PDA

View Full Version : illegal aliens in our country



ceebee
01-29-2006, 11:52 AM
I read the following in an editorial column.

If you are ready for the adventure of a lifetime, try this...

Enter Mexico, illegally, never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law or any of that nonsense. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family. Demand bilingual nurses and doctors & free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.

Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural USA thing. You would not understand, pal." Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper. Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise. Demand classes on American culture to be incorporated into the Mexican school system.

Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford you other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal presence in Mexico. Drive around with no liability insurance and ignore local traffic laws. Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.

Good luck to you! You will be demanding for the rest of time or soon dead, because it will never happen. It will not happen in Mexico or any other country in the world except right here in the United States, land of the crooked
politically correct politicians.

Any business that employs an illegal citizen, should be put out of business. The employers should be incarcerated & their assets should be confiscated. Members of the state & federal Congresses should be commanded to rid our country of illegal Aliens… NOW.

Please understand that no American would prohibit anyone from coming to our country LEGALLY. However, entering a country illegally & then hoping to become a law-abiding citizen, is much like a man spending his last night as a bachelor, at a bordello.

Our government has betrayed us. Our borders are sacred, but they have been breached by aliens with SELF as the prime motivation. Our government has turned away from the problem & it has become a giant sore that is impossible to heal without sacrifice.

pooltchr
01-29-2006, 12:27 PM
Tap Tap Tap
Steve

SnakebyteXX
01-29-2006, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ceebee:</font><hr> I read the following in an editorial column.

If you are ready for the adventure of a lifetime, try this...

Enter Mexico, illegally, never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law or any of that nonsense. Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family. Demand bilingual nurses and doctors &amp; free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.

Procreate abundantly. Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, "It is a cultural USA thing. You would not understand, pal." Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper. Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise. Demand classes on American culture to be incorporated into the Mexican school system.
<hr /></blockquote>

ceebee -

Too late, we've already been there and done that. That's how we ended up with Texas and California and a couple of States in between. Americans started the whole thing when they crossed the Mexican border illegally - brought their slaves with them contrary to Mexican law - insisted on maintaining the language of their mother country - ignored local Mexican laws - proudly flew the American flag - and ultimately rebelled against their Mexican hosts taking the land by force - their actions eventually resulting in armed intervention by the US governmentt that in the end turned a rather large part of Mexico into what we now think of as the the good old USA.

From Wikipedia:

Mexican-American War

The Mexican-American War was fought between the United States and Mexico between 1846 and 1848. In the U.S. it is known as the Mexican War or Mr. Polk's War; in Mexico it is known as the U.S. Intervention, the U.S. Invasion of Mexico, and the United States War Against Mexico.

The Mexican-American War grew out of unresolved conflicts between Mexico and Republic of Texas and from the desires of U.S. expansionism (Manifest Destiny). The Texas Revolution in 1836 left open a border dispute between the Mexican government and the newly formed republic. Mexico refused to recognize the existence of the Republic of Texas, declared its intention of recapturing the breakaway province, and warned the United States it would be war if the U.S. annexed Texas. Texas insisted it was indeed an independent nation, and also insisted its border was the Rio Grande River. British mediation between the parties was unsuccessful, as Mexico refused to officially recognize the new nation. In 1845, the U.S. supported recognition of the Rio Grande border if the Republic of Texas would accept annexation into the union. Texas did accept and became the 28th state of the United States in 1845.

Meanwhile President James K. Polk realized that if war came Mexico would be unable to defend its distant northern provinces of New Mexico and California, which fit the Manifest Destiny goal of Democrats who wanted to expand American territories. The Whigs strongly opposed territorial expansion, and strongly opposed any war with Mexico.
[edit]

Declaration of war

When Texas joined the United States, Mexico considered that, firstly, the United States was intervening in Mexico's internal affairs by supporting a rebel province and, secondly, that the U.S. had unjustly taken away territory that belonged neither to Texas nor to the U.S. For years Mexico had warned annexation meant war. Britain had repeatedly attempted to stop Mexico from declaring war on its much larger neighbor, but in 1844 Britain was involved in a serious dispute with the United States.

