May 14, 2013

Lindsey Graham takes a brave stand against Richwineism

BloomBorg reports:
Senate Judiciary Committee members overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to limit the flow of immigrants to the U.S. offered by a leading opponent of a broad revision of immigration law. 
By a vote of 1-17 today, the panel defeated the proposal by Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, who said the broader plan by a bipartisan group of eight senators would prompt a wave of immigration that would harm American workers. 
The panel’s Republican members joined Democrats in opposing the proposal. Among them, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and co-author of the bill, said that from immigrants “who today have low skills, will come some of the brightest” individuals in the U.S. ...

After all, we all know such famous examples from the last half century such as ... well, Senator Graham's staff will get back to you with a long list real soon now.

If Senator Graham doesn't take a stand in favor of the potential of illegal aliens, then the "real criminals" like George Borjas and Christopher Jencks will have won.

Update: The NYT says:
Mr. Sessions also offered an amendment that would have restricted the future flow of legal immigrants, effectively limiting the number of immigrants and foreign workers to 33 million over a 10-year period and the total number of green cards to 1.2 million a year. 
The measure failed, 1 to 17, with only Mr. Sessions voting for his amendment.

Only 33,000,000 foreigners per decade? What kind of wacko extremism is Sen. Sessions trying to peddle? Why, after three decades that would total less than 100,000,000!?!? (Assuming none of the newcomers reproduce, of course.)

So, what exactly is the number The Eight Banditos intend to impose upon the American public? Apparently, it's more than 99,000,000 over the next 30 years, but what is it?

29 comments:

x said...

only 12 million?!? who is drafting this legislation? david duke and don black?

peterike said...

Dear God, this is Margaret. Please take Senator Graham unto your bosom so he can live with the angels in heaven.

Amen.

Whiskey said...

Having an actual border is "racist" and no one in the Senate (and likely, House) is going to vote against it. Well, few anyway. Sessions can't even get votes for only 33 million immigrants in a decade. Sigh.

Jeez. And that is mirrored by the general public, which does not really oppose this mass immigration enough with enough intensity.

Anonymous said...


Only 33,000,000 foreigners per decade? What kind of wacko extremism is Sen. Sessions trying to peddle? Why, after three decades that would total less than 100,000,000!?!? (Assuming none of the newcomers reproduce, of course.)


Obama will need to provide more funding to Planned Parenthood. Maybe this is why PP opened the world's largest abortion facility in Houston, TX. They only want workers, not kids and old people. PP for the kids and Obamacare for the rest. With such planning, they can maximize the working age population by providing "services" for the the rest.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Sullivan defends idea of racial IQ differences:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/14/is-christopher-jencks-a-racist/

Anonymous said...

The people in our government truly have nothing to do with the rest of this country. This proves more than ever they'd gladly hunker down in their gated communities while America burns around them.

Anonymous said...

Obama will need to provide more funding to Planned Parenthood. Maybe this is why PP opened the world's largest abortion facility in Houston, TX. They only want workers, not kids and old people. PP for the kids and Obamacare for the rest. With such planning, they can maximize the working age population by providing "services" for the the rest. Sometimes conservatives think that blacks and hispanics having abortions is not such a bad deal since our poltiicans will not do anything about immmirgation, and Houston is a Mexican/Black town not white.

Anonymous said...

Republicans and Democrats, farmers and pigs, who can tell the difference anymore?

Luke Lea said...

Immigration Moratorium -- the only non-discriminatory answer. The magic number is zero.

Let's bring this age of immigration to an end. Let the word go out that from now on talented men and women everywhere should focus their energies and ambitions on the development of the countries of their birth.

It works out better for everyone in the long-run that way, above all for their fellow countrymen who are the world's forgotten majority.

In the name of the greatest good for the greatest number, an immigration moratorium. Put it on your license plate.

Anonymous said...

Earlier I posted a link to a lecture given by a University of Colorado physics professor on exponential growth.

In that lecture he pointed out that a 1% annual growth rate means whatever you are counting will double in 70 years. Thus, if your population today is 300 million and you average 1% growth, in 70 years you will have 600 million people. That might seem long, but it is just a human lifetime. Another 70 years at the same rates would get you to 1.2 billion people.

