Minneapolis police chief brought to heel for noticing Somalis are criminals.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minneapolis-police-chief-issues-apology-linking-somali-youth-local-crime

Just don't bring in communists, Muslims, criminals, and poor people who refuse to work.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

hodedofome said:

---

Just don't bring in communists, Muslims, criminals, and poor people who refuse to work.

---

That's 90% of what we bring in.

---

Because 100% of them will vote Democrat.

Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, on immigration to America:

"Immigration has been a great strength for America. But mind you, immigration of the highly intelligent and highly hardworking. If it’s immigration of fruit pickers (laughs), you won’t get very far." pic.twitter.com/sPxRu0eUYy

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) November 23, 2025

TLDR:

Unless an immigrant will make more than the 90th percentile of U.S. income, they don't help America financially-- and this is likely to persist among their children and grandchildren..

And that is before we even get into the cultural and social problems caused by mass… https://t.co/qiNgyOm2gT

— Jeremy Carl (@realJeremyCarl) November 24, 2025

When you cannot even get the TDSers to make a case for mass immigration ...

Henry Kissinger died on this day two years ago.

In his final interview before his death, he left the West with a stark warning: “It was a grave mistake to let in so many people of totally different cultures and religions.”

pic.twitter.com/Qqwwordh01

— Zarathustra (@zarathustra5150) November 30, 2025

The alternate explanation is mass migration into OECD countries. The demographics of school-aged children in France, Britain and Canada are very different today than they were in 2010.

— Daniel Friedman (@DanFriedman81) November 30, 2025

In the PISA database of OECD countries, migrants and the children of migrants score worse on average than natives in all first world countries except Australia and Canada (due to A and C's traditional points systems for choosing migrants).

— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) November 30, 2025

Mainstream is saying the quiet bit out loud now https://t.co/Hvt0KB8UZZ

— Nick, 30 (@an0n_Nic) December 11, 2025

Did you know that the Chamber of Commerce sued to stop the pro-worker H1-B fee that Trump implemented?

Yes, the 70% Republican donating Chamber.

Here are their biggest pro-H1-B mustache twirling villains who are trying to screw over America in court pic.twitter.com/n6lq9ED0NJ

— Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports (@honestpollster) December 12, 2025

The Somalis really adding value.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Of course, way past time. Just look around, unfettered immigration has many negatives.
Only bring highly skilled, value add. Limit the numbers so your own population can adjust.

---

Correction: Limit the numbers so that your native population does not have to adjust, and the newcomers do.

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

---

It passed 60-39. They got the 60 votes needed. Are you saying they should have not used the majority to pass a bill they wanted? Would the GOP not use a 60 vote majority on what they wanted? I am confused to why you are shocked and disgusted.

McConnell took a Supreme Court justice from Obama by using the rules in place, was that OK? I fail to see your point.

The ACA was designed to decrease the number of uninsured, it did that by 51%. That is a fact. Was it sustainable? No. Was it efficient? No. Which leads us to now. WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT WILL:

• Decrease the number of uninsured
• Cost less
• Be sustainable
• Increase efficiency

So far I see nothing. All I see is *****ing over Obamacare, GOP NEEDS to come up with something or it will kill them in the midterms. Give the Dems 60 votes and see what happens. Well? Now is the time...

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

---

It passed 60-39. They got the 60 votes needed. Are you saying they should have not used the majority to pass a bill they wanted? Would the GOP not use a 60 vote majority on what they wanted? I am confused to why you are shocked and disgusted.

McConnell took a Supreme Court justice from Obama by using the rules in place, was that OK? I fail to see your point.

The ACA was designed to decrease the number of uninsured, it did that by 51%. That is a fact. Was it sustainable? No. Was it efficient? No. Which leads us to now. WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT WILL:

• Decrease the number of uninsured
• Cost less
• Be sustainable
• Increase efficiency

So far I see nothing. All I see is *****ing over Obamacare, GOP NEEDS to come up with something or it will kill them in the midterms. Give the Dems 60 votes and see what happens. Well? Now is the time...

---

The mental gymnastics required to support terrible democrat
policies make (possibly) somewhat smart
people seem like world class idiots.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

---

It passed 60-39. They got the 60 votes needed. Are you saying they should have not used the majority to pass a bill they wanted? Would the GOP not use a 60 vote majority on what they wanted? I am confused to why you are shocked and disgusted.

McConnell took a Supreme Court justice from Obama by using the rules in place, was that OK? I fail to see your point.

