Many of America’s legal and illegal immigrants fled nations that were ruined by corrupt politicians and failed government policies. But once here, they support the same things. Why? Gloria Alvarez, Project Director at the National Civic Movement of Guatemala, explains.
Here was her appearance on the Dennis Prager Show:
(Moonbattery) The magazine not only acknowledges that Islamic “refugees” are sexually assaulting European women on a massive scale, but fits it within the broader context of a clash of civilizations that has been going on for 1,400 years. Thanks to political correctness, the forces of Islam are gaining the upper hand. Hopefully Eastern Europeans are strengthening their border defenses, in case political correctness is not overthrown in time to prevent Western Europe from being absorbed into the Islamic world.
(Breitbart) The article lists dozens of recorded sex attacks from the past few weeks, often visited upon under-age Europeans, but it is not just migrants who come in for criticism from wSieci. The magazine also had strong words for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who it accuses of listening more to the German industrial lobby which it claims campaigns for cheap labour from outside the European Union.
In Starbucks I overheard a conversation mentioning Republicans not saying much against Trump’s position of a religious test for people coming into the U.S. I wanted to post some audio of Lindsey Graham and Carly Fiorina (from the Michael Medved Show) where they very clearly and strongly deny Trumps position. In fact, as of today, ALL the other Republican Presidential candidates have come out against Trump on this issue.
What Trump has right is that we can (and have) stopped immigration at times from countries… but what he has wrong is that we cannot [Constitutionally] ban people entry from the world who are Muslim. You could stop immigration (all immigration) Constitutionally from, say, Syria and Pakistan… but not, as Medved points out, from Saudi Arabi — who are our “allies.” Here is that audio that includes some challenging phone calls. Take note Zuhdi Jasser was the guest during this hour:
Democrat operatives have been seen busing Somali immigrants to early-voting stations in the swing state of Ohio, and telling them how to vote for the Democrat Party, sources report.
The Somalis, who cannot read English, are told by the Democrat operatives to “vote Brown all the way down,” anonymous eyewitnesses have told Human Events. The statement is an apparent reference to Senator Sherrod Brown, the incumbent Democrat Senator in Ohio who is on the ballot….
~The Right Perspective (Oct 2012)
Libertarian Republican’s post caused me to wonder the following:
Wouldn’t there be then, a correlation to these “less-liberty” immigrants voting overwhelmingly Democratic? Doesn’t this — anecdotally — show that maybe, just maybe, the “statistically significant and sizable differences” signify something? Hmmmmm?
Here is LB’s post:
Excerpted, MarginalRevolution, “U.S. Immigrants’ Attitudes Toward Libertarian Values” (link to study by UCSD psychologist Hal Pashler):
While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined.
Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents.
These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.
Pro-Open Borders, liberal-leaning libertarian Cato Inst. admits increased immigration will lead to electoral failure for libertarians
[To wit]
From Cato.org:
Here are some reasons why Pashler’s paper shouldn’t worry libertarians much or convince many to oppose immigration: First, libertarians generally support immigration reform, the legalization of unauthorized immigrants, and increasing legal immigration because it is consistent with libertarian principles – not because immigration reform will lead to breakthrough electoral gains for libertarian candidates. The freedom for healthy non-criminals to move across borders with a minimum of government interference is important in and of itself. General libertarian support for immigration reform does not depend upon immigrants producing a pro-liberty Curley effect – as nice as that would be.
LR comments on CATO’s position:
Editor’s note – Of course, the Cato Institute is not in the business of electoral politics. They’re in the business of pointy-headed intellectualizing and policy paper pushing. Why should they give a “f” what the electoral consequences are, of vastly increasing liberty-hating immigrants into the U.S. and putting them immediately onto the voter rolls.
A mighty f-u you goes out to our friends at the Cato Institute this morning from the political arm of the libertarian movement.