After several skirmishes, President James K. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to place troops between the two rivers. Taylor crossed the Nueces, ignoring Mexican demands that he withdraw, and marched south to the Rio Grande, where he began to build Fort Brown.

Fighting began on April 24, 1846 when Mexican cavalry attacked and captured one of the American detachments near the Rio Grande. After the border clash and battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, Polk requested a declaration of war, and geared up popular support by declaring that Mexicans had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil". The U.S. Congress declared war on May 13, 1846. Northerners and Whigs generally opposed the war, while Southerners and Democrats tended to support it. Mexico declared war on May 23.

Even after war was declared, many Whigs disputed Polk's claim that Mexico had "shed American blood on American soil", believing instead that American forces had crossed the Rio Grande and invaded Mexico in a deliberate provocation. Voicing this argument, Abraham Lincoln, then a Whig freshman in the House of Representatives, introduced a series of resolutions nicknamed the "Spot Resolutions" which demanded President Polk give the exact location where American blood had been spilled. Because American soldiers had been killed, however, these objections were largely ignored.
[edit]

Campaign

After the declaration of war, U.S. forces invaded Mexican territory on several fronts. In the Pacific, the U.S. Navy sent John D. Sloat to occupy California and claim it for the U.S. because of concerns that Britain might also attempt to occupy the area. He linked up with Anglo colonists in Northern California who had previously declared an independent California Republic and occupied some key cities. Meanwhile, U.S. army troops under Stephen W. Kearny occupied Santa Fe, New Mexico. Kearny led a small force to California where, after some initial reverses, he united with naval reinforcements under Robert F. Stockton to occupy San Diego and Los Angeles. A major dispute broke out between Kearny and Stockton over control of California. Stockton appointed John C. Fremont governor of California, while Kearny named himself to that position. The dispute was primarily caused by conflicting directives from Washington. Kearny eventually prevailed, and Fremont was arrested and court-martialed for his loyalty to Stockton in the dispute.

The main force led by Taylor continued across the Rio Grande, winning the Battle of Monterrey in September 1846. President Antonio López de Santa Anna personally marched north to fight Taylor but was defeated at the battle of Buena Vista on February 22, 1847. Meanwhile, rather than reinforce Taylor's army for a continued advance, President Polk sent a second army under U.S. general Winfield Scott in March, which was transported to the port of Veracruz by sea, to begin an invasion of the Mexican heartland. Scott won the Siege of Veracruz and marched toward Mexico City, winning the battles of Cerro Gordo and Chapultepec, and occupying the capital.

The Treaty of Cahuenga, signed on January 13, 1847, ended the fighting in California. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas as well as California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received $18,250,000, the equivalent of $627,482,629 in mid-2000s dollars, for the cost of the war.

Political implications of the war

Mexico lost half of its territory in the war, leaving it with a lasting bitterness towards the United States. However, the war also elicited the sense of national unity in Mexico, which had been lacking since the Independence movement dissolved in (1821).

The war also provoked the emergence of a new class of politicians in Mexico. They finally got rid of Santa Anna's grip over Mexico and eventually proclaimed a liberal republic (1857). One of the first acts of the liberal republic was the enactment of several laws that facilitated and propelled the colonization of the vast and depopulated northern Mexican States. Behind the colonization laws was precisely the idea to avoid further territorial losses.

On the other hand, the annexed territories contained thousands of Mexican families. Some opted to return to Mexico and others chose to remain in the U.S. given that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo contained guarantees (granting citizenship and recognizing property) for them. These people were the first Mexican-Americans and their history has been largely determined, in more than one way, by their struggle to make these and other guarantees valid under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The United States and Mexico eventually (1889) formed the International Boundary and Water Commission, in order to settle boundary disputes. See, the case of El Chamizal.

In the United States, in turn, victory in the war brought a surge in patriotism as the acquisition of new western lands—the country had also acquired the southern half of the Oregon Country in 1846—seemed to fulfill citizens' belief in their country's Manifest Destiny. While Ralph Waldo Emerson rejected war "as a means of achieving America's destiny," he accepted that "most of the great results of history are brought about by discreditable means." The war made a national hero of Zachary Taylor who was elected president in the election of 1848.