The ACA was designed to decrease the number of uninsured, it did that by 51%. That is a fact. Was it sustainable? No. Was it efficient? No. Which leads us to now. WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT WILL:

• Decrease the number of uninsured
• Cost less
• Be sustainable
• Increase efficiency

So far I see nothing. All I see is *****ing over Obamacare, GOP NEEDS to come up with something or it will kill them in the midterms. Give the Dems 60 votes and see what happens. Well? Now is the time...

---

The mental gymnastics required to support terrible democrat
policies make (possibly) somewhat smart
people seem like world class idiots.

---

All perfectly true. Welcome to the world of elected officials. But in our system, their elected idiocy trumps your correct logical thought. Got to play the game to accomplish anything in this system. Like it or not, ACA will generate votes.

BREAKING: Rep. Chip Roy is pushing legislation to halt all legal and illegal immigration.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) December 12, 2025

GOP Congressman Chip Roy says he is pushing legislation to halt all immigration: “We should hit pause. We have 51.5M foreign-born people in the United States. We paused in 1920 and we had 40 years where we reclaimed our sovereignty.” pic.twitter.com/Ni6v0AUzMR

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) December 12, 2025

Stephen Miller shoots straight.
He's likely leading this charge.

He knows exactly where the resistance is too. https://t.co/PTXgPudoUU

— Chief_Engineer (@EngineerChiefCE) December 13, 2025

good article. this is an example of what i've been trying to raise the alarm about: young Americans who did everything right, studied hard, got into a good state university, majored in computer science, cannot break into the job market and start their careers bc American… https://t.co/d9lpCgx0Af

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) December 14, 2025

Famous economist Milton Friedman on illegal immigration:

“The US had free immigration up until 1914, and everybody would’ve said that it was GREAT — now fast forward to today. You cannot have free immigration, while also having a welfare state…”

He’s SPOT ON.. 👏👏 pic.twitter.com/hGIpg54Z51

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) December 16, 2025

When a large number of refugees arrive in a given city, does crime rise in subsequent years? It's a question obviously relevant to many current debates, both in the United States and in Europe. And one many policymakers are focused on now.
To examine this issue, we used refugee resettlement data from the U.S. Department of State's Worldwide Refugee Processing System to calculate the 10 cities in the US that received the most refugees relative to the size of their population between 2006 and 2015. We then looked at what happened to both their overall crime rates over the same time period using detailed data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigations. This revealed a telling pattern: Rather than crime increasing, nine out of 10 of the communities actually became considerably more safe, both in terms of their levels of violent and property crime. This included places like Southfield, Michigan, a community just outside of Detroit, where violent crime dropped by 77.1 percent. Decatur, Georgia, a community outside Atlanta, experienced a 62.2 percent decline in violent crime.

• Refugees & Crime: Research by the American Immigration Council found that communities receiving more refugees, including Somalis, often saw decreased violent and property crime rates, debunking myths that refugees increase crime.
• Specific Community Challenges: A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study noted that while extremist views declined, attitudes toward gangs were mixed, indicating an ongoing challenge with gang presence, especially in North American Somali communities.
• No Overall Spike: Reports from places with large Somali populations, like Lewiston, Maine, found that Somalis were a tiny fraction of criminal indictments, showing no surge in crime.

Why the Perception vs. Reality?

• Media Focus: High-profile incidents involving Somali individuals (like radicalization cases) receive significant media attention, creating a skewed perception of overall crime rates.
• Socioeconomic Factors: Challenges like poverty, lack of opportunity, and difficulties integrating into American society contribute to some youth involvement in gangs, a separate issue from general criminality.

In essence, studies generally show Somali immigrants aren't driving crime; rather, they integrate into diverse communities where crime trends mirror local socioeconomic conditions, with specific concerns about youth gangs in some areas needing tailored support.




https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/is-there-a-link-between-refugees-and-u-s-crime-rates/

This is so tiresome. Net job growth has fallen toward zero, and fallen further for men, because large numbers of illegal migrants are rapidly departing the labor force (and yes, illegal workers are much more likely to be men). https://t.co/ssUO9uDIQt

— Oren Cass (@oren_cass) December 17, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

---

It passed 60-39. They got the 60 votes needed. Are you saying they should have not used the majority to pass a bill they wanted? Would the GOP not use a 60 vote majority on what they wanted? I am confused to why you are shocked and disgusted.

McConnell took a Supreme Court justice from Obama by using the rules in place, was that OK? I fail to see your point.

The ACA was designed to decrease the number of uninsured, it did that by 51%. That is a fact. Was it sustainable? No. Was it efficient? No. Which leads us to now. WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT WILL:

• Decrease the number of uninsured
• Cost less
• Be sustainable
• Increase efficiency

So far I see nothing. All I see is *****ing over Obamacare, GOP NEEDS to come up with something or it will kill them in the midterms. Give the Dems 60 votes and see what happens. Well? Now is the time...

