[Movie Review] Pearl Harbor
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3B196735...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Does it remotely bother you that the people who actually live in
> > > > > terrifyingly brown LA think youre a pompous loon?
> > > >
> > > > As long as they keep paying their taxes to the US instead of to Mexico, I
> > > > really don't give a rat's ass what they think.
> > >
> > > Rather my point. You're perfectly willing to treat the word of every
> > > right wing loon as gospel, but those of us who actually live here, own
> > > homes and are invested in our communities and actually have day-to-day
> > > experience with the reality you comfortably assess from three thousand
> > > miles away you have no time for because we question your prejudice.
> >
> > Hey man, everyone I know who visits California gets quizzed by me when they
> > return. They're generally not too well impressed. They generally are
> > extremely negatively impressed by Los Angeles.
>
> Gee, secondhand travelogues. There's a cogent basis for political
> opinion.
>
> I'm exteremly negatively impressed by D.C.
And you can't type for fuckall when you're shitfaced drunk, can you. Hint:
type s-l-o-w-l-y. And then wait for your eyes to uncross a time or two
before you hit "send".
> I wouldn't live there on a
> bet. The difference is that I've actually been there.
Hey, if you've bothered to read any of my webpage coverage of the place for
the last five or six years, you'd know that I think the District of Columbia
is deeply deeply broken. But this is not new. What I have found interesting
in my travels around the country -- everyplace, almost, _except_ California;
I have no interest in visiting a well-known cliche of disillusionment -- is
exactly how few people knew that the District was in awful shape in almost
all respects. They'd seen the Capitol Building as Peter Jennings's backdrop
for far too long, not knowing that behind the camera facing Peter was mile
after mile of blighted waste, most of it human.
Now. I would like you to get this straight. If I am getting all over the map
in the matter of the ILLEGAL ALIEN Invasion, I am _not_ singling California
out. I really don't care all that much, as you have observed I haven't been
there in years and years and years and I have absolutely no interest in
visitng. If I want horizon-to-horizon ghetto punctuated by a few tall
buildings and interspersed with a lot of alcoholic hicks living in trailers
that would be hauled away wholesale if they could be dragged off in one
piece and not make more of a mess than they are just sitting there, well, I
can stay here on the East Coast and see all of that I want. But my concerns
are not for your State, nor for my State, but rather for the whole grand
American ideal. American ideals are to some degree embodied in the US
Constitution, and oen of those ideals is that the goddamned military will
fucking defend us from Invasion. Relevant text would be in Article IV
Section 4, Article I Section 8 paragraph 15, Article I Section 10 paragraph
3 final clauses, and last but not least, Amendments 9 and 10.
Now, you seem to think I'm all opposed to Mexicans because they're Mexicans,
or to "hispanics" because they're "hispanic". I am not. However, there are
at least 9 million illegal aliens in the country right now, and the national
head-count has increased by a bit more than one percent a year. The country
is FULL. We can admit the most desperate or deserving refugees, we can admit
the intelligentsia and the creative, in my opinion solely on Permanent
Resident or Citizenship tracks.
I'm not opposed to Mexicans, nor to "hispanics", but I don't think that you
can possibly consider the general subject of illegal immigration on a scale
so massive as to amount to main scale invasion, without considering which
groups are the majority of the mass, and that is primarily the Mexicans,
closely followed by an aggregate of Spanish-speaking people from all over
the Americas.
>
> > >
> > > When was the last time you actually engaged "the enemy" in
> > > conversation?
> >
> > Why the fuck would I want to engage "the enemy" in conversation? More to the
> > point, why the hell would I go to the trouble of learning their language so
> > I can converse with people who are not on my list of people I want to speak
> > with?
>
> Not to shock you or anything, but not only are many illegals fluent in
> English, for quite a few its their native tongue. I don't imagine you
> ran into too many Irish, English, Canadians, or Austrialians on the
> shape-up line, but thats doesn't mean there aren't tens of thousands of
> them, it just indicates the poverty (in both senses) of the limits of
> your expereince.
It demonstrates no such thing. I've seen the Irish kicked the fuck out, I've
NOT seen any Australians get the boot though I'm sure it happens... though
not so much as Americans get booted out of Oz. As for the Canadians? Hardly
any offend. They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
they were here they generally were a boon.
Now, if you want to trot out the relative numbers of illegal aliens --
especially illegal-alien VIOLENT FELONS -- and rank them by nationality,
feel free to do so. You're only going to make youself look foolish -- and
you KNOW it or you'd have done it.
What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
nothing remotely resembling a problem. If you have hard facts to the
contrary, please feel free to post them. Tell me all about evil Canadian
transnational syndicates flooding the Us midwest with methedrine. And then
don't forget to tell us all where they got their meth or their precursor
chemicals. Be sure to tell us about the vast number of Irish who fly to the
US, beat the crap out of people who look just like them, rob them, and then
flee back across the Atlantic after having beaten someone into a coma for
$15.00.
Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
>
> > Also, you might try to ask yourself why _they_ don't go out of their way --
> > considering that they are unwanted guests in this country -- to try to
> > impress me with what wonderful nice helpful people they are?
>
> Why the fuck should they try to impress you? You're a powerless,
> embittered bigot.
I don't think you'd be using that sort of language on me if you thought for
a moment I was powerless.
Embittered? Of fucking COURSE I'm embittered. I'm the fucking lord of the
Mopeys.
And I make it a lifetime issue to make sure that people who judge me wrong
live to regret it.
>
> >
> > > How many hispanic friends do you have?
> >
> > Since I don't really have any "friends", I guess it follows that none are
> > "hispanic".
>
> Can't say as I'm stunned.
I'm a Mopey. Mopeys don't have friends. If they had friends, they'd be
Perkies.
Fucktard.
>
> > However, at my last job, one of the router guys was a Chicano from East
> > L.A., he was damned competent, spoke English as well as I do if not better,
> > I certainly respected him.
>
> When was that last job, BTW?
Ah, you _are_ little squealing d...@dot.com, aren't you! Hey, whassamatter
and why the suddent hostility, did I cost you a throwaway account or
something? ; )
My employer ran out of cash in April.
> I ask merely because *I* don't have much
> respect for people who have skills and evidently quite a bit of energy
> and yet prefer to suck the public tit for a disability they alternately
> claim to have and not have as the whim suits them.
Well, we'll leave the judgement of whether or not I have a disability up to
the appropriate authorities, won't we.
I might add that you should probably check out disability law. Social
Security _wants_ us disabled people to work, you know. They're really like
us to have jobs and support ourselves, and they give us quite a bit of
continuing support as we try to transition back to work. Do you have a
problem with that? Not that I care whether or not you have a problem with
that. I utterly don't care -- considering the present line of discussion and
your expressed positions -- whether or not you respected me; in fact I'd
probably consider your expression of "respect" for me as an absolute
condemnation of me being true to my own core beliefs.
>
> > I will and do give respect to those who respect
> > me, also respect can certainly be earned on the basis of merit. I do not
> > respect those who despise me. Do you think I should be such a perfect
> > Christian as to turn the other cheek until I have no cheeks left?
>
> No, but perhaps you might want to turn that critical gaze inward for
> clues as to why you're received that way.
Oh, it's easy to figure that one out! I'm a native anglo living in an
instant barrio that sprang up around me over the last decade. I suppose I
could move, but who would make sure that my very old mother had her doors
locked at night? The neighborhood sucks, and if people hate me, it's
probably because I'm keeping them from stealing my mother's furniture and
appliances.
> It might just turn out to be
> a lack on your part.
Sure, it's a lack of COWARDICE on my part. Oh, I seem to be generally
missing incivility, assaultiveness, and gangishness. I'm just a stupid white
fuck, you know? Some pinche gringo who wears black now and then and doesn't
listen to accordion polkas extolling the virtues of sneaking past the INS
with shitloads of dope.
I just don't fit into the neighborhood where I grew up, I guess. Silly me
for living in a paid-for house on land I've been working since I was old
enough to pick up a hose and garden.
>
> > > Do you know
> > > anyone who's illegal?
> >
> > I'd narc 'em out to the INS in a second.
>
> So much for the oposing viewpoint.
ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint. Especially if they are getting
violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
>
> > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > Mexico?
> >
> > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
>
> Gee, how enlightened of you.
It's no better today.
>
> > > Or Guatemala? Or El Salvador?
> >
> > Why the hell would I want to go to El Salvador? It's an overpopulated
> > poverty-stricken third-world nation.
>
> Hence the desire for many of its residents to come here and make a
> better life through their own efforts. Clearly you haven't the same
> drive, which pretty much boils down your right to your position as
> simple accident of birth.
Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of the
condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
not at liberty to discuss it".
>
> > >
> > > BTW, most illegals don't make enough money to pay anything but
> > > regressive taxes to either nation.
> >
> > And they cost quite a lot, especially in the border states where some
> > counties are spending really ridiculous amounts of their local revenue
> > apprehending and jailing illegal-alien criminals. See House Resolution 823
> > and Senate Bill 169 under http://thomas.loc.gov/
>
> Yes, and they also contribute billions to the US economy filling
> necessary low wage jobs for which there is a massive labor shortage.
They are preventing the development and deployment of automation, so long as
they work for so cheaply. They also drive down wages for American workers,
enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs. Hey, I bet all of the
equipment you give you your illegals has the safety interlocks defeated, or
never had them! More profit in your pockets, eh? Plus, there's no better way
to bust up the Unions than illegal aliens, is there?
And my goodness! while the GAO admits that there's a very slight benefit at
the Federal level due to those few illegal aliens who actually have Federal
income tax withheld, State and Local government disproportionately feel the
impact, especially in infrastructure deployment, infrastructure upgrades in
ghettoized areas, indigent costs to hospitals and clinics, and nobody gets
hit like the schools. But you knew all of this, didn't you?
> Its just that El Paso and Phoenix arent going whining to the government
> about the increase in their tax base for housing starts, renovations,
> farmland improvements and general increase in productivity that even a
> low end, unskilled labor pool contributes massively to. You see they
> don't actually want the illegals to go home, they just want to pass of
> the attendant cost to the fed while reaping the benefits.
Phoenix will be one of the first to tell you about the massive costs due to
police being spread far too thin, about the incredible number of calls they
have to answer mostly due to "culture clash", they'll tell you about how the
costs in the hospital/clinic sector far outweigh ALL tax benefits. And THEN
they will tell you about the costs from the schools, and those are only the
financial costs, not the costs to the teachers' frazzled nerves or to what's
left of the social structure.
>
> > >
> > > > So, why do you mention skin color? I live in DC where it's been
> > > > majority-black since 1960. And they speak English.
> > >
> > > Because you're bigoted againt hispanics, El Vampiro.
> >
> > Nah man, I'm just prejudiced against backstabbers.
>
> And anyone else who falls into your particular well of contempt.
Nah man. Backstabbers in particular. Specifically. I cannot sufficiently say
"backstabbers". And sneaks. I particularly hate backstabbing sneaks. Sneaky
backstabbers are just as hateful, but considerably more worrisome. I mean,
what are you gonna do about sneaky backstabbers? Oh yes! I could have
friends! Sorry, they all got snuck-up upon and backstabbed.
>
> > I don't much care for sneaks, either.
> >
> > And Jimmie boy... don't you think it's just a trifle bigoted and racist to
> > backstab someone because they're "el vampiro", because someone can't tell
> > the difference between a Goth or a deathrocker and a fucking reanimated
> > corpse? Or is it just superstition, religious delusion, or plain ol'
> > viciousness?
>
> And as we all know, illegal hispanics are not only the sole source of
> this vituperation,
But many other populations have had some exceptions. There are a few Goths
that I seem to get along-with, when I come out of the house, that is, me
being a Mopey, dontcha know.
> they are a totally homegenous population and every
> last one a venal parasite.
Oh, I really doubt that. But you know what? It doesn't matter to me if
they're Superman and Wonder Woman and the Spy Kids (more true than you know)
all in one handy extremely-extended family. They can be all that, and if
they're backstabbers, every good thing they have ever done is going to be
ignored by me because whatever else they are, they are ILLEGAL-ALIEN VIOLENT
FELONS.
If you just can't fucking deal baybee with the first two words of that
phrase, deal with the last two: Violent Felons.
I got no damned use for them.
I want them gone.
I am far from alone in this.
>
> The fact that youre kind of a dick couldn't have anything to do with
> the way youre treated at all, could it?
Actually, it couldn't. I am the walking epitome of polite civility. I've had
upper-class Brits remark on my comportment and in fact on my "graces". And
it's not a matter of stiff upper lip, it's that I know what is expected of
me as a host, and I give it, and I know as a rule how to make sure that the
easiest thing for a guest to do is to graciously follow the path of good
manners. "Why of _course_ I know that sir, I am after all a Protocol Droid".
I'm a walking exemplary of maintaining cool under fire every time I walk out
of the house, and you can rest assured that by the time I blink twice at
you, a cop would have hauled your ass in and a Marine would have fed you
your heart twice. Me a dick? You have no fucking idea. To the civilized and
civil, I'm a martyr. To the uncouth and asinine, I'm no dick, I'm a gaping
puss lathered with KY. But then again, this is yet-another blessing of
"multiculturalism". I suppose I could give as rude as I get, but then again,
unlike the people who annoy me, I'm just too good for that.
And such is the essence of the Gentleman in Black. when it is time for me to
be an officer as well as a gentleman, rest assured sirrah, you'll damned
well know it.
>
> Jim Dugan
--
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B196735...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > Gee, secondhand travelogues. There's a cogent basis for political
> > opinion.
> >
> > I'm exteremly negatively impressed by D.C.
>
> And you can't type for fuckall when you're shitfaced drunk, can you. Hint:
> type s-l-o-w-l-y. And then wait for your eyes to uncross a time or two
> before you hit "send".
Um:
visitng
eon
Australians
experience
youself
suddent
judgment
If youre going to make pathetic jibes at my typing, invest the time in
a spell check. You can't afford to look like any more of an ass than
you already do.
> > I wouldn't live there on a
> > bet. The difference is that I've actually been there.
>
> Hey, if you've bothered to read any of my webpage coverage of the place for
> the last five or six years, you'd know that I think the District of Columbia
> is deeply deeply broken. But this is not new. What I have found interesting
> in my travels around the country -- everyplace, almost, _except_ California;
> I have no interest in visiting a well-known cliche of disillusionment -- is
> exactly how few people knew that the District was in awful shape in almost
> all respects. They'd seen the Capitol Building as Peter Jennings's backdrop
> for far too long, not knowing that behind the camera facing Peter was mile
> after mile of blighted waste, most of it human.
And this applies to me, who lived just slightly less "in" DC than you
do for four years, how exactly?
> Now. I would like you to get this straight. If I am getting all over the map
> in the matter of the ILLEGAL ALIEN Invasion, I am _not_ singling California
> out.
Yes you are its your stereotypical boogeyman. Unfortuantely, you know
fuck all about it save what youve parroted from other net-kooks.
<snip delusional military rhetoric>
> Now, you seem to think I'm all opposed to Mexicans because they're Mexicans,
> or to "hispanics" because they're "hispanic". I am not. However, there are
> at least 9 million illegal aliens in the country right now, and the national
> head-count has increased by a bit more than one percent a year. The country
> is FULL. We can admit the most desperate or deserving refugees, we can admit
> the intelligentsia and the creative, in my opinion solely on Permanent
> Resident or Citizenship tracks.
And yet despite repeated oportunity youve done nothing to establish a
credible basis for this assertion. Not to mention when push comes to
shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
bario.
> I'm not opposed to Mexicans, nor to "hispanics", but I don't think that you
> can possibly consider the general subject of illegal immigration on a scale
> so massive as to amount to main scale invasion, without considering which
> groups are the majority of the mass, and that is primarily the Mexicans,
> closely followed by an aggregate of Spanish-speaking people from all over
> the Americas.
Or alternately youve rationalized a clear racial bias that way.
> > Not to shock you or anything, but not only are many illegals fluent in
> > English, for quite a few its their native tongue. I don't imagine you
> > ran into too many Irish, English, Canadians, or Austrialians on the
> > shape-up line, but thats doesn't mean there aren't tens of thousands of
> > them, it just indicates the poverty (in both senses) of the limits of
> > your expereince.
>
> It demonstrates no such thing. I've seen the Irish kicked the fuck out, I've
> NOT seen any Australians get the boot though I'm sure it happens... though
> not so much as Americans get booted out of Oz. As for the Canadians? Hardly
> any offend.
And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it. The fuckin'
beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
The Canadians may not offend, but one might think that as the do come
here in great numbers and do take skilled jobs at lower pay *in your
very field* you might, if you had even a credible pretense of
objectivity, have issues with that.
> They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
> they were here they generally were a boon.
Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
> Now, if you want to trot out the relative numbers of illegal aliens --
> especially illegal-alien VIOLENT FELONS -- and rank them by nationality,
> feel free to do so. You're only going to make youself look foolish -- and
> you KNOW it or you'd have done it.
Why would I? Its your strawman not mine. Further I'm actually
familiar with INS policy and their well documented practice of
conflating the incidence of "violent felonies" for the porpuse of
agrandzing their own mission cf: SOLORZANO-PATLAN v. INS
> What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
> nothing remotely resembling a problem.
Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
aggrivating the attendant cost.
> If you have hard facts to the
> contrary, please feel free to post them. Tell me all about evil Canadian
> transnational syndicates flooding the Us midwest with methedrine. And then
> don't forget to tell us all where they got their meth or their precursor
> chemicals. Be sure to tell us about the vast number of Irish who fly to the
> US, beat the crap out of people who look just like them, rob them, and then
> flee back across the Atlantic after having beaten someone into a coma for
> $15.00.
>
> Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
vituperative of arguments. I also wieght proportionately any
assertions of massive criminal syndicalism you make given the past
track record of your assertions in the department cf: that a couple of
San Fernando losers were in fact crack Yugoslavian shock troops.
> >
> > > Also, you might try to ask yourself why _they_ don't go out of their way
> > > --
> > > considering that they are unwanted guests in this country -- to try to
> > > impress me with what wonderful nice helpful people they are?
> >
> > Why the fuck should they try to impress you? You're a powerless,
> > embittered bigot.
>
> I don't think you'd be using that sort of language on me if you thought for
> a moment I was powerless.
That's just your delusions of adequacy acting up again
> Embittered? Of fucking COURSE I'm embittered. I'm the fucking lord of the
> Mopeys.
>
> And I make it a lifetime issue to make sure that people who judge me wrong
> live to regret it.
Another statement far more telling than anything you pass off as
objective.
<S>
>
> Ah, you _are_ little squealing d...@dot.com, aren't you! Hey, whassamatter
> and why the suddent hostility, did I cost you a throwaway account or
> something? ; )
No, I just don't play nicey-nice with people who aren't. You aren't.
> My employer ran out of cash in April.
>
> > I ask merely because *I* don't have much
> > respect for people who have skills and evidently quite a bit of energy
> > and yet prefer to suck the public tit for a disability they alternately
> > claim to have and not have as the whim suits them.
>
> Well, we'll leave the judgement of whether or not I have a disability up to
> the appropriate authorities, won't we.
I'd be happy to, if you'd stop using it to prop up your points.
> I might add that you should probably check out disability law. Social
> Security _wants_ us disabled people to work, you know. They're really like
> us to have jobs and support ourselves, and they give us quite a bit of
> continuing support as we try to transition back to work. Do you have a
> problem with that? Not that I care whether or not you have a problem with
> that. I utterly don't care -- considering the present line of discussion and
> your expressed positions -- whether or not you respected me; in fact I'd
> probably consider your expression of "respect" for me as an absolute
> condemnation of me being true to my own core beliefs.
Rest assured your core beliefs, such as they are, are in no danger.
> >
> > > I will and do give respect to those who respect
> > > me, also respect can certainly be earned on the basis of merit. I do not
> > > respect those who despise me. Do you think I should be such a perfect
> > > Christian as to turn the other cheek until I have no cheeks left?
> >
> > No, but perhaps you might want to turn that critical gaze inward for
> > clues as to why you're received that way.
>
> Oh, it's easy to figure that one out! I'm a native anglo living in an
> instant barrio that sprang up around me over the last decade. I suppose I
> could move, but who would make sure that my very old mother had her doors
> locked at night? The neighborhood sucks, and if people hate me, it's
> probably because I'm keeping them from stealing my mother's furniture and
> appliances.
And there you have it. Funny how I can live surrounded by the very
same people, smack up against a neighborhood world-famous for its crime
and not have the same problems, though. Selective perception is a
curious thing.
BTW, you forgot to qualify the above.
<S>
>
> ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint.
And yet why do I suspect that if I were to make the same dismissal
regarding unemployed, middle-aged guys living with their mothers who's
social interaction consists of internet diatribes I'd be accused of
hostility? Sucks to be marginalized, doesn't it?
> Especially if they are getting
> violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
And evidently the millions who aren't as well.
> >
> > > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > > Mexico?
> > >
> > > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
> >
> > Gee, how enlightened of you.
>
> It's no better today.
And you would know that how, exactly?
> >
> > > > Or Guatemala? Or El Salvador?
> > >
> > > Why the hell would I want to go to El Salvador? It's an overpopulated
> > > poverty-stricken third-world nation.
> >
> > Hence the desire for many of its residents to come here and make a
> > better life through their own efforts. Clearly you haven't the same
> > drive, which pretty much boils down your right to your position as
> > simple accident of birth.
>
> Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of the
> condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
> not at liberty to discuss it".
Of course you aren't.
> >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, most illegals don't make enough money to pay anything but
> > > > regressive taxes to either nation.
> > >
> > > And they cost quite a lot, especially in the border states where some
> > > counties are spending really ridiculous amounts of their local revenue
> > > apprehending and jailing illegal-alien criminals. See House Resolution 823
> > > and Senate Bill 169 under http://thomas.loc.gov/
> >
> > Yes, and they also contribute billions to the US economy filling
> > necessary low wage jobs for which there is a massive labor shortage.
>
> They are preventing the development and deployment of automation, so long as
> they work for so cheaply.
Horrors. When Rosie the Robot quits the Jetsons and mows my lawn, then
we'll talk.
> They also drive down wages for American workers,
> enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs.
Blame the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters. Thats cogent.
> Hey, I bet all of the
> equipment you give you your illegals has the safety interlocks defeated, or
> never had them! More profit in your pockets, eh? Plus, there's no better way
> to bust up the Unions than illegal aliens, is there?
>
> And my goodness! while the GAO admits that there's a very slight benefit at
> the Federal level due to those few illegal aliens who actually have Federal
> income tax withheld, State and Local government disproportionately feel the
> impact, especially in infrastructure deployment, infrastructure upgrades in
> ghettoized areas, indigent costs to hospitals and clinics, and nobody gets
> hit like the schools. But you knew all of this, didn't you?
Yes. It also doesn't address the positive economic benefit that this
is simply a byproduct of. Phoenix's population has grown two thousand
percent since WWII. Strangely enough, this strains the infrastructure.
> > Its just that El Paso and Phoenix arent going whining to the government
> > about the increase in their tax base for housing starts, renovations,
> > farmland improvements and general increase in productivity that even a
> > low end, unskilled labor pool contributes massively to. You see they
> > don't actually want the illegals to go home, they just want to pass of
> > the attendant cost to the fed while reaping the benefits.
>
> Phoenix will be one of the first to tell you about the massive costs due to
> police being spread far too thin, about the incredible number of calls they
> have to answer mostly due to "culture clash", they'll tell you about how the
> costs in the hospital/clinic sector far outweigh ALL tax benefits. And THEN
> they will tell you about the costs from the schools, and those are only the
> financial costs, not the costs to the teachers' frazzled nerves or to what's
> left of the social structure.
Evidently, that methedrine cartel makes stops at your place. Phoenix's
tax base has more than doubled in the last ten years, and their
infrastructure costs are directly levied on developers via impact
assessments. In fact Phoenix is the national poster child of managed
growth, having learned from their explosive growth difficulties in the
sixties. Perhaps you ought to check your facts.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > So, why do you mention skin color? I live in DC where it's been
> > > > > majority-black since 1960. And they speak English.
> > > >
> > > > Because you're bigoted againt hispanics, El Vampiro.
> > >
> > > Nah man, I'm just prejudiced against backstabbers.
> >
> > And anyone else who falls into your particular well of contempt.
>
> Nah man. Backstabbers in particular. Specifically. I cannot sufficiently say
> "backstabbers". And sneaks. I particularly hate backstabbing sneaks. Sneaky
> backstabbers are just as hateful, but considerably more worrisome. I mean,
> what are you gonna do about sneaky backstabbers? Oh yes! I could have
> friends! Sorry, they all got snuck-up upon and backstabbed.
Was this supposed to be cogent?
<S>
> Oh, I really doubt that. But you know what? It doesn't matter to me if
> they're Superman and Wonder Woman and the Spy Kids (more true than you know)
> all in one handy extremely-extended family. They can be all that, and if
> they're backstabbers, every good thing they have ever done is going to be
> ignored by me because whatever else they are, they are ILLEGAL-ALIEN VIOLENT
> FELONS.
I do belive you've blown a gasket.
> If you just can't fucking deal baybee with the first two words of that
> phrase, deal with the last two: Violent Felons.
>
> I got no damned use for them.
>
> I want them gone.
>
> I am far from alone in this.
And the millions of hardworking people who don't bother anybody? What
about them?
> >
> > The fact that youre kind of a dick couldn't have anything to do with
> > the way youre treated at all, could it?
<S>
> And such is the essence of the Gentleman in Black. when it is time for me to
> be an officer as well as a gentleman, rest assured sirrah, you'll damned
> well know it.
Excuse me sir, your fantasy life is showing.
Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3B1C340C...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B196735...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> > >
>
> > > Gee, secondhand travelogues. There's a cogent basis for political
> > > opinion.
> > >
> > > I'm exteremly negatively impressed by D.C.
> >
> > And you can't type for fuckall when you're shitfaced drunk, can you. Hint:
> > type s-l-o-w-l-y. And then wait for your eyes to uncross a time or two
> > before you hit "send".
>
> Um:
> visitng
> eon
> Australians
> experience
> youself
> suddent
> judgment
>
> If youre going to make pathetic jibes at my typing, invest the time in
> a spell check. You can't afford to look like any more of an ass than
> you already do.
Oh, I wasn't making a spelling flame at you, I was making a drunken fuckwad
flame at you. I though that even you should be able to see through the haze
sufficiently to realize that.
>
> > > I wouldn't live there on a
> > > bet. The difference is that I've actually been there.
> >
> > Hey, if you've bothered to read any of my webpage coverage of the place for
> > the last five or six years, you'd know that I think the District of Columbia
> > is deeply deeply broken. But this is not new. What I have found interesting
> > in my travels around the country -- everyplace, almost, _except_ California;
> > I have no interest in visiting a well-known cliche of disillusionment -- is
> > exactly how few people knew that the District was in awful shape in almost
> > all respects. They'd seen the Capitol Building as Peter Jennings's backdrop
> > for far too long, not knowing that behind the camera facing Peter was mile
> > after mile of blighted waste, most of it human.
>
> And this applies to me, who lived just slightly less "in" DC than you
> do for four years, how exactly?
>
> > Now. I would like you to get this straight. If I am getting all over the map
> > in the matter of the ILLEGAL ALIEN Invasion, I am _not_ singling California
> > out.
>
> Yes you are its your stereotypical boogeyman. Unfortuantely, you know
> fuck all about it save what youve parroted from other net-kooks.
But you see, it's only your exceptional paranoia that makes you insist that
I'm singling out California. You do know that illegal aliens are in every
State of the Union, right?
> >
> > Now. I would like you to get this straight. If I am getting all over the map
> > in the matter of the ILLEGAL ALIEN Invasion, I am _not_ singling California
> > out. I really don't care all that much, as you have observed I haven't been
> > there in years and years and years and I have absolutely no interest in
> > visitng. If I want horizon-to-horizon ghetto punctuated by a few tall
> > buildings and interspersed with a lot of alcoholic hicks living in trailers
> > that would be hauled away wholesale if they could be dragged off in one
> > piece and not make more of a mess than they are just sitting there, well, I
> > can stay here on the East Coast and see all of that I want. But my concerns
> > are not for your State, nor for my State, but rather for the whole grand
> > American ideal. American ideals are to some degree embodied in the US
> > Constitution, and oen of those ideals is that the goddamned military will
> > fucking defend us from Invasion. Relevant text would be in Article IV
> > Section 4, Article I Section 8 paragraph 15, Article I Section 10 paragraph
> > 3 final clauses, and last but not least, Amendments 9 and 10.
> >
> > Now, you seem to think I'm all opposed to Mexicans because they're Mexicans,
> > or to "hispanics" because they're "hispanic". I am not. However, there are
> > at least 9 million illegal aliens in the country right now, and the national
> > head-count has increased by a bit more than one percent a year. The country
> > is FULL. We can admit the most desperate or deserving refugees, we can admit
> > the intelligentsia and the creative, in my opinion solely on Permanent
> > Resident or Citizenship tracks.
>
> And yet despite repeated oportunity youve done nothing to establish a
> credible basis for this assertion.
Which credible basis for the _which_ assertion?
Oh, that there might be as many as 9 million illegal aliens in the country?
> Not to mention when push comes to
> shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> bario.
Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
aliens:
...
Analysis: 11 million illegals in the United States
Impact of the undocumented
Study cites boom in the job rolls
By Cindy Rodriguez, Globe Staff, 2/6/2001
The number of undocumented workers in the United States could be several
million more than federal officials have previously estimated, according to
a new analysis of Census Bureau data and Labor Department records.
Most of the undocumented workers found employment in the new economy, and
their availability may even have helped fuel it, according to the study by
economists at Northeastern University.
The number of undocumented workers swelled in the last decade to as many as
11 million, suggests the analysis, which was performed by Andrew Sum and
colleagues. That is 5 million higher than currently estimated by the US
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
When 2000 Census figures were released six weeks ago, they showed that the
nation had grown to 281 million people, a figure 7 million higher than the
Census Bureau had projected a year before, using birth, death, and
immigration data.
That spurred professors at Northeastern to begin looking for answers.
After poring over statistics from the Census Bureau and the Labor
Department, Sum has concluded that most of the 7 million additional people
the Census Bureau counted in 2000 had entered the country illegally in the
1990s.
Undocumented immigrants have to be the answer, said Sum, director of the
university's Center for Labor Market Studies. ''This changes everything.
We're going to have to rewrite the story about the new economy of the
'90s.''
If Sum is right, many of the jobs created in the last decade went to either
new immigrants or to individuals who for some reason were not counted during
the 1990 Census. Many of those jobs are at low wages and could disappear
during a recession, causing widespread unemployment of the undocumented
immigrant workforce.
