The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

[J70]

How does this Pew data line up with Whitey's "hypothesis"? Two of the top three states by raw numbers of undocumented residents voted for Trump.  three of top seven by proportion did too.

And which came first? Did sanctuary cities come into being to attract illegals to pad the Democratic constituency a generation hence? Or were they policies that arose in response to problems with law enforcement and social problems involving illegals in the large cities to which illegals gravitated for opportunity?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

By raw numbers:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. New Jersey
6. Illinois
7. Georgia
8. Arizona

By percentage of population that are undocumented:

1. Nevada
2. Texas
3. California
4. New Jersey
5. Arizona
6. Florida
6. Maryland

Haha....spin it whatever way you want.

Cherry picking data is the oldest trick in the book.... CA has close to double the population of the next closest state and if illegals weren't counted in the census they'd lose close to 6 congressional seats

Democrats are going to lose big time if they fight this question on the census form

They've painted themselves into a corner and once again have been outmaneuvered

Who the f**k is cherry picking?

I linked the data, I listed the top counts. You are so full of shit its getting boring at this stage.

We've been through the census question thing already a couple of months back  - my arguments stand, especially with no worthy counterpoints to date.

I don't really give a bollocks about the politics of it or the GOP supposedly outmanoevering the Dems. What's right is right. The sanctuary city policies are generally correct (and you're not arguing them - you're just posting bollocks about it all being a political football instead of addressing the merits of the policies - you know, the reason so many people support them). Leaving the citizenship question off the form to do a proper count of people in the country is the right thing to do, especially when the matter of citizenship is already addressed in other surveys. If you're reduced to arguing that the GOP is going to win the politics of these issues and not the merits of the issues themselves, I'll gladly concede you may be right. It doesn't make the GOP or your support of them correct however.

Haha...oh gee....how convenient

One of the unintended consequences of sanctuary cities and states and inviting in even more illegals is that you get more congressmen and more electoral college votes........

The consequences don't make the policy wrong.

Just like the fact that Dems will potentially lose votes by advocating that illegals be treated as human beings, NOT statistics, doesn't make them wrong either.

Do you have any arguments on the merits (or otherwise) of sanctuary city policies themselves?

Are you opposed to them PURELY on the basis that you perceive they'll inflate Democratic representation (of course ignoring the data I linked earlier)?

Are you not aware that the census and the population data is creates is used for a hell of a lot more than just congressional representation, that those numbers have real, every day consequences for local communities?

We debated all this previously, of course, but as usual with you lads, its like water off a duck's back and pretty much a waste of time.

Do you think criminal illegals should be handed over to federal law enforcement officials for processing and deportation?

I've no problem with someone convicted of a crime being handed over, hence my qualification that I agree with MOST sanctuary city policies.

But again, we've covered this before.

[J70]

But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

[whitey]

But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

I dont know, but they very likely could!

[J70]

But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

I dont know, but they very likely could!

Based on....?

[whitey]

But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

I dont know, but they very likely could!

Based on....?

The fact illegals are more likely to move there to avoid deportation

[heganboy]

A very interesting read, how the liberal media (not lamestream) can not see the wood for the trees when it comes not to Trump, but to lazy categorization of his supporters. Something I am also guilty of.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working-class-americans

[omochain]

Me a cowboy, me a cowboy, me a Mexican cowboy too.

[seafoid]

A very interesting read, how the liberal media (not lamestream) can not see the wood for the trees when it comes not to Trump, but to lazy categorization of his supporters. Something I am also guilty of.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working-class-americans

I think this is a huge issue. Plutocracy is polarising by design because split societies are easier to pillage.
Red state working class voters get riled up by liberal arrogance and end up voting against their own interests.

