Hillary Clinton says Europe must 'get a handle on immigration' to stop far-right

[here2view]

She needs to go away.

[Lourdes]

She needs to go away.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Hilldawg is spouting truth. You can't boil a frog too fast. Let's hope the evil globali$t$ in charge don't take her advice though. We might be in the situation where we need the enemy to be foolish and overconfident.

[Shadows]

I hate that she said that, but unfortunately she is right. European societies (even the bigger ones like France and the UK) are much more homogenous than the US, and the big influx of immigrants and refugees is seen by many (even left-wingers) as a threat to our national identity. Hence the visceral reaction to the anti-immigrant rhetoric by the far-right.

This is correct. I know tons of current - or should I say former - SPD voters with such views. Even Helmut Schmidt said that unlimited immigration, especially from Turkey and Arab world, was a pipe dream of the political elites. Given the problems with Turks, even second or third generation, I agree. And before anyone complains: Of course there are positive exceptions, and I know some of them. However, we should also stand up to discrimination, as it is a proven fact that it's harder to get a job for Murat Öztürk than it is for Martin Mayer, even with the same skills.

The difference between immigration to European countries and the United States (and Canada) is also integration. Most folks who come to America want to be patriotic Americans. That's not always the case with immigrants, let alone asylum seekers, from non-EU countries.

This is an example of Conquest's First Law (everyone is conservative about the things they know best) in action. You are souring on diversity in your own homeland but still insist it's best for other  countries like the United States. The truth is, you know nothing of the United States. Just as most migrants in Germany are only interested in collecting a welfare check, the same is true in the United States. Immigrants to America, for the most part, do not "want to be patriotic Americans". Even Americans don't really want to be patriotic Americans anymore. American national consciousness and pride has largely been destroyed by immigration. Everyone is out for themselves including immigrants. That's why the caravan waves Honduran flags. Does that seem like the behavior of people who want to be patriotic Americans?

I'm not saying all immigrants in Germany want a welfare check. We have a decent number who are hardworking folks who want to contribute to the country's success. One of them is my dad, who is a Greek immigrant. Obviously most of the problems happen with Turks.

America is a nation of immigrants from all over the world. Immigrants built America. And the fact that a small percentage of asylum seekers are "bad hombres" doesn't alter the fact that most immigrants want to be an American. Even conservative hero Ronald Reagan said this. Or ask the exil Cubans, I don't think they have much loyalty to the Castro regime. They feel as Americans, as do most Dreamers.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Most immigrants do not want to be patriotic Americans. If you lived in America, this would be immediately obvious. I don't really care what Ronald Reagan said. Reagan just wanted cheap labor and lied to justify his position. Even Cubans, who are generally among the most economically productive and law abiding immigrant groups, continue to identify with Cuba more than the US, even 2 generations after they left. Every other immigrant group is basically the same except most are less productive and less law abiding. The idea that immigrants want to be Americans is sentimental drivel that no one believes anymore, although sometimes establishment Democratic politicians still pay lip service to the idea, but even that is laughable since Democrats don't think there are any positive aspects to American identity besides being pro-immigration.

You oppose Indian Immigration as well, most of whom are high skilled high wage immigrants.

So you cant use the low skilled argument to justify your position .

High skilled immigrants have kids who become left-wing activists who complain about racism and advocate for more immigration. Not really anymore patriotic than low skilled immigrants. Although I concede they don't use as much welfare.

These immigrants are bad because they have different political opinions? That is weird, to put it mildly.

It's not just that they have different political opinions, it's that their specific political opinions are based around the demonization of the traditional population and demanding money from the traditional population. What reason does the traditional population have to support growing such a demographic of people?

Okay let us look @ that. Close to half the population on food stamps are white people. Where are most of the Federal $ coming from? Mostly from Blue states which are rich. This through Welfare, Medicaid & other programs are going to poor red states. Atleast states like WV or Alabama are getting more from the Federal government that what they are paying.

There are 1000s of entrepreneurs who have created jobs for White people. Most of the Asian Immigrants apart from speaking Good English also reside in high tax states & mang pay into SOCIAL security while some may even not get anything on that.

Your idea is about putting 1 group against the other. Your point could have been how to address White poverty or to improve education or healthcare for White people but you are framing it as a battle between races.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

She's probably right that doing so would reduce the influence that the far-right has in that region, but she's wrong if she's suggesting that liberals should be willing to significantly reduce acceptance of refugees solely for that reason. So, I'm just gonna act like she only meant the first part and not the second part, true to my sig...

[Landslide Lyndon]

She's probably right that doing so would reduce the influence that the far-right has in that region, but she's wrong if she's suggesting that liberals should be willing to significantly reduce acceptance of refugees solely for that reason. So, I'm just gonna act like she only meant the first part and not the second part, true to my sig...