Top officials at the Census Bureau said that Sum's analysis is plausible and
that a better counting of undocumented immigrants could explain the
discrepancy between the 2000 Census and earlier estimates.
But John Thompson, an associate director of the Census Bureau, said there is
no way to be sure of the nation's total population until the Census Bureau
completes its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, which uses statistical
analysis to determine whether there was an undercount. Historically, the US
Census has determined it has overcounted whites and undercounted minorities,
renters, Native Americans living on reservations, and children.
Kenneth W. Prewitt, who served as executive director of the US Census Bureau
until Jan. 20, said that one reason the Census Bureau underestimated
population in recent years is that a court decision prevented the agency
from correcting a 4-million undercount in 1990.
However, Prewitt conceded that the 2000 Census may have missed as many as 4
million people. When all tabulations are in, the US population could be
adjusted upward, so that 7 million people are still unaccounted for.
The Census Bureau uses birth and death records as a barometer of population
growth. It then includes immigration figures collected by INS. The only
population that is not directly measured is the undocumented immigrant
population, people who enter the US illegally or overstay their visas.
This year, INS estimated that figure at 6 million. Prewitt said it's clear
that the number of undocumented immigrants is higher, but how much higher is
unknown.
After listening to Sum explain his findings during a teleconference, Prewitt
said the study seems solid.
''It's a very plausible, intelligent analysis of the facts that are
available to us today,'' Prewitt said. ''At this point, there is no way for
us to conclude how large the undocumented population is.''
Sum, along with economists Paul Harrington and Neeta Fogg, believes that
there are at least 2 million more undocumented workers than estimated and
perhaps as many as 5 million more.
To support his argument, Sum compared Current Employment Statistics, which
the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles from payroll records, to the Census
Bureau's Population Survey, a tally of employed people.
After looking at 30 years of data, Sum noticed an increasing discrepancy in
the numbers. The number of jobs on payrolls has risen rapidly over the
number of people believed to be employed.
Between 1994 and 2000, the Current Employment Statistics recorded 17.3
million new jobs, while the Population Survey recorded only 12.1 million
more employed people.
Why were there 5.2 million more jobs than people working? Some of that
difference may be explained by an increase in the number holding multiple
jobs and a shift from self-employment to employee status. But that wouldn't
explain 5 million new jobs.
''Who were holding all these jobs?'' Sum said. ''All you have to do is look
around you. Walk the streets, take the bus, go into any hotel in town. Walk
into the kitchen of any restaurant. It's immigrants.''
Sum says the states that have the largest gap between people working and
reported jobs are the states with the highest percentages of new immigrants
and those where INS reports the largest number of undocumented immigrants:
Nevada, California, Arizona, Texas, and New York.
...
See also http://www.numag.neu.edu/0001/economy.html
>
> > I'm not opposed to Mexicans, nor to "hispanics", but I don't think that you
> > can possibly consider the general subject of illegal immigration on a scale
> > so massive as to amount to main scale invasion, without considering which
> > groups are the majority of the mass, and that is primarily the Mexicans,
> > closely followed by an aggregate of Spanish-speaking people from all over
> > the Americas.
>
> Or alternately youve rationalized a clear racial bias that way.
Or alternatively you have done the same, and can't face clear facts,
because, as a racist, you see all opposition to your viewpoints as racist;
or, you simply wish to categorize it thus because you believe that an
"appeal to political correctness" is your best (fallacious, you being you)
argument, since otherwise you don't have an argument, only appeal to
emotion... which is all you ever had on this issue in any case.
>
>
> > > Not to shock you or anything, but not only are many illegals fluent in
> > > English, for quite a few its their native tongue. I don't imagine you
> > > ran into too many Irish, English, Canadians, or Austrialians on the
> > > shape-up line, but thats doesn't mean there aren't tens of thousands of
> > > them, it just indicates the poverty (in both senses) of the limits of
> > > your expereince.
> >
> > It demonstrates no such thing. I've seen the Irish kicked the fuck out, I've
> > NOT seen any Australians get the boot though I'm sure it happens... though
> > not so much as Americans get booted out of Oz. As for the Canadians? Hardly
> > any offend.
>
> And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
Your words, not mine, racist.
> The fuckin'
> beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
>
> The Canadians may not offend, but one might think that as the do come
> here in great numbers and do take skilled jobs at lower pay *in your
> very field* you might, if you had even a credible pretense of
> objectivity, have issues with that.
I do have an issue when people of lesser skill are used to replace older
workers for far less pay. Age discrimination is an unquestioned reality in
the Information Technology field.
And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with uncrupulous
employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
>
> > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
> > they were here they generally were a boon.
>
> Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
>
> > Now, if you want to trot out the relative numbers of illegal aliens --
> > especially illegal-alien VIOLENT FELONS -- and rank them by nationality,
> > feel free to do so. You're only going to make youself look foolish -- and
> > you KNOW it or you'd have done it.
>
> Why would I? Its your strawman not mine. Further I'm actually
> familiar with INS policy and their well documented practice of
> conflating the incidence of "violent felonies" for the porpuse of
> agrandzing their own mission cf: SOLORZANO-PATLAN v. INS
>
>
> > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
> > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
>
> Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> aggrivating the attendant cost.
Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
[I] denounce about Mexicans".
So tell me -- how many Canadians get injured on the job and wind up heading
to the local hospital Emergency Room because they don't have insurance and
can't be turned away from the ER because of inability to pay? And, of those
Canadians, how many stiff the hospital for the bill? Do enough Canadians
stiff enough hospitals for the ER bills that the hospitals fall into massive
financial instability? How many Canadians come to the US and give childbirth
at taxpayer expense? How many Canadians demand bilingual education in the US
public schools? How many Canadian-American children drop out of highschool?
What percentage of US prisons are occupied by Canadian-national criminals?
>
> > If you have hard facts to the
> > contrary, please feel free to post them. Tell me all about evil Canadian
> > transnational syndicates flooding the Us midwest with methedrine. And then
> > don't forget to tell us all where they got their meth or their precursor
> > chemicals. Be sure to tell us about the vast number of Irish who fly to the
> > US, beat the crap out of people who look just like them, rob them, and then
> > flee back across the Atlantic after having beaten someone into a coma for
> > $15.00.
> >
> > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
>
> I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> vituperative of arguments.
Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
> I also wieght proportionately any
> assertions of massive criminal syndicalism you make given the past
> track record of your assertions in the department cf: that a couple of
> San Fernando losers were in fact crack Yugoslavian shock troops.
Well, no documentation can be posted to support my position that those guys
were YACS.
However, as regards massive criminal syndicalism in the Mexican and Central
American smuggling gangs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29475-2001May15?language=printer
...
People Smuggling Now Big Business in Mexico
By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 17, 2001; Page A01
MEXICO CITY, May 16 - Immigrant smuggling on the U.S.-Mexican
border, once dominated by local "coyotes" charging relatively
small sums to guide Mexicans into the United States, has become
a multibillion-dollar industry increasingly controlled by large,
well-organized syndicates.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Officials in Mexico and the United States say the evolution of
the smuggling industry along the 2,100-mile border has come
largely in response to more aggressive U.S. efforts to control
illegal immigration. Since 1994, those efforts have included
doubling the number of U.S. Border Patrol guards, to 8,800, new
triple fences, infrared night scopes, underground sensors and
klieg lights to illuminate potential crossing points.
As the odds of being caught have climbed, smugglers' fees have
risen dramatically, from about $300 a person a few years ago
to between $1,500 and $2,000. Most of the 1.6 million Mexicans
apprehended by the Border Patrol last year - and an unknown
number of others who got through - are believed to have paid the
higher fees charged under the new border math.
Mexican officials recently formed a special intelligence unit
to target human smuggling and are investigating at least two
dozen human smuggling gangs. Felipe de Jesus Preciado Coronado,
head of Mexico's National Immigration Institute, said in an
interview that the government has identified at least 57 organized
smuggling bands.
President Bush and his Mexican counterpart, Vicente Fox, have
vowed to work together to create new mechanisms to control legal
immigration. Both leaders say they want to reduce illegal immigration,
which puts the lives of millions of poor Mexicans at risk and
turns them into prey for profiteers along both sides of the border.
"We are seeing trends we never saw in the past," said Jim Chaparro,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
head of the anti-smuggling office at the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). He said the once small and informal
smuggling business has evolved into a powerful web of
"literally hundreds of syndicates, some at a low-level
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and some at the kingpin level."
Interviews with more than 20 immigration specialists on both
sides of the border suggest that small-scale coyotes are still
active but that as human smuggling has become more difficult,
gangs have become more organized and wealthy. Increasingly, they
have members on both sides of the border. They also occasionally
employ people solely to get arrested, taking the time and attention
of U.S. border officials so that high-paying customers can sneak
across.
The equipment used by coyotes - a flashlight for a
nighttime wade across the Rio Grande - has been
replaced by encrypted radios, cell phones that are discarded and changed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
every few hours and the Internet. Smugglers communicate across the
border by radio or e-mail, signaling movements of U.S. patrol agents
or the arrival of a new batch of people preparing to cross.
The smuggling groups that charge the most offer
more sophisticated services, including computer-generated fake documents
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
or stolen valid visas and passports, which help people waltz
through U.S. entry gates without having to attempt dangerous desert
crossings. Others offer inventive ways to be driven across. Recently
arrested smugglers, for instance, had installed benches inside a
diesel tank truck. Others had squeezed people into portable toilets
being carried on trucks.
Of particular worry is a deeper smuggling network inside the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
United States, including drop houses where immigrants are kept,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
often against their will,
until they pay off smuggling fees. Gustavo Lopez Castro, a
Mexican sociologist who has interviewed many smugglers, said
they range from part-timers to "gangs and gangsters using beepers
and cell phones, airports and buses."
"Now they buy airline tickets for these people and give them clothes
when they cross the border," Lopez said.
He said one smuggling ring he saw put illegal Chinese immigrants
on tour buses in Mexico so they appeared to be tourists. He said
the group had contacts in the United States, Europe and Asia.
That is further evidence that the organizations are increasingly
helping non-Mexicans illegally enter the United States. About
28,000 people from Syria, Poland, Russia and China and a list of
other non-Latin countries were apprehended last year on the border,
according to the INS. In the early 1990s, that number was generally
around 16,000 a year.
Mexican officials said that along the U.S. border in the state of
Baja California last year, illegal immigrants from 40 countries
were apprehended. Preciado said Mexican immigration officials
recently caught a South Korean smuggler taking illegal Chinese
immigrants across the border and an Ecuadoran smuggler taking across
people from Central America.
"When you look at the border, it looks like a large pilgrimage,"
he said.
Migrants from Asia and Europe pay far more than Mexicans, upwards
of $50,000 to get into the United States.
"The flow of illegals has become much more organized, and that
has opened the opportunity for these [smuggling] groups to market
their services to non-Mexicans," said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup,
director of the Mexico project at the Washington-based Center
for Strategic and International Studies.
U.S. officials say some human smuggling groups are starting to
mirror the structure and methods of drug smugglers. Just as rival
drug gangs often steal from each other, Chaparro said, "gangs are
ripping off aliens [from other smugglers] and holding aliens captive
until they sell them to a buyer." The buyer is usually a relative
or an employer.
...
Further, and quite applicable to lovely Los Angeles California:
...
L.A.'s Dirty Export
CBS 2 News Special Assignment
The violence, the signals and the "look" come straight from
Los Angeles.
They are all unique to Salvadoran gangs that, for more
than a decade, have run loose on Southern California streets.
Their symbols are as familiar to some as the Hollywood sign.
But when CBS 2 News' I-Team traveled to El Salvador earlier this
year, they were surprised to find those familiar Los Angeles marks
in El Salvador.
I-Team's Drew Griffin tells us why members of the most violent
Los Angeles gangs can be found in that country.
CBS 2 News' Special Assignment: L.A.'s Dirty Export aired Monday,
June 08, 1998 at 11 p.m.
The 18th Street Gang and Marasalvatrucha Gang are two of the most
violent in Los Angeles, reported CBS 2 News' Drew Griffin. But many
of the gangs' members have returned to the land of their ancestors
-- El Salvador.
Just as El Salvador was rebounding from civil war, an import from
the U.S. has begun to threaten the fragile nation --
the country is now fighting a war with gangs, said Griffin.
It started about five years ago. El Salvador Police Chief Rodrigo Avila
told Griffin that the gang problem in his country began when the
United States started deporting gang members back to El Salvador
after they committed crimes in America. The problem is that they are
returning home without any lessons learned.
"Some of them commit crimes in the States, serve short terms or
detained there for a little while over there and sent back to
El Salvador," Avila told Griffin.
According to Griffin, the deported gang members have
touched off a wave of violence in El Salvador that has now
surpassed the murder rate during their civil war.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Soldiers and heavily armed police are once again patrolling
San Salvador's neighborhoods and yet the gangs continue to grow.
And as their numbers increase so will the crimes, said Griffin.
Many gangs have already moved into some neighborhoods and turned
entire blocks into ghost towns.
One former gang member told Griffin the gangs use bombs as
well as guns to gain territory.
Avila said this deadly combination of weaponry is the result of a
blending o two violent cultures: the battle-hardened guerrilla
fighters of El Salvador and the crime-hardened gang members of
Los Angeles.
With the problem getting worse and the public outcry growing stronger,
El Salvador is publicly wondering what to do next, said Griffin.
Police often meet planes carrying deported gang members and criminals
arriving in El Salvador. The gang members are fingerprinted and questioned
at the airport, and told they will be watched. But since their crimes were
committed in the U.S., El Salvador is powerless to do much more.
Alex Sanchez from Los Angeles-based Homies Unidos told Griffin that the
policy of deporting gang members is not helping either country.
"They've been here since they were little kids," said Sanchez.
"They were brought by their parents so now that their parents
are here, their children are getting deported to a place where
they don't know. So it's up to them to defend themselves and
the only way they can is to
get involved in what they know what to get involved with,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which is to the gangs in El Salvador."
In El Salvador, there is little to stop the gangs from expanding their
violence. The country remains relatively poor and programs to help
deported gang members reintegrate into Salvadoran life are few, said
Griffin.
While in El Salvador, the I-Team visited a halfway house filled with
men trying to get out of the gangs. The dirty building barely had
any furniture, and the tiny staff that ran the program struggled daily to
handle the growing number of occupants looking for help.
Members of the 18th Street and the Marasalvatrucha gangs also live
together in the building. But for them, it is a place where they
come to heal wounds before heading back into battle -- while every day,
more planes arrive from Los Angeles carrying more troops that again will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fill Salvadoran streets with violence.
...
Well there Jim, I think that damned well about covers FOREIGN CRIMINAL
MILITIA operating on US soil, especially in lovely little Los Angeles, gem
of the SouthWest. And doesn't it just wring your bleeding little PC heart
that they're getting sent home by the plane-load.
<snips of snivelling>
> > ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint.
>
> And yet why do I suspect that if I were to make the same dismissal
> regarding unemployed, middle-aged guys living with their mothers who's
> social interaction consists of internet diatribes I'd be accused of
> hostility? Sucks to be marginalized, doesn't it?
You should know as well as me. Like you said in the part that I snipped for
snivelling, you too live in a barrio, right? But apparently since you get
along so so well, I guess I have to guess that you've gone out of your way
to be assimilated. And Assimilationists are always a bit marginalized before
they decide to succumb, aren't they?
>
> > Especially if they are getting
> > violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
>
> And evidently the millions who aren't as well.
>
> > >
> > > > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > > > Mexico?
> > > >
> > > > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
> > >
> > > Gee, how enlightened of you.
> >
> > It's no better today.
>
> And you would know that how, exactly?
Well, I can and do watch the news, and check the newspapers. There was a
really nice special on PBS -- generally noted for its even-handedness -- or
perhaps one of the mainstream news stations. The focus was on the prices
paid by the rapid expansion of Juarez. The poverty is desperate in much of
the town, there is almost no running water but to be fair the city does have
a fleet of trucks that deliver it for free. But that might not last long
since the subsurface aquifer in the region is almost exhausted and it's only
getting recharged from teh hideously contaminated Rio Bravo (Rio Grande del
Norte).
See also http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010611/index.html "Welcome to
Amexica" from Time Magazine. Especially see the Juarez section at
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010611/fcities.html
To wit:
...
Unfortunately life has not changed for everyone in Juárez: hourly pay is
still about $1.25. Many workers have to travel hours each way by bus from
colonias like Anapra, subdivisions that have sprung up without paved roads,
water or sewer service. The homes look like preschool art projects, glued
and stapled together from cardboard and plywood and tin. Bootleg power lines
drop from overhead wires, loop down to the ground and are held in place by a
rock, then snake through the sand to a house. Some wires are live, and arc
and spit when it rains. The young women who live here are favored by the
maquila bosses for their nimble fingers and obedience. But more than 200
women, many of them maquila workers, have been murdered since 1993 - often
raped, strangled and mutilated during their long, dark treks home to remote
colonias. Most large maquilas have begun providing bus service, but it has
failed to stop the killings.
...
Um, that might have been because of the infamous "el Dracula", the Juarez
bus-driver who was caught in the last year or two. He's been charged with a
large number of rapes and a few murders. but he's not symptomatic of Juarez
or Mexico, I will grant you that. But could he and the equally-infamous
biorder-jumping serial killer Resendez-Ramirez have flourished without the
inevitably-corruptive forces of an unpoliced border seperating such
massively-different cultures operating on such different socio-economic
levels?
>
> > >
> > > > > Or Guatemala? Or El Salvador?
> > > >
> > > > Why the hell would I want to go to El Salvador? It's an overpopulated
> > > > poverty-stricken third-world nation.
> > >
> > > Hence the desire for many of its residents to come here and make a
> > > better life through their own efforts. Clearly you haven't the same
> > > drive, which pretty much boils down your right to your position as
> > > simple accident of birth.
> >
> > Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of the
> > condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
> > not at liberty to discuss it".
>
> Of course you aren't.
Of course I am not, and I can resist your sort of troll for as long as I'd
like.
Troll on, troll.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, most illegals don't make enough money to pay anything but
> > > > > regressive taxes to either nation.
> > > >
> > > > And they cost quite a lot, especially in the border states where some
> > > > counties are spending really ridiculous amounts of their local revenue
> > > > apprehending and jailing illegal-alien criminals. See House Resolution 823
> > > > and Senate Bill 169 under http://thomas.loc.gov/
> > >
> > > Yes, and they also contribute billions to the US economy filling
> > > necessary low wage jobs for which there is a massive labor shortage.
> >
> > They are preventing the development and deployment of automation, so long as
> > they work for so cheaply.
>
> Horrors. When Rosie the Robot quits the Jetsons and mows my lawn, then
> we'll talk.
Well, of course you'd make that argument.
http://www.smarthome.com/3255.html
http://www.robomow.com/
http://www.ri.cmu.edu/projects/project_422.html
That's just for starters.
But of course, as long as unscrupulous employers PREFER to pay near-slave
wages to illegal aliens in preference of paying living wages to legal
workers, there won't be as much incentive to develop these thigns and bring
them to market. But you know that already.
What gets me is the Europeans are probably laughing at you, since they have
a much graeter ag-worker shortage than the US does, and they are plowing
very large sums into agricultural robotics... and they presently have quite
a lead on the US. So, the US will move politically and economically more
towards favoring Slavery over Technoligization. and Europe may very well go
the other way, and wind up as our technological superiors, because they
prefer to exclude illegal workers and thus chances to exploit them, in
short, they'll be better than us because of what you in your pathetic
shortsightedness call "bigotry".
>
> > They also drive down wages for American workers,
> > enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs.
>
> Blame the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters. Thats cogent.
I didn't do/say that. Unscrupulous employers must be aggressively targeted
for arrest and if possible for attachment of their businesess.
>
> > Hey, I bet all of the
> > equipment you give you your illegals has the safety interlocks defeated, or
> > never had them! More profit in your pockets, eh? Plus, there's no better way
> > to bust up the Unions than illegal aliens, is there?
> >
> > And my goodness! while the GAO admits that there's a very slight benefit at
> > the Federal level due to those few illegal aliens who actually have Federal
> > income tax withheld, State and Local government disproportionately feel the
> > impact, especially in infrastructure deployment, infrastructure upgrades in
> > ghettoized areas, indigent costs to hospitals and clinics, and nobody gets
> > hit like the schools. But you knew all of this, didn't you?
>
> Yes. It also doesn't address the positive economic benefit that this
> is simply a byproduct of. Phoenix's population has grown two thousand
> percent since WWII. Strangely enough, this strains the infrastructure.
Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to immigration, much of
it illegal immigration.
>
> > > Its just that El Paso and Phoenix arent going whining to the government
> > > about the increase in their tax base for housing starts, renovations,
> > > farmland improvements and general increase in productivity that even a
> > > low end, unskilled labor pool contributes massively to. You see they
> > > don't actually want the illegals to go home, they just want to pass of
> > > the attendant cost to the fed while reaping the benefits.
> >
> > Phoenix will be one of the first to tell you about the massive costs due to
> > police being spread far too thin, about the incredible number of calls they
> > have to answer mostly due to "culture clash", they'll tell you about how the
> > costs in the hospital/clinic sector far outweigh ALL tax benefits. And THEN
> > they will tell you about the costs from the schools, and those are only the
> > financial costs, not the costs to the teachers' frazzled nerves or to what's
> > left of the social structure.
>
> Evidently, that methedrine cartel makes stops at your place. Phoenix's
> tax base has more than doubled in the last ten years, and their
> infrastructure costs are directly levied on developers via impact
> assessments. In fact Phoenix is the national poster child of managed
> growth, having learned from their explosive growth difficulties in the
> sixties. Perhaps you ought to check your facts.
Perhaps you should check yours. I note that you're only citing the gains.
Trying to stack the deck? The costs are greater than the gains, aren't they?
Hmm? And would you care to tell us who does the impact assessments and
perhaps tell us how accurate they've been?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > So, why do you mention skin color? I live in DC where it's been
> > > > > > majority-black since 1960. And they speak English.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because you're bigoted againt hispanics, El Vampiro.
> > > >
> > > > Nah man, I'm just prejudiced against backstabbers.
> > >
> > > And anyone else who falls into your particular well of contempt.
> >
> > Nah man. Backstabbers in particular. Specifically. I cannot sufficiently say
> > "backstabbers". And sneaks. I particularly hate backstabbing sneaks. Sneaky
> > backstabbers are just as hateful, but considerably more worrisome. I mean,
> > what are you gonna do about sneaky backstabbers? Oh yes! I could have
> > friends! Sorry, they all got snuck-up upon and backstabbed.
>
> Was this supposed to be cogent?
No, I'm being SARCASTIC. Heavily Sarcastic.
You're hardly being "cogent" either. Do you know what "cogent" means?
"Compelling, convincing, appealing to the intellect"?
You've been reduced to jumping up and down screeching "bigot bigot, the bad
man is a bigot bigot". I wouldn't exactly call _you_ cogent, either. You're
also trotting out every tired cliche I've seen on the subject. Are you
reading from a prepared propaganda sheet or have you just internalized every
knee-jerk response possible?
>
> <S>
>
> > Oh, I really doubt that. But you know what? It doesn't matter to me if
> > they're Superman and Wonder Woman and the Spy Kids (more true than you know)
> > all in one handy extremely-extended family. They can be all that, and if
> > they're backstabbers, every good thing they have ever done is going to be
> > ignored by me because whatever else they are, they are ILLEGAL-ALIEN VIOLENT
> > FELONS.
>
> I do belive you've blown a gasket.
No, I do believe I'm just tired of it. If you have a problem with people
expressing anger at crimes and at criminals, you're the one qualifying as
some sort of borderline personality disorder case. Then again, you do _that_
every time you post here, right?
>
> > If you just can't fucking deal baybee with the first two words of that
> > phrase, deal with the last two: Violent Felons.
> >
> > I got no damned use for them.
> >
> > I want them gone.
> >
> > I am far from alone in this.
>
> And the millions of hardworking people who don't bother anybody? What
> about them?
If they are in the country illegally, they need to go through the process to
adjust their legal status, their presence is a crime.
If anyone is in the country LEGALLY and not bothering anyone, hardworking or
no, well who could be bothered by that? You're being very silly.
But of course you weren't expecting a respect for law, order and civility
and unilateral extension of confirmation of Constitutional Rights, were you!
See, you're an idiot in the sense that you simply cannot conceive of any
origin of an opposition to massive illegal immigration as anything but
racism. I'm not a racist, I'm a nationalist. So go bite a wire.
<snip snip snip>
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> > > And you can't type for fuckall when you're shitfaced drunk, can you. Hint:
> > > type s-l-o-w-l-y. And then wait for your eyes to uncross a time or two
> > > before you hit "send".
> >
> > Um:
> > visitng
> > eon
> > Australians
> > experience
> > youself
> > suddent
> > judgment
> >
> > If youre going to make pathetic jibes at my typing, invest the time in
> > a spell check. You can't afford to look like any more of an ass than
> > you already do.
>
> Oh, I wasn't making a spelling flame at you, I was making a drunken fuckwad
> flame at you. I though that even you should be able to see through the haze
> sufficiently to realize that.
Um, yeah. Right. Perhaps you ought to reread that definition of
cogent again.
> >
> > Yes you are its your stereotypical boogeyman. Unfortuantely, you know
> > fuck all about it save what youve parroted from other net-kooks.
>
> But you see, it's only your exceptional paranoia that makes you insist that
> I'm singling out California. You do know that illegal aliens are in every
> State of the Union, right?
"Los Angeles, 2005."
"BTW, the US loses."
"Hey man, everyone I know who visits
California gets quizzed by me when they return."
"They're not laughing in Los Angeles,"
"18th-Street Gang and the Mara Salvatrucha, you generally
don't take into account that both of those very large and violent
criminal organizations are almost entirely composed of illegal alien
criminals."
"For instance, based on terms of raw numbers of people of Mexican
descent, Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city."
[Of L.A.] "Carry a nonlethal and be prepared to scream endlessly. And
know where you are and where you should not go. and if you see lots of
illegal aliens blocking your passage and making very strange gestures
with their hands, make your peace with your Maker while you
still have a moment or two of composure."
FYI, should you like to inject some actual facts into your world view,
18th street is not lagrgely coposed of illegal immigrants and both 18th
street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
world. So what?
No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
of acres of unimproved land, food to feed the entire planet if we'd
just get around to sharing it, and a massive labor shortage.
> > Not to mention when push comes to
> > shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> > objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> > bario.
>
> Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
> lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
Hardly. Anyone you don't like who's brown is an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" just
waiting to make off with your TV or worse. Heres a news flash there
are 32 million hispanics in this country, that means even graonting
your figures there are 28 million perfectly legal hispanic residents of
our fair nation (clearly the extra alleged seven million are not part
of that 32 million of the oficial figures). How exactly can you tell
the apart, Kreskin?
> Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
> aliens:
You mean like this one, which total supports what I've been saying?
thanks for the tip.
> Most of the undocumented workers found employment in the new economy, and
> their availability may even have helped fuel it, according to the study by
> economists at Northeastern University.
>
> See also http://www.numag.neu.edu/0001/economy.html
I think you rather missed the point of this one.
> >
> > Or alternately youve rationalized a clear racial bias that way.
>
> Or alternatively you have done the same, and can't face clear facts,
> because, as a racist, you see all opposition to your viewpoints as racist;
> or, you simply wish to categorize it thus because you believe that an
> "appeal to political correctness" is your best (fallacious, you being you)
> argument, since otherwise you don't have an argument, only appeal to
> emotion... which is all you ever had on this issue in any case.
That would be so much more persuasive if the base of your argument
wasn't that the evil brown people are going to slit all our throats in
the night.
> >
> > And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
>
> Your words, not mine, racist.
How that could possibly be when I was responding to a direct
quoatation, eludes me.
>
> > The fuckin'
> > beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> > because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> > that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> > years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
>
> Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
Thats because Maryland doesn't have a native language. Neither does
the rest of the US.
>
> >
> > The Canadians may not offend, but one might think that as the do come
> > here in great numbers and do take skilled jobs at lower pay *in your
> > very field* you might, if you had even a credible pretense of
> > objectivity, have issues with that.
>
> I do have an issue when people of lesser skill are used to replace older
> workers for far less pay. Age discrimination is an unquestioned reality in
> the Information Technology field.
>
> And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
> here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with uncrupulous
> employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
"In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals were refused
admission, or withdrew their application for admission, or were
referred to an Immigration Judge at Ports-of-Entry along the northern
border."
"While it is not well known, according to the INS official
estimates, Canadian citizens themselves are the fourth largest illegal
immigrant population in the United States. according to the INS."
TESTIMONY OF DONNA KAY BARNES CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE
Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of
Origin (1996):
4. Canada 120,000
Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
behold 1% of the Canada lives here
> >
> > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
> > > they were here they generally were a boon.
Care to back that up?
> > Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> > up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
>
> What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
The fact that you constantly compare them unfavoarbly to hispanics. I
can quote if you'd like.
> > > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
> > > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
> >
> > Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> > the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> > aggrivating the attendant cost.
>
> Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
> [I] denounce about Mexicans".
They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law, take jobs
away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
(particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
> > > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
> >
> > I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> > vituperative of arguments.
>
> Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
> statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
When confronted with actual facts, you universally retreat to the
basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
> > I also wieght proportionately any
> > assertions of massive criminal syndicalism you make given the past
> > track record of your assertions in the department cf: that a couple of
> > San Fernando losers were in fact crack Yugoslavian shock troops.
>
> Well, no documentation can be posted to support my position that those guys
> were YACS.
>
> However, as regards massive criminal syndicalism in the Mexican and Central
> American smuggling gangs:
>
Gee, tougher countermeasures create more organized resistance. How
novel.
> Further, and quite applicable to lovely Los Angeles California:
>
>
> ...
> L.A.'s Dirty Export
> CBS 2 News Special Assignment
<S>
I'd be a bit more impressed if that inflamatory little gem had managed
to spell Mara Salvatrucha properly
> ...
>
> Well there Jim, I think that damned well about covers FOREIGN CRIMINAL
> MILITIA operating on US soil, especially in lovely little Los Angeles, gem
> of the SouthWest.
No, its a sound bite piece done by a local news team about Salvadoran
gangs operating in El Salvador.
> And doesn't it just wring your bleeding little PC heart
> that they're getting sent home by the plane-load.
The entirity of active Mara Salvatrucha bangers in LA wouldn't fill a
turbo prop
> <snips of snivelling>
>
> > > ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint.
> >
> > And yet why do I suspect that if I were to make the same dismissal
> > regarding unemployed, middle-aged guys living with their mothers who's
> > social interaction consists of internet diatribes I'd be accused of
> > hostility? Sucks to be marginalized, doesn't it?
>
> You should know as well as me.