---

I apologize. I did not realize you were not aware how the bill escaped the House.

The same CEO that was caught on a leaked zoom telling IBM senior management that they are to be hiring NO “white guys” regardless of qualification for ANY position in ANY of their divisions.
This dumb boomer deserves to lose.
I bet he doesn’t look so tough in his next mug shot https://t.co/NuJyMRXoo8

— Dr. StormyWaters (@NormanDodd_knew) December 14, 2025

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

---

It passed 60-39. They got the 60 votes needed. Are you saying they should have not used the majority to pass a bill they wanted? Would the GOP not use a 60 vote majority on what they wanted? I am confused to why you are shocked and disgusted.

McConnell took a Supreme Court justice from Obama by using the rules in place, was that OK? I fail to see your point.

The ACA was designed to decrease the number of uninsured, it did that by 51%. That is a fact. Was it sustainable? No. Was it efficient? No. Which leads us to now. WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT WILL:

• Decrease the number of uninsured
• Cost less
• Be sustainable
• Increase efficiency

So far I see nothing. All I see is *****ing over Obamacare, GOP NEEDS to come up with something or it will kill them in the midterms. Give the Dems 60 votes and see what happens. Well? Now is the time...

---

I apologize. I did not realize you were not aware how the bill escaped the House.

---

I do not know why we are stuck on ancient history. GOP needs something on health care, especially if they let the subsidies expire. This is not a debate on the quality of Obamacare, EVERYONE agrees it needs to change. It is about not getting skewered by it in the mid-terms. Even Trump and many of the GOP see that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we at the point where immigration has become a net negative?

On the plus side, you get good and talented people from other nations.

On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc.
It pushes down wages.
It inflates housing costs.

An economist could never do a real study for fear of being called names but I am sure we should continue to encourage it.

---

"On the down side, it brings tremendous costs to health care, education, social services, etc."

Only if the US constitution continues to be abrogated as far as specifying only very limited functions as federal matters is concerned. There isn't a word, or even an idea, in that document about healthcare, social services, or education, which can only be added through amendment, of which none yet exists. Not saying they can't be, just that they have not been, as much as many want to pretend they have, or simply ignore the document, whichever gets the desired result.

---

That is what the Necessary and Proper Clause is for. ACA was done under that and ACTUALLY passed. There is legislation for it that Congress passed. I think it is more than an iota.

Health care is becoming something only the Government will be able to manage. We have ACA on the books, either we reform it or leave it. I don't see the GOP having the votes to kill it.

---

. . . in the dead of night on Christmas Eve without a single member of Congress having read the bill and without a single vote from the opposition party.

---

It passed 60-39. They got the 60 votes needed. Are you saying they should have not used the majority to pass a bill they wanted? Would the GOP not use a 60 vote majority on what they wanted? I am confused to why you are shocked and disgusted.

McConnell took a Supreme Court justice from Obama by using the rules in place, was that OK? I fail to see your point.

The ACA was designed to decrease the number of uninsured, it did that by 51%. That is a fact. Was it sustainable? No. Was it efficient? No. Which leads us to now. WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT WILL:

• Decrease the number of uninsured
• Cost less
• Be sustainable
• Increase efficiency

So far I see nothing. All I see is *****ing over Obamacare, GOP NEEDS to come up with something or it will kill them in the midterms. Give the Dems 60 votes and see what happens. Well? Now is the time...

---

I apologize. I did not realize you were not aware how the bill escaped the House.

---

I do not know why we are stuck on ancient history. GOP needs something on health care, especially if they let the subsidies expire. This is not a debate on the quality of Obamacare, EVERYONE agrees it needs to change. It is about not getting skewered by it in the mid-terms. Even Trump and many of the GOP see that.

---

Dude. We know you're a shill for Big Insurance. Stop pretending. You schtick is stupid at this point - you want the working class to subsidize billionaire CEOs of insurance companies.

Carr is at a stage where he’s broken away from Woke career stupid talk, he’s probably so far down the success line that he can but he’s deffo talking sense these days.🤔
I know he had luvvie tendencies but he’s changed. pic.twitter.com/LqihpjJKqv

— Matt Casey 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🇬🇧 (@MattCas04807118) December 13, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

Famous economist Milton Friedman on illegal immigration:

“The US had free immigration up until 1914, and everybody would’ve said that it was GREAT — now fast forward to today. You cannot have free immigration, while also having a welfare state…”

He’s SPOT ON.. 👏👏 pic.twitter.com/hGIpg54Z51

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) December 16, 2025

---

He got that backwards because he didn't account for declining birthrates. The present reality is that you can't have a welfare state without free immigration.