views we agree on. 😏

@LarryPatrickMaloney I think Trump has a lot of good policies and I am totally for giving him a chance.

The press has abandoned even a pretense of neutral reporting on Trump. It's depressing.

I hope Trump keeps right on steamrolling with his agenda. If he can bring back even part of US manufacturing he will have been a success.

rando says

The press has abandoned even a pretense of neutral reporting on Trump. It's depressing.

Was reporting on the Obama administration ever neutral?

Dan8267 says

rando says

The press has abandoned even a pretense of neutral reporting on Trump. It's depressing.

Was reporting on the Obama administration ever neutral?

It was equally partisan but supportive instead of oppositional. The tsunami of misleading "fake news" on behalf of Obamneycare echoed the fake news about Iraqi WMD and advocating war in Iraq. It's an often observed axiom of press coverage: the more you know about an event, the more clearly you see the inaccuracies of the press coverage; conversely, the less you know about the event, the more likely you are to believe the press coverage. As justme observed in a different thread, "The most dangerous form of fake news is the kind that seems believable, but is actually wrong and/or very misleading." After reading Obamneycare and thinking through the consequences, I predicted it would result in Americans dying sooner and poorer than they would have otherwise. Today, we see rising mortality rates, shorter life expectancy, and rising medical costs. People who believed the press endorsements of Obamneycare feel surprised, and look for other explanations. I don't feel surprised at all, because I based my opinion on what the policy actually says, and what that would do.

Same with Islam. When you read what it says, you're not surprised by what it does. If you don't read it, but rely instead on the misleading "fake news", you can be fooled and then surprised by the recurring manifestations of the doctrine.