However, this period of national euphoria would not last long. The war had been widely supported in the southern states but largely opposed in the northern states. This division largely developed from expectations of how the expansion of the United States would affect the issue of slavery. At the time, Texas recognized the institution of slavery, but Mexico did not. Many Northern abolitionists viewed the war as an attempt by the slave-owners to expand slavery and assure their continued influence in the federal government. Henry David Thoreau wrote his essay Civil Disobedience and refused to pay taxes because of this war.

The main issue which furthered sectionalism was the expansion of slavery into the national territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 banned slavery in national territories north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes (roughly the southern border of Missouri, although that state had been exempted). Also, the Senate was constructed to give equal balance to slave and free states. The Missouri Compromise, however, left room for more free states than slave states and, if continued, would upset the balance of power within the Senate. Thus, many Southerners supported the war to provide more room for slavery to expand (believing that if slavery were not allowed to continue to expand, it would ultimately die out). There were proposals during this time to split Texas (which was easily the largest state in the Union geographically) into multiple slave states, but this did not come to pass.

During the first year of the war, Congressman David Wilmot introduced a bill which would prohibit slavery in any new territory captured from Mexico. This bill, which became known as the Wilmot Proviso caused an immediate outcry from Southerners on both sides of the congressional aisle. To Southerners, it looked as if the north was willing to abandon parity within the senate, and the Wilmot Proviso sparked further hostility between the sections. The bill itself was passed by the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate, with both votes on sectional lines.

In 1848, Democrats proposed a new solution to the issue of whether territories should have slavery, known as popular sovereignty. This would allow for voters within a territory to determine for themselves whether or not they would allow slavery within their territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 would make popular sovereignty the law of the land, striking down the Missouri Compromise. In protest of this, the Republican Party was organized that year by opponents of the expansion of slavery.

Taylor, the hero of Monterrey and Buena Vista, was elected President in the election of November, 1848 running as a Whig but without a political history. He would not have the opportunity to resolve the sectional problems stemming from the war, as his death in 1850 resulted in the elevation of Whig party insider Millard Fillmore to the Presidency. Fillmore turned to the problem of resolving the Texas boundary and territorial slavery disputes arising from the war, enlisting the aid of Whig party stalwarts Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. The three were able to fashion the Compromise of 1850 in an effort to produce a final solution, but this compromise created more disputes, as well as helping to end the Whig party as a national force. The Whigs made one more effort to function as a national party, nominating the other key war general Winfield Scott after a bitter party convention that split its vote between Scott, Fillmore, and Webster. Surprisingly, Scott's campaign came apart not so much due to disagreements over the compromise and slavery, but rather the newly vexatious anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiments which were spilling over into political discourse.

Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the war under Scott's command, would later describe the conflict as a war of conquest for the expansion of slavery and thus the prelude to the American Civil War: "The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times." [1] Many of the generals of the latter war had fought in the former, including Grant, George B. McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Stonewall Jackson, George Meade, and Robert E. Lee, as well as the future Confederate president, Jefferson Davis.

web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War)

Drop1
01-29-2006, 02:00 PM
ceebee,I have to say you are right,and wrong. I live in Guadalajara,as you know,and I watch both sides of this mounting disaster. Last week a 21year old man died here in a Guadalajara hospital,after being shot by the person who was to take him into California. He had been returned to Mexico by California authorities. Three Border Control Agents in Arizona are suspended for exchanging sexual favors,with young girls to enter the Country.In Mexico,Immigration agents do the same thing to the Guadamalan girls. There is a lot of things that can be said about immigrants,but I think we should start looking at them as victims of Mexican governmental coruption. The Mexican government claims to be poor,yet they will spend 13 billion dollars on the coming elections. The schools are pathetic,and the rich send their kids to private schools,in Europe,or the U.S. The only place an uneducated Mexican can go,is to the U.S.,or take a pledge of poverty for himself,and his family. The fact that I live here doesn't make me an expert on immigration,but it does help me understand the issuses are more complex,for both Countries,and the Ilegal immigrants are going to continue moving North,until Mexico gives them a reason to stay in Mexico. Minimum wage was raised one peso,or U.S.10cents per day. Thats what these people are up against.

