Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not that I don't like the results. I take phone surveys with a grain of salt. Most surveys actually.
Asking a couple thousand people about their employment history and if they vote, if they lean toward republican or democrat and extrapolating %ages from a formula does not convince me more democrats or more republicans are on welfare.
I don't know what that has to do with illegal immigration either.
Well, 2 very well-respected organizations have similar results. There's the NPR poll, as well, on Long-Term Unemployment.
Again, the ratio of Dems to Republicans is more than 2 to 1. It's results are consistent with the Maxwell and Pew Research polls.
Again, polls.
What is the significance of arguing about if there are more people on assistance that would vote democrat or more on assistance that would vote republican?
In my ~40 years as a registered voter I was on food stamps for three months in 1980 when my husband was laid off and I was making $1.50/hr. + tips waiting tables and going to school. In my younger years, I leaned democratic, as I matured I leaned republican.
You ask what has that got to do with anything, especially illegal immigrants saving small town America? Exactly.
The answer is in the first sentence of that article, so you're being disingenuous about the context.
Quote:
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (U.S.C.I.S.) had formed a task force in order to identify people who lied on their citizenship applications and to denaturalize them.
And you're using an isolated incident as a blanket statement.
What is the significance of arguing about if there are more people on assistance that would vote democrat or more on assistance that would vote republican?
Because the left keeps incorrectly claiming that those on the right are poor and on welfare. Statistically, that's just not true.
And what does that have to do with illegal immigration? Illegal aliens keep wages depressed. It's no accident that California has 12% of the US population, but 1/3 of the US population on public assistance.
Not from those who hire them and profit from their cheap labor.
With all due respect, but the same can be said of legal immigrants too, since they tend to not have a foot to stand on when coming here, they have no choice but to accept the minimum wage job with no benefits, and I have been seeing employers, both big and small, letting go American workers and in the end, hire immigrant workers. My local Publix, Winn-Dixie, Walmart and Target stores all have immigrant Haitians or Hispanics working for them. I am in the industrial world, and most employers employ immigrant Vietnamese in their plants. I have property up in North Western Georgia, which is known as the Carpet Capital Mill of the world because a large amount of Carpet manufactures reside there, and most of the workers are of Cuban or Mexican descent. Disney World is being sued for firing American workers and hiring immigrants on Visas, and even Trump is guilty of doing this.
I guess in the end, the Civil rights might have freed the Black slaves, but most large business owners found a way to take advantage of slave labor in other ways. Like employing immigrants and letting the tax payers pick up the slack via welfare.
The answer is in the first sentence of that article, so you're being disingenuous about the context.
And you're using an isolated incident as a blanket statement.
Two pinocchios for you.
����
The claim was that "the Trump administration [is] trying to reverse the citizenship of naturalized citizens"
That claim is true.
Personally, I have no issues with this policy if it is implemented as presented. However, the original claim that the Trump administration has created a new policy aimed at stripping some naturalized citizens of their citizenship is factually accurate. The director of U.S.C.I.S. confirmed that this is not "an isolated incident" as you claim but is a blanket policy that will likely affect a substantial number of people.
Again, I have no issues with the policy itself, but the Pinocchio here is definitely not the person who claimed that "the Trump administration [is] trying to reverse the citizenship of naturalized citizens" as L. Francis Cissna confirmed that this is true.
The claim was that "the Trump administration [is] trying to reverse the citizenship of naturalized citizens"
That claim is true.
Personally, I have no issues with this policy if it is implemented as presented. However, the original claim that the Trump administration has created a new policy aimed at stripping some naturalized citizens of their citizenship is factually accurate. The director of U.S.C.I.S. confirmed that this is not "an isolated incident" as you claim but is a blanket policy that will likely affect a substantial number of people.
Revocation of Naturalization has been Federal Law for a very long time, since 1954. I don't see a problem.
Do you know why? It boils down to the birthrate. Mexico has a 31% higher rate than the USA. Without immigration, the USA would decline in population, and if you want to see what happens then, go to Russia. The economy essentially collapses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
