Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

How so? Where do Trump supporters and right-wingers get their news from?

If you are on the right, you look at MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc. and see a ridiculously biased and censored view of the world. So distorted that no one could see Trump winning.

Their viewers are mostly liberal and because of PC-culture there is a very narrow acceptable world-view. To write an article pro-anything-Trump did would put careers at risk.

Liberals receive a very censored view of the world. The ethos being something like, we need to control the facts you hear about otherwise everyone will turn into racists.

Its ironic how they are shouting fascist and big brother 1984, when they are the ones who are censoring the news, physically preventing ppl speaking at events, not engaging in debate, banning words, etc.

Look at wikileaks - use to be a hero of the left, but now it is an enemy.

A progressive-run government would be much more authoritarian.

---

> Excuse me? Do you have a point here? Sure if all the food I ever ate started smelling bad, I would say all food in the world smells bad. What is your point?

You perceive Fox News as a bad source of news in the same way that the right perceive the MSM as a bad source of news.

Its wrong to discredit the MSM...when its on your side. But if the tables are turned, you would feel the same way about the MSM.

> Bullshit. The reason they have Trump supporters is because a lot of American people are Trump supporters. And their willingness to work with people with different beliefs shows that they are willing to debate with them. You are contradicting yourself.

You think that there is 50% republicans running around the NYTimes newsroom? You think the people who work at CNN are anywhere close to 50% republican. No way. I am saying they hire like-minded people because its difficult to constantly be having arguments all day.

> All of this is, again, besides the point that the current WH is authoritarian.

> pm90: Definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

I really, really don't see this, compared to the behaviour of the progressive left.

I do not see personal freedoms of US citizens being violated. I see illegal immigrants being deported, laws being enforced, national borders being secured, and freedoms being protected.

Progressive-left is authoritarianism waiting to happen.

But I really wish you could convince me of this WH authoritarianism. I'm just not seeing it.

This is just dumb. US cuisine borrows more heavily from China than from Australia too, but no one is going to claim that US culture is very similar to Chinese culture. I live in a little town and there's 3 Chinese restaurants here, and only 1 Mexican.

>We have more Spanish speakers than Spain

We probably have more Chinese speakers than Hong Kong too, but that doesn't make US culture similar to China either. The US is a huge country, #3 in the world by population. Of course it's going to have a lot of foreign-language speakers, especially when there's a ton of Spanish-speaking countries to the south and a lot of immigration from there. But that doesn't mean that the dominant culture in America today is extremely similar to the culture of Mexico; I'd argue that German culture is more similar to American culture. At least German culture is universalist, rather than particularist as are Latin American cultures.

People worry about losing their cultural and ethnic identity. Nobody wants to be made a minority in their own country, no matter how much cheap labor they get out of it.

>What is the harm in them living in my society?

They bring their values and culture with them, and by sharing a society they change it, to a degree relative to how many of them there are, to be like theirs. The places many these people come from often have much different values than the American leftists who lobby for them to be here. I am particularly scared of this as an LGBT individual, as in a lot of immigration, particularly from Muslim majority countries, comes from places where public attitudes towards homosexuality are extremely negative and often violent (see: Omar Mateen).

>Don't give immigrants the right to vote or full citizenship then. Problem solved.

This won't work. Sure, the push now is just for them simply to be here, but creating an underclass of unrepresented people without the same rights as everyone else is a recipe for disaster. It will be easy for people seeking power to inspire hatred in them for their countrymen who are first-class citizens due to their unfair treatment, and then to incite them to violence for their political gain. A much better solution is simply to not let them in at all.

>Source for constitutional reforms being needed? I think the U.S. constitution only says the government can't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, etc.

No one can refuse to let people of a certain ethnicity live among them. This is racial discrimination, which was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act under the Civil Rights Act of 1968. You're right, this is not technically a constitutional amendment, but the result is the same: you cannot stay with your ethnic group. If someone from another ethnic group wants to live in your society, you are obligated by law to let them.

That's not my question. My question is "What are we getting for the money?"

Again, you seem to be suggesting "lower crime". I disagree, but let's play devil's advocate: how much lower do you think crime would be? Now divide that by the cost of the wall. That's your "per unit cost of lowering crime with a wall". What's the answer?

> my view would be "we can build part of it to the new high standard, and see what happens" since it is a multi-year project after all

Haha, I want to know what we're getting in return for $$$ and you just said "let's see what happens...", which makes you sound like you're selling timeshares.

That so?

> I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian.

Go right ahead.

> And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that.

And yet, that still doesn't make it right.