Fasteddy7
01-30-2006, 07:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Minimum wage was raised one peso,or U.S.10cents per day. Thats what these people are up against. <hr /></blockquote>

one peso = 10 cents or
one peso = .1 cent?

sack316
01-30-2006, 07:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fasteddy7:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Minimum wage was raised one peso,or U.S.10cents per day. Thats what these people are up against. <hr /></blockquote>

one peso = 10 cents or
one peso = .1 cent? <hr /></blockquote>

taken from http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi :

1 USD = 10.4434 MXN or
1 peso is appox. ten cents

it is early for me however, so that is assuming I looked at it right. Apologies if I didn't.

Sack

Drop1
01-30-2006, 12:52 PM
Figure one peso equals ten cents.

SnakebyteXX
01-30-2006, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fasteddy7:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Minimum wage was raised one peso,or U.S.10cents per day. Thats what these people are up against. <hr /></blockquote>

one peso = 10 cents or
one peso = .1 cent? <hr /></blockquote>

Friday, December 30, 2005

Mexico's minimum wage

Mexico raises its minimum wage this weekend to $4.50 a day.

web page (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/12/30/AM200512308.html)

ceebee
01-30-2006, 05:32 PM
I preceded my post by stating the info was taken from an "Editorial Post". I meant to impart information and/or opinions to the forum.

Having lived in Texas most of my life, I have seen the changes. Some are positive &amp; some are NOT. Anything Illegal is NOT positive.

I don't think any citizen of any country would like any citizen that drove up taxes, isolated portions of neighborhoods with lawlessness &amp; staked claim to property inside an internationally accepted border.

BUT, if the new citizen was of any race, creed or culture &amp; wanted to live within my country's internationally accepted borders as a LEGAL CITIZEN, dedicated to adding to our chosen freedoms, I'll be there to shake their hand.

This is 2006... there comes a time when we as citizens of any country, have to accept what is ... as is. We cannot do anything about past Indian Chiefs, past President's deeds &amp; past General's conquests.

We can do something together about living free from corrupt governments &amp; crime (our REAL ENEMY). Once past that ISSUE, we can destroy all borders, learn an internatioanl language &amp; live in harmony &amp; comfort, which I might add, would be wonderful..... cb

Drop1
01-30-2006, 06:42 PM
ceebee, I could not agree with you more. I don't think there is any way the U.S. should be expected to allow its soverenty to be violated by an unending stream of impovrished people. There is no reason that some type of orderly process of immigration cannot be created,but it will not happen,because its not in the intrest of the Mexican government to have forty million poor people sucking up the money that now goes to corrupt government officials. The money that is sent to Mexico by legal,and non legal Mexicans is the third source of income for the economy of Mexico,behind oil,and tourisim. The Mexican government wants to dump as many of its poor into the U.S. I will give you an idea how things work here,even though you live in Texas. I'm sixty five years old,with eye problems. Well for seventy dollars,I can get a license to drive 18 wheel big rigs,for twenty dollars I can get a licence for four years. There is no court system,no jury system,no Bar examination for Lawyers. Twenty five percent of all medical Doctors never finished medical school. When Werner was Govenor of Virginia,I talked to him about these problems at a trade mission in the Consular residence. His response was Mexico is a soverign nation. Well Mexico is not a soverign nation,in my opinion,when the whole system works by graft,deceit,and depends on the United States to exist.

Sid_Vicious
01-31-2006, 06:36 AM
Well said ceebee. It just dawned on me that anyone fostering illegal mexicans as ok, must be in a big way, liberal. Funny that it apparently seems to he on the good ol' righties side here, huh. Yes Texas is a good example of the effects of the illegal issues. Maybe I can select one law to break, and even be rewarded for it, NOT!? Hell I'm going to have to worry now everytime I drive through an intersection now that I'm going to get a ticket in the mail for clipping a yellow light, while large groups of illegals are gathered around the same intersection looking for pickups to hop into for work. It is a pitiful picture we paint to the youth when there's not even one INS agent strolling through with his coffee to see who runs like hell.