I don't live with my mommy and I pay my own mortgage.
> Like you said in the part that I snipped for
> snivelling, you too live in a barrio, right?
I'm sure you'd call it that. We have brown people. I'm also smack dab
in the middle of your alleged MS13/18th street turf war. Funny that
theres utterly no evidence of it despite the fact that CRASH who've
been annointing themselves as our last line of defence from the evil
hoardes have been disbanded..
> But apparently since you get
> along so so well, I guess I have to guess that you've gone out of your way
> to be assimilated.
You'd be incorrect, although I must admit to having had a burrito for
dinner. It was tasty.
> And Assimilationists are always a bit marginalized before
> they decide to succumb, aren't they?
Funny, a major thrust of you vitriol agains hispanics seems to assume
that failure to assimilate results in marginalization.
> >
> > > Especially if they are getting
> > > violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
> >
> > And evidently the millions who aren't as well.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > > > > Mexico?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, how enlightened of you.
> > >
> > > It's no better today.
> >
> > And you would know that how, exactly?
>
> Well, I can and do watch the news, and check the newspapers. There was a
> really nice special on PBS -- generally noted for its even-handedness -- or
> perhaps one of the mainstream news stations.
Well, gee, that narrows it down to something easily verifiable.
>
> ...
> Unfortunately life has not changed for everyone in Juárez: hourly pay is
> still about $1.25. Many workers have to travel hours each way by bus from
> colonias like Anapra, subdivisions that have sprung up without paved roads,
> water or sewer service. The homes look like preschool art projects, glued
> and stapled together from cardboard and plywood and tin. Bootleg power lines
> drop from overhead wires, loop down to the ground and are held in place by a
> rock, then snake through the sand to a house. Some wires are live, and arc
> and spit when it rains. The young women who live here are favored by the
> maquila bosses for their nimble fingers and obedience. But more than 200
> women, many of them maquila workers, have been murdered since 1993 - often
> raped, strangled and mutilated during their long, dark treks home to remote
> colonias. Most large maquilas have begun providing bus service, but it has
> failed to stop the killings.
Gee the poorest people in a third world country are poor. I'm stunned.
Of course the last time I was in Juarez I ate at a Denny's.
> > > Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of
> > > the
> > > condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
> > > not at liberty to discuss it".
> >
> > Of course you aren't.
>
> Of course I am not, and I can resist your sort of troll for as long as I'd
> like.
Unfortunately, you do have a tendency to annoint yourself, unbidden.
Congratulations for single handedly saving you 'hood from ruin.
> Troll on, troll.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, most illegals don't make enough money to pay anything but
> > > > > > regressive taxes to either nation.
> > > > >
> > > > > And they cost quite a lot, especially in the border states where some
> > > > > counties are spending really ridiculous amounts of their local revenue
> > > > > apprehending and jailing illegal-alien criminals. See House
> > > > > Resolution 823
> > > > > and Senate Bill 169 under http://thomas.loc.gov/
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and they also contribute billions to the US economy filling
> > > > necessary low wage jobs for which there is a massive labor shortage.
> > >
> > > They are preventing the development and deployment of automation, so long
> > > as
> > > they work for so cheaply.
> >
> > Horrors. When Rosie the Robot quits the Jetsons and mows my lawn, then
> > we'll talk.
>
> Well, of course you'd make that argument.
>
> http://www.smarthome.com/3255.html
> http://www.robomow.com/
> http://www.ri.cmu.edu/projects/project_422.html
>
> That's just for starters.
>
> But of course, as long as unscrupulous employers PREFER to pay near-slave
> wages to illegal aliens in preference of paying living wages to legal
> workers, there won't be as much incentive to develop these thigns and bring
> them to market. But you know that already.
I also know, insofar as I do my own landscaping, that nothing that
can't walk upright with arms is likely to be doing any large scale
landscaping any time soon. Or replumb my kitchen. Or paint my walls.
Your yuppie toy notwithstanding.
> What gets me is the Europeans are probably laughing at you, since they have
> a much graeter ag-worker shortage than the US does, and they are plowing
> very large sums into agricultural robotics... and they presently have quite
> a lead on the US. So, the US will move politically and economically more
> towards favoring Slavery over Technoligization. and Europe may very well go
> the other way, and wind up as our technological superiors, because they
> prefer to exclude illegal workers and thus chances to exploit them, in
> short, they'll be better than us because of what you in your pathetic
> shortsightedness call "bigotry".
>
>
> >
> > > They also drive down wages for American workers,
> > > enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs.
> >
> > Blame the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters. Thats cogent.
>
> I didn't do/say that. Unscrupulous employers must be aggressively targeted
> for arrest and if possible for attachment of their businesess.
And how many tens of thousands of people do you think it would take to
do that? You could employ ever illegal in the country trying to find
every subcontractor, restaurant and homeowner committing this "crime
wave". BTW, you still labeled the illegals, not their bosses as the
root of the problem.
> >
> > > Hey, I bet all of the
> > > equipment you give you your illegals has the safety interlocks defeated,
> > > or
> > > never had them! More profit in your pockets, eh? Plus, there's no better
> > > way
> > > to bust up the Unions than illegal aliens, is there?
> > >
> > > And my goodness! while the GAO admits that there's a very slight benefit
> > > at
> > > the Federal level due to those few illegal aliens who actually have
> > > Federal
> > > income tax withheld, State and Local government disproportionately feel
> > > the
> > > impact, especially in infrastructure deployment, infrastructure upgrades
> > > in
> > > ghettoized areas, indigent costs to hospitals and clinics, and nobody gets
> > > hit like the schools. But you knew all of this, didn't you?
> >
> > Yes. It also doesn't address the positive economic benefit that this
> > is simply a byproduct of. Phoenix's population has grown two thousand
> > percent since WWII. Strangely enough, this strains the infrastructure.
>
> Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to immigration, much of
> it illegal immigration.
And *none* of it is from the fact that a million and a half people
moved to the middle of the desert in the last thirty years, fully half
of whom are geriatric rust-belters who consume huge portions of social
services and infrastructure.
Not even close, which was my point. See it works like this: Illegal
immigrant works on building fifty condos. Eventually illegal immigrant
brakes arm, wrecks truck and cost Phoenix a couple of grand. Meanwhile
twenty yuppies and thirty septugenarians clamoring for the low cost of
living provided by cheap labor move into those houses and pump a couple
of million dollars into the local economy that otherwise would have
stayed in Sandusky. Its called cost benefit analysis.
> Hmm? And would you care to tell us who does the impact assessments and
> perhaps tell us how accurate they've been?
The city of Phoenix and very.
> > Was this supposed to be cogent?
>
> No, I'm being SARCASTIC. Heavily Sarcastic.
>
> You're hardly being "cogent" either. Do you know what "cogent" means?
> "Compelling, convincing, appealing to the intellect"?
Yes, like the fact that there are 120,00 illegal canadians in the US,
and not like KCBS went to El Salvador for ratings week and couldn't
managed to spell their subjects names properly.
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> > > And you can't type for fuckall when you're shitfaced drunk, can you. Hint:
> > > type s-l-o-w-l-y. And then wait for your eyes to uncross a time or two
> > > before you hit "send".
> >
> > Um:
> > visitng
> > eon
> > Australians
> > experience
> > youself
> > suddent
> > judgment
> >
> > If youre going to make pathetic jibes at my typing, invest the time in
> > a spell check. You can't afford to look like any more of an ass than
> > you already do.
>
> Oh, I wasn't making a spelling flame at you, I was making a drunken fuckwad
> flame at you. I though that even you should be able to see through the haze
> sufficiently to realize that.
Um, yeah. Right. Perhaps you ought to reread that definition of
cogent again.
> >
> > Yes you are its your stereotypical boogeyman. Unfortuantely, you know
> > fuck all about it save what youve parroted from other net-kooks.
>
> But you see, it's only your exceptional paranoia that makes you insist that
> I'm singling out California. You do know that illegal aliens are in every
> State of the Union, right?
"Los Angeles, 2005."
"BTW, the US loses."
"Hey man, everyone I know who visits
California gets quizzed by me when they return."
"They're not laughing in Los Angeles,"
"18th-Street Gang and the Mara Salvatrucha, you generally
don't take into account that both of those very large and violent
criminal organizations are almost entirely composed of illegal alien
criminals."
"For instance, based on terms of raw numbers of people of Mexican
descent, Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city."
[Of L.A.] "Carry a nonlethal and be prepared to scream endlessly. And
know where you are and where you should not go. and if you see lots of
illegal aliens blocking your passage and making very strange gestures
with their hands, make your peace with your Maker while you
still have a moment or two of composure."
FYI, should you like to inject some actual facts into your world view,
18th street is not lagrgely composed of illegal immigrants and both
18th street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
gang has more than 100 active members and have actually shot fewer
people than Rampart officers, and their activities are largely
non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
world. So what?
> >
> > And yet despite repeated oportunity youve done nothing to establish a
> > credible basis for this assertion.
>
> Which credible basis for the _which_ assertion?
>
> Oh, that there might be as many as 9 million illegal aliens in the country?
No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
of acres of unimproved land, food to feed the entire planet if we'd
just get around to sharing it, and a massive labor shortage.
> > Not to mention when push comes to
> > shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> > objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> > bario.
>
> Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
> lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
Hardly. Anyone you don't like who's brown is an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" just
waiting to make off with your TV or worse. Heres a news flash there
are 32 million hispanics in this country, that means even granting your
figures there are 28 million perfectly legal hispanic residents of our
fair nation (clearly the extra alleged seven million are not part of
that 32 million of the oficial figures). How exactly can you tell the
apart, Kreskin?
> Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
> aliens:
You mean like this one, which totally supports what I've been saying?
thanks for the tip.
> Most of the undocumented workers found employment in the new economy, and
> their availability may even have helped fuel it, according to the study by
> economists at Northeastern University.
>
> See also http://www.numag.neu.edu/0001/economy.html
I think you rather missed the point of this one.
> >
> > Or alternately youve rationalized a clear racial bias that way.
>
> Or alternatively you have done the same, and can't face clear facts,
> because, as a racist, you see all opposition to your viewpoints as racist;
> or, you simply wish to categorize it thus because you believe that an
> "appeal to political correctness" is your best (fallacious, you being you)
> argument, since otherwise you don't have an argument, only appeal to
> emotion... which is all you ever had on this issue in any case.
That would be so much more persuasive if the base of your argument
wasn't that the evil brown people are going to slit all our throats in
the night.
> >
> > And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
>
> Your words, not mine, racist.
How that could possibly be when I was responding to a direct
quoatation, eludes me.
>
> > The fuckin'
> > beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> > because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> > that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> > years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
>
> Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
Thats because Maryland doesn't have a native language. Neither does
the rest of the US. The fact remains that millions of people in what
is now the US have been happily speaking Spanish, even in Maryland,
uniterrupted for over five hundred years now.
>
> >
> > The Canadians may not offend, but one might think that as the do come
> > here in great numbers and do take skilled jobs at lower pay *in your
> > very field* you might, if you had even a credible pretense of
> > objectivity, have issues with that.
>
> I do have an issue when people of lesser skill are used to replace older
> workers for far less pay. Age discrimination is an unquestioned reality in
> the Information Technology field.
>
> And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
> here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with uncrupulous
> employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
"In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals were refused
admission, or withdrew their application for admission, or were
referred to an Immigration Judge at Ports-of-Entry along the northern
border."
"While it is not well known, according to the INS official
estimates, Canadian citizens themselves are the fourth largest illegal
immigrant population in the United States, according to the INS."
TESTIMONY OF DONNA KAY BARNES CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE
Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of
Origin (1996):
4. Canada 120,000
Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
behold 1% of the Canada has moved here in the last ten years.
> >
> > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
> > > they were here they generally were a boon.
Care to back that up? Given that you don't think that over a hundred
thousand people aren't "great numbers", I'd like to see some less
biased and beter informed data than you bald assertion.
> > Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> > up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
>
> What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
The fact that you constantly compare them favoarbly to hispanics. I
can quote if you'd like.
> > > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
> > > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
> >
> > Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> > the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> > aggrivating the attendant cost.
>
> Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
> [I] denounce about Mexicans".
They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law, take jobs
away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
(particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
> > > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
> >
> > I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> > vituperative of arguments.
>
> Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
> statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
When confronted with actual facts, you universally retreat to the
basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
capitalization. The fact remains that only a tiny fraction of illegal
hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
Of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime, yet
when called on your bullshit you insist that we're all about to be
murdered.
> > I also wieght proportionately any
> > assertions of massive criminal syndicalism you make given the past
> > track record of your assertions in the department cf: that a couple of
> > San Fernando losers were in fact crack Yugoslavian shock troops.
>
> Well, no documentation can be posted to support my position that those guys
> were YACS.
>
> However, as regards massive criminal syndicalism in the Mexican and Central
> American smuggling gangs:
>
Gee, tougher countermeasures create more organized resistance. How
novel.
> Further, and quite applicable to lovely Los Angeles California:
>
>
> ...
> L.A.'s Dirty Export
> CBS 2 News Special Assignment
<S>
I'd be a bit more impressed if that inflamatory little gem had managed
to spell Mara Salvatrucha properly
> ...
>
> Well there Jim, I think that damned well about covers FOREIGN CRIMINAL
> MILITIA operating on US soil, especially in lovely little Los Angeles, gem
> of the SouthWest.
No, its a sound bite piece done by a local news team about Salvadoran
gangs operating in El Salvador.
> And doesn't it just wring your bleeding little PC heart
> that they're getting sent home by the plane-load.
The entirity of active Mara Salvatrucha bangers in LA wouldn't fill a
turbo prop
> <snips of snivelling>
>
> > > ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint.
> >
> > And yet why do I suspect that if I were to make the same dismissal
> > regarding unemployed, middle-aged guys living with their mothers who's
> > social interaction consists of internet diatribes I'd be accused of
> > hostility? Sucks to be marginalized, doesn't it?
>
> You should know as well as me.
I don't live with my mommy and I pay my own mortgage.
> Like you said in the part that I snipped for
> snivelling, you too live in a barrio, right?
I'm sure you'd call it that. We have brown people. I'm also smack dab
in the middle of your alleged MS13/18th street turf war. Funny that
theres utterly no evidence of it despite the fact that CRASH who've
been annointing themselves as our last line of defence from the evil
hoardes have been disbanded.
> But apparently since you get
> along so so well, I guess I have to guess that you've gone out of your way
> to be assimilated.
You'd be incorrect, although I must admit to having had a burrito for
dinner. It was tasty.
> And Assimilationists are always a bit marginalized before
> they decide to succumb, aren't they?
Funny, a major thrust of you vitriol agains hispanics seems to assume
that failure to assimilate results in marginalization.
> >
> > > Especially if they are getting
> > > violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
> >
> > And evidently the millions who aren't as well.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > > > > Mexico?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, how enlightened of you.
> > >
> > > It's no better today.
> >
> > And you would know that how, exactly?
>
> Well, I can and do watch the news, and check the newspapers. There was a
> really nice special on PBS -- generally noted for its even-handedness -- or
> perhaps one of the mainstream news stations.
Well, gee, that narrows it down to something easily verifiable.
>
> ...
> Unfortunately life has not changed for everyone in Juárez: hourly pay is
> still about $1.25. Many workers have to travel hours each way by bus from
> colonias like Anapra, subdivisions that have sprung up without paved roads,
> water or sewer service. The homes look like preschool art projects, glued
> and stapled together from cardboard and plywood and tin. Bootleg power lines
> drop from overhead wires, loop down to the ground and are held in place by a
> rock, then snake through the sand to a house. Some wires are live, and arc
> and spit when it rains. The young women who live here are favored by the
> maquila bosses for their nimble fingers and obedience. But more than 200
> women, many of them maquila workers, have been murdered since 1993 - often
> raped, strangled and mutilated during their long, dark treks home to remote
> colonias. Most large maquilas have begun providing bus service, but it has
> failed to stop the killings.
Gee the poorest people in a third world country are poor. I'm stunned.
Of course the last time I was in Juarez I ate at a Denny's.
> > > Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of
> > > the
> > > condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
> > > not at liberty to discuss it".
> >
> > Of course you aren't.
>
> Of course I am not, and I can resist your sort of troll for as long as I'd
> like.
Unfortunately, you do have a tendency to annoint yourself, unbidden.
Congratulations for single handedly saving you 'hood from ruin.
> Troll on, troll.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, most illegals don't make enough money to pay anything but
> > > > > > regressive taxes to either nation.
> > > > >
> > > > > And they cost quite a lot, especially in the border states where some
> > > > > counties are spending really ridiculous amounts of their local revenue
> > > > > apprehending and jailing illegal-alien criminals. See House
> > > > > Resolution 823
> > > > > and Senate Bill 169 under http://thomas.loc.gov/
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and they also contribute billions to the US economy filling
> > > > necessary low wage jobs for which there is a massive labor shortage.
> > >
> > > They are preventing the development and deployment of automation, so long
> > > as
> > > they work for so cheaply.
> >
> > Horrors. When Rosie the Robot quits the Jetsons and mows my lawn, then
> > we'll talk.
>
> Well, of course you'd make that argument.
>
> http://www.smarthome.com/3255.html
> http://www.robomow.com/
> http://www.ri.cmu.edu/projects/project_422.html
>
> That's just for starters.
>
> But of course, as long as unscrupulous employers PREFER to pay near-slave
> wages to illegal aliens in preference of paying living wages to legal
> workers, there won't be as much incentive to develop these thigns and bring
> them to market. But you know that already.
I also know, insofar as I do my own landscaping, that nothing that
can't walk upright with arms is likely to be doing any large scale
landscaping any time soon, your yuppie toy (which incidentally is
inadequate for my rather small, urban lawn) notwithstanding. Someone's
still got to get the dishes in the diswahser, the paint on the wall,
the tree limbs to the dump and so on and so on and so on.
<S>
> >
> > > They also drive down wages for American workers,
> > > enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs.
> >
> > Blame the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters. Thats cogent.
>
> I didn't do/say that. Unscrupulous employers must be aggressively targeted
> for arrest and if possible for attachment of their businesess.
Which demonstrates arather clear lack of understanding of who employs
illegals. Where exaclty are all the enforcement agents going to come
from to raid every renovation jobsite, restaurant and suburban home and
determine the status of every brown skinned person there? How are you
going to fund that? How do you sieze a business which only provides
services?
BTW, you still blamed the exploitation on the immigrants. Its right in
front of you.
>
> >
> > > Hey, I bet all of the
> > > equipment you give you your illegals has the safety interlocks defeated,
> > > or
> > > never had them! More profit in your pockets, eh? Plus, there's no better
> > > way
> > > to bust up the Unions than illegal aliens, is there?
> > >
> > > And my goodness! while the GAO admits that there's a very slight benefit
> > > at
> > > the Federal level due to those few illegal aliens who actually have
> > > Federal
> > > income tax withheld, State and Local government disproportionately feel
> > > the
> > > impact, especially in infrastructure deployment, infrastructure upgrades
> > > in
> > > ghettoized areas, indigent costs to hospitals and clinics, and nobody gets
> > > hit like the schools. But you knew all of this, didn't you?
> >
> > Yes. It also doesn't address the positive economic benefit that this
> > is simply a byproduct of. Phoenix's population has grown two thousand
> > percent since WWII. Strangely enough, this strains the infrastructure.
>
> Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to immigration, much of
> it illegal immigration.
No, virtually all of that strain is from the fact that a couple of
million people, many of them rust-belt geriatrics, moved to the middle
of the goddamn desert in a very short period of time. Cheap labor is,
in fact, the solution to the problem.
>
> Perhaps you should check yours. I note that you're only citing the gains.
> Trying to stack the deck?
No, I specifically allowed the costs, unlike you who did, in fact, try
to stack the deck.
> The costs are greater than the gains, aren't they?
Not even fucking close. Billions of dollars pumped into the local
economy versus occasional hospitalization costs don't remotely equate.
> Hmm? And would you care to tell us who does the impact assessments and
> perhaps tell us how accurate they've been?
The city of Phoenix, and accurate enough to be internationally
acclaimed as a success.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, why do you mention skin color? I live in DC where it's been
> > > > > > > majority-black since 1960. And they speak English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because you're bigoted againt hispanics, El Vampiro.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nah man, I'm just prejudiced against backstabbers.
> > > >
> > > > And anyone else who falls into your particular well of contempt.
> > >
> > > Nah man. Backstabbers in particular. Specifically. I cannot sufficiently
> > > say
> > > "backstabbers". And sneaks. I particularly hate backstabbing sneaks.
> > > Sneaky
> > > backstabbers are just as hateful, but considerably more worrisome. I mean,
> > > what are you gonna do about sneaky backstabbers? Oh yes! I could have
> > > friends! Sorry, they all got snuck-up upon and backstabbed.
> >
> > Was this supposed to be cogent?
>
> No, I'm being SARCASTIC. Heavily Sarcastic.
>
> You're hardly being "cogent" either. Do you know what "cogent" means?
> "Compelling, convincing, appealing to the intellect"?
Yes, which is why I post cold, hard verifiable facts, not some ratings
week sound bite piece that failed to spell its subjects name correctly.
> You've been reduced to jumping up and down screeching "bigot bigot, the bad
> man is a bigot bigot". I wouldn't exactly call _you_ cogent, either.
A) You are a bigot.
B) Screeching is not point out that you are. Screeching is the
substitution of capitalization for facts.
<S>
>
> > If you just can't fucking deal baybee with the first two words of that
> > phrase, deal with the last two: Violent Felons.
> >
> > I got no damned use for them.
> >
> > I want them gone.
> >
> > I am far from alone in this.
>
> And the millions of hardworking people who don't bother anybody? What
> about them?
> If they are in the country illegally, they need to go through the process to
> adjust their legal status, their presence is a crime.
Which has uttely nothing to do with violent felons, no matter how hard
you try to equate the two.
> If anyone is in the country LEGALLY and not bothering anyone, hardworking or
> no, well who could be bothered by that? You're being very silly.
But apparently hundreds of thousands of Canadians, Asians and Europeans
who are here illegally are a boon. Are you beginnign to see the
bigotry yet?
<S>
Jim Dugan
Canticle
<rad...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:060620010309022865%rad...@spam.earthlink.net...
> Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
> behold 1% of the Canada has moved here in the last ten years.
There are about 1 million expatriated Canadians (legal and illegal) living
in California alone, and that's way more than 1% of our current population.
Might explain why politics in California have become more liberal over the
last decade.
Jeff-boy, Eater of Worlds
"No flesh shall be spared"
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<cant...@escape.ca> wrote:
> <rad...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:060620010309022865%rad...@spam.earthlink.net...
>
> > Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
> > behold 1% of the Canada has moved here in the last ten years.
>
> There are about 1 million expatriated Canadians (legal and illegal) living
> in California alone, and that's way more than 1% of our current population.
>
> Might explain why politics in California have become more liberal over the
> last decade.
>
I recall you saying this before, but I cant find any figures to support
more than 300,000 nationally over the last ten years.
As for California its always been a very odd mix of populism and
progessivism which leads to a lot of fairly conflicting and even
oxymoronic results. The only real liberalization has come from the
dilution of republican hedgemonies in Orange and San Diego counties in
the last ten or fifteen years.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:09:02 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
> moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
> >Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of
> >Origin (1996):
> >
> >4. Canada 120,000
>
> Wow! 120k vs. millions
>
> <sarcasm>
> Good comparison.
> </sarcasm>
>
>
> Little John
>
> If you ain't in bed by 11...
>
> Go home!
>
No, no, no you're doing it all wrong. You were supposed to jump all
over the Arizona stuff and cover Klaatu's ass. That's why he
crossposted it.
You weren't suposed to jump in and completely ignore the fact that he
claimed that over a hundred thousand people weren't "great numbers".
That just makes you look like a blinkered moron, especially since he's
insisting that the official figures are off by more than an order of
magnatude which makes it over a quarter million, or roughly the size of
Tampa. Those are great numbers.
BTW, back before Maryland was Maryland the natives spoke a couple of
dozen different languages.
Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
According to the LA Times, as of 1995, it was.
> and both 18th
> street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
Really? Care to support that in any way?
> Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
> gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
> people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
> non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
>
> And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
> world. So what?
New York doesn't mostly speak Gaelic, and even on St. Padriac's day, most of
the guys out there wearing green and getting 'faced will tell you they're
proud to be Americans. And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
And where do you intend to get the water needed to develop it? Hint: it's a
rare day when the Colorado River makes it all of the way to the sea. And you
might also want to check the water levels of the aquifer serving the Rio
Bravo (Rio Grande del Norte) area. You might also want check the level of
industrial pollution in the water recharging that aquifer at about 1/10th
the rate it's being drained.
One unsupported bald assertion flyin in the face of the facts shot down in
flames. Next:
> food to feed the entire planet if we'd
> just get around to sharing it,
Really? Can you support this statement? Can you also support the sort of
utterly non-sustainable agricultural practices that would have to be
employed to do this, if it can be done at all?
Another unsupported bald assertion shot down in flames. Next:
> and a massive labor shortage.
Can you document this "massive labor shortage"? Especially can you support
it when unemployment is rising, and there are about 6 million workers who
just hit the streets in the last six months or so? I didn't think so.
Another unsupported bald assertion that flies in the face of the facts, shot
down in flames.
The country is in fact damned near FULL.
>
> > > Not to mention when push comes to
> > > shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> > > objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> > > bario.
> >
> > Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
> > lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
>
> Hardly. Anyone you don't like who's brown is an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" just
Really? Putting words in my mouth are we? Arguing to a strawman again?
Yawn.
> waiting to make off with your TV or worse. Heres a news flash there
> are 32 million hispanics in this country, that means even graonting
> your figures there are 28 million perfectly legal hispanic residents of
> our fair nation (clearly the extra alleged seven million are not part
> of that 32 million of the oficial figures). How exactly can you tell
> the apart, Kreskin?
Speaking English fluently might be one clue, but to be honest, the law at
present requires that people present certain identification documents at the
time of employment which establish either citizenship or a legal right of
noncitizen to work.
And since there's a pretty large problem with document fraud, clearly the
present system which requires checking for Child Support payment obligations
must be extended to validating identification and determining right-to-work
and citizenship/immigration status.
By the way, I got you coming and going on this. I do believe I shall enjoy
shredding you on this issue.
>
> > Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
> > aliens:
>
> You mean like this one, which total supports what I've been saying?
What exactly did you say that supports this?
> thanks for the tip.
>
> > Most of the undocumented workers found employment in the new economy, and
> > their availability may even have helped fuel it, according to the study by
> > economists at Northeastern University.
>
> >
> > See also http://www.numag.neu.edu/0001/economy.html
>
> I think you rather missed the point of this one.
And what point would that be, that there are huge numbers of illegal aliens
in the US? That the numbers on which the economists based Federal economic
policy were flawed, leading to improper changes in the Prime Rate, leading
to the present economic slowdown and possible recession?
>
> > >
> > > Or alternately youve rationalized a clear racial bias that way.
> >
> > Or alternatively you have done the same, and can't face clear facts,
> > because, as a racist, you see all opposition to your viewpoints as racist;
> > or, you simply wish to categorize it thus because you believe that an
> > "appeal to political correctness" is your best (fallacious, you being you)
> > argument, since otherwise you don't have an argument, only appeal to
> > emotion... which is all you ever had on this issue in any case.
>
> That would be so much more persuasive if the base of your argument
> wasn't that the evil brown people are going to slit all our throats in
> the night.
Oh, care to provide a full quote _in context_?
I don't think that all inimical or criminal illegal aliens are "brown" as
you racists like to express it.
>
>
> > >
> > > And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
> >
> > Your words, not mine, racist.
>
> How that could possibly be when I was responding to a direct
> quoatation, eludes me.
Please provide this quotation, and make sure you give the whole thing, _in
context_.
>
> >
> > > The fuckin'
> > > beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> > > because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> > > that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> > > years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
> >
> > Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
>
> Thats because Maryland doesn't have a native language. Neither does
> the rest of the US.
Actually, it's got quite a few native languages. Unfortunately, Cortes and
the Conquistadores imported a disease that killed off most of the speakers
of those languages.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The Canadians may not offend, but one might think that as the do come
> > > here in great numbers and do take skilled jobs at lower pay *in your
> > > very field* you might, if you had even a credible pretense of
> > > objectivity, have issues with that.
> >
> > I do have an issue when people of lesser skill are used to replace older
> > workers for far less pay. Age discrimination is an unquestioned reality in
> > the Information Technology field.
> >
> > And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
> > here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with uncrupulous
> > employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
>
> "In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals
Of what nationality? Canadian? Or all of these?
By the way, 1996 is pretty old data, especially since the Invasion from
Mexico didn't really become massive until 1998.
> were refused
> admission, or withdrew their application for admission, or were
> referred to an Immigration Judge at Ports-of-Entry along the northern
> border."
>
> "While it is not well known, according to the INS official
> estimates, Canadian citizens themselves are the fourth largest illegal
> immigrant population in the United States. according to the INS."
In which year? And while they might have been fourth largest, you're not
giving any raw numbers.
>
> TESTIMONY OF DONNA KAY BARNES CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS
> IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
> COMMITTEE
>
> Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of
> Origin (1996):
>
> 4. Canada 120,000
>
> Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
> behold 1% of the Canada lives here
And lo and behold, one seventh of Mexico lives here.
I'd say that Mexican ILLEGAL ALIENS _Vastly_ outnumber Canadian ILLEGAL
ALIENS.
I'd bet this is even more true if you use current numbers.
>
> > >
> > > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
> > > > they were here they generally were a boon.
>
> Care to back that up?
You're the one who just posted the numbers indicating the really quite low,
regarding the relative numbers of Canadian to "latino" ILLEGAL ALIENS.
It is a fairly easily supportable statement, considering that Canadians are
allowed to enter almost universally unencumbered, they are given extremely
long times of visitation, may travel anywhere within the US with no
restrictions during their visits, etc etc. Hell, I think they can even buy
guns here if they want to do so.
>
> > > Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> > > up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
> >
> > What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
>
> The fact that you constantly compare them unfavoarbly to hispanics. I
> can quote if you'd like.
Please do. Make sure it's me that you're quoting. Be sure to give the entire
quote -- including Message-ID -- and make sure to quote the whole thing, in
context.
>
>
> > > > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
> > > > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
> > >
> > > Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> > > the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> > > aggrivating the attendant cost.
> >
> > Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
> > [I] denounce about Mexicans".
>
> They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law,
Mexicans come in the millions.
> take jobs
> away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
> (particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
Give the proportions. You'll see that most of the Canadians smuggling drugs
and illegal-aliens aren't even Canadian citizens, but are rather British
Commonwealth subjects, generally semi-Canadianised expatriates of Hong Kong.