She isn't suggesting that liberals suddenly become little Steve Kings (or LePens for that matter). She is suggesting that liberals should sit down and provide some comprehensive immigration policies that will alleviate the problem instead of fatalistically accepting the current situation and doing nothing.

[Person Man]

She's probably right that doing so would reduce the influence that the far-right has in that region, but she's wrong if she's suggesting that liberals should be willing to significantly reduce acceptance of refugees solely for that reason. So, I'm just gonna act like she only meant the first part and not the second part, true to my sig...

She isn't suggesting that liberals suddenly become little Steve Kings (or LePens for that matter). She is suggesting that liberals should sit down and provide some comprehensive immigration policies that will alleviate the problem instead of fatalistically accepting the current situation and doing nothing.

Immigration for Democrats has become what Gun Control has come for Republicans. Where in general they are right in wanting to protect basic human rights on paper but where also doing nothing simply isn't sustainable and the median voter in Pittsburgh, Scottsdale, St. Petersburg, or Madison knows it.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

She's probably right that doing so would reduce the influence that the far-right has in that region, but she's wrong if she's suggesting that liberals should be willing to significantly reduce acceptance of refugees solely for that reason. So, I'm just gonna act like she only meant the first part and not the second part, true to my sig...

She isn't suggesting that liberals suddenly become little Steve Kings (or LePens for that matter). She is suggesting that liberals should sit down and provide some comprehensive immigration policies that will alleviate the problem instead of fatalistically accepting the current situation and doing nothing.

Immigration for Democrats has become what Gun Control has come for Republicans. Where in general they are right in wanting to protect basic human rights on paper but where also doing nothing simply isn't sustainable and the median voter in Pittsburgh, Scottsdale, St. Petersburg, or Madison knows it.

Neoliberal democrats want to maintain the status-quo of an easily-abused labor underclass just as much as the GOP does. De facto open immigration, that does not provide the immigrant laborers with protection under the law is ideal for he oligarchs who run much of our country.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

[USO2019PB]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

I guess liberal firebrand means someone who says pleasant lies instead of uncomfortable truths.

[Famous Mortimer]

She's probably right that doing so would reduce the influence that the far-right has in that region, but she's wrong if she's suggesting that liberals should be willing to significantly reduce acceptance of refugees solely for that reason. So, I'm just gonna act like she only meant the first part and not the second part, true to my sig...

She isn't suggesting that liberals suddenly become little Steve Kings (or LePens for that matter). She is suggesting that liberals should sit down and provide some comprehensive immigration policies that will alleviate the problem instead of fatalistically accepting the current situation and doing nothing.

Immigration for Democrats has become what Gun Control has come for Republicans. Where in general they are right in wanting to protect basic human rights on paper but where also doing nothing simply isn't sustainable and the median voter in Pittsburgh, Scottsdale, St. Petersburg, or Madison knows it.

Neoliberal democrats want to maintain the status-quo of an easily-abused labor underclass just as much as the GOP does. De facto open immigration, that does not provide the immigrant laborers with protection under the law is ideal for he oligarchs who run much of our country.

Immigrants and their children draining the welfare system is a serious problem. Allowing more immigrants and and allowing all immigrants to access welfare (as opposed to just their children) is going to make the problem worse.

I know people say "illegal immigrants don't use welfare" to justify immigration, but if you make them legal, they will be using welfare, and that justification goes out the window.

A policy of actual citizenship on demand + more welfare, will lead to the eventually collapse of the welfare system and/or hyper inflation that makes the welfare worthless.

Your "solution" does not fix the problems of immigration, it makes the problems worse.

[Former President tack50]

Looking at that, I wonder if the solution is actually a very simple one:

Ban most/all forms of welfare for non-citizens. Maybe combined with making citizenship harder to obtain (but making inmigration itself easier).

[Famous Mortimer]

Looking at that, I wonder if the solution is actually a very simple one:

Ban most/all forms of welfare for non-citizens. Maybe combined with making citizenship harder to obtain (but making inmigration itself easier).

A couple of problems with this:

1) You are proposing the creation of a group of second class (non) citizens, which most people will think looks very bad

2) As long as we have birthright citizenship, once the non-citizens have children, they can collect welfare based on their children. That's already the situation now. Your solution doesn't do anything to stop pressure on the welfare system, unless it's also combined with abolishing birth right citizenship

3) I doubt the country has the political will to deny benefits to poverty stricken permanent residents with children. It's impossible to imagine a scenario in which Democrats don't give them citizenship as soon as possible in order to win their votes. I also imagine that more people than just Democrats would be sympathetic to such a move since, again, explicitly having an indentured servant caste is not something most people are comfortable with.

4) It does nothing to stop wage deflation, which is an issues. Pro-immigration people say wage deflation isn't real but even pro-immigration think tanks have never been able to say that it isn't real, just that it "can't be proven definitely". Basic arithmetic strongly implies that it is real though.