I just do not understand it, "WHAT part of ILLEGAL do people not understand?" sid

heater451
01-31-2006, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>. .that anyone fostering illegal mexicans as ok, must be in a big way, liberal. . . . .<hr /></blockquote>What about the "conservatives" who own companies that employ illegal aliens, and pay under the table? These people rely on the indifference of the government, blind support, really, so that they may maintain a sometimes skilled, mostly hard-working, highly controllable, low-paid workforce. (Note: I'm sure there are "liberal" business owners, who do the same thing.)

Is it **more** "liberal" or "conservative", to take advantage of a group of people, based on their economic class? Does it really matter which group takes advantage?


===============================

Sid_Vicious
01-31-2006, 06:07 PM
My point is simply this. A conservative admin, controlling all of the branches of inforcement, obviously violates their definition of conservativism with the condonence of avoiding the collection and enforcement of the current laws of illegally entered mexican people. That, to me makes them worse than liberals,,,they speak one thing is a fundamental belief as a group and yet allows US laws to go uninforced. They have the absolute power to do something, and do just the opposite...sid

Vagabond
01-31-2006, 07:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Well said ceebee. It just dawned on me that anyone fostering illegal mexicans as ok, must be in a big way, liberal. <hr /></blockquote>

So Texas is a liberal State.All those criminals are coming thru Juarez &amp; Brownsville and some other creeks in Texas.It is the falt of Texas police for not gunning them down at the entry point.Texas should take responsibility for aiding the criminals /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Drop1
01-31-2006, 08:06 PM
Liberal,Conservitive,Republican,Democrat,means nothing to the Government of Mexico,and that is where the heart of the problem is. The Mexican government saw 15 billion dollars go into it's economy in 2004 thanks to Mexicans not living in Mexico. What is Mexico doing in a real way to help the United States stop these people, who are gathered at the border waiting to cross over? I'm glad to see the Mexican government stopped passing out maps of Arizona. The wall now being built along the border,is called the "Wall of Shame" by the Mexicans.The real shame is the wall of corruption that keeps these people in a life of poverty.

Qtec
01-31-2006, 10:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It is time that we acknowledge, as Dan Rather did on CBS-TV's recent documentary "Legacy of Shame", "the brutal human price to be paid for our food," and that we put an end to a system that takes for granted the exploitation of men, women and children for the sake of the so-called "world's cheapest food supply."

Philip Martin, for example, notes in this regard that if the wages of all agricultural workers were doubled, the cost of California produce would rise approximately only 10 percent. This would cost the government nothing, but would increase tax revenues by increasing taxable income at the same time it would lower welfare costs by decreasing the number of families seeking government need-based services.

Also important is the fact that the public needs to recognize that the cheap wages paid to farm laborers and the cheap raw material prices paid to farmers are only enriching the coffers of a select few transnational food manufacturing corporations. Meanwhile, the society as a whole is left to pay an exacting social and economic cost for such exploitation <hr /></blockquote>
http://www.populist.com/5.96.Immigrants.html

Q

eg8r
02-01-2006, 06:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is it **more** "liberal" or "conservative", to take advantage of a group of people, based on their economic class? <hr /></blockquote> This is not about "economic class" it is about illegal aliens. Whether these aliens are rich or poor, they should not be given jobs, and they should be turned in to the authorities and sent back to where ever they came from. If you are going to come to America, do it legally.

