Yeah I find these comments really upsetting too. As I already responded to one, civil rights was not a winning issue in the South either. Should they have just given up? Not to mention this WILL end up hurting the economy so the answer is to get loud and persuasive--commercials even--pointing out the cause and effect correlation between these deportations and both the budget and the economy.
Yeah I find these comments really upsetting too. As I already responded to one, civil rights was not a winning issue in the South either. Should they have just given up? Not to mention this WILL end up hurting the economy so the answer is to get loud and persuasive--commercials even--pointing out the cause and effect correlation between these deportations and both the budget and the economy.
American citizens have been caught up in mass deportations since at least the 1930s, which makes these tribal events civil rights issues:
"Mass deportations of Mexican immigrants from the U.S. date to the Great Depression, when the federal government began a wave of deportations rather than include Mexican-born workers in New Deal welfare programs. According to historian Francisco Balderrama, the U.S. deported over 1 million Mexican nationals, 60 percent of whom were U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, during the 1930s."
Apparently you missed my point. My point was about doing the right thing. Also we have already established that American citizens are getting caught up in this.
No, I understood your point perfectly: I just disagreed with it, because you blurred a real and important distinction. I thought that was obvious but since it wasn't, thanks for the opportunity to offer this needed clarification.
We'll agree to disagree. I don't think that distinction is relevant, especially when legal immigrants and citizens are getting caught up in it. And I would further point out that my original comment was not made in a vacuum--it was specifically referring to whether Democrats should drop all immigration related issues because they are not popular, just for the sake of winning the next election.
Yeah I find these comments really upsetting too. As I already responded to one, civil rights was not a winning issue in the South either. Should they have just given up? Not to mention this WILL end up hurting the economy so the answer is to get loud and persuasive--commercials even--pointing out the cause and effect correlation between these deportations and both the budget and the economy.
American citizens have been caught up in mass deportations since at least the 1930s, which makes these tribal events civil rights issues:
"Mass deportations of Mexican immigrants from the U.S. date to the Great Depression, when the federal government began a wave of deportations rather than include Mexican-born workers in New Deal welfare programs. According to historian Francisco Balderrama, the U.S. deported over 1 million Mexican nationals, 60 percent of whom were U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, during the 1930s."
www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation
Civil Rights was about American citizens. Apples and oranges.
Apparently you missed my point. My point was about doing the right thing. Also we have already established that American citizens are getting caught up in this.
No, I understood your point perfectly: I just disagreed with it, because you blurred a real and important distinction. I thought that was obvious but since it wasn't, thanks for the opportunity to offer this needed clarification.
We'll agree to disagree. I don't think that distinction is relevant, especially when legal immigrants and citizens are getting caught up in it. And I would further point out that my original comment was not made in a vacuum--it was specifically referring to whether Democrats should drop all immigration related issues because they are not popular, just for the sake of winning the next election.