Note also the that vast majority of drugs smuggled out of Canada are
high-quality marijuana, not high-quality heroin and cocaine and methedrine.
Again, it's all a matter of proportion.
>
>
> > > > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
> > >
> > > I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> > > vituperative of arguments.
> >
> > Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
> > statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
>
> When confronted with actual facts,
With which exact "actual facts" have I been confronted? All anyone has seen
from you is unsubstantiated allegations, assorted namecalling, arguments to
strawmen, and egneral crap which you've conveniently snipped. Feel free to
repost them, so everyone can judge these "actual facts".
> you universally retreat to the
> basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
> capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
> hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
Then why are about 1/3rd of major-felony prisoners throughout the US
southwest illegal-aliens, generally of Mexican nationality?
> of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still a
million violent felons.
>
> > > I also wieght proportionately any
> > > assertions of massive criminal syndicalism you make given the past
> > > track record of your assertions in the department cf: that a couple of
> > > San Fernando losers were in fact crack Yugoslavian shock troops.
> >
> > Well, no documentation can be posted to support my position that those guys
> > were YACS.
> >
> > However, as regards massive criminal syndicalism in the Mexican and Central
> > American smuggling gangs:
> >
>
> Gee, tougher countermeasures create more organized resistance. How
> novel.
More organized resistance creates more and tougher countermeasures.
So, do you support Escalation? does Total War appeal to you?
>
> > Further, and quite applicable to lovely Los Angeles California:
> >
> >
> > ...
> > L.A.'s Dirty Export
> > CBS 2 News Special Assignment
>
> <S>
>
> I'd be a bit more impressed if that inflamatory little gem had managed
> to spell Mara Salvatrucha properly
I see that you have nothing but a spelling flame to offer against that very
illuminating little piece. I suppose that you will now argue that the US
deporting a shitload of violent-felon illegal-alien gangsters didn't really
happen, the MS-13 was driven out of LA by "gentrification'. Ooops, you did
that already, didn't you! Cauht in a lie yet again?
>
> > ...
> >
> > Well there Jim, I think that damned well about covers FOREIGN CRIMINAL
> > MILITIA operating on US soil, especially in lovely little Los Angeles, gem
> > of the SouthWest.
>
> No, its a sound bite piece done by a local news team about Salvadoran
> gangs operating in El Salvador.
Who are in El Salvador and causing problems because they were deported by
the US!
Of course, you _do_ know that they tend to not remain in El Salvador.
>
> > And doesn't it just wring your bleeding little PC heart
> > that they're getting sent home by the plane-load.
>
> The entirity of active Mara Salvatrucha bangers in LA wouldn't fill a
> turbo prop
Possibly because they're all migrating to Northern Virginia?
>
> > <snips of snivelling>
> >
> > > > ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint.
> > >
> > > And yet why do I suspect that if I were to make the same dismissal
> > > regarding unemployed, middle-aged guys living with their mothers who's
> > > social interaction consists of internet diatribes I'd be accused of
> > > hostility? Sucks to be marginalized, doesn't it?
> >
> > You should know as well as me.
>
> I don't live with my mommy and I pay my own mortgage.
Ah, so you're the sort of guy who'd leave their poor old mother to fend for
themselves in an increasingly marginalized neighborhood? You're incredibly
shameless, you know that, right?
>
> > Like you said in the part that I snipped for
> > snivelling, you too live in a barrio, right?
>
> I'm sure you'd call it that. We have brown people. I'm also smack dab
> in the middle of your alleged MS13/18th street turf war. Funny that
> theres utterly no evidence of it despite the fact that CRASH who've
> been annointing themselves as our last line of defence from the evil
> hoardes have been disbanded..
That's "hordes". It might interest you to know that there is an ongoing
migration of all Salvadorans in the LA area into the Greater Washington DC
Metro Area, including elements of the MS-13. 18th-Street doesn't appear to
be in evidence since there's hardly any Mexican presence in the DC SMSA,
legal or illegal.
>
> > But apparently since you get
> > along so so well, I guess I have to guess that you've gone out of your way
> > to be assimilated.
>
> You'd be incorrect, although I must admit to having had a burrito for
> dinner. It was tasty.
I personally bemoan the complete lack of sopapillas hereabouts.
>
> > And Assimilationists are always a bit marginalized before
> > they decide to succumb, aren't they?
>
> Funny, a major thrust of you vitriol agains hispanics seems to assume
> that failure to assimilate results in marginalization.
Locally it results in American children of
illegal-immigrant/extended-refugee-status parents arriving at school unable
to speak a word of English.
>
> > >
> > > > Especially if they are getting
> > > > violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
> > >
> > > And evidently the millions who aren't as well.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > > > > > Mexico?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gee, how enlightened of you.
> > > >
> > > > It's no better today.
> > >
> > > And you would know that how, exactly?
> >
> > Well, I can and do watch the news, and check the newspapers. There was a
> > really nice special on PBS -- generally noted for its even-handedness -- or
> > perhaps one of the mainstream news stations.
>
> Well, gee, that narrows it down to something easily verifiable.
Well, Time Magazine, all across the country, this week? ABC news last night?
Washington Post over the last year or two?
>
> >
> > ...
> > Unfortunately life has not changed for everyone in Juárez: hourly pay is
> > still about $1.25. Many workers have to travel hours each way by bus from
> > colonias like Anapra, subdivisions that have sprung up without paved roads,
> > water or sewer service. The homes look like preschool art projects, glued
> > and stapled together from cardboard and plywood and tin. Bootleg power lines
> > drop from overhead wires, loop down to the ground and are held in place by a
> > rock, then snake through the sand to a house. Some wires are live, and arc
> > and spit when it rains. The young women who live here are favored by the
> > maquila bosses for their nimble fingers and obedience. But more than 200
> > women, many of them maquila workers, have been murdered since 1993 - often
> > raped, strangled and mutilated during their long, dark treks home to remote
> > colonias. Most large maquilas have begun providing bus service, but it has
> > failed to stop the killings.
>
> Gee the poorest people in a third world country are poor. I'm stunned.
> Of course the last time I was in Juarez I ate at a Denny's.
And that's the "real Juarez", right? an American chain-restaurant?
>
> > > > Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of
> > > > the
> > > > condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
> > > > not at liberty to discuss it".
> > >
> > > Of course you aren't.
> >
> > Of course I am not, and I can resist your sort of troll for as long as I'd
> > like.
>
> Unfortunately, you do have a tendency to annoint yourself, unbidden.
> Congratulations for single handedly saving you 'hood from ruin.
Unfortunately, I have hardly done that. I do admit to having had some
influence in getting those immigrants who are of good reputation and intent
to look closely at those who aer not of good reputation and intent. That is
a good thing.
Time marches on, as does progress. As for painting the walls, that has been
possible for some 10 years now. It's just not as cheap as illegal-alien
labor.
Nice haughty tone as you utter FUD, by the way. And the technologists are
laughing at you, Luddite.
>
> > What gets me is the Europeans are probably laughing at you, since they have
> > a much graeter ag-worker shortage than the US does, and they are plowing
> > very large sums into agricultural robotics... and they presently have quite
> > a lead on the US. So, the US will move politically and economically more
> > towards favoring Slavery over Technoligization. and Europe may very well go
> > the other way, and wind up as our technological superiors, because they
> > prefer to exclude illegal workers and thus chances to exploit them, in
> > short, they'll be better than us because of what you in your pathetic
> > shortsightedness call "bigotry".
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > They also drive down wages for American workers,
> > > > enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs.
> > >
> > > Blame the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters. Thats cogent.
> >
> > I didn't do/say that. Unscrupulous employers must be aggressively targeted
> > for arrest and if possible for attachment of their businesess.
>
> And how many tens of thousands of people do you think it would take to
> do that? You could employ ever illegal in the country trying to find
> every subcontractor, restaurant and homeowner committing this "crime
> wave". BTW, you still labeled the illegals, not their bosses as the
> root of the problem.
There is no "root" of the problem. Both the unscrupulous employers and the
illegal aliens are essentially co-conspirative, enabling the others' crimes.
For which they've paid into the system all of their lives, and all of which
they directly support with their taxes, or with direct payments in the form
of building houses, etc.
But what about the fifty relatives of the illegal alien with the broken arm?
You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in the
end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started. Get this
through your head if you learn nothing else: Civilization is not a Ponzi
Scheme, not if you want it to last.
>
> > Hmm? And would you care to tell us who does the impact assessments and
> > perhaps tell us how accurate they've been?
>
> The city of Phoenix and very.
>
> > > Was this supposed to be cogent?
> >
> > No, I'm being SARCASTIC. Heavily Sarcastic.
> >
> > You're hardly being "cogent" either. Do you know what "cogent" means?
> > "Compelling, convincing, appealing to the intellect"?
>
> Yes, like the fact that there are 120,00 illegal canadians in the US,
> and not like KCBS went to El Salvador for ratings week and couldn't
> managed to spell their subjects names properly.
Oh, you're not being very cogent! You're in fact being non-sequitur.
<unaddressed rest of thread trimmed>
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B1D584A...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, should you like to inject some actual facts into your world view,
> > 18th street is not lagrgely coposed of illegal immigrants
>
> According to the LA Times, as of 1995, it was.
The L.A. Times repeating verbatim the assertions of CRASH six years ago.
> > and both 18th
> > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
>
> Really? Care to support that in any way?
Well, I live roughly ninety seconds from their alleged stronghold and
my house, unimproved, is now worth 30% more than it was a year ago.
That and the fact that theyre just not there, of course.
> > Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
> > gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
> > people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
> > non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
> >
> > And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
> > world. So what?
>
> New York doesn't mostly speak Gaelic, and even on St. Padriac's day, most of
> the guys out there wearing green and getting 'faced will tell you they're
> proud to be Americans.
As would the majority of most people fo Mexican descent. So what?
> And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
> that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
And they Mexican's don't do that here, either, which you'd know if
you'd actually been here.
> > No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
> > of acres of unimproved land,
>
> And where do you intend to get the water needed to develop it? Hint: it's a
> rare day when the Colorado River makes it all of the way to the sea. And you
> might also want to check the water levels of the aquifer serving the Rio
> Bravo (Rio Grande del Norte) area. You might also want check the level of
> industrial pollution in the water recharging that aquifer at about 1/10th
> the rate it's being drained.
And then there's the other 95% percent of the country.
> One unsupported bald assertion flyin in the face of the facts shot down in
> flames. Next:
Gee, theres a water shortage in the desert that affects a tiny
proportion of our country. Nice rebuttal.
>
> > food to feed the entire planet if we'd
> > just get around to sharing it,
>
> Really? Can you support this statement? Can you also support the sort of
> utterly non-sustainable agricultural practices that would have to be
> employed to do this, if it can be done at all?
>
> Another unsupported bald assertion shot down in flames. Next:
You seem a little unclear on the concept of shot down in flames.
Shooting down an idea involves contradicting it wth fact, not asking
questions you haven't supplied the answers to.
> > and a massive labor shortage.
>
> Can you document this "massive labor shortage"? Especially can you support
> it when unemployment is rising, and there are about 6 million workers who
> just hit the streets in the last six months or so? I didn't think so.
http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/stories/1997/09/08/focus17.html
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen18/news/pr2001-18.htm
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1745/a06.html?8728
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/oct19_00/no_workers.html
http://eastbay.bcentral.com/eastbay/stories/2000/06/26/story2.html
> Another unsupported bald assertion that flies in the face of the facts, shot
> down in flames.
Speaking of support, care to substantiate that six million since the
department of labor has only notices a shrinkage of half a million or
so
> The country is in fact damned near FULL.
Which one again you have failed to support. It seems your concept of
fact is a bit individualized.
> >
> > > > Not to mention when push comes to
> > > > shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> > > > objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> > > > bario.
> > >
> > > Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
> > > lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
> >
> > Hardly. Anyone you don't like who's brown is an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" just
>
> Really? Putting words in my mouth are we? Arguing to a strawman again?
>
> Yawn.
>
> > waiting to make off with your TV or worse. Heres a news flash there
> > are 32 million hispanics in this country, that means even graonting
> > your figures there are 28 million perfectly legal hispanic residents of
> > our fair nation (clearly the extra alleged seven million are not part
> > of that 32 million of the oficial figures). How exactly can you tell
> > the apart, Kreskin?
>
> Speaking English fluently might be one clue, but to be honest, the law at
> present requires that people present certain identification documents at the
> time of employment which establish either citizenship or a legal right of
> noncitizen to work.
I'm not talking about employers, I'm talking about you. Specifically
how is it taht *you* discern between illegal aliens and plain old
ordinary brown people in your oft-repeated parade of horribles. The
faceless legions who threaten your mom, the ones that call you names,
how do you know that *they* are llegal?
> And since there's a pretty large problem with document fraud, clearly the
> present system which requires checking for Child Support payment obligations
> must be extended to validating identification and determining right-to-work
> and citizenship/immigration status.
>
> By the way, I got you coming and going on this. I do believe I shall enjoy
> shredding you on this issue.
No, because you still haven't answered my question.
> > > Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
> > > aliens:
> >
> > You mean like this one, which total supports what I've been saying?
>
> What exactly did you say that supports this?
That there is a massive low-end labor shortage and that illegal aliens
have contributed massively to our economic growth. Do try to keep up.
>
<S>
> > That would be so much more persuasive if the base of your argument
> > wasn't that the evil brown people are going to slit all our throats in
> > the night.
>
> Oh, care to provide a full quote _in context_?
Youre protecting your mom from the brown people aren't you?
> I don't think that all inimical or criminal illegal aliens are "brown" as
> you racists like to express it.
No, theyre just the ones you vent against.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
> > >
> > > Your words, not mine, racist.
> >
> > How that could possibly be when I was responding to a direct
> > quoatation, eludes me.
>
> Please provide this quotation, and make sure you give the whole thing, _in
> context_.
Canadians do not offend. I already quoted it once.
> >
> > >
> > > > The fuckin'
> > > > beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> > > > because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> > > > that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> > > > years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
> > >
> > > Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
> >
> > Thats because Maryland doesn't have a native language. Neither does
> > the rest of the US.
>
> Actually, it's got quite a few native languages. Unfortunately, Cortes and
> the Conquistadores imported a disease that killed off most of the speakers
> of those languages.
Well, then we should revive them and speak them then, shouldn't we.
> > > And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
> > > here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with
> > > uncrupulous
> > > employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
> >
> > "In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals
>
> Of what nationality? Canadian? Or all of these?
>
> By the way, 1996 is pretty old data, especially since the Invasion from
> Mexico didn't really become massive until 1998.
But 1995 isn't "old data" when supporting *your* assertions I notice.
Its the most recent data available. Deal.
> > were refused
> > admission, or withdrew their application for admission, or were
> > referred to an Immigration Judge at Ports-of-Entry along the northern
> > border."
> >
> > "While it is not well known, according to the INS official
> > estimates, Canadian citizens themselves are the fourth largest illegal
> > immigrant population in the United States. according to the INS."
>
> In which year? And while they might have been fourth largest, you're not
> giving any raw numbers.
Scroll down a few lines and read the *whole* of the support before
replying please.
> >
> > TESTIMONY OF DONNA KAY BARNES CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS
> > IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
> > COMMITTEE
> >
> > Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of
> > Origin (1996):
> >
> > 4. Canada 120,000
> >
> > Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
> > behold 1% of the Canada lives here
>
> And lo and behold, one seventh of Mexico lives here.
>
> I'd say that Mexican ILLEGAL ALIENS _Vastly_ outnumber Canadian ILLEGAL
> ALIENS.
>
> I'd bet this is even more true if you use current numbers.
It is true. Too bad thats not the point. The point is that you
asserted that Candians do not illegally come to the US in great
numbers.
That assertion is laughably false.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and
> > > > > while
> > > > > they were here they generally were a boon.
> >
> > Care to back that up?
>
> You're the one who just posted the numbers indicating the really quite low,
> regarding the relative numbers of Canadian to "latino" ILLEGAL ALIENS.
You can do the comparision backpedal all you like, it doesn't change
the fact that that yet another of your bald assertions is
incontrovertably false.
> It is a fairly easily supportable statement, considering that Canadians are
> allowed to enter almost universally unencumbered, they are given extremely
> long times of visitation, may travel anywhere within the US with no
> restrictions during their visits, etc etc. Hell, I think they can even buy
> guns here if they want to do so.
Mexicans have the same rights, in fact the majority of Mexican illegals
are not border jumpers, but simply overstay.
> >
> > > > Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> > > > up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
> > >
> > > What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
> >
> > The fact that you constantly compare them unfavoarbly to hispanics. I
> > can quote if you'd like.
>
> Please do. Make sure it's me that you're quoting. Be sure to give the entire
> quote -- including Message-ID -- and make sure to quote the whole thing, in
> context.
I'm not going to do a dejasearch ever time you repudiate your own
words. Search Asian, Korean and Chinese and have a blast.
> >
> >
> > > > > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and
> > > > > large,
> > > > > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
> > > >
> > > > Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> > > > the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> > > > aggrivating the attendant cost.
> > >
> > > Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
> > > [I] denounce about Mexicans".
> >
> > They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law,
>
> Mexicans come in the millions.
So?
>
> > take jobs
> > away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
> > (particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
>
> Give the proportions. You'll see that most of the Canadians smuggling drugs
> and illegal-aliens aren't even Canadian citizens, but are rather British
> Commonwealth subjects, generally semi-Canadianised expatriates of Hong Kong.
> Note also the that vast majority of drugs smuggled out of Canada are
> high-quality marijuana, not high-quality heroin and cocaine and methedrine.
>
> Again, it's all a matter of proportion.
No, now its a matter of proption since you got caught fibbing. Before
it was "Because they are ILLEGAL..." with all of the attendant hand
flapping. BTW Canada is a mojor source of Asian heroin in the US>
> >
> >
> > > > > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
> > > >
> > > > I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> > > > vituperative of arguments.
> > >
> > > Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
> > > statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
> >
> > When confronted with actual facts,
>
> With which exact "actual facts" have I been confronted? All anyone has seen
> from you is unsubstantiated allegations, assorted namecalling, arguments to
> strawmen, and egneral crap which you've conveniently snipped. Feel free to
> repost them, so everyone can judge these "actual facts".
They are right there, in this post, in front of your very nose.
>
> > you universally retreat to the
> > basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
> > capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
> > hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
>
> Then why are about 1/3rd of major-felony prisoners throughout the US
> southwest illegal-aliens, generally of Mexican nationality?
Was that supposed to be a fact? Try 10% in Arizona, 15% in California
and 3.1% in Texas for less than whopping thirty thousand people *total*
(all alien felons, all nationalities, not just "major", Mexican, or
illegal ones). I don't suppose in this context however, you'd dismiss
that as "not great numbers".
BTW thats what and "actual fact" looks like.
>
> > of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
>
> Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still a
> million violent felons.
And if it were a million violent felons you might have a point.
However, as its only about 12,000 violent felons, your inflamatory
harping is just that.
<S>
> > > L.A.'s Dirty Export
> > > CBS 2 News Special Assignment
> >
> > <S>
> >
> > I'd be a bit more impressed if that inflamatory little gem had managed
> > to spell Mara Salvatrucha properly
>
> I see that you have nothing but a spelling flame to offer against that very
> illuminating little piece.
Well, I find it very illuminating that their crack research didn't
yield it. You see poor spelling on usenet is excuseable. Its a
colloquial medium. Not getting your subject's name right in a
published piece is simply piss poor journalism.
> I suppose that you will now argue that the US
> deporting a shitload of violent-felon illegal-alien gangsters didn't really
> happen,
It didn't, the numbers were about three dozen.
> the MS-13 was driven out of LA by "gentrification'. Ooops, you did
> that already, didn't you! Cauht in a lie yet again?
You seem to have a very peculiar notion of lying.
<S>
> >
> > Gee the poorest people in a third world country are poor. I'm stunned.
> > Of course the last time I was in Juarez I ate at a Denny's.
>
> And that's the "real Juarez", right? an American chain-restaurant?
No more so than your distortion, which was rather the point.
> > I also know, insofar as I do my own landscaping, that nothing that
> > can't walk upright with arms is likely to be doing any large scale
> > landscaping any time soon. Or replumb my kitchen. Or paint my walls.
> >
> > Your yuppie toy notwithstanding.
>
> Time marches on, as does progress. As for painting the walls, that has been
> possible for some 10 years now. It's just not as cheap as illegal-alien
> labor.
On site, cutting in around trim? Do please find provide a cite for
this wonder.
> Nice haughty tone as you utter FUD, by the way. And the technologists are
> laughing at you, Luddite.
The technologists have been predicting humanoid robots for nearly 100
years now. It hasn't happened. What has happened are major advances
in technological human assistance and productivity. Why? because its
far more efficient to make a $200 machine that improves human output
than a $200,000 machine that replaces it. This will continue.
> > > Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to immigration, much of
> > > it illegal immigration.
> >
> > And *none* of it is from the fact that a million and a half people
> > moved to the middle of the desert in the last thirty years, fully half
> > of whom are geriatric rust-belters who consume huge portions of social
> > services and infrastructure.
>
> For which they've paid into the system all of their lives, and all of which
> they directly support with their taxes, or with direct payments in the form
> of building houses, etc.
Was that suposed to be a rebuttal? Just checking, because what
actually happened is you once again posted something that wasn't true,
were refuted, and changed the subject to something completely
irrelavent.
The strain was caused by unprecidented migration of US citizens. It
was alleviated by cheap and plentiful labor, our noble retiress (who
incidentally have not largely been paying to the system all their
lives) notwithstanding.
>
> But what about the fifty relatives of the illegal alien with the broken arm?
Who are also employed.
> You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
> amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in the
> end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started.
How nice. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my point, which was
that unlimited growth *did* and start and continued and needed to be
ameliorated, because strangely enough the three million people who now
comprise metro Phoenix aren't about to pack up and go elsewhere.
<S>
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:47:52 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
> moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
> >> Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still a
> >> million violent felons.
> >
> >And if it were a million violent felons you might have a point.
> >However, as its only about 12,000 violent felons, your inflamatory
> >harping is just that.
>
> Which is it? 30,000 or 12,000? Just how many people that could have
> been prevented entering this country, that committed felony acts, does
> it take?
John, while its pretty clear that lucidity isn't one of your strong
points, I would have thought that even you can distinguish between
violent felons and non-violent felons. Its the kind of comparison guys
like you make. There are slighly leas than 30,000 alien felons *total*
in the three state penal systems. Slightly less than 12,000 are
incarcerated for violent crime.
> It's one thing to have to put up with the home grown criminals, but
> it's a whole 'nuther subject to have to deal with smuggled imports.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Klaatu's claim
was off by 970,000.
Thanks for playing.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:47:52 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
> moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
> >The strain was caused by unprecidented migration of US citizens. It
> >was alleviated by cheap and plentiful labor, our noble retiress (who
> >incidentally have not largely been paying to the system all their
> >lives) notwithstanding.
>
> How do you figure that? There aren't many retiree's left alive who
> haven't been paying in all, or nearly all, their adult lives.
>
I shouldn't have imagined that someone who thinks that Northern
California, Eastern Texas, Idaho, Wyoming and most of Colorado are
deserts would actually know anything about the most pervasive social
program in his own country but here goes:
Social Security started in 1937. There are plenty of people alive who
were working before then. Add to them non-working spouses and the
disabled who never contributed. Then add to that all of the categories
of occupations that were exempted or excluded from Social security for
the first several decades, including famers, farm hands, the self
emplyoed, including professionals and small business owners, state
municipal and federal employees and everyone else covered by the Old
Age and Survivors Insurance scheme which was totally separate and not
funded by payroll deductions. Universal Social Security did not come
about until the 1960s and in limited cases, the 70's.
Wouldn't it be really groovy if you had a clue?
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:47:52 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
> moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
> >> You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
> >> amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in
> >> the
> >> end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started.
> >
> >How nice. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my point, which was
> >that unlimited growth *did* and start and continued and needed to be
> >ameliorated, because strangely enough the three million people who now
> >comprise metro Phoenix aren't about to pack up and go elsewhere.
>
> Still having a problem with logic, I see. If they moved to Phx, they
> moved from somewhere else. Phx may have grown, but it's growth was
> offset by the shrinkage of another locale...likely one with more
> water.
>
Lets see if you can follow this, John. People pack up and move to
Phoenix because the first wave of growth is home building. About the
same time they get jobs because thats the second wave. Then they
discover that a lot of other people had the same idea and there arent
enough roads, utilities, hospitals, schools, libraries,
fire/police/emergency services and so on. At this point they can
either:
A) Abandon their property and flee, because no one is likely to buy
into a ghost town, leaving themselves broke and saddled with
unrecoupable debt.
or
B) Develop infrastructure which requires abundant cheap labor at a
rate equal to, and preferably in excess of, the rate of growth.
Which do you think they chose? (Hint: Phoenix is still there)
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:47:52 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
> moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
> >> And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
> >> that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
> >
> >And they Mexican's don't do that here, either, which you'd know if
> >you'd actually been here.
> >
>
> Bullshit! Which you'd know if you'd actually been ANYWHERE!
>
We're not talking about "anywhere" John, we're talking about Los
Angeles, where I live. That, strangely enough, means I've been there.
For the record, I've also been everywhere else that was once Aztlan,
which is what he's talking about, and while I've seen plenty of flag
stickers just like the irsh have in the Bronx and the Italians have in
Brooklyn, I've never seen any like the one described.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
> >>
> >> Bullshit! Which you'd know if you'd actually been ANYWHERE!
> >>
> >
> >We're not talking about "anywhere" John, we're talking about Los
> >Angeles, where I live. That, strangely enough, means I've been there.
> >For the record, I've also been everywhere else that was once Aztlan,
> >which is what he's talking about, and while I've seen plenty of flag
> >stickers just like the irsh have in the Bronx and the Italians have in
> >Brooklyn, I've never seen any like the one described.
>
> cities commonly referred to as New York. If you're going to chop off
> the rest of the relevant text, at least attempt to remember what the
> subject was.
>
No, John, the relavent text was:
"For instance, based on terms of raw numbers of people of Mexican
descent, Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city."
I replied that New York was, by that standard, the largest Irish city
in the world, and Klaatu responded with a list of things that Irish new
Yorkers don't do that L.A. Mexicans allegedly do.
The subject was, and always has been, Mexicans in L.A.
Further, I'm New York born and raised. Sixth generation native, so
I've kind of "been there" too. No one in New York drives around with
bumper stickers saying Chicanos should reposess the territory from the
Mexican American war, either.
Thanks for trying to keep up, though. We know its hard for you.
Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3B1FBE7C...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B1D584A...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> > >
>
> > > FYI, should you like to inject some actual facts into your world view,
> > > 18th street is not lagrgely coposed of illegal immigrants
> >
> > According to the LA Times, as of 1995, it was.
>
> The L.A. Times repeating verbatim the assertions of CRASH six years ago.
Prove it.
And who the heck are "CRASH"?
>
> > > and both 18th
> > > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
> >
> > Really? Care to support that in any way?
>
> Well, I live roughly ninety seconds from their alleged stronghold and
> my house, unimproved, is now worth 30% more than it was a year ago.
> That and the fact that theyre just not there, of course.
Your personal anecdotes, as you will be quick to remind me I would expect,
have considerably less value than would third-party documentation.
>
> > > Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
> > > gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
> > > people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
> > > non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
> > >
> > > And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
> > > world. So what?
> >
> > New York doesn't mostly speak Gaelic, and even on St. Padriac's day, most of
> > the guys out there wearing green and getting 'faced will tell you they're
> > proud to be Americans.
>
> As would the majority of most people fo Mexican descent. So what?
But do the majority of US citizens of Mexican descent speak Spanish to the
point of excluding English-speakers? New York "irish" don't, so far as I can
tell.
>
> > And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
> > that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
>
> And they Mexican's don't do that here, either, which you'd know if
> you'd actually been here.
Are you talking about Mexicans, or are you talking about Chicanos, if
Chicanos are defined as US citizens of Mexican ancestry?
And how do you explain MECHA or the people at http://www.aztlan.net/ ?
>
>
> > > No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
> > > of acres of unimproved land,
> >
> > And where do you intend to get the water needed to develop it? Hint: it's a
> > rare day when the Colorado River makes it all of the way to the sea. And you
> > might also want to check the water levels of the aquifer serving the Rio
> > Bravo (Rio Grande del Norte) area. You might also want check the level of
> > industrial pollution in the water recharging that aquifer at about 1/10th
> > the rate it's being drained.
>
> And then there's the other 95% percent of the country.
And you are aware, are you not, that the majority of continental-US
territory is not arable land?
Are you aware that most aquifers nationwide are being depleted faster than
they are being recharged? It may be one consequence of global warming, but
even in normally rain-drenched MD-DC-NoVA, for four of the last five years
there has been insufficient rain to recharge the water table.
>
> > One unsupported bald assertion flyin in the face of the facts shot down in
> > flames. Next:
>
> Gee, theres a water shortage in the desert that affects a tiny
> proportion of our country. Nice rebuttal.
The majority of the United States is either arid, or only marginally arable.
Everything south of the Snake River between the West Coast range and the
Rocky Mountains is only arable or even habitable due to the impoundment of
the Colorado River. Shortages of drinkable water loom in almost all
developed cities throughout the country although there are some exceptions.
Much of the water accessible to cities is of decreasing quality. Aquifers
are being depleted nationwide far faster than they can be replenished in
most places, and in many places where significant aquifer recharge occurs,
contamination of the recharge zones is an increasing problem.
>
> >
> > > food to feed the entire planet if we'd
> > > just get around to sharing it,
> >
> > Really? Can you support this statement? Can you also support the sort of
> > utterly non-sustainable agricultural practices that would have to be
> > employed to do this, if it can be done at all?
> >
> > Another unsupported bald assertion shot down in flames. Next:
>
> You seem a little unclear on the concept of shot down in flames.
> Shooting down an idea involves contradicting it wth fact, not asking
> questions you haven't supplied the answers to.
Nice non-sequitur and evasion. Please answer the questions. Actually,
Hardrock nicely addressed some of the agricultural issues. You may take it
up with him; after he brought up the matter of unsupportable ag practices
due to mechanization and automation, I did a little looking into the matter
-- something you should do before you base entire thrusts of argument upon
completely insupportable premisses.
So, answer the questions! How can the US feed the entire planet, and do so
without completely destroying the natural ecology and replacing it with a
limited-duration non-renewable automation-intensive and
petrochemical-reliant Corporate Farming Complex?
If you cannot answer the question, admit it and move on, but of course be
aware that your admission knocks the props out from under an entire line of
argument of yours.
>
> > > and a massive labor shortage.
> >
> > Can you document this "massive labor shortage"? Especially can you support
> > it when unemployment is rising, and there are about 6 million workers who
> > just hit the streets in the last six months or so? I didn't think so.