eg8r

eg8r
02-01-2006, 06:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply this. A conservative admin, controlling all of the branches of inforcement, obviously violates their definition of conservativism with the condonence of avoiding the collection and enforcement of the current laws of illegally entered mexican people. That, to me makes them worse than liberals,,, <hr /></blockquote> Well, to the rest of the world that makes them moderates. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I have said it plenty of times here, George Bush is NOT part of the far right. He is only Conservative with taxes and national defense. Other than that, he looks no different than the left. He has grown the government bigger and faster than any administration in history, his spending is out of control, his prescription program is crazy, etc. Nearly everything he does wreaks of a Democrat. I think the only problem the left has with W is that he has given a tax cut to EVERYONE, he is actually fighting terrorism instead of talking about it, and he is vocal about his religion. I believe the last point is the main one that gets the panties of the left in a twist. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-01-2006, 06:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Philip Martin, for example, notes in this regard that if the wages of all agricultural workers were doubled, the cost of California produce would rise approximately only 10 percent. This would cost the government nothing, but would increase tax revenues by increasing taxable income at the same time it would lower welfare costs by decreasing the number of families seeking government need-based services. <hr /></blockquote> I personally don't believe this to be true. If the cost of labor was doubled, that extra pay would show up in the cost of the produce. Also, it would not lower welfare, as most of these people, even if their wage was doubled would still not be making enough to get out of poverty, for the simple fact that even though they are making more money, the cost of goods has increased at the same rate.

[ QUOTE ]
Also important is the fact that the public needs to recognize that the cheap wages paid to farm laborers and the cheap raw material prices paid to farmers are only enriching the coffers of a select few transnational food manufacturing corporations. <hr /></blockquote> No argument here, but so what! If you raise the wage, then these "select few transnational food manufacturing corporations" will raise the price to make up for the difference. It only takes a little common sense to know that these guys are not going to allow increase wages to cut into their profits.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-01-2006, 06:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> it is about illegal aliens. Whether these aliens are rich or poor, they should not be given jobs, and they should be turned in to the authorities and sent back to where ever they came from. If you are going to come to America, do it legally.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

You are dead on! The term illegal means just that. People who break the law just to be here are criminals, pure and simple. Maybe we should change it from Illegal aliens to "documentation challenged"! That would be more politically correct, and help cover up the fact that these people who break our laws just by being here are CRIMINALS, and the only rights they should have is the right to be sent back home.
Steve

Sid_Vicious
02-01-2006, 06:42 AM
Texas and every state who electively drives by illegals on the street and does nothing aids criminals. I guess that means we agree on something...sid

Drop1
02-01-2006, 12:04 PM
You are right this is not about class,the rich come in with a legal visa. The poor come in illegaly. I have seen those guys standing around in groups,waiting to pick up a job,and I haven't found a rich one in the bunch.

Drop1
02-01-2006, 12:19 PM
I think you are really right,about the last point. I also think the right should get their panties in a twist,because come election time,everyone is going to be voting for their wallets,and not their faith. I don't care what religeon the President is,just keep it out of the White House.

Vagabond
02-01-2006, 06:43 PM
I agree with u but my recommendations for solving the problem are diffrent from yours.As soon as our country is invaded the police should pump the invaders with some American made lead.

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 04:49 AM
Tap Tap Tap, I agree, Americans won't be side tracked in the next elections with right wing non issues as they were in the last elections. We won't be hearing George Bush, or any other republican, asking the voters, "Are you better off now than you were (six years ago) eight years ago?" It will be the democratic candidates asking that question, and we unrealistic, defeatist, isolationist as Bush has labeled all those who can see through his lies, and avoidance tactics, are growing in numbers, thankfully. Bush's attempt to rename illegal aliens .... Immigrants .... and Guest workers in order to avoid taking a stand, and doing anything at all to address the vast problems in our society due to illegal aliens, will not fly. Semantics will not save the day, and neither will distraction tactics, such as women's rights, and gay rights. I don't think Americans will allow the religious right to muddy up another election with their religious dogma and rhetoric. Religion has no place in politics!!!



