Posted on 07/07/2015 11:25:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Instead of the U.S. choosing the best and the brightest immigrants, we allow immigrants themselves to choose who gets to live here. This is in part because of an immigration system that favors family connections over skill, education and money. It is also in part because of aliens who sneak into the country in the dark of night.
Ann Coulter points out that the New England Patriots carefully select who gets to be on their team. The team spends a large amount of money vetting players in order to get the best players and fulfill their needs. The team's owners, players and fans would be outraged if college players got to decide who was on the team by sneaking into the locker room or by being related to a current player. They would be even more furious when they discovered that other teams weren't so handicapped. The U.S. should draft immigrants similar to how the Patriots draft players.
These issues matter because the U.S. is being flooded with low-end immigrants, especially from Mexico. The U.S. has been taking in roughly one million legal immigrants a year for over 30 years and has another 11 million to 30 million illegal immigrants, depending on the estimate. Roughly one out of eight members of the U.S. population are immigrants, the highest number since the 1920s. One out of eight. A large number of immigrants are poor, unskilled, and on welfare. A 2011 study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that 48 percent of immigrants and their U.S. born children (and roughly 68 percent of Mexican immigrants) are in poverty or near poverty. In fact, Coulter points out, we now have roughly one-fourth of Mexicans in the U.S. (specifically, people of Mexican origin).
Enter Donald Trump. The Republican presidential candidate and real estate mogul, during his presidential announcement speech, said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
Corporate America immediately attacked him. NBC and Univision will not air the Trump-owned Miss Universe Pageant, Macy's dropped his signature clothing line. New York Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered a review of Trump's city contracts. NASCAR is moving an annual banquet from the Trump National Doral resort in Miami.
Shame on Trump for winging such an important point. Here's what he should have said. "There are many wonderful immigrants, particularly Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. They are our family members, friends and lovers. However, when it comes to immigrants in general, we can do better. Compared to natives or other immigrants we could have gotten, our current Mexican immigrants are poorer, less well educated, less intelligent, less skilled and fatter. They have worse family values and three quarters of their households are on welfare. No one seriously suggests that we are better off with millions of Mexican immigrants than we would be with immigrants from England, Ireland, Germany and Japan. Just as the New England Patriots get the best players they can, we should do the same. Let's choose who gets to join our nation rather than let others decide by sneaking in or citing family relations."
Consider Trump's sloppy argument. Mexico doesn't send its people, but let's ignore that claim. He didn't say that they have a disproportionate number of rapists, drug dealers, and people with problems, but let us pretend he did in order to evaluate the corporate assault.
First, consider drug dealing. The Pew Hispanic Center study found that in 2007 Hispanic illegal aliens were 5 percent of the population, but 25 percent of federal drug offenders. In general, Hispanics, and Mexicans in particular, are more likely involved in crime than whites but not blacks. According to a study by Jason Richwine using 2006-2008 data, compared to whites, Hispanics (immigrant and U.S. born) are 80 percent to 150 percent (depending on the data source) more likely to be imprisoned than non-Hispanic whites. I should mention Ron Unz's interesting, but I think unsuccessful, challenge to Richwine's analysis is worth considering.
Hispanic criminality is relevant to the immigration discussion. According to a 2007 study by the Sentencing Project, 20 percent of state and federal prisoners are Hispanic and one in six Hispanic males can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. Trump's courage in discussing this is in sharp contrast to cowards such as Clinton and Bush.
Data on the ethnicity of rapists is hard to come by because the Bureau of Justice Statistics does not keep data on what percentage of rapists are Hispanic. The Center for Control and Prevention report that in the U.S., Hispanic women are less likely than white women to be raped, although Hispanic men are more likely than white men to be raped. Mexico's reported rate of rape is less than that of the U.S., although it is unclear whether this is because Mexican women are less likely to report it. On rape, then, Trump might well be wrong.
It is worth noting that Bill Clinton waived criminal background checks on hundreds of thousands of immigrants as a way of getting a large number of new voters right before his second election. Clinton's sleazy move undoubtedly brought about many unnecessary rapes and murders in America.
Barack Obama implemented one blatantly illegal amnesty and recently tried to implement a much later one. His administration cut back on deportations of illegal aliens (despite lies to the contrary) and recently sharply cut back on monitoring worksites for hiring them. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush backed driver licenses and in-state college tuition for illegal aliens as well as promising not to immediately reverse Obama's executive amnesties. Candidate Hillary Clinton can be counted on to do the same.
Predictably, NBC, Univision, Macy's, de Blasio, and NASCAR say nothing about any of this, it's a serious discussion of immigration that puts their panties in a twist.
Yes they do you schmuck. Mexico does everything in its power to encourage and enable illegal immigration. They specifically want it because it exports their undesirables.
Sloppy? It is much more accurate to say certain groups and people willfully mischaracterized Trump’s statements.
but why is trump the only one saying it?. we all know it.
How about head lice? For certain reasons, I was searching for [ lice epidemic ], and I did find recent inquiries and news articles concerning “epidemics” and “outbreaks”, but the discussion is very diffuse.
It’s funny, my wife actually said, in reference to recent experience, “the only time anyone got lice when I was in school was if they went to Mexico.” But for certain reasons, this just didn’t click with her. Also, you won’t find any such connection in the online News, or at least I didn’t.
Nevertheless there is a boom in delousing parlors. Even so, the CDC and the medical profession in general is not interested in the slightest. You figure it out.
Ted Cruz was “saying it” long before Don Trump came along.
But that was before he played the "I was for it before I was against it" game with the trade deal. This wounded him with what I call the FAIR trade conservatives.
He wasn’t “playing a game” with that.
The big problem here is that Trump’s way of phrasing his argument simply allows its substance to be ignored, and in fact discredited in most people’s eyes.
Which leads one to wonder if that might not have been intentional.
Also bedbugs, though acquired resistance to pesticides and banning of some pesticides is probably also a factor.
He was out in the forefront of giving fast-track authority to treaties that were sealed in a room and too voluminous to read. Then because of wiki-leaks he found out he better not support it and voted no when his no vote didn't make a difference to passing the bill.
It was a no-brainer to be against the fast-track authority and he could have done so many things other than support the bill in the first place. He may never recover from the mistake, which is too bad he was good on so many other issues. Now he has his work cut out for him.
Two words to the wise for Republican candidates: America First! If you have to weave a story to make it fit then it doesn't and you fail.
Well, that’s your take on it.
“Acquired resistance” raises questions more than it answers them, particularly since these things seem to have come out of nowhere. So where and how did they acquire this resistance?
Of course, “acquire” is a misleading term, since it is the population and not individuals that do this “acquiring”. The prolific reproduction of these animals provides an ideal proving ground for the efficacy of selection, since those that die from a treatment are gone, and those that don’t remain.
I have even been informed that a second application of a chemical treatment becomes less efficacious. What could be the explanation for this, except that the remaining population are those that have been selected for resistance in this single application?
bfl
That is of course how acquired resistance works. The population tends to descent from the more resistant members.
Think of it as evolution in action.
“They specifically want it because it exports their undesirables.”
Wait til we start importing Cuba’s creme de la creme!
Yes he did, but he was saying it in the way the author of this article wished Trump had said it. You know, using words that can easily be ignored.
Trump said it in common bulldozer language, which got the ball rolling with only a handful of words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.