Not entirely correct. It’s an Ipsos poll reported by NPR. The net total of True and Somewhat True was 54%.
Curious stance considering your state is like 86% white and 10% black. Have you ever actually seen a Mexican?
No kidding? Over half of the country supports the criminal investigations against Trump and over half of the country supported the FBI raid. How do you feel about that?
Except it’s just as bad as where they came from.
The percentage of true asylum claims are low. It’s mostly people coming here for opportunity.
I don’t blame them for it and I empathize with the plight of the less fortunate.
But we can’t take everybody. And clearly the cartels are taking advantage.
NYC wants to grant voting rights to illegals.
I have a woman that works for me that has been going through the legal immigration process for years, and it’s ridiculous that these people seem to be a higher priority than those trying to do it the legal way.
Where’s your data?
redundant…asylum seekers are too coming for opportunity. Rhetorical argument you’re offering
You mean the cartels we built?
Funny, that’s what you got out of this. The legal process is so expensive and time consuming, they go around. At no point did you discuss making it a better and easier process
Also, have you ever seen a Mexican? You have 86% white people and 10% black in Indiana.
I guess we agree to disagree here and you don’t see it as a problem.
It ranks pretty high in terms of what a lot of Americans care about right now.
But, your take doesn’t bother me even though I think you want it to. Lol
I prefer to fight the causes rather than the symptoms. It’s an issue with you conservatives…always treating symptoms and always in favor of the causes.
It hovers between 30-40% since 2001. Oddly, you folks never mention the group who’s actually taking your jobs…H1N1 visas and India.
No bud, I have no hope for you in the slightest. As I’ve said before, I consider you a puppy for the GOP.
Crossing the border illegally is stepping in front of others following the legal process. It’s an absurdity as Milton Friedman pointed out to have open borders and a welfare system. A nation cannot be a country without borders. Michael Savage was right about language and borders. Countries need a common language. Even in Switzerland, four languages cause societal friction. Lastly, immigration is best when it improves conditions within a nation, not overburdening a nation accommodating economic refugees. Presently, there are an estimated 100 million persons in Latin America, Asia, and Africa who seek to emigrate to America.
Friedman was actually famously in favor of open immigration. Hayek and Mises were in favor of open immigration. What he meant was he abandoned his libertarian principles to avoid higher taxes, and if we ever dismantle the welfare state, he’ll gladly return to his original principle of open immigration.
Michael Wiener, who tried so hard to hide the part of his life where he was a bed buddy with Lawrence Ferlinghetti and wrote love letters to Alan Ginsburg, is a very weak man hiding behind a Nazi character he created in his head to shy away from his early days of homosexuality
Oh no, the TERROR!
It’s not the jobs they take that matters to a lot of folks. My job is safe. The lady that works for me is from India. I have no problem with that.
This is just an issue you are out of touch with. It has nothing to go with Dems versus pubs. Plenty of GOP are good with the current system.
Cheap labor.
This is such a mischaracterization of Friedman.
He was in favor of open immigration in a welfareLESS state.
Once the that became a reality (welfare and benefits for migrants) he believed open immigration was immoral
2 Likes
Interesting read, so far
Actually the cultural differences between German Switzerland and the Ticino are manifest. They are displayed clearly in a great movie entitled “Bread and Chocolate.” You’d enjoy the movie. I assure you.
Regarding Friedman, here is what he said in HIS words: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” Naturally, GSC knew this while Warden did a faux psychoanalysis of Friedman’s thinking. I am surprised Warden didn’t conclude Friedman was lying as he is very prone in doing.
I don’t like Comedy, mostly. So I probably wouldn’t like the movie tbh. Nor would I use a film from the early 1970s to make or break a point.