In this country, when a law officer shouts, stop, at a law breaker, and they don't stop, they are shot. That is the simple solution for border control, and dropping wages due to illegal aliens, and much of the lawlessness which results from open borders. The economic costs of this illegal alien problem are astounding. Yet Bush, refuses to do anything constructive to solve this problem, or any other problem, for that matter. His policies have exascurbated this problem, and most problems we face today in this country. He has a lot of nerve to call for compassion for the illegal aliens in his speech, when many states are in decline, economically, and through an increase in crime, due to illegal aliens.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 04:57 AM
Tap Tap Tap, great post. Wonder what would happen if we anounced to the Mexican Government that beginning next month, our troops would be coming home, and redeployed along the borders, armed, and ready to shoot to kill anyone who tries to cross illegally. I know that sounds heartless, and there would have to be warning attempts, but geeze, we must do something!!! It's time for us to stop thinking of these criminals as a bunch of willing servants who are saving us from nasty jobs! They are criminals!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-02-2006, 07:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's time for us to stop thinking of these criminals as a bunch of willing servants who are saving us from nasty jobs! They are criminals!
<hr /></blockquote> We agree here. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif They are criminals who are saving us from nasty jobs. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-02-2006, 07:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I also think the right should get their panties in a twist,because come election time,everyone is going to be voting for their wallets,and not their faith. <hr /></blockquote> I guess time will tell, just don't be a stranger around here if your guess proves a failure like the rest of the liberal platform. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

SpiderMan
02-02-2006, 08:41 AM
Wouldn't it be amusing if, instead of returning violators to Mexico, we dropped them off in some "liberal" hotspot like Canada.

Dallas tried something like that in the '90s - we bought one-way bus tickets to California for any and all homeless people who wanted to take the ride. The benefits were higher, and the climate more suitable to a life outdoors /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

Drop1
02-02-2006, 12:48 PM
What!No way would I be a stranger,and miss your posts /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DickLeonard
02-03-2006, 07:39 AM
Gayle this is the HERMAN GOERING way to control the dumb populace. The anti war people are unpatriotic blah/blah/blah. I am going to have to write the full text of that article.####

Drop1
02-03-2006, 12:30 PM
You type it,and I will read it.

heater451
02-03-2006, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Is it **more** "liberal" or "conservative", to take advantage of a group of people, based on their economic class? <hr /></blockquote> This is not about "economic class" it is about illegal aliens. Whether these aliens are rich or poor, they should not be given jobs, and they should be turned in to the authorities and sent back to where ever they came from. If you are going to come to America, do it legally.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>You have a point, but I was directly addressing the bit about liberals being the ones who "foster" illegal aliens---hence, the referenced quote.

Judging by the posted response, regarding how earlier Americans squatted in Northern Mexico, and justified the later bloodshed, perhaps illegals should cross the border with Bowie knives and pistols, instead of bottles of water.

BTW, I'm not really for *illegal* immigration, but I also realize that people will do what they have to, for a better life. And, I would rather support a man who would leave his family, trek through the desert, and work a really crappy job, to get ahead, than someone who simply lies, cheats, and steals, to get/stay ahead--Enron-style, if you need an example.

On the other hand, when my tax money is used to support a family of illegal immigrants, via welfare, Section 8, or any easily-abusable gov't program, I get irritated. Doing something to better ones life shouldn't cost so much of another's---at some point, the lying executive and the illegal immigrant start to look the same (although, with greatly differing amounts of $$$). [Note, I am playing loose and fast with what would constitute affecting another's life. By my examples, illegal immigrants cost me more in personal tax money, than the average corporate scandal/crime does. However, some people were completely wiped out, savings-wise, by the Enron lies. I'm trying to show something of a parallel. . . .]

Changing gears, something that I don't think many people realize, is that while there is probably only a small "Latino Vote" now, the consequent generations of citizens born of illegal immigrant parents, will change that.

Handling illegal immigration shouldn't be that hard, but handling the illegal immigrants already raising families here? No easy solution for that.



==========================

eg8r
02-06-2006, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Judging by the posted response, regarding how earlier Americans squatted in Northern Mexico, and justified the later bloodshed, perhaps illegals should cross the border with Bowie knives and pistols, instead of bottles of water.
<hr /></blockquote> I say, BRING IT ON!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif To justify what is happening today with what happened in the past really does not make any sense to me. However, it is true, we came and took the country with brute force, so let the Mexicans bring it on.

[ QUOTE ]
Handling illegal immigration shouldn't be that hard, but handling the illegal immigrants already raising families here? No easy solution for that.
<hr /></blockquote> Ship them home. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

heater451
02-06-2006, 05:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> Handling illegal immigration shouldn't be that hard, but handling the illegal immigrants already raising families here? No easy solution for that.
<hr /></blockquote> Ship them home. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>Let me clarify, about "raising families". . . .