Anyway, here is a portion of the lecture where the professor demonstrates how bacteria will completely fill a container in an hour. The key is that until the last few minutes, no one would conceive of the peril ahead. It is a really good analogy.

Anonymous said...

33 million a decade??

Truly terrifying.

Anonymous said...

Immigration Moratorium -- the only non-discriminatory answer. The magic number is zero.

Let's bring this age of immigration to an end. Let the word go out that from now on talented men and women everywhere should focus their energies and ambitions on the development of the countries of their birth.

It works out better for everyone in the long-run that way, above all for their fellow countrymen who are the world's forgotten majority.


Fantastic post Luke.

Anonymous said...

Gee, just when we were about to become energy independent, brown immigrants are going to drive another 100 million Dodge Rams onto the interstates.

I hope San Francisco enjoys drinking recycled toilet water like LA instead of Sierra snow melt.

Daniel said...

We need a new country. This country can't end soon enough. Kick it in. Don't even try holding it up any longer.

Anonymous said...

If they pass this amnesty, I swear I am never saving another penny. I am going to spend my income as soon as I get it and enjoy what I can of this country before it goes completely to hell.

Anonymous said...

First the Border, than the World! For Great Justice! All your base are belong to Us. Set us up the bomb! Make your Time!

Our government, trapped in a world of video-game bromides. Sounds like a horrible fate. Oh no! As they get dragged into the wormhole, they latch onto us! Where will it all end?

hbd chick said...

@luke - "The magic number is zero."

yes. the magic number is zero, and ... deportations. just like they managed to do in the 1200s in sicily sans airplanes or cars or cellphones or emails.

Jack Hanson said...

Really, the only bright spot so far is that the gang of eight and the other amnesty appeasers keep going on about how 'we won't get another chance' if this attempt to replace the US fails.

I wonder if these current scandals might help sink the amnesty attempt, but where's all the noise and thunder from the Right about this issue? Even the alt-Right blogs are mostly about Benghazi, the IRS, and AP DOJ scandals.

Anonymous said...

come on steve, they had to oppose this. First they reduce immigration to merely 99M over 3 decades, then its 98M, then 97M, and pretty soon it gets down to 0. Sessions almost got away with it, but for the abject opposition of everyone else on the committee.

Anonymous said...

Conservatism, Inc's members remind me of Danny Noonan's dialog with Judge Smails in Caddyshack.

Smails:
The most important decision you can make right now is what you stand for- goodness...or badness.

Danny:
I've made some mistakes in the past. I'm willing to make up for that. I want to be good!

-Cloudswrest

Matthew said...

"In that lecture he pointed out that a 1% annual growth rate means whatever you are counting will double in 70 years."

When most people think of percentage rates they only think of money. A 1% APR on a credit card is low. A 1% rate on a savings account is low (or it was until the Fed decided to punish savers). A 1% inflation rate is low. With regard to population increases, however, 1% is frighteningly, insanely high. Our population has grown by 70 million (28%) in just the last 25 years thanks to an immigration rate of "only" about 0.33%. Immigration was responsible for about 70% of our population growth over that time. An immigration rate of three times that, which the Senate seems to think is reasonable, would mean 150 million new people over the next 30 years just as a result of immigration. Counting native growth, by 2043 the USA could have 500 million people by 2043.

Our Congress has gone batshit crazy.

Call your senators and reps. Call John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, too. Call Marco Rubio and tell him you will never, ever vote for him for president.

Jefferson said...

It is a fact that Lindsey Graham is a closet flaming queen. I have seen various websites which say he secretly has a young male lover who lives with him. That would explain his hatred for traditional Heterosexual White America and why he is hell bent on wanting to change the racial demographics of this country.

The majority of Homosexuals are left wing even on political issues that have nothing to do with LBGT issues.

I remember seeing a poll which came out revealing that there is majority support in the LBGT community for amnesty for illegals, Obamacare, and stricter gun control laws.

eah said...

Who was the one vote in favor? Sessions himself? LOL!

