Democrats do want open borders, regardless of what the NYT and others are saying

For the past week I have seen quiet a few headlines from liberal news outlets outright lying about the percentage on the left who do in fact want open borders, like the NYT “No Democrat’s Don’t Want Open Borders” CNN - “Abolish Ice, Isn’t About Open Borders” - Chicago Tribune - "It’s Time To Build A Wall Around the Open Borders Lie.

A Harvard/Harris Poll was just released which has high rating marks by 538 for their polling accuracy begs to differ.

Here was two of the questions asked that shows that the left is indeed moving in the direction of open borders

“Do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of our immigration laws?” Seventy percent (92 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of Democrats, and 69 percent of independents) said stricter, while 30 percent said loose

“Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home?”

Sixty-four percent said illegal aliens should be sent home and thirty-six percent said they should be allowed to stay. A staggering 53 percent of Democrats polled, however, believe that any immigrant that makes it to America’s borders should be allowed to stay.

So there you have it, over 50% of Democrats believe if you illegally get across the border you are in, and should be allowed to stay. This is how far to the left the democrats have moved to, to the left of Bernie Sanders who wouldn’t even agree with a question like that.

A small story on how the current legal immigration laws work compared to what the democrats want by a real life story I can tell you about my Uncle who is currently engaged to a lady from Belarus in which he met online, and has visited 3-4 for times I think before they decided to get married.

By the law, they had to fill out a ton of paperwork after hiring a lawyer with the USCIS and wait months before they got and answer in which after four to five months they were approved with the first step. They ran a thorough background check on him for any past crimes he might have committed which would have automatically disqualified them as well as show proof of a true relationship with pictures, letters, emails, plane ticket receipts etc.

After they were approved by the USCIS their case was then sent to the department of the NVC in which does a thorough background check with the embassies in Belarus to make sure the spouse was clean, no criminal history, they checked medical records, bank records, and everything that could be imagined.

After this was approved (3-4 months) the lady was granted an interview with American Embassy in Belarus in which they grilled her with questions to make sure she was not just coming to try and score a green card and that her intentions was true. The whole thing took them around one year. Before she traveled over to America she had to show the border guards at the airport that she had been approved and had full vaccinations that were required by the U.S. government before entry.

It get’s better my Uncle had to prove that he was two times above national poverty level by showing his pay stubs from work, as well as list all his financial assets including all property, stocks, retirement, banking statements, they even asked how many cars he owned and what kind. Why you may ask?

Because he had to sign a contract with the government that said she was his fiscal responsibility and not the tax payers. If they happened to get a divorce he will have to pay her around $24,000 a year or whatever is above the poverty line is. The only way this contract will end is if he she either A. Applies and gets her citizenship, B. He dies. C. She works in the US for 40 quarters or 10 years with a green card.

So this adventure to get married has taxed both of their nerves as if you are a citizen in Belarus it’s close to impossible to get a visa to visit the U.S. So they corresponded on Skype, emails. etc before she arrived last year.

So if you do things legally you are responsible for everything by the person you bring here, if he doesn’t pay in the misfortune they get a divorce and go to court they can take his property. Compare that to the democrat policy, if you manage to break in the country you should be allowed to stay on the taxpayers dime.

How is this fair? It’s not but they went through the legal process so she could not become a liabitlity to the taxpayers of the U.S. The left want to skip this step if they are coming from the southern border and put the burden on the taxpayers of the U.S.

If anyone is interested here is the complete findings of the Harvard/Harris Poll

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final_HHP_Jun2018_RegisteredVoters_Crosstabs_Memo.pdf

1 Like

You seriously need to work on brevity. Wallotext cut and paste jobs tend to not even get read.

The majority of both democrats and republicans oppose the open borders agenda, it’s the democratic leadership and “stars” that are hell bent on flooding the country with illegals as well as opening the borders to the world’s excess, poorest, and most poorly educated people.

Those leaders and rising stars see them as a new underclass of tens of millions of people who will be dependent on gov’t for everything and create a new solid democratic voting block that will dominate for the next half century or more just like the Roosevelt/Johnson/Kennedy democrats of the last century.

1 Like
1 Like

And yet time and time again this “underclass”. The ones that can vote nearly split its vote along party lines. Your point isn’t based in anything but preconceived notions about Hispanics.

Say what? Pew says Hispanics tilt +30 to democrats.

1 Like

Vote. 44 percent votes for Bush. More votes for trump than votes for Romney.

They are not a monolith that you guys like to pretend

Exceptions are not the rule.

44 percent isn’t an exception

That is an awesome clip that exposes the Clinton and D platform of lies WRT open borders.

ENERGY??? The old bird did not lie very well there.

Yes it is, starting with President is not the only elected office in the US.

I know…she’s deplorable. :sunglasses:

1 Like

It’s easier to look at the National election But fine Rick Scott won the Hispanic vote in Florida for his gubernatorial run

More anecdotes.

Fair enough. What stats would you accept

One that encompasses their total voting record and party affiliation, such as the one I already provided.

Roughly one-third (32%) of Latino registered voters describe their political views as conservative, while 36% say they are moderate and 28% say they are liberal.

Millennial Latino voters (ages 18 to 35) are more likely than non-Millennial Latino voters (ages 36 and older) to say they are liberal. Among Latino Millennial voters, 37% describe their political views as liberal, compared with 21% among Latino non-Millennial voters.

Are you thinking that all Hispanics are illegals? You cite some statistic about Hispanics as though there is equivalence between “Hispanic” and “illegal immigrant”.

Why is that?

Illegals can’t vote.

But they do.

Still put that aside for a minute because it is only partly relevant.

Liberals hope to make all illegals naturalized citizens someday. But while you may change their status you won’t change their education and economic background. So - insofar as illegals ARE Hispanic - those newly naturalized Hispanics will be the type that vote Democrat. And that is why you people want them to flood the country with them (ignoring for the minute the ones to whom Democrat poll workers will already give a wink and a nod when they show up at a federal election).

But now you have made a mistake that is expected from only your low information liberal brothers-in-arms. You applied the logic “if these notional newly naturalized former illegals are Hispanic, then all Hispanics are newly naturalized former illegals.” And so you cite the Hispanic statistic.

Either you are attempting to be dishonest or you have been hanging around with the brain damaged TDS crowd now so long that your thinking has become dull and erroneous.

as for illegals voting now, Obama told em nothing bad will happen if they do.

I have made an assumption based on precedent, you are making an assumption based on prejudice. See the difference? But thanks for singling me out. That was nice.