There has to be a bringing together of people to move on. David Brooks wrote about it in the NYT

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/guns-soul-of-america.html

"The US needs "some sort of synthesis on the larger postindustrial/populism war. Over a century ago industrialisation brought on culture clash between agrarian populist and the genteel Victoria aristocrats.  Théodore Roosevelt transcended the fight by inventing a new kind of American nationalism. Meanwhile the progressives cleaned up elite corruption and nurtured a square deal for those left behind by technological change. Cultural leaders introduced new institutions and community forms like the Boy Scouts and the settlement house that drew from both cultures replaced them.  Today we need another grand synthesis that can move us beyond the current divide, a synthesis that is neither redneck nor hipster but draws from both worlds to create a new social vision. Progress on guns will be possible when the culture war subsides, not before. "

[seafoid]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/ann-coulter-continues-anti-trump-crusade-hes-a-shallow-lazy-ignoramus
The world got to enjoy more of Ann Coulter's post-election depression on Tuesday night, as the far-right troll explained she was "heartbroken" over Donald Trump's presidency, since he is apparently not living up to the In Trump We Trust author's expectations.

During a discussion with political blogger Mickey Kaus at Columbia University, Coulter discussed her shift from hardline, MAGA-hat wearing Trump supporter, to now being one of the president's fiercest conservative critics, per a report from The Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove.

"I knew he was a shallow, lazy ignoramus, and I didn't care," said Coulter — explaining her justification for supporting Trump.

She continued by lamenting the current state of the GOP, which "breaks my heart." Coulter then admitted Republicans have a good chance of losing both the House and the Senate in this year's midterm election.

"He's not giving us what he promised at every single campaign stop," she noted.

Hollywood right-winger Rob Long, who acted as the discussions moderator, asked Kaus if Coulter should "feel like a total idiot right now" for writing In Trump We Trust — considering her current ire for the president.

Still, Coulter defended her vote for Trump by pointing to his opposition:

"We had 16 lunatics being chased by men with nets running for president—and Trump. So of course I had to be pedal-to-the-metal for Donald Trump. I regret nothing. I'd do the exact same thing. I'd write the exact same book, with the exact same title. I went into this completely clear-eyed."

The Muslim-hating, domestic terrorist advocating pundit was then heckled as "a racist" by someone in the crowd just after joking about a hypothetical immigrant named "Juanita" whose only purpose in America is to clean up "bathtubs" for "the rich"

[tyssam5]

But this census is different because it will be the first census taken where some of the states with the largest populations are openly defying federel immigration policy. 

Have these states seen an increase in the number of illegal residentsas a result of the sanctuary status?

If they have, that dilutes the vote of every legal resident in the country-can you not understand why that would be a legitimate issue for some people on the right to be concerned about?


BTW-The citizenship question was on the census up until the 1950s.

Lots of shit happened through the 50s.

What does that Pew data show for proportions of illegals? Are blue states gaining lots of Congress people at the expense of red states?

I dont know, but they very likely could!

I think the red states would still have plenty of illegal people working there. If somebody crosses into Texas I doubt they're on the next bus to San Fran cos it is a sanctuary city.

[Eamonnca1]

Do you think criminal illegals should be handed over to federal law enforcement officials for processing and deportation?

Undocumented people are less likely to commit crimes. Zeroing in on them is a waste of resources.

[Eamonnca1]

Did it ever cross your mind that the number of undocumented people in California has something to do with the massive agricultural sector?

No, didn't think so. You just stick to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about deliberately attracting people to gain more representation. Or something.

Believe whatever you want.....it's a free country

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/illegal-immigration-american-farming-economic-myths-debunked/

I stopped reading at "National Review."

[heganboy]

The Trump administration is a cheap whore filled with power hungry money grabbing dirty bastards.

Roll back by the EPA of the emission regulations?

Ouster of the veterans affairs head because he's not privatizing healthcare quick enough for the Koch brothers and replacing him with your personal physician?

This is not a "Republican vs democrat" ssue, this is "I can do whatever I want so f**k you" and he is f**king you. Decisions are being made to out as much money and power into the inner circle, the truly rich are playing the wannabe like a fiddle.

This is going to hurt. The cost to the country of rolling back these decisions will be long and will significantly hurt America's power base across the globe. But 50 already super wealthy Americans will become significantly wealthier and Trump is acting like their bitch.

[whitey]

Did it ever cross your mind that the number of undocumented people in California has something to do with the massive agricultural sector?

No, didn't think so. You just stick to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about deliberately attracting people to gain more representation. Or something.

Believe whatever you want.....it's a free country

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/illegal-immigration-american-farming-economic-myths-debunked/

I stopped reading at "National Review."

Snap.....I do exactly the same when I see NY Times, CNN or MSNBC