Missing the Point


I think I need to ask … because apparently I’m missing the point.

The Republicans are adamant about curtailing immigration because of “the strain” it puts on “our system.” I assume this means that the more immigrants we allow into this country, the more government money will be spent on their behalf (at least initially) … which takes away from the pet projects favored by the Republicans. Yes?

YET! These same Republicans believe it is O.K. for thousands of women to be denied abortions which will, over the years, undoubtedly increase the population and put (long-term) strain on innumerable agencies within our governmental system. Yes?

Those of you who are “in the know” … will you please explain the reasoning behind this thinking?

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

37 thoughts on “Missing the Point

  1. Ýou expect reason from a Republican, Nan? Have you gone off the deep end? Or are you just trying to treat them like normal people? They are not normal. They are fatuous, pig-headed, power-hungry, inhumane idiots who do not want to govern — they only want to rule!
    Now, you know I am not a political expert, which is whom you directed your question to, but I am an expert at interpreting what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears. I am also an expert at putting unrelated things together that some people do not want put together. Republicans want nothing to be put together. They want everything to stand on its own merit(?) and for noone to notice the dicrepancies in various stances. DO NOT COMPARE OR CONTRAST. That way lies insanity.

    Liked by 8 people

  2. Wait . . . you are expecting the Republicans to be consistent? You mean like their “life is sacred” stance against abortion, coupled with their “You don’t work, you don’t eat” capitalism or their pay-as-you-go healthcare system? or . . . etc. usw, and so on, . . .

    Liked by 8 people

  3. “I assume this means that the more immigrants we allow into this country, the more government money will be spent on their behalf (at least initially) … which takes away from the pet projects favored by the Republicans. Yes?”

    Maybe?! Certainly plausible, and may be what they will admit to in public, what I suspect (and this is only a suspicion) is that they’re referring to is the strain that immigration puts on the ability of white people to remain in the majority.

    Liked by 6 people

      • If that’s true, it would seem to rely on an assumption that would need to be justified: That we spend more on new (and illegal) immigrants than is brought in with tax revenues, or that we even spend more per capita on these people than we do with “established” residents. I’m certainly not convinced that this is true.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I’m not able to provide you with statistics … perhaps others can/will? I’m primarily basing my thinking on $$$$ because this seems to be the guiding factor in so much of what is done in government … and among its representatives. Notice that it was mentioned in the recent busing of the immigrants …

          Via CNN: The state of Texas has spent more than $12 million busing migrants to Washington, DC, and New York who crossed into the state from Mexico, according to figures from the Texas Division of Emergency Management.

          Liked by 2 people

        • That’s was Abbott’s choice.
          As far as money goes, Republicans have no problem givong money to the wealthy. What they might have to spend on immigrants is but a fraction of that amount.
          I’ll bet every penny I own (all 2 of them) that they are against brown people coming into the USA more than any other reason.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. It’s quite simple actually. It boils down to skin colour/ethnicity. You better believe if thousands of Germans or French people came here seeking asylum, the doors of the GOP would be wide open. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    Liked by 7 people

    • I’m not sure about that. There’s a lot of hatred for the French, especially & I hear a lot of nasty talk about Germans lately, too. The GOP is an equal-opportunity hatred club. Think Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York. WASPs only.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Cannon fodder for the Apocalypse. They’ve clearly stated, at least to those paying attention, that their intent is the proliferation of the white species. When you step back and look at the big picture, they’re a minority, always have been, and they know it. And they also know that not just demographically here in the US but in the big picture they are a dying breed. So much of this is a push to have more white babies, in the hope they’ll somehow remain (in their mind’s eye) dominant. It’s all a part of their current crusade.

    Do I think some bright boy with an MBA has figured this out? Yes …

    Liked by 3 people

  6. OK, folks. I get it. The Repukes want a proliferation of “the white species.” BUT this is not really my question. Putting aside the “skin color” … my question has more to do with government spending.

    The Repukes make a big deal about the money needed to help assimilate the immigrants into this country … BUT they don’t mind spending that same government money to raise all those children that will be born due to their ban on abortion.

    According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, programs to support children are a key component of the federal budget. Health spending and tax provisions account for more than three-fifths of all federal expenditures on children.

    AND … not all of those children are going to be White!

    Liked by 2 people

    • you are assuming the Republicans intend to spend that much money on new native born babies? I think that is a questionable assumption. The Republican program is the unworthy native babies who are poor will just…disappear. What the atrumpanzees forget is their masters care nothing about them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Having pondered it for a bit, well, yeah, maybe I did miss your point. Little knee-jerk there, thought I’d left it behind. I lamented that elsewhere today, the bias laid as children stay with us.

      I don’t necessarily have anything to add, caveat, other than another metric is they have no interest in spending money on any children, after they’re born. Don’t spend much on them before they’re born.