>
> http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/stories/1997/09/08/focus17.html
My goodness! From slightly _before_ the economic boom!
> http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen18/news/pr2001-18.htm
My goodness! In _Wisconsin_ there's a labor shortage! I wonder if that might
be because it's just a little bit short of cities and industry, and really
truly largely agricultural. How are you going to keep them down on the farm?
> http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1745/a06.html?8728
Bwa HAHAHAH! You offer as evidence supporting your assertion that "the US
NEEDS ILLEGAL ALIENS TO END A MASSIVE LABOR SHORTAGE" _a site noting that
there is a dearth of qualified POLICE OFFICER APPLICANTS_?
Are you COMPLETELY INSANE?
How the hell are ILLEGAL ALIENS going to make up for a shortage of COPS?
fuckme. I haven't laughed so hard at such a complete disconnect from
commonsense since I that Darwin Awards urban legend about the guy putting a
JATO unit on a street rod.
> http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/oct19_00/no_workers.html
This is a side effect of California's ridiculously high rents contrasted
with the low pay offered for dishwashers. Hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS is not how
you fix _that_ problem.
> http://eastbay.bcentral.com/eastbay/stories/2000/06/26/story2.html
Yet another article from a year ago -- before the present slowdown.
>
> > Another unsupported bald assertion that flies in the face of the facts, shot
> > down in flames.
>
> Speaking of support, care to substantiate that six million since the
> department of labor has only notices a shrinkage of half a million or
> so
On which site? From which date? You know, it's funny, just in my general
area there's about a third of your "half a million" out pounding the
streets.
>
> > The country is in fact damned near FULL.
>
> Which one again you have failed to support. It seems your concept of
> fact is a bit individualized.
It's not at all. This is the position of most major environmental groups,
all population reduction groups (of course, duh), almost all citizen
activist groups in almost all East Coast cities and towns, every anti-Sprawl
group, the majority of Urban Planners, etc etc etc etc. Face it, you have an
inadequate understanding of what's possible, much less what's reasonable.
Must you have fifty people on every acre frmo coast to coast before you face
the facts? The country is FULL.
>
> > >
> > > > > Not to mention when push comes to
> > > > > shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> > > > > objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> > > > > bario.
> > > >
> > > > Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
> > > > lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
> > >
> > > Hardly. Anyone you don't like who's brown is an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" just
> >
> > Really? Putting words in my mouth are we? Arguing to a strawman again?
> >
> > Yawn.
> >
> > > waiting to make off with your TV or worse. Heres a news flash there
> > > are 32 million hispanics in this country, that means even graonting
> > > your figures there are 28 million perfectly legal hispanic residents of
> > > our fair nation (clearly the extra alleged seven million are not part
> > > of that 32 million of the oficial figures). How exactly can you tell
> > > the apart, Kreskin?
> >
> > Speaking English fluently might be one clue, but to be honest, the law at
> > present requires that people present certain identification documents at the
> > time of employment which establish either citizenship or a legal right of
> > noncitizen to work.
>
> I'm not talking about employers, I'm talking about you. Specifically
> how is it taht *you* discern between illegal aliens and plain old
> ordinary brown people in your oft-repeated parade of horribles. The
> faceless legions who threaten your mom, the ones that call you names,
> how do you know that *they* are llegal?
Well, either they are ILLEGAL ALIENS who haven't gone through the classes
and tests required to become citizens, or they are racist backstabbers
attacking me for being not only white, but pale as well. If they were
non-racist citizens they'd presumably be entirely happy to act in accordance
with the 14th Amendment Section 1 "equal protection of the laws" and the
presumption of equal civil treatment of all law-abiding persons.
And once again, if they can't speak English, act totally lost as fuck, and
are demonstrably inclined to violence, I believe it's quite reasonable to
presume that they're illegal alien desperados.
I don't suppose I have to point out that non-citizens, brown or of whatever
color, you racist skin-color obsessed _freak_, who are assaultive are
technically CRIMINAL ALIENS and are subject to extremely rapid deportation;
simply the violence makes them illegal aliens.
>
> > And since there's a pretty large problem with document fraud, clearly the
> > present system which requires checking for Child Support payment obligations
> > must be extended to validating identification and determining right-to-work
> > and citizenship/immigration status.
> >
> > By the way, I got you coming and going on this. I do believe I shall enjoy
> > shredding you on this issue.
>
> No, because you still haven't answered my question.
See above.
>
> > > > Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
> > > > aliens:
> > >
> > > You mean like this one, which total supports what I've been saying?
> >
> > What exactly did you say that supports this?
>
> That there is a massive low-end labor shortage and that illegal aliens
> have contributed massively to our economic growth.
You have yet to demonstrate this.
> Do try to keep up.
Do not get ahead of yourself.
>
> >
> <S>
>
> > > That would be so much more persuasive if the base of your argument
> > > wasn't that the evil brown people are going to slit all our throats in
> > > the night.
> >
> > Oh, care to provide a full quote _in context_?
>
> Youre protecting your mom from the brown people aren't you?
Naw, man, I got a lot of white trash in the neighborhood too. Happy,
asshole?
>
> > I don't think that all inimical or criminal illegal aliens are "brown" as
> > you racists like to express it.
>
> No, theyre just the ones you vent against.
Actually, they're not. Half of the time when you have seen my bitching here
on the newsgroup about FuckHeads who think it's cool to stick a pin in me
because "he thinks he's dracula" -- which as _all_ Goths know is the case of
anyone who ever on any occasion wears all-black -- it's been about US
citizens, white fucks who damned sure ought to know better.
In short, eat my shorts, I'm an equal-opportunity Mopey. I'm not prejudiced,
I hate _everyone_ who pisses me off.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
> > > >
> > > > Your words, not mine, racist.
> > >
> > > How that could possibly be when I was responding to a direct
> > > quoatation, eludes me.
> >
> > Please provide this quotation, and make sure you give the whole thing, _in
> > context_.
>
> Canadians do not offend. I already quoted it once.
No. You did not. Quote it again. Make sure that this time it's not a
Paraphrase. A Paraphrase is not a Quote. Among other things, you left out
the extremely important modifier "generally".
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The fuckin'
> > > > > beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> > > > > because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> > > > > that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> > > > > years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
> > > >
> > > > Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
> > >
> > > Thats because Maryland doesn't have a native language. Neither does
> > > the rest of the US.
> >
> > Actually, it's got quite a few native languages. Unfortunately, Cortes and
> > the Conquistadores imported a disease that killed off most of the speakers
> > of those languages.
>
> Well, then we should revive them and speak them then, shouldn't we.
Non-sequitur. Bad argument from fallacy. But that's your trademark, isn't
it?
>
>
> > > > And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
> > > > here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with
> > > > uncrupulous
> > > > employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
> > >
> > > "In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals
> >
> > Of what nationality? Canadian? Or all of these?
> >
> > By the way, 1996 is pretty old data, especially since the Invasion from
> > Mexico didn't really become massive until 1998.
>
> But 1995 isn't "old data" when supporting *your* assertions I notice.
Which 1995 data did I use? C'mon? Tell us all? Can't tell us because I
didn't use it, except perhaps as a single year in a series of years
demonstrating a trend? Or are you talking about an unrelated issue? Why yes,
you are!
My goodness! You're adding apples and oranges! another classic fallacy! But
we expect nothing less, and clearly will never get anything more, from
_you_.
> Its the most recent data available. Deal.
No, it's probably the most recent data that could possibly be warped to
support your position.
Canadians aren't illegally mobbing the borders in the Millions!
Mexicans are. Deal, baybee.
>
> That assertion is laughably false.
Define "great numbers". DO you mean "more than one or two"? Seems like it.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > > > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > they were here they generally were a boon.
> > >
> > > Care to back that up?
> >
> > You're the one who just posted the numbers indicating the really quite low,
> > regarding the relative numbers of Canadian to "latino" ILLEGAL ALIENS.
>
> You can do the comparision backpedal all you like, it doesn't change
> the fact that that yet another of your bald assertions is
> incontrovertably false.
There's no backpedaling here except what you're doing, and it doesnt' really
matter if it were. As you well know, when I am corrected, I will say "I
stand corrected". You'll notice I damned well haven't said that yet. Nor
will I.
So. You know damned well that I was making the assertion that most Canadians
who leave the US under less than perfect immigration-status conditions are
leaving because they slightly overstayed a student visa or an employment
visa. That means that the majority of the time they were here, they were
here by permission. For those that were here by permission and invited to
work, they were contributing legally to the commonwealth.
>
> > It is a fairly easily supportable statement, considering that Canadians are
> > allowed to enter almost universally unencumbered, they are given extremely
> > long times of visitation, may travel anywhere within the US with no
> > restrictions during their visits, etc etc. Hell, I think they can even buy
> > guns here if they want to do so.
>
> Mexicans have the same rights, in fact the majority of Mexican illegals
> are not border jumpers, but simply overstay.
And what percentage of their total stay is overstay? The vast majority, yes?
>
> > >
> > > > > Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> > > > > up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
> > > >
> > > > What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
> > >
> > > The fact that you constantly compare them unfavoarbly to hispanics. I
> > > can quote if you'd like.
> >
> > Please do. Make sure it's me that you're quoting. Be sure to give the entire
> > quote -- including Message-ID -- and make sure to quote the whole thing, in
> > context.
>
> I'm not going to do a dejasearch ever time you repudiate your own
> words. Search Asian, Korean and Chinese and have a blast.
Can't find the proof. LIAR!
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and
> > > > > > large,
> > > > > > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> > > > > the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> > > > > aggrivating the attendant cost.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
> > > > [I] denounce about Mexicans".
> > >
> > > They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law,
> >
> > Mexicans come in the millions.
>
> So?
It's called "Invasion". The government has a Constitutional obligation to
call forth the militia to repel invasion.
>
> >
> > > take jobs
> > > away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
> > > (particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
> >
> > Give the proportions. You'll see that most of the Canadians smuggling drugs
> > and illegal-aliens aren't even Canadian citizens, but are rather British
> > Commonwealth subjects, generally semi-Canadianised expatriates of Hong Kong.
> > Note also the that vast majority of drugs smuggled out of Canada are
> > high-quality marijuana, not high-quality heroin and cocaine and methedrine.
> >
> > Again, it's all a matter of proportion.
>
> No, now its a matter of proption since you got caught fibbing.
Where exactly? And, need I say, "prove it".
> Before
> it was "Because they are ILLEGAL..." with all of the attendant hand
> flapping. BTW Canada is a mojor source of Asian heroin in the US>
The vast majority of heroin in the US originates in or is transhipped
through Mexico.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> > > > > vituperative of arguments.
> > > >
> > > > Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
> > > > statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
> > >
> > > When confronted with actual facts,
> >
> > With which exact "actual facts" have I been confronted? All anyone has seen
> > from you is unsubstantiated allegations, assorted namecalling, arguments to
> > strawmen, and egneral crap which you've conveniently snipped. Feel free to
> > repost them, so everyone can judge these "actual facts".
>
> They are right there, in this post, in front of your very nose.
Really? I don't see them! Or are you merely making another unsupported bald
assertion that the facts are right there in front of my nose?
>
> >
> > > you universally retreat to the
> > > basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
> > > capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
> > > hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
> >
> > Then why are about 1/3rd of major-felony prisoners throughout the US
> > southwest illegal-aliens, generally of Mexican nationality?
>
> Was that supposed to be a fact? Try 10% in Arizona, 15% in California
> and 3.1% in Texas for less than whopping thirty thousand people *total*
> (all alien felons, all nationalities, not just "major", Mexican, or
> illegal ones). I don't suppose in this context however, you'd dismiss
> that as "not great numbers".
>
> BTW thats what and "actual fact" looks like.
Cites, please.
>
> >
> > > of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
> >
> > Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still a
> > million violent felons.
>
> And if it were a million violent felons you might have a point.
> However, as its only about 12,000 violent felons, your inflamatory
> harping is just that.
Cites please.
>
> <S>
>
> > > > L.A.'s Dirty Export
> > > > CBS 2 News Special Assignment
> > >
> > > <S>
> > >
> > > I'd be a bit more impressed if that inflamatory little gem had managed
> > > to spell Mara Salvatrucha properly
> >
> > I see that you have nothing but a spelling flame to offer against that very
> > illuminating little piece.
>
> Well, I find it very illuminating that their crack research didn't
> yield it. You see poor spelling on usenet is excuseable. Its a
> colloquial medium. Not getting your subject's name right in a
> published piece is simply piss poor journalism.
I'm sure Muammar Khaddaffi or is is Quadahfi or is it Muhmahr or however the
hell you transliterate it will be glad to know that because you can't spell
his name right, he's not a supporter of terrorists.
Non-sequitur, beside the point.
Care to address the facts as opposed to sniping at utter trivialities?
Facts: MS-13 is extremely violent, extremely well organized, and thank god
they're getting extremely deported.
>
> > I suppose that you will now argue that the US
> > deporting a shitload of violent-felon illegal-alien gangsters didn't really
> > happen,
>
> It didn't, the numbers were about three dozen.
Cites please.
>
> > the MS-13 was driven out of LA by "gentrification'. Ooops, you did
> > that already, didn't you! Cauht in a lie yet again?
>
> You seem to have a very peculiar notion of lying.
Quotes, please.
>
> <S>
>
> > >
> > > Gee the poorest people in a third world country are poor. I'm stunned.
> > > Of course the last time I was in Juarez I ate at a Denny's.
> >
> > And that's the "real Juarez", right? an American chain-restaurant?
>
> No more so than your distortion, which was rather the point.
Which distortion was that? the ones I got from ABC news and PBS and from
Time Magazine?
>
>
> > > I also know, insofar as I do my own landscaping, that nothing that
> > > can't walk upright with arms is likely to be doing any large scale
> > > landscaping any time soon. Or replumb my kitchen. Or paint my walls.
> > >
> > > Your yuppie toy notwithstanding.
> >
> > Time marches on, as does progress. As for painting the walls, that has been
> > possible for some 10 years now. It's just not as cheap as illegal-alien
> > labor.
>
> On site, cutting in around trim? Do please find provide a cite for
> this wonder.
Hell no, just airless. You said "painting", not "interior decorating".
>
> > Nice haughty tone as you utter FUD, by the way. And the technologists are
> > laughing at you, Luddite.
>
> The technologists have been predicting humanoid robots for nearly 100
> years now. It hasn't happened.
The Honda corporation would tend to disagree.
And besides, who specified "humanoid robots"? I sure didn't.
Strawman.
> What has happened are major advances
> in technological human assistance and productivity. Why? because its
> far more efficient to make a $200 machine that improves human output
> than a $200,000 machine that replaces it. This will continue.
So will the trend of Extreme Scale Integration, decreasing size and cost
with increasing capacities per-cost.
>
>
> > > > Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to immigration, much of
> > > > it illegal immigration.
> > >
> > > And *none* of it is from the fact that a million and a half people
> > > moved to the middle of the desert in the last thirty years, fully half
> > > of whom are geriatric rust-belters who consume huge portions of social
> > > services and infrastructure.
> >
> > For which they've paid into the system all of their lives, and all of which
> > they directly support with their taxes, or with direct payments in the form
> > of building houses, etc.
>
> Was that suposed to be a rebuttal? Just checking, because what
> actually happened is you once again posted something that wasn't true,
> were refuted, and changed the subject to something completely
> irrelavent.
Prove it. Quotes, please.
>
> The strain was caused by unprecidented migration of US citizens. It
> was alleviated by cheap and plentiful labor, our noble retiress (who
> incidentally have not largely been paying to the system all their
> lives) notwithstanding.
>
> >
> > But what about the fifty relatives of the illegal alien with the broken arm?
>
> Who are also employed.
Illegally.
>
> > You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
> > amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in the
> > end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started.
>
> How nice. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my point, which was
> that unlimited growth *did* and start and continued and needed to be
> ameliorated, because strangely enough the three million people who now
> comprise metro Phoenix aren't about to pack up and go elsewhere.
and this excuses a million and more ILLEGAL ALIENS streaming across our
southern border, how, exactly?
>
> <S>
>
> Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> >I shouldn't have imagined that someone who thinks that Northern
> >California, Eastern Texas, Idaho, Wyoming and most of Colorado are
> >deserts would actually know anything about the most pervasive social
> >program in his own country but here goes:
>
> Is it your opinion that the areas you note as not being desert have an
> abundance of water, enough to support unlimited growth, which is more
> what my statement was about than the desert distinction?
Well, what youre talking about (or around as the case may be) isn't
particularly relavent, insofar as the conversation was about relatively
small portions of the Chihuhan and Sonoran deserts and their aquifers.
Rather as though you leaped into a conversation about trees with a
point about houseplants. Notwithstanding, I never claimed anything
regarding unlimited growth, as such a thing is clearly not possible,
just that we have the space, jobs and resources to absorb an awful lot
more people than we currently have.
> Are you
> aware that there are multiple types of deserts, and that each of the
> states I mentioned contain large areas that are deemed a form of
> desert?
Yes, and I am also aware that all of those states contain much larger
portions that are not desert save Utah and that the Wyoming and
Colorado portions are rather debated. I also know that susbtantial
parts of the great basin are considered desert because their
precipitation is largely snowfall and are masive watersheds despite
being desert. Finally, I know that despite your claim, were not
remotely talking about the vast majority of the population west of the
Mississsippi. Of the fifty largest cities west of the Mississippi five
are in the dessert. Los Angeles is not in the desert. Dallas, Austin
Huston and San Antonio are not in the desert. San Diego, San Francisco
Sacramento and San Jose are not in the Desert. Boulder and Denver are
not in the desert. Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Kansas City, St. Louis,
Seattle and Spokane are not in the desert. Are you beginning to see a
patern?
> >Social Security started in 1937. There are plenty of people alive who
> >were working before then. Add to them non-working spouses and the
> >disabled who never contributed. Then add to that all of the categories
> >of occupations that were exempted or excluded from Social security for
> >the first several decades, including famers, farm hands, the self
> >emplyoed, including professionals and small business owners, state
> >municipal and federal employees and everyone else covered by the Old
> >Age and Survivors Insurance scheme which was totally separate and not
> >funded by payroll deductions. Universal Social Security did not come
> >about until the 1960s and in limited cases, the 70's.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be really groovy if you had a clue?
>
> It would be even groovier if you did. My statement was "all, or
> nearly all". It also included, "there aren't many" and "adult lives".
> That leaves plenty of room for exception, without negating the rule.
Nice try. I posted a fact. You didn't want to believe it, beause you
didn't know what you were talking about. I proved it. Be a man and
suck it up.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > The L.A. Times repeating verbatim the assertions of CRASH six years ago.
>
> Prove it.
2001 minus 1995 equals six.
> And who the heck are "CRASH"?
You do realize that you just performed the equivalent of asking who
George III was in a discussion of our founding fathers.
> >
> > > > and both 18th
> > > > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
> > >
> > > Really? Care to support that in any way?
> >
> > Well, I live roughly ninety seconds from their alleged stronghold and
> > my house, unimproved, is now worth 30% more than it was a year ago.
> > That and the fact that theyre just not there, of course.
>
> Your personal anecdotes, as you will be quick to remind me I would expect,
> have considerably less value than would third-party documentation.
Feel free to verify it. Property values in Pico Union, West Adams and
South Koreatown are rising faster than in Beverly Hills.
Pico Union, West Adams and South Koreatown are where MS-13 and 18th
street are from and where they have all but disappeared.
> >
> > > > Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
> > > > gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
> > > > people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
> > > > non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
> > > >
> > > > And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
> > > > world. So what?
> > >
> > > New York doesn't mostly speak Gaelic, and even on St. Padriac's day, most
> > > of
> > > the guys out there wearing green and getting 'faced will tell you they're
> > > proud to be Americans.
> >
> > As would the majority of most people fo Mexican descent. So what?
>
> But do the majority of US citizens of Mexican descent speak Spanish to the
> point of excluding English-speakers? New York "irish" don't, so far as I can
> tell.
Neither do the vast majority of Mexican-Americans as far as you can
prove.
> >
> > > And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
> > > that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
> >
> > And they Mexican's don't do that here, either, which you'd know if
> > you'd actually been here.
>
> Are you talking about Mexicans, or are you talking about Chicanos, if
> Chicanos are defined as US citizens of Mexican ancestry?
How is it remotely possible to ascertain the pedigree of the people who
are *not* doing something? I'd imagine that the people who are not
displaying bumper stickers fall into both categories. I, myself, am
not displaying any mexican nationalist bumper stickers.
> And how do you explain MECHA or the people at http://www.aztlan.net/ ?
The same way you explain any other fringe wacko group. Just because
someone puts up a website doesn't mean others subscribe to their views.
You, of all people ought to recognize that.
> >
> >
> > > > No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
> > > > of acres of unimproved land,
> > >
> > > And where do you intend to get the water needed to develop it? Hint: it's
> > > a
> > > rare day when the Colorado River makes it all of the way to the sea. And
> > > you
> > > might also want to check the water levels of the aquifer serving the Rio
> > > Bravo (Rio Grande del Norte) area. You might also want check the level of
> > > industrial pollution in the water recharging that aquifer at about 1/10th
> > > the rate it's being drained.
> >
> > And then there's the other 95% percent of the country.
>
> And you are aware, are you not, that the majority of continental-US
> territory is not arable land?
Are you aware that that assertion demands support, and not from NPG or
dieoff?
>
> Are you aware that most aquifers nationwide are being depleted faster than
> they are being recharged? It may be one consequence of global warming, but
> even in normally rain-drenched MD-DC-NoVA, for four of the last five years
> there has been insufficient rain to recharge the water table.
Welcome to the wonderful world of cyclical weather patterns. Are you
aware that in that same time the west coast and the central US have had
record rainfall for the same reasons?
> >
> > > One unsupported bald assertion flyin in the face of the facts shot down in
> > > flames. Next:
> >
> > Gee, theres a water shortage in the desert that affects a tiny
> > proportion of our country. Nice rebuttal.
>
> The majority of the United States is either arid, or only marginally arable.
> Everything south of the Snake River between the West Coast range and the
> Rocky Mountains is only arable or even habitable due to the impoundment of
> the Colorado River. Shortages of drinkable water loom in almost all
> developed cities throughout the country although there are some exceptions.
> Much of the water accessible to cities is of decreasing quality. Aquifers
> are being depleted nationwide far faster than they can be replenished in
> most places, and in many places where significant aquifer recharge occurs,
> contamination of the recharge zones is an increasing problem.
Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
Mulholland.
> >
> > >
> > > > food to feed the entire planet if we'd
> > > > just get around to sharing it,
> > >
> > > Really? Can you support this statement? Can you also support the sort of
> > > utterly non-sustainable agricultural practices that would have to be
> > > employed to do this, if it can be done at all?
> > >
> > > Another unsupported bald assertion shot down in flames. Next:
> >
> > You seem a little unclear on the concept of shot down in flames.
> > Shooting down an idea involves contradicting it wth fact, not asking
> > questions you haven't supplied the answers to.
>
> Nice non-sequitur and evasion. Please answer the questions. Actually,
> Hardrock nicely addressed some of the agricultural issues. You may take it
> up with him; after he brought up the matter of unsupportable ag practices
> due to mechanization and automation, I did a little looking into the matter
> -- something you should do before you base entire thrusts of argument upon
> completely insupportable premisses.
>
> So, answer the questions! How can the US feed the entire planet, and do so
> without completely destroying the natural ecology and replacing it with a
> limited-duration non-renewable automation-intensive and
> petrochemical-reliant Corporate Farming Complex?
By arguing the alternative viewpoint and now cowing to ideologically
based soft science.
> If you cannot answer the question, admit it and move on, but of course be
> aware that your admission knocks the props out from under an entire line of
> argument of yours.
No, because even scaling back the rhetoric, we don't *have* to feed the
world. We sell the billions of tons of food we export domestically.
Natch. BTW, I note you still havent supported *your* assertion that
we're "FULL"
> >
> > > > and a massive labor shortage.
> > >
> > > Can you document this "massive labor shortage"? Especially can you support
> > > it when unemployment is rising, and there are about 6 million workers who
> > > just hit the streets in the last six months or so? I didn't think so.
> >
> > http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/stories/1997/09/08/focus17.html
>
> My goodness! From slightly _before_ the economic boom!
You mean the one that started in 1994?
> > http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen18/news/pr2001-18.htm
>
> My goodness! In _Wisconsin_ there's a labor shortage! I wonder if that might
> be because it's just a little bit short of cities and industry, and really
> truly largely agricultural. How are you going to keep them down on the farm?
Gee, theres a labor sortage in a rural state, and a whole lot of
illegals with farming experience and skills. What ever shall we do?
> > http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1745/a06.html?8728
>
> Bwa HAHAHAH! You offer as evidence supporting your assertion that "the US
> NEEDS ILLEGAL ALIENS TO END A MASSIVE LABOR SHORTAGE" _a site noting that
> there is a dearth of qualified POLICE OFFICER APPLICANTS_?
>
> Are you COMPLETELY INSANE?
>
> How the hell are ILLEGAL ALIENS going to make up for a shortage of COPS?
> fuckme. I haven't laughed so hard at such a complete disconnect from
> commonsense since I that Darwin Awards urban legend about the guy putting a
> JATO unit on a street rod.
Thats largely because your slightly unstable and not all that bright.
The concept of upward mobility of labor is something you might look
into.
> > http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/oct19_00/no_workers.html
>
> This is a side effect of California's ridiculously high rents contrasted
> with the low pay offered for dishwashers. Hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS is not how
> you fix _that_ problem.
Oh, and how *do* you solve that problem?
> > http://eastbay.bcentral.com/eastbay/stories/2000/06/26/story2.html
>
> Yet another article from a year ago -- before the present slowdown.
You mean the one that started last spring?
> >
> > > Another unsupported bald assertion that flies in the face of the facts,
> > > shot
> > > down in flames.
> >
> > Speaking of support, care to substantiate that six million since the
> > department of labor has only notices a shrinkage of half a million or
> > so
>
> On which site? From which date? You know, it's funny, just in my general
> area there's about a third of your "half a million" out pounding the
> streets.
I'll say it again slowly support... your... claim. The department
notes an overall shrinkage of half a million jobs and despite your
doomsaying we still are among the lowest non-inflationary unemployemnt
rates in US history. Economists were stating as fact as recently as
five years ago that it was impossible to have unemployment this low
without double digit inflation. So, please do susbtantiate your claim.
> >
> > > The country is in fact damned near FULL.
> >
> > Which one again you have failed to support. It seems your concept of
> > fact is a bit individualized.
>
> It's not at all. This is the position of most major environmental groups,
> all population reduction groups (of course, duh), almost all citizen
> activist groups in almost all East Coast cities and towns, every anti-Sprawl
> group, the majority of Urban Planners, etc etc etc etc. Face it, you have an
> inadequate understanding of what's possible, much less what's reasonable.
Gee, I've worked in urban planning and renewal since I learned to type.
Its what my wife does for a living, its what may father does for a
living. Do you really think that you can equate zero population growth
with zoning and I wouldn't notice?
We've had this conversation before, remember?
> Must you have fifty people on every acre frmo coast to coast before you face
> the facts? The country is FULL.
No, but in order to achieve that density we'd have to have over a
billion people, so I'm not exactly worried.
> >
> > I'm not talking about employers, I'm talking about you. Specifically
> > how is it taht *you* discern between illegal aliens and plain old
> > ordinary brown people in your oft-repeated parade of horribles. The
> > faceless legions who threaten your mom, the ones that call you names,
> > how do you know that *they* are llegal?
>
> Well, either they are ILLEGAL ALIENS who haven't gone through the classes
> and tests required to become citizens, or they are racist backstabbers
> attacking me for being not only white, but pale as well.
How.. do... you... know?
> If they were
> non-racist citizens they'd presumably be entirely happy to act in accordance
> with the 14th Amendment Section 1 "equal protection of the laws" and the
> presumption of equal civil treatment of all law-abiding persons.
You do grasp the fact that the fourteenth amendment does not have the
slightest application to individuals, don't you?
> And once again, if they can't speak English, act totally lost as fuck, and
> are demonstrably inclined to violence, I believe it's quite reasonable to
> presume that they're illegal alien desperados.
>
> I don't suppose I have to point out that non-citizens, brown or of whatever
> color, you racist skin-color obsessed _freak_, who are assaultive are
> technically CRIMINAL ALIENS and are subject to extremely rapid deportation;
> simply the violence makes them illegal aliens.
Which still doesn't address the issue of how you know that they are
illegal.
> > No, because you still haven't answered my question.
>
> See above.
Where you didn't answer the question.
<S>
> >
> > Canadians do not offend. I already quoted it once.
>
> No. You did not. Quote it again. Make sure that this time it's not a
> Paraphrase. A Paraphrase is not a Quote. Among other things, you left out
> the extremely important modifier "generally".
Fine Canadians do not generally offend you. This is still not a
rational basis for policy.
> > >
> > > Actually, it's got quite a few native languages. Unfortunately, Cortes and
> > > the Conquistadores imported a disease that killed off most of the speakers
> > > of those languages.
> >
> > Well, then we should revive them and speak them then, shouldn't we.
>
> Non-sequitur. Bad argument from fallacy. But that's your trademark, isn't
> it?
Do they have sarcasm on your planet?
> >
> >
> > > > > And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do
> > > > > come
> > > > > here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with
> > > > > uncrupulous
> > > > > employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about
> > > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > "In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals
> > >
> > > Of what nationality? Canadian? Or all of these?
> > >
> > > By the way, 1996 is pretty old data, especially since the Invasion from
> > > Mexico didn't really become massive until 1998.
> >
> > But 1995 isn't "old data" when supporting *your* assertions I notice.
>
> Which 1995 data did I use? C'mon? Tell us all? Can't tell us because I
> didn't use it, except perhaps as a single year in a series of years
> demonstrating a trend? Or are you talking about an unrelated issue? Why yes,
> you are!
Five year old information is five year old information.
> My goodness! You're adding apples and oranges! another classic fallacy! But
> we expect nothing less, and clearly will never get anything more, from
> _you_.
Apples and oranges is not a classic fallacy and old data is old data.
> > Its the most recent data available. Deal.
>
> No, it's probably the most recent data that could possibly be warped to
> support your position.
Then please do find some that supports your position, but you needent
bother looking in the INS or the DOJ websites, because '96 is, in fact,
the most recent data they have correlated.
> > It is true. Too bad thats not the point. The point is that you
> > asserted that Candians do not illegally come to the US in great
> > numbers.
>
> Canadians aren't illegally mobbing the borders in the Millions!
>
> Mexicans are. Deal, baybee.
Canadians are mobbing the borders in numbers sufficient to pouplate a
good sized city. Those are great numbers.