[IceSpear]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

You guys are embarrassing yourselves by admitting that you took a Mark Penn article seriously.

[James Monroe]

She needs to go away.

Why can't the winner herself speak upon public affairs, even if I disagree with her on this issue?


That man who you likely worship called open broader a "Koch Brothers" idea, and railed against pathways for immigrants on the Lou Dobbs show.

[JA]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

By 2020 she’ll be taking on Big Don from the right. She’ll form a coalition of her ‘08 racist voters, disaffected Republicans who think Trump isn’t fanatical enough, militias, and the military, and will barnstorm Middle America in a camouflage pantsuit.

[Dr. Arch]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

By 2020 she’ll be taking on Big Don from the right. She’ll form a coalition of her ‘08 racist voters, disaffected Republicans who think Trump isn’t fanatical enough, militias, and the military, and will barnstorm Middle America in a camouflage pantsuit.

LOL

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wasn't she supposed to re-invent herself as a liberal firebrand to run again in 2020?  LOL I guess that didn't work out too well for her

By 2020 she’ll be taking on Big Don from the right. She’ll form a coalition of her ‘08 racist voters, disaffected Republicans who think Trump isn’t fanatical enough, militias, and the military, and will barnstorm Middle America in a camouflage pantsuit.

But enough talking about Richard Ojeda.

[Former President tack50]

Looking at that, I wonder if the solution is actually a very simple one:

Ban most/all forms of welfare for non-citizens. Maybe combined with making citizenship harder to obtain (but making inmigration itself easier).

A couple of problems with this:

1) You are proposing the creation of a group of second class (non) citizens, which most people will think looks very bad

2) As long as we have birthright citizenship, once the non-citizens have children, they can collect welfare based on their children. That's already the situation now. Your solution doesn't do anything to stop pressure on the welfare system, unless it's also combined with abolishing birth right citizenship

3) I doubt the country has the political will to deny benefits to poverty stricken permanent residents with children. It's impossible to imagine a scenario in which Democrats don't give them citizenship as soon as possible in order to win their votes. I also imagine that more people than just Democrats would be sympathetic to such a move since, again, explicitly having an indentured servant caste is not something most people are comfortable with.

4) It does nothing to stop wage deflation, which is an issues. Pro-immigration people say wage deflation isn't real but even pro-immigration think tanks have never been able to say that it isn't real, just that it "can't be proven definitely". Basic arithmetic strongly implies that it is real though.

Well, I'll admit I didn't take birthright citizenship into account. I do think it should be repealed, but that's much harder to do of course. Plus as you say democrats would see a real incentive on giving those inmigrants citizenship. Also, I am one of those who doesn't believe in wage deflation. Mostly because lump of labour is a fallacy, those inmigrants consume stuff as well.

I admit I have no excuses for points 1 and 3 though. However I disagree that most people don't think that restricting welfare for immigrants would be unpopular (at least among citizens of course). Plus, the whole point of citizenship is literally to create a first class of citizens and a second class of non citizens.

[Koharu]

FYI, "welfare" for non-citizens/legal residents is basically non-existent in the US. You have to have a social security number for most forms. Yes, children born here will qualify, but they are citizens. The narrative that non-citizens get huge amounts of welfare is ridiculous and inaccurate.

This report is unfortunately now twenty years old, but it shows how minimal benefits to illegal immigrants. It also indicates how few citizen child+illegal parents there are. It's a tiny amount. https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-98-30

Here is a recent study (but from the Cato Institute), which highlights what I said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state


So let's not act like illegal immigrants get welfare in the US. They don't. It's already "banned."

[Fuzzy Bear]

FYI, "welfare" for non-citizens/legal residents is basically non-existent in the US. You have to have a social security number for most forms. Yes, children born here will qualify, but they are citizens. The narrative that non-citizens get huge amounts of welfare is ridiculous and inaccurate.

This report is unfortunately now twenty years old, but it shows how minimal benefits to illegal immigrants. It also indicates how few citizen child+illegal parents there are. It's a tiny amount. https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-98-30

Here is a recent study (but from the Cato Institute), which highlights what I said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state


So let's not act like illegal immigrants get welfare in the US. They don't. It's already "banned."

When illegal immigrants have children in the US, those children have Birthright Citizenship and the monetary entitlements that come with it.  The parents have no worries as to accessing obstetric services or paying for them.  Most of Atlas is more offended by the term "Anchor Babies" then they are about the obstetric Bill's Working Class families incur here that they incur because our social welfare system is means tested.

I certainly want blameless children to have the medical care they need regardless of parentage.  That doesn't mean I have to celebrate people who violate our immigration laws and cost me money who are not citizens.  That I believe we ought to bear the costs of the former does not mean that we don't move firmly to remove from our country those who are here illegally, or that we abandon efforts to prevent and deter others from illegally entering OUR country (not theirs).