      It’s all manufactured hysteria … induced dyslexia


  7. Almost one in three New Zealanders are immigrants compared to around one in seven in the US, so whatever strain new arrivals put on the economy in the US pales when compared to NZ. In relative numbers, our immigration rate in 2019 would would be the equivalent of America accepting 5 million immigrants each year. In fact, around 1.3 million people migrated to the US in 2019.

    The biggest strain caused by rapid population growth, no matter whether it’s by immigration or birth rate is the strain it puts on infrastructure. There simply are not enough resources to build sufficient homes with necessary supports such as roading, utilities like electricity networks, sewage, water, schools, hospitals, etc, resulting in runaway house price increases, or waiting lists to signing up with a health provider for example.

    As far as overall benefit to the economy, for example GDP, the benefits of immigration outweigh the stresses caused. Typically from the year after arriving in NZ, immigrants are productive members of the community, and on average, are more productive than native born Kiwis.

    What I find fascinating is that the major right of centre political parties of both the US and NZ are more opposed to immigration than left of centre parties. Go figure.

    Liked by 6 people

  8. It’s the economic impact, Nan. No. Wait. It’s the fear of diluting the white population. No. It’s racism. No. It’s the fear of strengthening the Democratic vote. No. It’s the loss of jobs for ‘real Americans.’

    It’s all those things and more, Nan. You have a lot of different responses, and none seem to be wrong.

    I’m living under my fifteenth president and my 4oth Congress. It seems to me that there has been sufficient opportunity to solve the problem of immigration. The thing lacking has been the will. Both major political parties, labor, and capitalism, have been on both sides of the argument. I’ve come to the conclusion that it serves too many people too well as a divisionary, politically expedient tool to ever see serious efforts to offer real solutions.

    The Republican party has never stood for the good of society unless they could find some immediate political benefit. They only give that which they can quickly take away.

    “A shining city on a hill.” What hypocrite used that biblical term to identify us as a tolerant democracy?

    Liked by 2 people

    • it’s always been this way! To a varying extent. Republican nativism predates the party. Know Nothing Party, anyone? Chinese Exclusion Act, the confused and contradictory policies towards Mexican immigrants. on and on and on.

      And we are not unique. Other Settler States-have struggled with this. Remember White Australia?

      Liked by 3 people

  9. It can’t be rationally explained. The curbing of Hispanic immigration is their white nationalism which appeals the the trump base, (which thrives by the way even without him) and the anti choice or flat out abortion appeals to the religious right, which again appeals to the trump base.
    So it’s about keep those votes and therefore the perks and power of the office. Doesn’t have to make sense, but just retain votes.
    They also may weigh the demographics of the numbers of births (mostly black) that otherwise wouldn’t be, against the numbers of Hispanic migrants kept out. It’s also a numbers game.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good points. And isn’t it interesting (and frustrating) that the direction of nearly every facet of government ALWAYS leads to the politicians themselves and their retention of the “perks and power of the office.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • You’re not missing anything, Nan. Unabashed is the adjective that describes them. They appear in public, on national news media, looking the public in the eye and lying, knowing that we are aware that they only care about winning or holding a seat in public office. Brian2 and others covered that well.

        Trump dove deep into the bowels of the party and stirred up all the scum, which now floats on top like an algal bloom, smothering the life out of the party. They use to allow the kooks and religious nuts to bring in their voting blocs, then push them back under the rocks after the election. Now that element is the voice of the party.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Look, Nan, republicans are smart. Far smarter than libtards and woke idjits that whine about abortion rights and the humane treatment of those seeking asylum in our country. So, just do as they say when and how they say it and all will be great with murica. Ok?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I do not claim to be “in the know”, but I say this: It looks a lot like right-wing populism. The money is not the issue, nor is racism other than as means to a goal. Not as such. The issue in populism is – like in all marketting schemes – is to find the target audience. Preferably a stupid one, in the sense that they are easily manipulated to buy the product. The political candidate.

    The target group is the ignorant voter, who is easily scared by the threat of the outsider. A voter/consumer whose moral compass is not based on any logic, but on pure emotion and behavioral tradition (= Conservatism). To such a consumer group, the easiest advertising campaign is to tell them the immigrant (gay, coloured, non-believer, or the “elite”) = outsider, the different person to what the consumers have been used to, is a threat to the tribe. Fear sells to the insecure. There is no logical bridge between the different issues, nor does there need to be. The bridge between is the consumer/voter. Their poor morals is the connecting thing between fear of the immigrant and willingness to boss around women in a woulnerable situation and doing some moralist posing while at it. It is easy to sell them the simplistic thought, that the fetus = baby because to them language is garbled and some words appear synonymous, despite their totally different meaning. As easy to sell them the idea, that the woman in need of an abortion has been promisquous and should be punished – by them having to have the baby. No logic required. No morals required. Obscure appeals to old “sacred” texts, that the consumer/voter has never read, but has been taught to revere, are served as justification without question. Questioning them equals questioning the identity of the consumer/voter, because that is the connection to the “scripture”. It exists on an emotional level only, not in practice of any kind, and that makes it so voulnerable, that it is defended with fervour to save the identity of the consumer/voter. This may even radicalize the consumer/voter on some level, but it certainly makes them likely to become fanatic supporters of the candidate selling them this moralist nonsense. Later such “values” may be defended by the most ridiculous and complicated rationalizations. They need to be defended despite any facts, because the consumer/voter has no clue how to find out what exactly is moral. To them morals is all about learned values and rules, not about a harm vs. benefit analysis.