> >
> > That assertion is laughably false.
>
> Define "great numbers". DO you mean "more than one or two"? Seems like it.
I mean more than 100,000. If your scale regardng the number of
undercounted illegals is true, I mean more than a quarter million.
Back away as fast as you like, but thats a lot of fucking people and
more than significant enough to alter the scope of unemployment that
youre so concerned about.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > > > > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > they were here they generally were a boon.
> > > >
> > > > Care to back that up?
> > >
> > > You're the one who just posted the numbers indicating the really quite
> > > low,
> > > regarding the relative numbers of Canadian to "latino" ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> >
> > You can do the comparision backpedal all you like, it doesn't change
> > the fact that that yet another of your bald assertions is
> > incontrovertably false.
>
> There's no backpedaling here except what you're doing, and it doesnt' really
> matter if it were. As you well know, when I am corrected, I will say "I
> stand corrected". You'll notice I damned well haven't said that yet. Nor
> will I.
You said Candians don't come here in great numbers and when the do,
they do so LEGALLY. One hundred and twenty thousand illegal Canadian
immigrants blows that statement out of the water whether youre willing
to admit it or not.
> So. You know damned well that I was making the assertion that most Canadians
> who leave the US under less than perfect immigration-status conditions are
> leaving because they slightly overstayed a student visa or an employment
> visa. That means that the majority of the time they were here, they were
> here by permission.
No we don't know that because you can't prove it, you can just offer up
another mealy-mouthed sidestep.
> For those that were here by permission and invited to
> work, they were contributing legally to the commonwealth.
>
> >
> > > It is a fairly easily supportable statement, considering that Canadians
> > > are
> > > allowed to enter almost universally unencumbered, they are given extremely
> > > long times of visitation, may travel anywhere within the US with no
> > > restrictions during their visits, etc etc. Hell, I think they can even buy
> > > guns here if they want to do so.
> >
> > Mexicans have the same rights, in fact the majority of Mexican illegals
> > are not border jumpers, but simply overstay.
>
> And what percentage of their total stay is overstay? The vast majority, yes?
I don't know. Perhaps instead of makinging and end run around having
to make a statement that requires support, you should look it up
yourself.
> > > Please do. Make sure it's me that you're quoting. Be sure to give the
> > > entire
> > > quote -- including Message-ID -- and make sure to quote the whole thing,
> > > in
> > > context.
> >
> > I'm not going to do a dejasearch ever time you repudiate your own
> > words. Search Asian, Korean and Chinese and have a blast.
>
> Can't find the proof. LIAR!
Cant be bothered to sift through the posts to debate someone who is
very quick to demand proof but utterly intransigent when it come to
providing it. Youve have compared the thrifty, hardworking, educated
Asian to the shiftless, illiterate Mexican far more than once. You
know it. I know it.
> > > > They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law,
> > >
> > > Mexicans come in the millions.
> >
> > So?
>
> It's called "Invasion". The government has a Constitutional obligation to
> call forth the militia to repel invasion.
I know i've said this before, but the Constitution doesn't say what you
think it says, nor does the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. While we're
on the subject, no one is spiking your drink, either, but thats another
matter.
> >
> > >
> > > > take jobs
> > > > away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
> > > > (particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
> > >
> > > Give the proportions. You'll see that most of the Canadians smuggling
> > > drugs
> > > and illegal-aliens aren't even Canadian citizens, but are rather British
> > > Commonwealth subjects, generally semi-Canadianised expatriates of Hong
> > > Kong.
> > > Note also the that vast majority of drugs smuggled out of Canada are
> > > high-quality marijuana, not high-quality heroin and cocaine and
> > > methedrine.
> > >
> > > Again, it's all a matter of proportion.
> >
> > No, now its a matter of proption since you got caught fibbing.
>
> Where exactly? And, need I say, "prove it".
Canadians. Great numbers.
> > Before
> > it was "Because they are ILLEGAL..." with all of the attendant hand
> > flapping. BTW Canada is a mojor source of Asian heroin in the US>
>
> The vast majority of heroin in the US originates in or is transhipped
> through Mexico.
No, the vast majority of herion is produced in South America. It is
shipped to the southwest via Mexico and the east via the Dominican
Republic. South East Asian herion still occupies 20% of the market
nationally and more in New York and the Pacific Northwest and its major
point of entry is Vancouver, which is what I said.
> > > > When confronted with actual facts,
> > >
> > > With which exact "actual facts" have I been confronted? All anyone has
> > > seen
> > > from you is unsubstantiated allegations, assorted namecalling, arguments
> > > to
> > > strawmen, and egneral crap which you've conveniently snipped. Feel free to
> > > repost them, so everyone can judge these "actual facts".
> >
> > They are right there, in this post, in front of your very nose.
>
> Really? I don't see them! Or are you merely making another unsupported bald
> assertion that the facts are right there in front of my nose?
Deny, deny, deny. I supose if it got Bush elected, you might as well
give it a shot, just be careful not end up like Nixon. Regardless of
your mantra, 120 thousand people is a lot of people, 30% housing
inflation is gentrification, Asian heroin comes thorough Vancouver,
there have only been an aggrigate loss of only half a milion jobs since
January, the majority of the nation has experience record rainfalls in
the last five years, there is a massive demand for low skilled workers,
there are less than 30,000 illegals in southwestern prisons, the
majority of whom are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses and so
on and so on and so on.
> >
> > >
> > > > you universally retreat to the
> > > > basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
> > > > capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
> > > > hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
> > >
> > > Then why are about 1/3rd of major-felony prisoners throughout the US
> > > southwest illegal-aliens, generally of Mexican nationality?
> >
> > Was that supposed to be a fact? Try 10% in Arizona, 15% in California
> > and 3.1% in Texas for less than whopping thirty thousand people *total*
> > (all alien felons, all nationalities, not just "major", Mexican, or
> > illegal ones). I don't suppose in this context however, you'd dismiss
> > that as "not great numbers".
> >
> > BTW thats what and "actual fact" looks like.
>
> Cites, please.
I've got a better idea. You provide the cites for a change. Go on,
give it a shot. Show me the million violent alien felons. Show me the
33% alien prison population. Then we can compare.
I know its easier to demand proof of a rebuttal than to admit you made
your assertion up, but the paractice will do you good.
> >
> > >
> > > > of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
> > >
> > > Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still
> > > a
> > > million violent felons.
> >
> > And if it were a million violent felons you might have a point.
> > However, as its only about 12,000 violent felons, your inflamatory
> > harping is just that.
>
> Cites please.
No, please, after you.
> > Well, I find it very illuminating that their crack research didn't
> > yield it. You see poor spelling on usenet is excuseable. Its a
> > colloquial medium. Not getting your subject's name right in a
> > published piece is simply piss poor journalism.
>
> I'm sure Muammar Khaddaffi or is is Quadahfi or is it Muhmahr or however the
> hell you transliterate it will be glad to know that because you can't spell
> his name right, he's not a supporter of terrorists.
This may come as a shock, but Spanish is written in the Roman alphabet.
> Non-sequitur, beside the point.
Impeaches the integrity of the source. Standard debate proceedure.
> Care to address the facts as opposed to sniping at utter trivialities?
>
> Facts: MS-13 is extremely violent, extremely well organized, and thank god
> they're getting extremely deported.
None of which was at all present in the article. How many of MS-13 are
there in El Salvador? How many people have they killed. How many
people ordinarily get killed. How many MS-13 members were deported?
How many never left El Salvador. How many are death squad or Contra
alumni?
Gee, not in the article, how strange.
<S>
>
> Which distortion was that? the ones I got from ABC news and PBS and from
> Time Magazine?
No, the distortion you presented. If I write an article on the guys
who live on fifth street downtown or the gutterpunks who live under the
bridges I'm doing an investigative journalism piece on a topic. I am
not, however giving a picture of LA and attempting to depict the
articles as such doesn't make the situation the status quo.
> >
> > On site, cutting in around trim? Do please find provide a cite for
> > this wonder.
>
> Hell no, just airless. You said "painting", not "interior decorating".
I said "paint my house". When you can find a robot that does that,
you'll have a point.
> > > For which they've paid into the system all of their lives, and all of which
> > > they directly support with their taxes, or with direct payments in the form
> > > of building houses, etc.
> >
> > Was that suposed to be a rebuttal? Just checking, because what
> > actually happened is you once again posted something that wasn't true,
> > were refuted, and changed the subject to something completely
> > irrelavent.
>
> Prove it. Quotes, please.
Do you reall think you can escape your own idiocy by deleting your
statement and asking for a quote?
You said "Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to
immigration, much of it illegal immigration."
This is not remotely true and going off on a tanget about our hard
working seniors doesn't disguise that fact.
The strain on the infrastructure in Phoenix is based entirely on the
fact that it wen't from being a one horse town ot one of the largest
cities in the world in a generation.
> >
> > The strain was caused by unprecidented migration of US citizens. It
> > was alleviated by cheap and plentiful labor, our noble retiress (who
> > incidentally have not largely been paying to the system all their
> > lives) notwithstanding.
> >
> > >
> > > But what about the fifty relatives of the illegal alien with the broken arm?
> >
> > Who are also employed.
>
> Illegally.
Or not. Many illegals have citizen or non-resident aliens. more to
the point, you asked what about the fifty relatives? Illegal or not
they are still working and filling a major labor vacuum. Contributing
to the "commonweath" as you put it.
> >
> > > You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
> > > amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in the
> > > end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started.
> >
> > How nice. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my point, which was
> > that unlimited growth *did* and start and continued and needed to be
> > ameliorated, because strangely enough the three million people who now
> > comprise metro Phoenix aren't about to pack up and go elsewhere.
>
> and this excuses a million and more ILLEGAL ALIENS streaming across our
> southern border, how, exactly?
Because we *needed* them.
Jim Dugan
`Una
jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:47:52 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
>moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
>>Gee, theres a water shortage in the desert that affects a tiny
>>proportion of our country. Nice rebuttal.
>
>A tiny proportion? California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas,
>Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado...need I continue? We're only talking
>about a vast majority of the population west of the Mississippi.
You forgot 2/3 of Montana.
Of course, it isn't very well populated because
the weather is too harsh and there's very little
water, so I guess it still only affects a small
part of the population.
However, given that it's often used as an example [1]
of one of the wide open spaces still available for
a growing population to utilize, I think it's relevant
to point out that one of the reasons such open spaces
are not cultivated is due to lack of water. Despite all
of our technological advances people are still not
equipped to live in the desert. Granted it isn't the
Sahara where there are only sand dunes for miles around,
but it's lack of abundant water and infrequent rain fall
qualify it as a desert. Summer temperatures are blistering
and you haven't experienced a bitter winter until you've
been on the flat lands in tempertures below zero degrees
faranheit and wind cold enough to kill if you are stupid
enough to leave your house.
I've lived there. People can argue food and water all
they like, but there are still places on this earth where
people cannot thrive because people cannot control the weather
and no matter how well adapted you are to it there's still
a high risk of death from exposure to heat or cold.
The damage being done is obvious to anyone who has eyes and
can see the world around us. Those who say there is no damage
have their blinders on.
I don't need statistics to tell me
that landfills are so overly full that garbage is being dumped
in places that once held trees, that litter covers every major
roadway, even the near abondoned side streets of small towns
in Montana. I've been out in the middle of nowhere and found
garbage. I don't need numbers to tell me that the clean rivers
I loved as a child now flow with visible toxins and that the fish
grow fewer and fewer every year because I never see them anymore
where I used to see them teeming every day. I don't need a
scientist to tell me that the air I'm breathing will kill me
slowly because I can see the pollutants and taste their poison
in my throat. Even in small towns I cannot escape the smog,
especially in the summer when the tourists arrive.
Of course, none of this matters because it is anectdotal
evidence with no scientific backing other than my own
observations. So you sit in your comfortable room and
justify your conviction that the world is no worse off than
it ever was. I will sit in my comfortable room and mourn
my part in helping a world I love die while I figure out
ways to minimize the damage I help to spread.
`Una - the love platypus
sick of wasted debates.
[1] Not necessarily in this group.
Hardrock Llewynyth
>You forgot 2/3 of Montana.
>Of course, it isn't very well populated because
>the weather is too harsh and there's very little
>water, so I guess it still only affects a small
>part of the population.
Over half of my state is arid desert land useless for cultivation.
Much of the rest is mountainous.
Based on what i've read, though, i do still think it's possible for
North America (not just the US) to feed a huge percentage of the
world. There is a lot of arable land in the US that is fallow for
political reasons, and not for lack of water or labour. And because
of this, many farmers use less productive land; with more problems.
Our government pays many farmers not to grow anything on their land,
in order to keep food prices artificially high and profitable.
Even using sustainable (even organic) farming techniques, we could
produce a hell of a lot more food than we do without worrying about
water tables and such; once we get the polititians out of the farm
business.
(Getting polititans out of business altogether can only be a good
thing).
That certainly doesn't mean that i consider there to be anything even
remotely resembling unlimited growth potential in this part of the
world. The land most suited to growing things is often the land most
suited for human to live on; so there is a bit of a balance there that
has to be worked out.
Hardrock
Hardrock Llewynyth
wrote:
>Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
>uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
>Mulholland.
The population was a tiny handful of hunter-gatherers, not large
cities full of people?
Hardrock, amazed that he has to point that out.
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
A) Thats still a far cry from uninhabiatable.
B) Its not really true.
While you'd be hard pressed to form a major community in, say, Las
Vegas, there are large portions of the southwest with more than enough
water to support large stable agricultural communities and they have
done so for more than a thousand years. While hardly the scope of a
major modern city, the Anasazi pueblos were still large concentrated
communities.
As for the L.A. basin specifically, it actually has a huge natural
aquifer, capable of supporting up to half a million people even without
the Owens river (which was diverted long before the Colorado). In
addition to rainfall, (which is actually greater than in much of the
west) owing to peculiairities of climate there is considerable snowpack
runoff eight months out of the year. The city itself, without
considering surrounding communties in the San Gabriel valley, did in
fact support a population of over 300,000, including major agricultural
use, without any water from the Sierras. While the Owens was impounded
to aleviate seasonal and cyclical shortages, a major reason for its
impoundment was not to provide water at all, but hydroelectric power.
I just have only so much energy at any one time to point out just how
wrong Klaatu is so I chose to be pithy.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<un...@usa.net> wrote:
> In article <v481itk19gq8ma5kg...@4ax.com>,
> jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:47:52 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>, in a
> >moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
> >
> >>Gee, theres a water shortage in the desert that affects a tiny
> >>proportion of our country. Nice rebuttal.
> >
> >A tiny proportion? California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas,
> >Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado...need I continue? We're only talking
> >about a vast majority of the population west of the Mississippi.
>
> You forgot 2/3 of Montana.
> Of course, it isn't very well populated because
> the weather is too harsh and there's very little
> water, so I guess it still only affects a small
> part of the population.
Its also not considered a desert by any source I can find.
<S>
>
> Of course, none of this matters because it is anectdotal
> evidence with no scientific backing other than my own
> observations. So you sit in your comfortable room and
> justify your conviction that the world is no worse off than
> it ever was. I will sit in my comfortable room and mourn
> my part in helping a world I love die while I figure out
> ways to minimize the damage I help to spread.
Thats all well and good, but you cant simultanously say that very few
people live in Montana and blame the problems on overpopulation. You
yourself stated pretty baldly that the reason people don't live there
is because they don't want to, not because they can't.
Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> > >>
> > >> Bullshit! Which you'd know if you'd actually been ANYWHERE!
> > >>
> > >
> > >We're not talking about "anywhere" John, we're talking about Los
> > >Angeles, where I live. That, strangely enough, means I've been there.
> > >For the record, I've also been everywhere else that was once Aztlan,
> > >which is what he's talking about, and while I've seen plenty of flag
> > >stickers just like the irsh have in the Bronx and the Italians have in
> > >Brooklyn, I've never seen any like the one described.
> >
> > Sorry, bubba. The above exchange is specific to the collection of
> > cities commonly referred to as New York. If you're going to chop off
> > the rest of the relevant text, at least attempt to remember what the
> > subject was.
> >
>
> No, John, the relavent text was:
>
> "For instance, based on terms of raw numbers of people of Mexican
> descent, Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city."
>
> I replied that New York was, by that standard, the largest Irish city
> in the world, and Klaatu responded with a list of things that Irish new
> Yorkers don't do that L.A. Mexicans allegedly do.
>
> The subject was, and always has been, Mexicans in L.A.
Not really. The subject is all ILLEGAL ALIENS. You're the one bringing up
the tired and true attempt to distract of the non-latino illegal aliens, who
are -- compared to those swarming the border -- almost vanishingly rare.
>
> Further, I'm New York born and raised. Sixth generation native, so
> I've kind of "been there" too. No one in New York drives around with
> bumper stickers saying Chicanos should reposess the territory from the
> Mexican American war, either.
>
> Thanks for trying to keep up, though. We know its hard for you.
See the signs declaring "fuck you, this _is_ still Mexico" at
http://www.halturnershow.com/mexico.htm
And yes, I'm aware that this is a Mexican-bashing site.
>
> Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
Why would you for a moment be amazed that this risable extremist will grasp
at any straw?
And by the way, who's been doing all of the cancelling here?
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <upi5it818vs18h5ru...@4ax.com>, Hardrock
> Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:40:36 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
> > >uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
> > >Mulholland.
> >
> > The population was a tiny handful of hunter-gatherers, not large
> > cities full of people?
> >
> > Hardrock, amazed that he has to point that out.
>
> A) Thats still a far cry from uninhabiatable.
> B) Its not really true.
>
> While you'd be hard pressed to form a major community in, say, Las
> Vegas, there are large portions of the southwest with more than enough
> water to support large stable agricultural communities and they have
> done so for more than a thousand years. While hardly the scope of a
> major modern city, the Anasazi pueblos were still large concentrated
> communities.
Yes, and when they depleted the water table, they turned to cannibalism
while their culture died. Are you even aware that "Anasazi" means "Enemy"
(with the sense of "monsters")? Guess _why_ they got that name?
>
> As for the L.A. basin specifically, it actually has a huge natural
> aquifer, capable of supporting up to half a million people even without
> the Owens river (which was diverted long before the Colorado).
But there are, what, not half a million but eleven millions there?
> In
> addition to rainfall, (which is actually greater than in much of the
> west) owing to peculiairities of climate there is considerable snowpack
> runoff eight months out of the year. The city itself, without
> considering surrounding communties in the San Gabriel valley, did in
> fact support a population of over 300,000, including major agricultural
> use, without any water from the Sierras. While the Owens was impounded
> to aleviate seasonal and cyclical shortages, a major reason for its
> impoundment was not to provide water at all, but hydroelectric power.
>
> I just have only so much energy at any one time to point out just how
> wrong Klaatu is so I chose to be pithy.
No, as you very well know, klaatu is _never_ wrong, you just don't yet
understand how right he is. Or, more likely, you have some sort of political
compulsion to argue strongly on the side of wrongness.
So, care to tell us why you're arguing that since the local water supply can
sustain almost a million people, it's perfectly logical to suggest that to
the present population of about ten times as many as can be supported on the
local water supply, you should add unlimited numbers of additional
personnel?
That's like saying that since you've got almost enough to cover a week's
rent, you should have give a month-long party.
Damn your logic sucks.
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > The subject was, and always has been, Mexicans in L.A.
>
> Not really. The subject is all ILLEGAL ALIENS. You're the one bringing up
> the tired and true attempt to distract of the non-latino illegal aliens, who
> are -- compared to those swarming the border -- almost vanishingly rare.
The concept of a seaprate sub topic seems to have eluded you.
> >
> > Further, I'm New York born and raised. Sixth generation native, so
> > I've kind of "been there" too. No one in New York drives around with
> > bumper stickers saying Chicanos should reposess the territory from the
> > Mexican American war, either.
> >
> > Thanks for trying to keep up, though. We know its hard for you.
>
> See the signs declaring "fuck you, this _is_ still Mexico" at
>
> http://www.halturnershow.com/mexico.htm
>
> And yes, I'm aware that this is a Mexican-bashing site.
Gee, not a bumper sticker, a programable LED display. Leaving aside
for a moment that assuming that it wasn't staged, that means that the
group in question isn't sufficiently organized to pony up $50 for
printing, did it even occur to you that a group that somehow managed
to get shirts printed up saying "I survived the battle of Westwood"
printed up *before* their allegedy peacful protest *might* have stage
managed that footage?
Just possibly?
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> > While you'd be hard pressed to form a major community in, say, Las
> > Vegas, there are large portions of the southwest with more than enough
> > water to support large stable agricultural communities and they have
> > done so for more than a thousand years. While hardly the scope of a
> > major modern city, the Anasazi pueblos were still large concentrated
> > communities.
>
> Yes, and when they depleted the water table, they turned to cannibalism
> while their culture died.
Which is the heavily disputed claim of one anthropologist. Moreover
while depletion of the water table implies overpopulation (surprise,
surprise) that *actual* theory (an it is, BTW merely one of many) is
that a prolonged drought cause the civilization to scatter. It didn't
die, its ancestors are the Hopi and Navajo.
> Are you even aware that "Anasazi" means "Enemy"
> (with the sense of "monsters")? Guess _why_ they got that name?
No, I'm aware that in Dineh it means "enemy ancestor" or "ancient
people" or ancient people. As to why they got their name, since the
Navajo don't know, and anthropologists don't know, I'm guessing you
don't know, either.
> >
> > As for the L.A. basin specifically, it actually has a huge natural
> > aquifer, capable of supporting up to half a million people even without
> > the Owens river (which was diverted long before the Colorado).
>
> But there are, what, not half a million but eleven millions there?
Not in the LA basin, which is the aquifer I'm referring to. Seeing as
how greater LA is 100 miles long 75 miles wide and has a more diverse
biomass than most European countries the situation is a bit more
complex than you quite grasp. Moreover large portions of the Colorado
impoundement are diverted not to LA but to inland agriculture as far
north as Sacramento (which, since you seem to know SFA about the rest
of the situation I'll mention is about 450 miles away) None of this
changes the simple fact that you said "Everything south of the Snake
River between the West Coast range and the Rocky Mountains is only
arable or even habitable due to the impoundment of the Colorado River."
Which is, once again, completely, utterly, and incontrovertably...
wrong.
> > In
> > addition to rainfall, (which is actually greater than in much of the
> > west) owing to peculiairities of climate there is considerable snowpack
> > runoff eight months out of the year. The city itself, without
> > considering surrounding communties in the San Gabriel valley, did in
> > fact support a population of over 300,000, including major agricultural
> > use, without any water from the Sierras. While the Owens was impounded
> > to aleviate seasonal and cyclical shortages, a major reason for its
> > impoundment was not to provide water at all, but hydroelectric power.
> >
> > I just have only so much energy at any one time to point out just how
> > wrong Klaatu is so I chose to be pithy.
>
> No, as you very well know, klaatu is _never_ wrong, you just don't yet
> understand how right he is. Or, more likely, you have some sort of political
> compulsion to argue strongly on the side of wrongness.
See above.
> So, care to tell us why you're arguing that since the local water supply can
> sustain almost a million people, it's perfectly logical to suggest that to
> the present population of about ten times as many as can be supported on the
> local water supply, you should add unlimited numbers of additional
> personnel?
Gee, change the argument much?
> That's like saying that since you've got almost enough to cover a week's
> rent, you should have give a month-long party.
>
> Damn your logic sucks.
Not nearly so much as your "facts".
Jim Dugan
Canticle
<rad...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:120620010044191917%rad...@spam.earthlink.net...
> Which is the heavily disputed claim of one anthropologist. Moreover
> while depletion of the water table implies overpopulation (surprise,
> surprise) that *actual* theory (an it is, BTW merely one of many) is
> that a prolonged drought cause the civilization to scatter. It didn't
> die, its ancestors are the Hopi and Navajo.
Heavily disputed, yes, but its not one anthropologists claim. There's a fair
bit of literature on the topic, and there are supporters on both sides. The
evidence is contradictory, but is by no means conclusive for or against the
theory. And so it will remain debated.
However, the water table theory is pretty much discarded, as most historical
physical evidence suggests a prolonged drought in the region.
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> Hardrock Llewynyth wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:40:36 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
> > >uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
> > >Mulholland.
> >
> > The population was a tiny handful of hunter-gatherers, not large
> > cities full of people?
> >
> > Hardrock, amazed that he has to point that out.
>
> Why would you for a moment be amazed that this risable extremist will grasp
> at any straw?
At least I don't rely on fabricated support and the rantings of the
mouth breathing lunatic fringe to make my points. Extremist indeed.
> And by the way, who's been doing all of the cancelling here?
I show no cancels
Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3B219682...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The L.A. Times repeating verbatim the assertions of CRASH six years ago.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> 2001 minus 1995 equals six.
Non-sequitur and besides the point.
>
> > And who the heck are "CRASH"?
>
> You do realize that you just performed the equivalent of asking who
> George III was in a discussion of our founding fathers.
I have only your unsupported bald assertion regarding this.
But here is something interesting about CRASH, from a web-site which
supports your views exactly, even though you characterize the site as
something to be dismissed as the work of a few extreme-fringe wackos:
http://www.aztlan.net/cuacua.htm
"La Voz de Aztlan (article written by Voz de Aztlan founder Hector Carreon)
Los Angeles, California
January 2000
"LOS(T) ANGELES: The Shameful LAPD and LAUSD Corruption Scandals
"The City of Los Angeles, California, with the second largest Mexican
population next to Mexico City, is starting the new millennium with two
major corruption scandals clouding its future. The first scandal is
unprecedented in the annals of the city's history and concerns Los Angeles
Police Department officers involved in large scale criminal activities that
include murder, bank robbery, street muggins, drug dealing, torture, false
arrests, witness intimidation and the framing and imprisoning of innocent
Latino youths. The second corruption scandal concerns the Los Angeles
Unified School District's fleecing of school children's education funds in
cahoots with a cabal of crooked lawyers, contractors and consultants. The
Los Angeles Unified School District is the second largest in the U.S. and is
72% Latino. These two scandals have victimized mostly citizens and children
of Mexican descent who are at the mercy of authorities that care little for
the well being of this largest segment of the city's population.
...
"There seems to be significant connections in these two Los Angeles scandals
that have major implications for Mexicans and other Latinos in the city, the
state and the nation. The LAPD crooked cops where taking advantage of the
anti-Mexican and anti-immigrant hysteria that was begun by former Governor
Pete Wilson when he called for a war on the Latino youths of the Pico-Union
area of Los Angleles and who were associated with an organization called the
18th Street gang. This anti-Latino hysteria created the so called anti-gang
CRASH program that gave license to the LAPD to abuse the civil rights of the
residents of the immigrant community. The results is what we have witnessed
in terms of the framing and imprisonment of innocent victims. On one side we
have a political establishment that justifies police brutality and
misconduct on the grounds that police authorities are dealing with
"dangerous" criminal youths who commit crimes, because of their
unemployability due to lack of education, and on the other side we have
these same political hacks stealing the money that is meant for the
education of these youths. This a classic Catch-22 for La Raza in Los
Angeles and, in large part, in the United States as a whole."
...
Well, Jim, it sure does seem that your position is supported by people you
label "fringe wackos". Let's see what else the Tiny Human Ferret can dig up
on CRASH...
Ah, CRASH is apparently the LA gangbusters unit. As are many anti-gang
units, it was poorly managed and of course the actions of as few bad cops
are seized upon by opportunists seeking to tar the entire department and all
of its cases with the very broad brush of "bad cops" and on top of this you
wish to tar all information about all alien gangs anywhere in the US with
the very narrow brush of "CRASH is corrupt"?
Never miss an oppportunity to exploit a rhetorical fallacy, eh?
Those who read Spanish may wish to see a rather interesting thread under
http://www.korealink.com/public/society/messages/1691.shtml -- which is a
bunch of dick-waving by assorted gangbangers and wannabees on, of all
places, a Korean-American message board. One has to wonder if a little bit
of "Korea Pride" is insulted here.
http://www.korealink.com/public/society/messages/3160.shtml
is pretty funny, don't you think?
"RE: La Mara Salvatrucha 13 Controla !!!
"PURO MUERTOS 13 PINCHE SALVADOREÑOS PUTOS
"LOS MEXICANOS CONTROLAMOS TODO
"by chuco"
etc etc etc.
what a fun little contretemps we have here! It seems to interest the media,
I might add. Fun thread to continue:
http://www.korealink.com/public/society/messages/3212.shtml
"Periodico
"Soy periodista por el Herald News en Passaic County, New Jersey. Excribo un
articulo sobre como las bandillas usan el Internet. Queiro hablar, o por
email or por telefono, a alguien que ha puesto un mensaje aqui. No necesito
usar los nobres en mi historia. Por favor llamen me: (973) 569-7153.
Gracias.
"by Andrew Glazer
...
Woo. It's not just L.A. anymore, Jim.
>
> > >
> > > > > and both 18th
> > > > > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Care to support that in any way?
> > >
> > > Well, I live roughly ninety seconds from their alleged stronghold and
> > > my house, unimproved, is now worth 30% more than it was a year ago.
> > > That and the fact that theyre just not there, of course.
> >
> > Your personal anecdotes, as you will be quick to remind me I would expect,
> > have considerably less value than would third-party documentation.
>
> Feel free to verify it. Property values in Pico Union, West Adams and
> South Koreatown are rising faster than in Beverly Hills.
This is supposed to come as a surprise? Aren't Beverly Hills properties sort
of overvalued or at peak possible value? Why on earth would Beverly Hills
property values rise?
Property values are on the rise all over the DC area. Hell, property values
are rising in _my_ neighborhood, too. But then again, property values are
rising in Viers Mill Village, but that doesn't mean I want to move to a
Levittown where people steal trash out of each other's garbage cans.
>
> Pico Union, West Adams and South Koreatown are where MS-13 and 18th
> street are from and where they have all but disappeared.
So, where'd they go to? Texas? NYC? Northern Virginia?
>
> > >
> > > > > Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
> > > > > gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
> > > > > people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
> > > > > non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
> > > > >
> > > > > And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
> > > > > world. So what?
> > > >
> > > > New York doesn't mostly speak Gaelic, and even on St. Padriac's day, most
> > > > of
> > > > the guys out there wearing green and getting 'faced will tell you they're
> > > > proud to be Americans.
> > >
> > > As would the majority of most people fo Mexican descent. So what?
> >
> > But do the majority of US citizens of Mexican descent speak Spanish to the
> > point of excluding English-speakers? New York "irish" don't, so far as I can
> > tell.
>
> Neither do the vast majority of Mexican-Americans as far as you can
> prove.
You know what? You're the one who raised the whole red herring about New
York Irish etc, so I'm not going to argue it as if I had something to prove.