I have never heard different, so correct me if I am wrong, but children born of illegal immigrants, in America are considered U.S. citizens (this is what I was referring to, about the "Latino Vote"). Therefore, the government cannot extradite the children, because the parents must remail to care for them.

There may be a loophole here, if citizenship is actually only recognized when a child legally becomes an adult (18 y/o). In that case, the kids could come back to the U.S. on their 18th b-day, and bring the folks back w/ them.

As it is now, I already personally know or 3rd-generation kids---grandchildren of illegal immigrants, w/ their kids (the 2nd gen) being born here as well, which kinda compounds the issue, because there are already 2 (de facto, at the very least) generations of citizens that the gov't can't extradite.



=================================

Snapshot9
02-06-2006, 07:21 PM
Not to mention that Eduardo's 3rd cousin on his mother's side was born here, and recently elected mayor, and is initiating projects to support the Mexican population above all else, whether they are legal or not.

eg8r
02-07-2006, 05:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have never heard different, so correct me if I am wrong, but children born of illegal immigrants, in America are considered U.S. citizens (this is what I was referring to, about the "Latino Vote"). <hr /></blockquote> You are correct about the child being a US Citizen. However, since the child's parents are not US citizens, I feel the child should have the choice to either go home with the parents back to whatever country they are from, or become an orphan and the US government will have to pay to raise the child (hopefully they fix the immigration and this dwindles down). There could be other possibilities I just cannot think of them right now, however no possibilities should include allowing the illegal aliens to stay in the US.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-07-2006, 06:18 AM
If the illegals knew that the chances of them being sent home were greater, it could only help slow down the flow of illegals. If they thought their kids might choose not to go with them, it might also make them think twice.

As long as we continue to allow illegals to stay, the problems they bring will stay, and others will decide to attempt to enter the country illegally as well.

Let's bring back the slogan from the war on drugs.
JUST SAY NO TO ILLEGAL ALIENS! ZERO TOLERANCE!!!
Steve

nAz
02-07-2006, 08:53 AM
If you love to celebrate Diversity
then you will love the California Medi-CAL Fraud Hotline language options:

2# for Spanish
3# for Vietnamese
4# for Cambodian
5# for Russian

Besides the bigger issue of assimilation how long before telephone language options go to two digits?

Don't believe it? Try it yourself at 800-822-6222.

FYI: Is it any wonder 'Mexifornia' is financially broken?


Maybe if we all boycott all the products that are helped produce by IAs the manufactures of those products will stop hiring them... hmmmthat might be close to everything made in this country now a days. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Qtec
02-07-2006, 09:03 AM
The solution.
Anyone found to be employing an illegal aliens will be fined $1,000,000 per person.
Problem solved. Its that easy.
Will it happen?
Never.

The US needs them, its that simple.

Q

SpiderMan
02-07-2006, 09:25 AM
You are correct - if a pregnant illegal can hide in the bushes for long enough to squat and give birth, the child is a citizen. This law may have been a good idea when we desperately needed warm bodies to hold the territory, but it now seems like a candidate for revision.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> Handling illegal immigration shouldn't be that hard, but handling the illegal immigrants already raising families here? No easy solution for that.
<hr /></blockquote> Ship them home. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>Let me clarify, about "raising families". . . .

I have never heard different, so correct me if I am wrong, but children born of illegal immigrants, in America are considered U.S. citizens (this is what I was referring to, about the "Latino Vote"). Therefore, the government cannot extradite the children, because the parents must remail to care for them.

There may be a loophole here, if citizenship is actually only recognized when a child legally becomes an adult (18 y/o). In that case, the kids could come back to the U.S. on their 18th b-day, and bring the folks back w/ them.

As it is now, I already personally know or 3rd-generation kids---grandchildren of illegal immigrants, w/ their kids (the 2nd gen) being born here as well, which kinda compounds the issue, because there are already 2 (de facto, at the very least) generations of citizens that the gov't can't extradite.



=================================
<hr /></blockquote>