    Tribal moralism and black and white moralism go hand in hand, because they stem from the same source – the lack of logical thinking skills. From populism the trip to Fascism is short, but the goals are the same. To gain total power to protect the interrests of the priviledged – with violence, if possible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I was hoping you would weigh-in on this, rautakyy. You always seem to grasp what I’m trying to get across in my posts that others seem to miss. It probably has to do with my writing style (sigh), but it may also be related to the fact that you live elsewhere so you’re not directly affected and can view the situation with an unbiased eye.

      In any event, thank you for your input. I agree with all of it!


  12. For several years, the GOP acted lie they were opposed to illegal immigration. That is no longer true. If it were, they would have supported increased funding for speeding the processing asylum seekers . Both U.S. law, International law, and the traditions of many religions (especially the Abrahamic religions) require compassionate and just treatment of those who are seeking asylum. A lot of the “illegal” crossings of our southern border are asylum seekers who are not being admitted at legal crossing points.

    Title 42 is more of the smokescreen. Over 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID-19. At least a quarter of those people would be alive if the previous administration, GOP leaders, their “party line” news, and the lunatic fringe that are their most ardent supporters had faced the problem rather than denying it, pointing fingers, and spreading crack-pot cures.

    The Republican party seems to believe that only a particular subset of white, Christian, heterosexual men will vote for them. Rather than giving others reasons to support them, they double-down on their suppression of everyone else. Unless and until they change, the only two likely outcomes are: (1) the death of their party … like their predecessors the Whigs … or the death of our representative democracy.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I’m not in the know and I am certainly not Republican. These sojourners (aka immigrants) in our land are supposed to be, I think biblically, treated well. Don’t hold your breath.

    I believe that Republicans are anti-a lot of things, and pro not-much-at all. They are anti abortion, anti treating people well (even their own), anti-snowflake (whatever that means), anti rights and equality of all kinds, except guns, anti-liberal Democrat even when the Dem ain’t a lib, which means they are also anti-moderate even though many of them claim to be so, when it is to their political advantage.

    Now you and I (we) know that if you try to make sense of any of this, or to apply rational thinking or logic, it will not work.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Pretty much every white person in every country is an immigrant,at least historically.
    Except for the English, of course,who are,contrary to certain bible claims, God’s chosen tribe.
    This, however excludes Arsenal and Manchester United supporters who are …well, best not, eh?


    • Less than a hundred years ago most nations of the “white man” proudly presented themselves as the offspring of immigrants. Their ancestors being these conquerors who came from the outside and subjugated the locals and this somehow supposedly justified it as a natural order for them to rule over other people, rob them of their posessions, natural resources, labour and even freedom and lives. So important was it to many, that even professors of renowned universities spread the most fantastic fancies of how nations like the Finns had conquered Finland from the Saami, so that the Finns would be seen as a real “white” nation of conquerers, not as helpless victims like the rest of the indigenous people of the world.

      Sadly, it is this very same illusion and fable of the “Aryan race”, or “Manifest Destiny” and what have you notions of superiority, that the populist still appeals to. The sense of entitelment lost, that speaks to billions of people across the globe. Not just the “white trash” (rich or poor) of Western nations, but to a lot of other victims of the divide and conquer tactics of the Colonialist Capitalist to justify and grab the priviledges in any society. Even tragedies like the Rwanda genoside are direct results of the same phenomenon, as the Hutus were under the same illusion of superiority, entitelment and fear of the loss of priviledge.

      It appears to me, like a lot of people think they are entiteled to priviledges according to the most arbitrary division between groups and individuals, such as gender, “race”, nationality, family wealth, creed and so on. Most of these having absolutely nothing to do with individual achievement. These illusions make them voulnerable to populist manipulation, that connects them to the fear of losing the priviledge regardless wether the person has ever really enjoyed any. Thus misogynia, racism, nationalism, greed, religious moralism and other lower echelons of human behaviour rise their ugly heads. These all amount to inequality between humans and I think stem from emotional immaturity resulting from might makes right authoritarian upbringing.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. It’s obvious–too many of “those” people, who will begin to outnumber the “proper” people, taking our jobs and raping our wimmins. It would be okay if the immigrants were, as 2x-impeached Dear Leader put it, Norwegians.
    We’ve seen episodes where tomatoes rotted on the vines because immigrants were barred and nobody else was willing to pick them (not even convicts).

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.