>
> > >
> > > > And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
> > > > that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
> > >
> > > And they Mexican's don't do that here, either, which you'd know if
> > > you'd actually been here.
> >
> > Are you talking about Mexicans, or are you talking about Chicanos, if
> > Chicanos are defined as US citizens of Mexican ancestry?
>
> How is it remotely possible to ascertain the pedigree of the people who
> are *not* doing something? I'd imagine that the people who are not
> displaying bumper stickers fall into both categories. I, myself, am
> not displaying any mexican nationalist bumper stickers.
>
> > And how do you explain MECHA or the people at http://www.aztlan.net/ ?
>
> The same way you explain any other fringe wacko group. Just because
> someone puts up a website doesn't mean others subscribe to their views.
But it's funny. In the text quoted above, by the founder of the "fringe
wacko group" himself, he expresses almost exactly the opinions that you do.
>
> You, of all people ought to recognize that.
Yeah, I see someone disavowing any commonality with someone with whom you
evidently agree, lock stock and barrel.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
> > > > > of acres of unimproved land,
> > > >
> > > > And where do you intend to get the water needed to develop it? Hint: it's
> > > > a
> > > > rare day when the Colorado River makes it all of the way to the sea. And
> > > > you
> > > > might also want to check the water levels of the aquifer serving the Rio
> > > > Bravo (Rio Grande del Norte) area. You might also want check the level of
> > > > industrial pollution in the water recharging that aquifer at about 1/10th
> > > > the rate it's being drained.
> > >
> > > And then there's the other 95% percent of the country.
> >
> > And you are aware, are you not, that the majority of continental-US
> > territory is not arable land?
>
> Are you aware that that assertion demands support, and not from NPG or
> dieoff?
You _are_ a silly boy. You're a very very silly boy. Remember that
"earthops.org" is Earth Operations Central. It is primarily an ecology and
environment site. And we don't do fringe, silly silly boy. We do UN, US and
Canadian Government sites, we do NASA, and we deal in science, not
fallacious rhetoric.
http://grid.cr.usgs.gov/geo2000/ov-e/0008.htm
--The oxygen-depleted 'dead zone' that now appears off the US Gulf Coast
each summer - at the peak of fertilizer run-off from the Corn Belt - is the
size of New Jersey.
--Fish stocks off the east coast have nearly collapsed. The Atlantic finfish
catch declined from 2.5 million tonnes in 1971 to less than 500000 tonnes in
1994.
--Global warming could move the ideal range for many North American forest
species some 300 km to the north, undermining the utility of forest
reserves.
But more to the point, "State of the Environment in North America, Land and
Food": http://grid.cr.usgs.gov/geo2000/english/0096.htm
"After World War II, intensified and modernized agricultural
practices led to a large rural-to-urban migration and a decline
in traditional, small-scale family farming practices. Fewer and
larger farming enterprises came to manage the production of
large fields of monocultures or intensively-rotated crops.
Several factors led to the intensification and modernization
of agriculture including the movement of people away from
agricultural pursuits; replacement of human labour with mechanization;
temporarily improved pest control technologies; and specialization
within the production sector. Canada and the United States
eventually became the world's leading sources of surplus
foodgrain, exporting 132 million tonnes yearly during the 1980s,
compared to about 5.5 million tonnes before World War II
(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).
"The intensification of agricultural production in the
United States and Canada has increased productivity by a
factor of three or four since the 1950s (Lipske 1993)
but these gains have also increased environmental stresses.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers (see bar chart below)
resulted in run-off that became and remains a major source of
water pollution. Approximately 950 000 km2 of land in the
United States and Canada are affected by soil degradation,
primarily water and wind erosion (UNEP/ISRIC 1991).
Farmers have responded by applying increasing amounts of fertilizers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but studies have shown continued declines in the average rates
of change in productivity (Batie 1993). In 1997 the United States
used 20 million tonnes of fertilizer, a figure slightly less than
the all-time high of 21.5 million tonnes in 1981 (FAO 1997c).
Despite efforts to reduce negative environmental impacts,
agricultural production accounts for a significant use and release of
toxic material (International Joint Commission 1997), and OECD studies list
nitrate pollution as one of the most serious water quality problems in
North America (OECD 1994). As the amount of fertilizer used approaches
the physiological capacity of crops to absorb nutrients, the
excess nitrogen poses a threat to ecosystem health. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And from http://grid.cr.usgs.gov/geo2000/english/0097.htm
"Forests are one of the most prominent features of North
America, covering about 25 per cent of the land area
(FAO 1997b). North American forests constitute a rich
resource, providing economic and recreational benefits,
as well as watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and
many other ecological services. The 460 million
hectares of forests in Canada and the United States
which are managed for commercial purposes comprise about 13 per
cent of the world's total (FAO 1997b).
"The past 100 years have brought both gains and losses to North
America's regional forest cover, with substantial regrowth in the
eastern United States and Canada. Overall, the extent of forest cover
has stabilized in many parts of the region.
"The quality of North America's forests, however, has deteriorated.
While the world's second largest expanse of intact, natural forest is in
the boreal regions of North America, forests in the United States are
becoming increasingly fragmented and biologically impoverished,
invaded by exotic species, or lacking in the characteristics that support
viable populations of indigenous species (Bryant and others 1997)."
...
Well, Jim, I guess we _could_ cut down all of North America's remaining
forests -- after all, they're of increasingly low quality anyway, right? --
and that would be arable land on which you could stack all of the immigrants
you can find. Or we could convert all of that forestland to farming and feed
the world -- for a while -- but between us and the efforts of the stupid
fuckers in Central and South America, we'd have deforested an entire
hemisphere and have reduced the oxygen-generation capacity of the planet by
a significant degree. but then everyone would choke to death and that'd be
just Goth As Fuck, and okay by you, right?
But let's discuss Water: http://grid.cr.usgs.gov/geo2000/english/0099.htm
As GEO-1 demonstrated, North America has an abundant
supply of freshwater resources but it is unequally distributed
across the region. Surface and groundwater sources together
provide an annual 5 308 km3 of renewable and fossil water
to the two countries, which is about 13 per cent of the
global total (WRI, UNEP, UNDP and WB 1998). On a per capita
basis, Canada has 10 times more water resources than the
United States. However, water scarcities occur in many
parts of North America, including some parts of Canada's
prairie provinces and the US southwest (OECD 1995, 1996).
Over the past 100 years, the demand for water has
increased steadily in North America. This is partly a
result of population growth and increasing municipal
demands for water. It is also related to North
America's energy-intensive industrial development
and the dramatic expansion of irrigated agriculture.
The latter has occurred mainly in the United States
where the area of irrigated land has risen from 1.5
million hectares in 1890 to approximately 21 million
hectares in 1995 (Council on Environmental Quality 1997).
Dams and diversion projects have flourished over the past century, as
communities and economic sectors have sought access to secure water
supplies. Meanwhile, water has been pumped from some underground
aquifers faster than natural recharge rates, depleting an important
resource and causing water tables in the United States to fall by up to
120 cm a year in some irrigated regions (Pimentel and others 1997).
Cotton farming has had major effects on water supplies in northern
Texas and parts of New Mexico, for instance. These areas were
traditionally used for cattle ranching but large-scale agriculture
was made possible with the advent of groundwater irrigation. Cotton
farming then increased demands for water from the Ogallala aquifer
and led to severe groundwater depletion (Kasperson and others 1996). "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
Further, from the same page:
"Although the municipal supply, demand and quality of water
receive much attention, the sectors that use most water in
North America are agriculture and power generation (see pie charts left).
In the United States, each accounts for about 40 per cent of total
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
water withdrawal. In Canada, the figures are 58 per cent for power
generation and 7 per cent for agriculture (OECD 1996 and 1995).
Recently, however, these withdrawals have been declining while
domestic use has been rising - it has almost doubled since 1960,
reflecting population growth and urban expansion (OECD 1996). "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
http://grid.cr.usgs.gov/geo2000/english/i5b.htm is a graph of Arable Land
Per Capita, hectares/person. Leading the field, largely because of the
inclusion of Canada in the calculations, is North America, with 0.8 hectares
per capita in 1995, down almost 0.1 hectares/person since 1990.
Arable land in the United States, along with other land uses, is given as
follows on http://www.theodora.com/wfb/united_states_geography.html
Land use:
arable land: 20%
permanent crops: 0%
meadows and pastures: 26%
forest and woodland: 29%
other: 25%
Irrigated land: 181,020 sq km (1989 est.)
Environment:
current issues: air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the
US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide
from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of
pesticides and fertilizers;
very limited natural fresh water resources in much of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
western part of the country require careful management; desertification
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
natural hazards:
tsunamis, volcanoes, and earthquake activity around Pacific
Basin; hurricanes along the Atlantic coast; tornadoes in the
midwest; mudslides in California; forest fires in the west;
flooding; permafrost in northern Alaska is a major
impediment to development
...
All rather non-fringey there, Jimmee me boy. And all quite well supported
and _generally accepted by scientists everywhere_.
In summary, "you just plain don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
and I do".
>
> >
> > Are you aware that most aquifers nationwide are being depleted faster than
> > they are being recharged? It may be one consequence of global warming, but
> > even in normally rain-drenched MD-DC-NoVA, for four of the last five years
> > there has been insufficient rain to recharge the water table.
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of cyclical weather patterns. Are you
> aware that in that same time the west coast and the central US have had
> record rainfall for the same reasons?
See above. It's insufficient for aquifer recharge in most places. It's not
in the right places.
>
> > >
> > > > One unsupported bald assertion flyin in the face of the facts shot down in
> > > > flames. Next:
> > >
> > > Gee, theres a water shortage in the desert that affects a tiny
> > > proportion of our country. Nice rebuttal.
> >
> > The majority of the United States is either arid, or only marginally arable.
> > Everything south of the Snake River between the West Coast range and the
> > Rocky Mountains is only arable or even habitable due to the impoundment of
> > the Colorado River. Shortages of drinkable water loom in almost all
> > developed cities throughout the country although there are some exceptions.
> > Much of the water accessible to cities is of decreasing quality. Aquifers
> > are being depleted nationwide far faster than they can be replenished in
> > most places, and in many places where significant aquifer recharge occurs,
> > contamination of the recharge zones is an increasing problem.
>
> Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
> uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
> Mulholland.
See cites above. And perhaps you'd like to explain how a very few natives
living in harmony with the land begins to compare will civilizations in the
millions and tens of millions of persons importing something like 96 percent
of all water used.
You have a truly astonishing inability to perceive scale, don't you? Scaling
factors and their consequences consistently elude you.
> > > >
> > > > > food to feed the entire planet if we'd
> > > > > just get around to sharing it,
> > > >
> > > > Really? Can you support this statement? Can you also support the sort of
> > > > utterly non-sustainable agricultural practices that would have to be
> > > > employed to do this, if it can be done at all?
> > > >
> > > > Another unsupported bald assertion shot down in flames. Next:
> > >
> > > You seem a little unclear on the concept of shot down in flames.
> > > Shooting down an idea involves contradicting it wth fact, not asking
> > > questions you haven't supplied the answers to.
> >
> > Nice non-sequitur and evasion. Please answer the questions. Actually,
> > Hardrock nicely addressed some of the agricultural issues. You may take it
> > up with him; after he brought up the matter of unsupportable ag practices
> > due to mechanization and automation, I did a little looking into the matter
> > -- something you should do before you base entire thrusts of argument upon
> > completely insupportable premisses.
> >
> > So, answer the questions! How can the US feed the entire planet, and do so
> > without completely destroying the natural ecology and replacing it with a
> > limited-duration non-renewable automation-intensive and
> > petrochemical-reliant Corporate Farming Complex?
>
> By arguing the alternative viewpoint and now cowing to ideologically
> based soft science.
Oh, being opposed to grossly exaggerating nitrogen saturation that is
already killing off the Gulf of Mexico? That is a very well demonstrated
result that is highly scientifically supportable.
I would say that it is _you_ who is bowing down to ideologically-based
extremely soft "cience" that is in fact nothing more than wishful thinking.
And again, you do nothing to respond to the question of "so how can the US
feed the planet" except toss out a platitude or two about "viva the
revolucion" or the ecological equivalent. You know, to do the sort of things
you seem to believe possible, we'd have to divert _all of Canada's waters_
to the arid southwest, fix enough nitrogen to kill the North Atlantic and
biofermentatively process enough sedimentaries into humus topsoils _to
terraform MARS_.
You have no fucking sense of scale, nor requirements, and clearly no
slightest perception of consequence and that makes you an IDIOT. No,
actually, it doesn't, all of that combined with an autistic memory for facts
and figures combining with a total incomprehension of the import nor
outcomes, _that_ is what makes you an idiot, and a dangerous one with just a
_little_ knowledge.
>
> > If you cannot answer the question, admit it and move on, but of course be
> > aware that your admission knocks the props out from under an entire line of
> > argument of yours.
>
> No, because even scaling back the rhetoric, we don't *have* to feed the
> world. We sell the billions of tons of food we export domestically.
> Natch. BTW, I note you still havent supported *your* assertion that
> we're "FULL"
See cites above. If you weren't completely logically impaired, you could
follow the really quite mainstream science and come to the reasonable
conclusion, no matter how it offends your political leanings. We need to
_reduce_ population, we're at nitrogen saturation levels all across North
America, we need to _reduce_ our agricultural output. We're of no use to the
rest of the world if we smother in fertilizer.
>
> > >
> > > > > and a massive labor shortage.
> > > >
> > > > Can you document this "massive labor shortage"? Especially can you support
> > > > it when unemployment is rising, and there are about 6 million workers who
> > > > just hit the streets in the last six months or so? I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/stories/1997/09/08/focus17.html
> >
> > My goodness! From slightly _before_ the economic boom!
>
> You mean the one that started in 1994?
The one that didn't reach down out of the corporations until early 1998?
Yes, that one.
>
> > > http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen18/news/pr2001-18.htm
> >
> > My goodness! In _Wisconsin_ there's a labor shortage! I wonder if that might
> > be because it's just a little bit short of cities and industry, and really
> > truly largely agricultural. How are you going to keep them down on the farm?
>
> Gee, theres a labor sortage in a rural state, and a whole lot of
> illegals with farming experience and skills. What ever shall we do?
Deport the illegals. Hire Americans from the inner cities. Train them if you
have to. Welfare is ending.
>
> > > http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1745/a06.html?8728
> >
> > Bwa HAHAHAH! You offer as evidence supporting your assertion that "the US
> > NEEDS ILLEGAL ALIENS TO END A MASSIVE LABOR SHORTAGE" _a site noting that
> > there is a dearth of qualified POLICE OFFICER APPLICANTS_?
> >
> > Are you COMPLETELY INSANE?
> >
> > How the hell are ILLEGAL ALIENS going to make up for a shortage of COPS?
>
>
> > fuckme. I haven't laughed so hard at such a complete disconnect from
> > commonsense since I that Darwin Awards urban legend about the guy putting a
> > JATO unit on a street rod.
>
> Thats largely because your slightly unstable and not all that bright.
But I'm at least not either utterly mad or utterly uninformed, or willing to
cite evidence that makes me look like a blithering doofus.
> The concept of upward mobility of labor is something you might look
> into.
Illegal aliens cannot apply for immigration except from their country of
origins. They then have to go through the processes of immigration and
naturalization before they can become cops. This looks like ten years in
process. By that time, all of those abundant children of LEGAL immigrants
can be upwardly mobile and become cops or lawyers or whatever else is
needed.
But we're not discussing Legal Immigrants, are we? We never were! We were
discussing ILLEGAL ALIENS. I at least know there's a difference, apparently
you do not.
>
> > > http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/oct19_00/no_workers.html
> >
> > This is a side effect of California's ridiculously high rents contrasted
> > with the low pay offered for dishwashers. Hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS is not how
> > you fix _that_ problem.
>
> Oh, and how *do* you solve that problem?
Begging the question, I see. Do you think sarcasm will troll me off into
some pointless speculation on matters where I'm totally uninformed and you
can shred me? Nah.
I don't solve that problem, you're the Californian and that problem affects
Californians. You solve it.
ILLEGAL ALIENS are not exclusively a Californian problem. Illegal aliens are
all over the US. Thus, it's a national issue, not your private little
California issue. Right now, it's very much an Arizona issue, you know.
>
> > > http://eastbay.bcentral.com/eastbay/stories/2000/06/26/story2.html
> >
> > Yet another article from a year ago -- before the present slowdown.
>
> You mean the one that started last spring?
I mean the one that nearly became a recession around _this_ New Years and
became actually quite worrisom around the end of _this_ April.
In either case, it's not supportive.
I am in _no way_ equating ZPG with zoning! You're the one who is making that
assertion!
strawman.
I am equating halting massive illegal immigration with permitting ZPG in the
US.
Or are you actually making the statement that control of the sovereign
borders of the United States equates to _city zoning regulations_?
R O F L
>
> We've had this conversation before, remember?
Sorry, I have a tendency to discard idiocy from my memories. Idiots don't
remember anything, why should I.
>
> > Must you have fifty people on every acre frmo coast to coast before you face
> > the facts? The country is FULL.
>
> No, but in order to achieve that density we'd have to have over a
> billion people, so I'm not exactly worried.
We don't care what madness it takes to worry you. We care what madness will
destroy the ecosystem, and the nation, and considering the number of weapons
we control, probably the world. But you don't care, because you have no
perception of scales and consequences. You only have crackpot ideology
that's unsupported by any science, because it's insupportable by any
science.
>
>
> > >
> > > I'm not talking about employers, I'm talking about you. Specifically
> > > how is it taht *you* discern between illegal aliens and plain old
> > > ordinary brown people in your oft-repeated parade of horribles. The
> > > faceless legions who threaten your mom, the ones that call you names,
> > > how do you know that *they* are llegal?
> >
> > Well, either they are ILLEGAL ALIENS who haven't gone through the classes
> > and tests required to become citizens, or they are racist backstabbers
> > attacking me for being not only white, but pale as well.
>
> How.. do... you... know?
I just told you that, I do believe. But I'll tell you again.
If someone says "ai chinga, es ahora el vampiro!" that might be a bit of a
clue, right? Speaking Spanish, thinks that a Goth or a Deathmetal/Industrial
type is _actually_ a revivified corpse? If they're speaking only spanish,
chances are that they're an immigrant, under 1996 law if they engage in a
felony that makes them deportable, hence, illegal alien. Simple logic.
>
> > If they were
> > non-racist citizens they'd presumably be entirely happy to act in accordance
> > with the 14th Amendment Section 1 "equal protection of the laws" and the
> > presumption of equal civil treatment of all law-abiding persons.
>
> You do grasp the fact that the fourteenth amendment does not have the
> slightest application to individuals, don't you?
And this has exactly what to do with anything? The amendment was ratified by
a very substantial majority nationwide and presumably it is the law of the
land. Everyone is supposed to _know_ this. _Everyone_ is expected to know
and obey the most basic laws of the land. Or are you making some sort of
ridiculous assertion that lynch mobs are _legal_?
>
> > And once again, if they can't speak English, act totally lost as fuck, and
> > are demonstrably inclined to violence, I believe it's quite reasonable to
> > presume that they're illegal alien desperados.
> >
> > I don't suppose I have to point out that non-citizens, brown or of whatever
> > color, you racist skin-color obsessed _freak_, who are assaultive are
> > technically CRIMINAL ALIENS and are subject to extremely rapid deportation;
> > simply the violence makes them illegal aliens.
>
> Which still doesn't address the issue of how you know that they are
> illegal.
Because whether or not they were border jumpers, visa-overstayers, or
whatever, the second they engaged in a felony with a US citizen victims,
they become illegal. Not to mention criminal. Criminal aliens are by
definition illegal aliens under the immigration reform act.
What part of "criminal == illegal" do you not understand?
>
>
> > > No, because you still haven't answered my question.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Where you didn't answer the question.
Where it's answered _redundantly_ now.
>
> <S>
>
> > >
> > > Canadians do not offend. I already quoted it once.
> >
> > No. You did not. Quote it again. Make sure that this time it's not a
> > Paraphrase. A Paraphrase is not a Quote. Among other things, you left out
> > the extremely important modifier "generally".
>
> Fine Canadians do not generally offend you. This is still not a
> rational basis for policy.
I didn't say that, either. Either quote me correctly and argue about that,
or drop it.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it's got quite a few native languages. Unfortunately, Cortes and
> > > > the Conquistadores imported a disease that killed off most of the speakers
> > > > of those languages.
> > >
> > > Well, then we should revive them and speak them then, shouldn't we.
> >
> > Non-sequitur. Bad argument from fallacy. But that's your trademark, isn't
> > it?
>
> Do they have sarcasm on your planet?
Sarcasm is not valid in debate. It's as bad as argument from anecdote.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do
> > > > > > come
> > > > > > here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with
> > > > > > uncrupulous
> > > > > > employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about
> > > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > "In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals
> > > >
> > > > Of what nationality? Canadian? Or all of these?
> > > >
> > > > By the way, 1996 is pretty old data, especially since the Invasion from
> > > > Mexico didn't really become massive until 1998.
> > >
> > > But 1995 isn't "old data" when supporting *your* assertions I notice.
> >
> > Which 1995 data did I use? C'mon? Tell us all? Can't tell us because I
> > didn't use it, except perhaps as a single year in a series of years
> > demonstrating a trend? Or are you talking about an unrelated issue? Why yes,
> > you are!
>
> Five year old information is five year old information.
>
> > My goodness! You're adding apples and oranges! another classic fallacy! But
> > we expect nothing less, and clearly will never get anything more, from
> > _you_.
>
> Apples and oranges is not a classic fallacy and old data is old data.
And it's still adding apples and oranges! It's classic bad MATH then.
>
> > > Its the most recent data available. Deal.
> >
> > No, it's probably the most recent data that could possibly be warped to
> > support your position.
>
> Then please do find some that supports your position, but you needent
> bother looking in the INS or the DOJ websites, because '96 is, in fact,
> the most recent data they have correlated.
Sorry, they've got some more recent information at
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/ which is the US Department of Justice
"Sourcebook 2000".
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/t644.pdf is the most recent
"Characteristics of Federal prisoners. United States, 1994-99 (Table 6.44)"
"Hispanic" accounted for 31.4 percent of Federal prisoners in 1999.
"Black" accounted for 39 percent.
>
>
> > > It is true. Too bad thats not the point. The point is that you
> > > asserted that Candians do not illegally come to the US in great
> > > numbers.
> >
> > Canadians aren't illegally mobbing the borders in the Millions!
> >
> > Mexicans are. Deal, baybee.
>
> Canadians are mobbing the borders in numbers sufficient to pouplate a
> good sized city. Those are great numbers.
What are the actual numbers? Less than one tenth of the numbers coming in
across the Mexican border, right?
>
> > >
> > > That assertion is laughably false.
> >
> > Define "great numbers". DO you mean "more than one or two"? Seems like it.
>
> I mean more than 100,000. If your scale regardng the number of
> undercounted illegals is true, I mean more than a quarter million.
> Back away as fast as you like, but thats a lot of fucking people and
> more than significant enough to alter the scope of unemployment that
> youre so concerned about.
Hey, if they're illegal aliens, deport 'em! I don't care about their race,
nationality, ethnicity or langauge!! Send 'em home.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > > > > > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and
> > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > they were here they generally were a boon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Care to back that up?
> > > >
> > > > You're the one who just posted the numbers indicating the really quite
> > > > low,
> > > > regarding the relative numbers of Canadian to "latino" ILLEGAL ALIENS.
> > >
> > > You can do the comparision backpedal all you like, it doesn't change
> > > the fact that that yet another of your bald assertions is
> > > incontrovertably false.
> >
> > There's no backpedaling here except what you're doing, and it doesnt' really
> > matter if it were. As you well know, when I am corrected, I will say "I
> > stand corrected". You'll notice I damned well haven't said that yet. Nor
> > will I.
>
> You said Candians don't come here in great numbers and when the do,
> they do so LEGALLY. One hundred and twenty thousand illegal Canadian
> immigrants blows that statement out of the water whether youre willing
> to admit it or not.
Are we talking about people who overstayed their visa, or are we talking
border jumpers supporting the human-smuggling industry?
>
> > So. You know damned well that I was making the assertion that most Canadians
> > who leave the US under less than perfect immigration-status conditions are
> > leaving because they slightly overstayed a student visa or an employment
> > visa. That means that the majority of the time they were here, they were
> > here by permission.
>
> No we don't know that because you can't prove it, you can just offer up
> another mealy-mouthed sidestep.
From http://ilw.com/belluscio/exrefs.HTM (INC factsheet)
Initially, INS was only able to capture partial, selected
expedited removal data from certain major land and air ports
of entry. Beginning in August 1997, INS began capturing what
it considers reliable information on the total expedited removal
activity nationwide. Based on this information, here are
approximate data regarding nationwide expedited removal activities
during the six months of operation spanning August 1, 1997, to
January 31, 1998:
During the six-month period, more than 100 million aliens
applied for admission to the United States at ports of entry.
Of those, approximately 300,000 (three-tenths of 1 percent)
were found inadmissible.
Of those 300,000 inadmissible aliens, approximately 240,000
(80 percent) were not admitted or had their cases referred
to an immigration judge.
The remaining 60,000 were inadmissible for reasons which made
them subject to expedited removal.
Of those, 61 percent were encountered at southern land borders,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
31 percent at northern land borders and 8 percent at airports.
Of those 60,000 aliens subject to expedited removal, about
29,000 (48 percent) were allowed to withdraw their application
for admission and depart the United States. The remainder were
placed in expedited removal. The withdrawal rate was approximately
26 percent at southern land ports, 92 percent at northern land ports
and 39 percent at airports.
Of the approximately 31,000 aliens placed in expedited removal at
all ports of entry, about 1,300 expressed some fear of being returned
and were referred by INS inspectors for a credible fear interview with
a specially trained asylum officer. The 1,300 figure is less than
5 percent of the total number of people placed in expedited removal,
and about one-half of 1 percent of the total number of aliens who
were inadmissible. For airports only, about 17 percent of the arriving
passengers in expedited removal were referred to an asylum officer
for a credible fear interview.
About 82 percent of the total number of people referred to, and
interviewed by, INS asylum officers met the credible fear standard.
They were taken out of the expedited removal process for a hearing
before an immigration judge.
Of the approximately 1,300 aliens given credible fear interviews,
18 percent were from Sri Lanka, 15 percent were from China. The r
emainder were from 83 other countries.
Approximately 29,000 people were removed through expedited removal
during the six-month period. This number represents about 10 percent
of the total number of aliens found inadmissible during the same
period of time.
Of those removed, 91 percent were Mexican nationals.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The next highest countries of origin were Jamaica, Canada, Ecuador
and the Dominican Republic.
They each represent less than 1 percent of those removed through expedited
removal.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Game and set, I believe. Proof has been offered. Deal with it, baybee.
Or do you want to shoot yourself in your _other_ foot?
>
> > For those that were here by permission and invited to
> > work, they were contributing legally to the commonwealth.
> >
> > >
> > > > It is a fairly easily supportable statement, considering that Canadians
> > > > are
> > > > allowed to enter almost universally unencumbered, they are given extremely
> > > > long times of visitation, may travel anywhere within the US with no
> > > > restrictions during their visits, etc etc. Hell, I think they can even buy
> > > > guns here if they want to do so.
> > >
> > > Mexicans have the same rights, in fact the majority of Mexican illegals
> > > are not border jumpers, but simply overstay.
> >
> > And what percentage of their total stay is overstay? The vast majority, yes?
>
> I don't know. Perhaps instead of makinging and end run around having
> to make a statement that requires support, you should look it up
> yourself.
I did. And considering that less than one percent of "removables" at
application for admission (turn-aways) was Canadian, that means that the
vast majority of Canadians are visa-overstay.
Is that game, set and match yet?
>
>
> > > > Please do. Make sure it's me that you're quoting. Be sure to give the
> > > > entire
> > > > quote -- including Message-ID -- and make sure to quote the whole thing,
> > > > in
> > > > context.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to do a dejasearch ever time you repudiate your own
> > > words. Search Asian, Korean and Chinese and have a blast.
> >
> > Can't find the proof. LIAR!
>
> Cant be bothered to sift through the posts to debate someone who is
> very quick to demand proof but utterly intransigent when it come to
> providing it. Youve have compared the thrifty, hardworking, educated
> Asian to the shiftless, illiterate Mexican far more than once. You
> know it. I know it.
No, I don't, and no, you don't. You simply can't prove it and you aren't
going to waste your time trying to prove something you can't prove. You are
simply falling back to Big Lie.
>
>
> > > > > They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law,
> > > >
> > > > Mexicans come in the millions.
> > >
> > > So?
> >
> > It's called "Invasion". The government has a Constitutional obligation to
> > call forth the militia to repel invasion.
>
> I know i've said this before, but the Constitution doesn't say what you
> think it says,
I know very well what it says. As do most of those who read it. It reads as
it's written.
> nor does the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. While we're
> on the subject, no one is spiking your drink, either, but thats another
> matter.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > take jobs
> > > > > away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
> > > > > (particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
> > > >
> > > > Give the proportions. You'll see that most of the Canadians smuggling
> > > > drugs
> > > > and illegal-aliens aren't even Canadian citizens, but are rather British
> > > > Commonwealth subjects, generally semi-Canadianised expatriates of Hong
> > > > Kong.
> > > > Note also the that vast majority of drugs smuggled out of Canada are
> > > > high-quality marijuana, not high-quality heroin and cocaine and
> > > > methedrine.
> > > >
> > > > Again, it's all a matter of proportion.
> > >
> > > No, now its a matter of proption since you got caught fibbing.
> >
> > Where exactly? And, need I say, "prove it".
>
> Canadians. Great numbers.
Less than one percent. See above.
>
> > > Before
> > > it was "Because they are ILLEGAL..." with all of the attendant hand
> > > flapping. BTW Canada is a mojor source of Asian heroin in the US>
> >
> > The vast majority of heroin in the US originates in or is transhipped
> > through Mexico.
>
> No, the vast majority of herion is produced in South America. It is
> shipped to the southwest via Mexico and the east via the Dominican
> Republic. South East Asian herion still occupies 20% of the market
So, you're saying that still as much as 80 percent comes via Mexico?
> nationally and more in New York and the Pacific Northwest and its major
> point of entry is Vancouver, which is what I said.
So, let's see, 100% of the heroin minus the 20% that comes from Asia still
leaves our wonderful southern neighbors -- such good neighbors! -- supplying
some 80% of heroin in the US.
>
>
> > > > > When confronted with actual facts,
> > > >
> > > > With which exact "actual facts" have I been confronted? All anyone has
> > > > seen
> > > > from you is unsubstantiated allegations, assorted namecalling, arguments
> > > > to
> > > > strawmen, and egneral crap which you've conveniently snipped. Feel free to
> > > > repost them, so everyone can judge these "actual facts".