Not only is there no thought of protecting the 'historic American nation' (as Mr Brimelow would say), Congress is actively throwing it under the bus.

People who think America isn't doomed aren't paying attention.

Cail Corishev said...

In the shower this morning, I was wondering just what they think we're going to do with 3.3M+ more people per year. I went looking for info on how many jobs are created in a typical year, and found a pro-Obama article claiming that his job-creation acts were going to produce 1.5M new jobs in 2012 and 1.3M in 2013 (I'm guessing we did worse than that). So even the optimists think 3.3M is more than twice the number of people we can produce jobs for! They can't be stupid enough to think these people will overwhelmingly be entrepreneurs; like most Americans, they want a paycheck (or welfare check) and the "tired and poor" immigrant arriving with the shirt on his back doesn't have much to start a business with. Our vaunted Irish/German/Italian immigrant forebears didn't come over and start businesses right away; they plugged away in the factories and slaughterhouses for a couple generations first to build up some wealth to work with. We're not producing jobs for these people, and they're not going to produce their own in significant numbers, so what are we going to do with them?

Could it be as simple as this: the pols are scared shitless of what happens when the Boomers get solidly into SSI/Medicare age and the money truly runs out. There's no support out there for any level of fiscal restraint on domestic spending, and even if there were, it's too late to balance those books anyway. So maybe their only hope is to bring in millions of low-wage workers and hope they'll generate enough extra taxes to cover the shortfall for a while. It'd only be temporary, of course, and the problem will only be worse when this new glut of people reach that age, but by then the Lindsey Grahams will be dead and won't have to care about it.

Can anyone come up with a better theory to explain why they (both parties) want so many immigrants so fast? The only other one I have is that they've decided to destroy America and stop pussy-footing around and get the job done. But I can't quite bring myself to believe that yet. Whatever the reason, at this point, these guys make the corrupt execs and officials in Atlas Shrugged look moderate and thoughtful.

Cail Corishev said...

Really, the only bright spot so far is that the gang of eight and the other amnesty appeasers keep going on about how 'we won't get another chance' if this attempt to replace the US fails.

Sounds good, but I don't buy it. If this fails, they'll be back in a couple years, and Zuckerberg and friends will have more billions to throw at it. Like Derb said, it's like local property tax increases for schools. The people vote it down one year, so they change the wording a bit and bring it back the next year, and keep doing that until they find a way to talk just enough people into voting for it.

Nothing ever gets repealed, so the "no" voters have to win every time; the looters only have to win once.

eah said...

First cracks in immigration deal emerge

On Tuesday, the gang wrangled enough votes to stop one amendment that would have allowed the government to conduct audits to make sure a temporary high-tech visa program wasn’t being used to displace American workers from their jobs,...

Your legislators legislating in your interest.

Anonymous said...

Having an actual border is "racist" and no one in the Senate (and likely, House) is going to vote against it.

The money quote. Anti-racism is a . . . well, you know, and no border control will be enforced until whites are a small and oppressed minority. Economics is irrelevant to the racists running the pogrom, uh program. So's the environment, So's freedom - we're already on our way to being a police state because of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. (Yer Granny wouldn't be getting felt up by foreigners at the airport if we had the same demographics we had in 1960.) Since none of the opponents will ever take on the real nature of the policy, its real goal, either because of fear or because they share the racial beliefs of the opposition, they're not likely to effectively oppose it.

jody said...

"Only 33,000,000 foreigners per decade? What kind of wacko extremism is Sen. Sessions trying to peddle?"

holy shit. the scope of this is a lot bigger than i thought. 33 million per decade is the LOWBALL number?

in the words of ron burgundy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

Anonymous said...

Graham's logic must be in reference to previous waves of immigration, like all the uneducated European immigrants in the late 1800's and various waves of asian immigration in the mid 20th century. Even assuming that the millions and millions of hispanic peasants will turn out the same way (they won't), why exactly would we want to go through the same process AGAIN? Those immigrants didn't transform overnight and took a generation or two to see parity with the rest of the country, and it's not like some, like the vietnamese, still exhibit social pathology.

What the fuck is the logic here? Why not want immigrants that will be ready to assimilate and contribute from the outset?