> > >
> > > They are right there, in this post, in front of your very nose.
> >
> > Really? I don't see them! Or are you merely making another unsupported bald
> > assertion that the facts are right there in front of my nose?
>
> Deny, deny, deny. I supose if it got Bush elected, you might as well
> give it a shot, just be careful not end up like Nixon. Regardless of
> your mantra, 120 thousand people is a lot of people, 30% housing
> inflation is gentrification, Asian heroin comes thorough Vancouver,
But only 20 percent of the supply.
> there have only been an aggrigate loss of only half a milion jobs since
> January, the majority of the nation has experience record rainfalls in
> the last five years,
None of which did much to rechage the aquifers on which agriculture depends!
> there is a massive demand for low skilled workers,
Not really. There certainly won't be a shortage once Welfare ends within the
year.
> there are less than 30,000 illegals in southwestern prisons, the
You haven't proven that. You have cited figures from before the Invasion.
> majority of whom are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses and so
> on and so on and so on.
That's one exceptionally long-winded non-sequitur.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > you universally retreat to the
> > > > > basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
> > > > > capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
> > > > > hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
> > > >
> > > > Then why are about 1/3rd of major-felony prisoners throughout the US
> > > > southwest illegal-aliens, generally of Mexican nationality?
> > >
> > > Was that supposed to be a fact? Try 10% in Arizona, 15% in California
> > > and 3.1% in Texas for less than whopping thirty thousand people *total*
> > > (all alien felons, all nationalities, not just "major", Mexican, or
> > > illegal ones). I don't suppose in this context however, you'd dismiss
> > > that as "not great numbers".
> > >
> > > BTW thats what and "actual fact" looks like.
> >
> > Cites, please.
>
> I've got a better idea. You provide the cites for a change. Go on,
> give it a shot. Show me the million violent alien felons. Show me the
> 33% alien prison population. Then we can compare.
See above, the cites are provided. Oh, excuse me, it's only 31%. So sue me.
>
> I know its easier to demand proof of a rebuttal than to admit you made
> your assertion up,
But I didn't. See above. Or see this:
> but the paractice will do you good.
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/removals.pdf
"December 20, 2000
FY 2000 INS Removals Show Slight Increase
WASHINGTON Ð The removal of criminal and other illegal aliens by the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reached 181,572 at the end of
FY 2000, according to preliminary data.
The total reflects an increase of 1 percent over FY 1999, when INS removed
180,008 criminal and other illegal aliens from the United States. The
removals include 69,093 criminal removals and 112,479 non-criminal removals.
Drug convictions (41 percent), criminal violations of immigration law (20
percent), convictions for assault (8 percent), burglary (4 percent) and
robbery (4 percent) accounted for most of the criminal alien removals. INS
now removes about 1,328 criminals every week. The expedited removal process
-- which was established by Congress to remove aliens who arrive at ports of
entry with fraudulent, improper or no entry documents -- removed 85,796
illegal aliens for the fiscal year, a decrease of approximately 4 percent
from FY 1999. The largest number of expedited removals occurred in San
Diego, Calif.; (48,332), Phoenix, Ariz.; (9,402), and Harlingen (6,956), El
Paso (6,303) and San Antonio (4,243), all in Texas.
The year-end statistics for FY 2000 are preliminary. Historically, there are
significant upward revisions in the statistics for three months after the
conclusion of the
initial reporting period."
See also
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/msrmay01/REMOVAL.HTM
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still
> > > > a
> > > > million violent felons.
> > >
> > > And if it were a million violent felons you might have a point.
> > > However, as its only about 12,000 violent felons, your inflamatory
> > > harping is just that.
> >
> > Cites please.
>
> No, please, after you.
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/msrmay01/REMOVAL.HTM
And it's not quite as bad as I thought, but far from as rosy as you wish to
point the picture:
Total removals for April decreased 10 percent compared to the same month a
year before.
In April 2001, INS removed 14,274 aliens from the United States, 5,260 of
these aliens
were criminals.
That's 39,511 criminal aliens removed to date of April 31, FY2001. Since the
fiscal year is about half over, I guess that's a yearly average of about
70,000 criminal aliens removed each year. But since you are surely aware
that the average felon perpetrates a number of crimes before apprehension,
we can extrapolate upwards from the body-count and guesstimate the number of
crimes. Perhaps there aren't a million foreign felons, but perhaps there are
a million felonies by foreigners.
That translates to perhaps a million American-citizen victims!
[Data Source: HQSTA DACS Monthly Extract]
>
> > > Well, I find it very illuminating that their crack research didn't
> > > yield it. You see poor spelling on usenet is excuseable. Its a
> > > colloquial medium. Not getting your subject's name right in a
> > > published piece is simply piss poor journalism.
> >
> > I'm sure Muammar Khaddaffi or is is Quadahfi or is it Muhmahr or however the
> > hell you transliterate it will be glad to know that because you can't spell
> > his name right, he's not a supporter of terrorists.
>
> This may come as a shock, but Spanish is written in the Roman alphabet.
>
> > Non-sequitur, beside the point.
>
> Impeaches the integrity of the source. Standard debate proceedure.
Impeaches variable spelling. Pfaugh.
>
> > Care to address the facts as opposed to sniping at utter trivialities?
> >
> > Facts: MS-13 is extremely violent, extremely well organized, and thank god
> > they're getting extremely deported.
>
> None of which was at all present in the article. How many of MS-13 are
> there in El Salvador? How many people have they killed. How many
> people ordinarily get killed. How many MS-13 members were deported?
> How many never left El Salvador. How many are death squad or Contra
> alumni?
>
> Gee, not in the article, how strange.
I'll have to get around to that in the next day or two. In the meantime,
have some light reading at
http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/ganglandexpress/index.html
Definitely see this one for fun links!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/ganglandexpress/gangrelated.html
>
> <S>
>
> >
> > Which distortion was that? the ones I got from ABC news and PBS and from
> > Time Magazine?
>
> No, the distortion you presented.
Oh. the "distortion" presented by the L.A. network affiliate.
> If I write an article on the guys
> who live on fifth street downtown or the gutterpunks who live under the
> bridges I'm doing an investigative journalism piece on a topic. I am
> not, however giving a picture of LA and attempting to depict the
> articles as such doesn't make the situation the status quo.
Well, take that up with the TV station, not with me.
>
>
> > >
> > > On site, cutting in around trim? Do please find provide a cite for
> > > this wonder.
> >
> > Hell no, just airless. You said "painting", not "interior decorating".
>
> I said "paint my house". When you can find a robot that does that,
> you'll have a point.
No, I have a point already. Have a robot paint the house, or most of it, and
leave the interior decoration to interior decorators, and anything the robot
can't do, a human does. But because there are a few things a robot cannot
do, that is not to say, no robots can do anything, which is what you're
apparently trying to say.
The fact remains, many many illegal aliens can be, and increasingly will be,
replaced by advanced automation.
And once again, as stated elsewhere, if the illegal aliens had any sense,
they'd all pool their money together and develop a plant in Mexico where
robots make robots. As the owners and stockholders, they could get very very
rich.
>
>
> > > > For which they've paid into the system all of their lives, and all of which
> > > > they directly support with their taxes, or with direct payments in the form
> > > > of building houses, etc.
> > >
> > > Was that suposed to be a rebuttal? Just checking, because what
> > > actually happened is you once again posted something that wasn't true,
> > > were refuted, and changed the subject to something completely
> > > irrelavent.
> >
> > Prove it. Quotes, please.
>
> Do you reall think you can escape your own idiocy by deleting your
> statement and asking for a quote?
Which idiocy was that? Quotes please.
>
> You said "Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to
> immigration, much of it illegal immigration."
>
> This is not remotely true and going off on a tanget about our hard
> working seniors doesn't disguise that fact.
>
> The strain on the infrastructure in Phoenix is based entirely on the
> fact that it wen't from being a one horse town ot one of the largest
> cities in the world in a generation.
And who did that? It's nobody but the old folks? You are saying that there
are _no_ illegal aliens in Phoenix? Or are you saying that there are hardly
any?
You know, if there's nobody there but old folks, why is there such a strain
on the schools, especially the elementary schools? Old folks not being much
capable of producing small children dontcha know.
>
> > >
> > > The strain was caused by unprecidented migration of US citizens. It
> > > was alleviated by cheap and plentiful labor, our noble retiress (who
> > > incidentally have not largely been paying to the system all their
> > > lives) notwithstanding.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But what about the fifty relatives of the illegal alien with the broken arm?
> > >
> > > Who are also employed.
> >
> > Illegally.
>
> Or not. Many illegals have citizen or non-resident aliens. more to
> the point, you asked what about the fifty relatives? Illegal or not
> they are still working and filling a major labor vacuum. Contributing
> to the "commonweath" as you put it.
If they're taking up work that will be needed by the people coming off of
Welfare, they're keeping Americans from filling that "major labor vacuum".
Hey, if there's such a "major labor vacuum", how come those employers aren't
hiring people off of Welfare rolls? Make honest hardworking taxpayers of
them, wouldn't it? Can't people put their money where their mouth is, and
hire Americans off of the Welfare rolls? No? Have to pay Americans too much,
even if they're getting minimum wage for grunt work? The Huddle study
indicates that many employers do prefer to hire illegal aliens because they
can be paid a lot less.
>
> > >
> > > > You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
> > > > amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in the
> > > > end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started.
> > >
> > > How nice. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my point, which was
> > > that unlimited growth *did* and start and continued and needed to be
> > > ameliorated, because strangely enough the three million people who now
> > > comprise metro Phoenix aren't about to pack up and go elsewhere.
> >
> > and this excuses a million and more ILLEGAL ALIENS streaming across our
> > southern border, how, exactly?
>
> Because we *needed* them.
No, I think it's because unscrupulous employers prefer to hire them, because
they can make a greater profit. But if they had any social consciousness,
they'd help people get off of Welfare and into productive taxpaying jobs.
>
> Jim Dugan
--
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> <rad...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:120620010044191917%rad...@spam.earthlink.net...
>
> > Which is the heavily disputed claim of one anthropologist. Moreover
> > while depletion of the water table implies overpopulation (surprise,
> > surprise) that *actual* theory (an it is, BTW merely one of many) is
> > that a prolonged drought cause the civilization to scatter. It didn't
> > die, its ancestors are the Hopi and Navajo.
>
> Heavily disputed, yes, but its not one anthropologists claim. There's a fair
> bit of literature on the topic, and there are supporters on both sides. The
> evidence is contradictory, but is by no means conclusive for or against the
> theory. And so it will remain debated.
Certainly. Are you aware of the findings which were made in last year's
fires in the Mesa Verde area?
>
> However, the water table theory is pretty much discarded, as most historical
> physical evidence suggests a prolonged drought in the region.
Yes. A prolonged drought in the region led to the depletion of the water
table, particularly in the Mesa Verde settlements, which are generally
accepted to have been the height and center of Anasazi culture.
>
> Jeff-boy, Eater of Worlds
> "No flesh shall be spared"
--
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3B255488...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > Hardrock Llewynyth wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:40:36 -0700, <rad...@spam.earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
> > > >uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
> > > >Mulholland.
> > >
> > > The population was a tiny handful of hunter-gatherers, not large
> > > cities full of people?
> > >
> > > Hardrock, amazed that he has to point that out.
> >
> > Why would you for a moment be amazed that this risable extremist will grasp
> > at any straw?
>
> At least I don't rely on fabricated
Fabricated? Cites please.
> support and the rantings of the
> mouth breathing lunatic fringe to make my points.
Really? Regarding CRASH, you appear to have been quoting the founder of the
"Voz de Aztlan" group, verbatim.
> Extremist indeed.
>
> > And by the way, who's been doing all of the cancelling here?
>
> I show no cancels
Cancels get cancelled too, these days. I saw a response from Una, for
instance, only as a very partial quote. Oh well, I suppose I can google it
if it made it that far.
>
> Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B219682...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > The L.A. Times repeating verbatim the assertions of CRASH six years ago.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > 2001 minus 1995 equals six.
>
> Non-sequitur and besides the point.
>
> >
> > > And who the heck are "CRASH"?
> >
> > You do realize that you just performed the equivalent of asking who
> > George III was in a discussion of our founding fathers.
>
> I have only your unsupported bald assertion regarding this.
Then evidently you've been living under a rock, as the scandal has been
front page international news for over two years now
> But here is something interesting about CRASH, from a web-site which
> supports your views exactly, even though you characterize the site as
> something to be dismissed as the work of a few extreme-fringe wackos:
> http://www.aztlan.net/cuacua.htm
OK, so you think that by quoting someone you disagree with this
undermines my point?
How about a somewhat more succinct quotation:
³An organized criminal subculture thrived within the LAPD, where a
secret fraternity of anti-gang officers and supervisors committed
crimes and celebrated shootings.²
Thats not Mexican nationalists, thats the LA Times.
FYI more than thirty convictions have been overturned and charges were
dropped against another hundred defendants as a result of perjury and
miscondouct and the city has had to reorganize its entire budget to pay
out outstanding and future civil awards.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > and both 18th
> > > > > > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Care to support that in any way?
> > > >
> > > > Well, I live roughly ninety seconds from their alleged stronghold and
> > > > my house, unimproved, is now worth 30% more than it was a year ago.
> > > > That and the fact that theyre just not there, of course.
> > >
> > > Your personal anecdotes, as you will be quick to remind me I would expect,
> > > have considerably less value than would third-party documentation.
> >
> > Feel free to verify it. Property values in Pico Union, West Adams and
> > South Koreatown are rising faster than in Beverly Hills.
>
> This is supposed to come as a surprise? Aren't Beverly Hills properties sort
> of overvalued or at peak possible value?
No.
> Why on earth would Beverly Hills
> property values rise?
Because they do and have. Simple supply and demand.
> Property values are on the rise all over the DC area. Hell, property values
> are rising in _my_ neighborhood, too. But then again, property values are
> rising in Viers Mill Village, but that doesn't mean I want to move to a
> Levittown where people steal trash out of each other's garbage cans.
The only state where you can actually steal garbage is California.
Everywhere else its free. More to the point I was fairly specific in
that property values are up 30% from last year when they weren't low.
> >
> > Pico Union, West Adams and South Koreatown are where MS-13 and 18th
> > street are from and where they have all but disappeared.
>
> So, where'd they go to? Texas? NYC? Northern Virginia?
Actually most of them simply got legitimate jobs. Funny how that
happens in a booming ecomony.
> >
> > Neither do the vast majority of Mexican-Americans as far as you can
> > prove.
>
> You know what? You're the one who raised the whole red herring about New
> York Irish etc, so I'm not going to argue it as if I had something to prove.
Of course youre not.
> > The same way you explain any other fringe wacko group. Just because
> > someone puts up a website doesn't mean others subscribe to their views.
>
> But it's funny. In the text quoted above, by the founder of the "fringe
> wacko group" himself, he expresses almost exactly the opinions that you do.
Thats because most of what he's citing isn't opinion, its fact, which
is why you can read about it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/10/lapd.scandal/
and here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,39952,00.html
and about fifty articles here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/state/updates/lat_rampart000214.htm
> >
> > You, of all people ought to recognize that.
>
> Yeah, I see someone disavowing any commonality with someone with whom you
> evidently agree, lock stock and barrel.
The Aryan Nations agree with your positon lock, stock and barrel too.
Are you going to endorse them? I'm quite certain that Lyndon LaRouche
and I could find quite a bit of common ground in matters of established
fact as well. Moreover, inasmuch as I agree with Aztlan, so does the
FBI, the state and federal courts and avery major mainstream news
outlet on the planet. I'm pretty comfortable with the company I keep,
thanks.
> >
> > Are you aware that that assertion demands support, and not from NPG or
> > dieoff?
>
> You _are_ a silly boy. You're a very very silly boy. Remember that
> "earthops.org" is Earth Operations Central. It is primarily an ecology and
> environment site. And we don't do fringe, silly silly boy. We do UN, US and
> Canadian Government sites, we do NASA, and we deal in science, not
> fallacious rhetoric.
That, I'm afraid, is a bald faced lie.
<S>
>
> All rather non-fringey there, Jimmee me boy. And all quite well supported
> and _generally accepted by scientists everywhere_.
Unfortunately, they also don't support your point.
> In summary, "you just plain don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
> and I do".
Evidently you don't.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Are you aware that most aquifers nationwide are being depleted faster than
> > > they are being recharged? It may be one consequence of global warming, but
> > > even in normally rain-drenched MD-DC-NoVA, for four of the last five years
> > > there has been insufficient rain to recharge the water table.
> >
> > Welcome to the wonderful world of cyclical weather patterns. Are you
> > aware that in that same time the west coast and the central US have had
> > record rainfall for the same reasons?
>
> See above. It's insufficient for aquifer recharge in most places. It's not
> in the right places.
Funny, it doesn't say that. It says "Meanwhile, water has been pumped
from some underground aquifers faster than natural recharge rates"
Some. Doesn't say which or where.
Its also is dated 1997.
> > Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
> > uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
> > Mulholland.
>
> See cites above. And perhaps you'd like to explain how a very few natives
> living in harmony with the land begins to compare will civilizations in the
> millions and tens of millions of persons importing something like 96 percent
> of all water used.
Please do provide a cite for that figure.
> You have a truly astonishing inability to perceive scale, don't you? Scaling
> factors and their consequences consistently elude you.
No, owning up to your own words when proven false seems ot elude you;
you just change the argument. We're not arguing that water allocation
and utilization is mismanaged and requires a major overhaul. Thats a
no-brainer. What we're discussing, generally, is whether curtailing
illegal immigration is likely to solve that, which it isn't, and
specifically that where I live is uninhabitable without impounding the
Colorado river, which is, just as it was yesterday, completely false.
Changing the subject isn't going to alter that fact.
<S>
>
> See cites above. If you weren't completely logically impaired, you could
> follow the really quite mainstream science and come to the reasonable
> conclusion, no matter how it offends your political leanings. We need to
> _reduce_ population, we're at nitrogen saturation levels all across North
> America, we need to _reduce_ our agricultural output. We're of no use to the
> rest of the world if we smother in fertilizer.
Which is a *conclusion* based on the data set that the people who
produced it aren't willing to make. I'll side with them, thanks.
<snip drivel>
> > The concept of upward mobility of labor is something you might look
> > into.
>
> Illegal aliens cannot apply for immigration except from their country of
> origins. They then have to go through the processes of immigration and
> naturalization before they can become cops. This looks like ten years in
> process. By that time, all of those abundant children of LEGAL immigrants
> can be upwardly mobile and become cops or lawyers or whatever else is
> needed.
>
> But we're not discussing Legal Immigrants, are we? We never were! We were
> discussing ILLEGAL ALIENS. I at least know there's a difference, apparently
> you do not.
Thats nice. Too bad that not what upward mobility of labor means.
> >
> > > > http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/oct19_00/no_workers.html
> > >
> > > This is a side effect of California's ridiculously high rents contrasted
> > > with the low pay offered for dishwashers. Hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS is not how
> > > you fix _that_ problem.
> >
> > Oh, and how *do* you solve that problem?
>
> Begging the question, I see.
Back to the logical fallices page for you. Begging the question is
arguing tautologically, not asking a question.
> Do you think sarcasm will troll me off into
> some pointless speculation on matters where I'm totally uninformed and you
> can shred me? Nah.
You raised the issue.
> I don't solve that problem, you're the Californian and that problem affects
> Californians. You solve it.
We do, we solve it with illegal aliens, the same as the rest of the
country.
> ILLEGAL ALIENS are not exclusively a Californian problem. Illegal aliens are
> all over the US. Thus, it's a national issue, not your private little
> California issue. Right now, it's very much an Arizona issue, you know.
Yes, because the economic upturn created such a labor vacuum that the
demand became national. I know you think its pure coincidence that
gang violence rose during the recession and illegal migration rose
during economic boom, but everybody else sees the correlation.
>
> > Gee, I've worked in urban planning and renewal since I learned to type.
> > Its what my wife does for a living, its what may father does for a
> > living. Do you really think that you can equate zero population growth
> > with zoning and I wouldn't notice?
>
> I am in _no way_ equating ZPG with zoning! You're the one who is making that
> assertion!
>
> strawman.
>
> I am equating halting massive illegal immigration with permitting ZPG in the
> US.
Which has what exactly to do with urban planning?
> Or are you actually making the statement that control of the sovereign
> borders of the United States equates to _city zoning regulations_?
Thats what urban planners *do* genius. Do you really think I give a
lot of credence to "citizen activists" who are no more than a lot of
morons like yourself, and environmentalists whom you cant seem to quote
as agreeing with your *position* (please note the word position)
> > How.. do... you... know?
>
> I just told you that, I do believe. But I'll tell you again.
>
> If someone says "ai chinga, es ahora el vampiro!" that might be a bit of a
> clue, right?
To me that would be a clue that they don't speak Spanish, actually,
since you just said "Oh, fuck (verb from, impossible conjugation) now
is the vampire"
> Speaking Spanish, thinks that a Goth or a Deathmetal/Industrial
> type is _actually_ a revivified corpse?
And if a white guy called you a vampire you'd assume that he meant it
litterally?
> If they're speaking only spanish,
> chances are that they're an immigrant,
Or they don't want you to understand them, or they just like speaking
spanish, or theyre Puerto Rican with full citizenship rights, or theyre
naturalized, or they were born here to Spanish speaking parents, or
any number of ofther equally supportable conclusions which you choose
to ignore
> under 1996 law if they engage in a
> felony that makes them deportable,
Only if theyre non-resident aliens. Immigrants with full citizenship
do, also, speak Spanish, you know. Further, youve never alleged any
felony, merely misdemeanor.
> hence, illegal alien.
Which is not what the term remotely means.
> Simple logic.
Someone calls you a name in spanish and they should and could be
deported. Very logical.
> >
> > > If they were
> > > non-racist citizens they'd presumably be entirely happy to act in
> > > accordance
> > > with the 14th Amendment Section 1 "equal protection of the laws" and the
> > > presumption of equal civil treatment of all law-abiding persons.
> >
> > You do grasp the fact that the fourteenth amendment does not have the
> > slightest application to individuals, don't you?
>
> And this has exactly what to do with anything? The amendment was ratified by
> a very substantial majority nationwide and presumably it is the law of the
> land.
Um, it was ratified under martial law.
> Everyone is supposed to _know_ this. _Everyone_ is expected to know
> and obey the most basic laws of the land. Or are you making some sort of
> ridiculous assertion that lynch mobs are _legal_?
No, but I'd assert that since youre still yapping, you probably haven't
been lynched. Moreover while actual lynch mobs are illegal, it is not
the 14th amendment that makes them so.
> >
> > > And once again, if they can't speak English, act totally lost as fuck, and
> > > are demonstrably inclined to violence, I believe it's quite reasonable to
> > > presume that they're illegal alien desperados.
> > >
> > > I don't suppose I have to point out that non-citizens, brown or of
> > > whatever
> > > color, you racist skin-color obsessed _freak_, who are assaultive are
> > > technically CRIMINAL ALIENS and are subject to extremely rapid
> > > deportation;
> > > simply the violence makes them illegal aliens.
> >
> > Which still doesn't address the issue of how you know that they are
> > illegal.
>
> Because whether or not they were border jumpers, visa-overstayers, or
> whatever,
Citizens. You are still assuming that they are not. I wan't to know
how you know this. That they speak Spanish is not enough. *I* speak
Spanish, albeit badly, but I'm afraid you can't abrogate my citizenship
if I say "Chingate dar por culo tu hijo de puta."
> the second they engaged in a felony with a US citizen victims,
> they become illegal. Not to mention criminal. Criminal aliens are by
> definition illegal aliens under the immigration reform act.
After having been adjudicated so by a court of law and given a hearing
by an ALJ, not because you said so.
> What part of "criminal == illegal" do you not understand?
The part where your psychic powers determine their national alienage
which was the question.
> >
> >
> > > > No, because you still haven't answered my question.
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Where you didn't answer the question.
>
> Where it's answered _redundantly_ now.
Try again.
> > Do they have sarcasm on your planet?
>
> Sarcasm is not valid in debate. It's as bad as argument from anecdote.
But accusing me of being drunk, thats valid.
BTW, sarcasm is, in fact, a valid tool of deabte.
> > Then please do find some that supports your position, but you needent
> > bother looking in the INS or the DOJ websites, because '96 is, in fact,
> > the most recent data they have correlated.
>
> Sorry, they've got some more recent information at
> http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/ which is the US Department of Justice
> "Sourcebook 2000".
Sorry, Easy Reader the "Sourcebook" is Albany Law School's sourcebook,
not the DOJ's. They take uncorrelated data from the DOJ and organize
it. Its not a government publication.
> http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/t644.pdf is the most recent
> "Characteristics of Federal prisoners. United States, 1994-99 (Table 6.44)"
Its also broken.
> "Hispanic" accounted for 31.4 percent of Federal prisoners in 1999.
> "Black" accounted for 39 percent.
But that says nothing about alienage and we're not talking about
federal prisoners. You said prisoners in the southwest, which whether
you know it or not, means state prisoners, because federal prisoners
are distributed throughout the country. Moreover you *still* haven't
proven that 30% of prisoners in *any* system are illegal, just that
they are brown. That you cant see the difference pretty much proves my
point.
> >
> >
> > > > It is true. Too bad thats not the point. The point is that you
> > > > asserted that Candians do not illegally come to the US in great
> > > > numbers.
> > >
> > > Canadians aren't illegally mobbing the borders in the Millions!
> > >
> > > Mexicans are. Deal, baybee.
> >
> > Canadians are mobbing the borders in numbers sufficient to pouplate a
> > good sized city. Those are great numbers.
>
> What are the actual numbers? Less than one tenth of the numbers coming in
> across the Mexican border, right?
And Bill Gates has ten times as much money as Jon Huntsman. Jon
Huntsman is still one of the richest people on the planet.
> > You said Candians don't come here in great numbers and when the do,
> > they do so LEGALLY. One hundred and twenty thousand illegal Canadian
> > immigrants blows that statement out of the water whether youre willing
> > to admit it or not.
>
> Are we talking about people who overstayed their visa, or are we talking
> border jumpers supporting the human-smuggling industry?
What does either have to do with the fact that there are 120,000
illegal Canadians in this country that you denied existed?
> >
> > > So. You know damned well that I was making the assertion that most
> > > Canadians
> > > who leave the US under less than perfect immigration-status conditions are
> > > leaving because they slightly overstayed a student visa or an employment
> > > visa. That means that the majority of the time they were here, they were
> > > here by permission.
> >
> > No we don't know that because you can't prove it, you can just offer up
> > another mealy-mouthed sidestep.
>
<S>
>
> Game and set, I believe. Proof has been offered. Deal with it, baybee.
I do believe youve finally gone completely over the edge. What do
figures representing those who were *turned away at the border* have to
do with people who obviously managed to get into the country or even
how those who are here got here? See its like this: A lot of people
attempt to get into the country legally. Some are ineligible and are
turned away. This addresses *in no way* how anyone who *is* in the US
got here. That 26,330 Mexican tried to enter the country *legally* and
were subject to expidited removal does not mean that the 120,000
Candians were visa overstayers any more than it means they strapped
great feathered wings to their muscular canuck bodies and flapped their
way across Lake Superior.
> Or do you want to shoot yourself in your _other_ foot?
I'm beginning to think you have a learning disability.
> >
> > I don't know. Perhaps instead of makinging and end run around having
> > to make a statement that requires support, you should look it up
> > yourself.
>
> I did. And considering that less than one percent of "removables" at
> application for admission (turn-aways) was Canadian, that means that the
> vast majority of Canadians are visa-overstay.
No, it doesn't remotely mean that at all..
> Is that game, set and match yet?
No.
<S>
> >
> > Canadians. Great numbers.
>
> Less than one percent. See above.
Less than one percent were turned away for having bad documents. There
are still 120,000 illegal Canadians in the US. You still said there
weren't. Its not that complicated.
> >
> > > > Before
> > > > it was "Because they are ILLEGAL..." with all of the attendant hand
> > > > flapping. BTW Canada is a mojor source of Asian heroin in the US>
> > >
> > > The vast majority of heroin in the US originates in or is transhipped
> > > through Mexico.
> >
> > No, the vast majority of herion is produced in South America. It is
> > shipped to the southwest via Mexico and the east via the Dominican
> > Republic. South East Asian herion still occupies 20% of the market
>
> So, you're saying that still as much as 80 percent comes via Mexico?
No, because the majority of heroin on the east coast comes though the
Dominican Republic, which is what I said in plain English.
> > nationally and more in New York and the Pacific Northwest and its major
> > point of entry is Vancouver, which is what I said.
>
> So, let's see, 100% of the heroin minus the 20% that comes from Asia still
> leaves our wonderful southern neighbors -- such good neighbors! -- supplying
> some 80% of heroin in the US.
"and the east via the Dominican Republic." The East coas is the most
densely populated part of the US. Its is the most urnbanized. It has
the most heroin users. It does not get its heroin from Mexico.
Can I make this any clearer?
>
> > there have only been an aggrigate loss of only half a milion jobs since
> > January, the majority of the nation has experience record rainfalls in
> > the last five years,
>
> None of which did much to rechage the aquifers on which agriculture depends!
Yes, actually it has, and nothing youve cited disputes this.
> > there is a massive demand for low skilled workers,
>
> Not really. There certainly won't be a shortage once Welfare ends within the
> year.
>
> > there are less than 30,000 illegals in southwestern prisons, the
>
> You haven't proven that. You have cited figures from before the Invasion.
I cited the latest figures available. You, on the other hand, despite
the fact that I was *refuting* you have produced exactly none.
Where are you million violent alien felons?
> > majority of whom are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses and so
> > on and so on and so on.
>
> That's one exceptionally long-winded non-sequitur.
How is the fact that you talk almost exlusively out of your ass non
sequitous relative the to the validity of your argument?
> >
> > I've got a better idea. You provide the cites for a change. Go on,
> > give it a shot. Show me the million violent alien felons. Show me the
> > 33% alien prison population. Then we can compare.
>
> See above, the cites are provided. Oh, excuse me, it's only 31%. So sue me.
It says 31% in the *federal system* are *Hispanic*. Again, show me the
33% alien prison population.
> >
> > I know its easier to demand proof of a rebuttal than to admit you made
> > your assertion up,
>
> But I didn't. See above. Or see this:
>
> > but the paractice will do you good.
>
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/removals.pdf
>
Which again are combined figures for people turned away at the border
and people deported for criminal convictions. It has utterly nothing
to do with aliens incarcerated in the US. The only interesting thing
about these figures is that 88% of the population had non-violent
records and 20% of the "criminal" revovals only crime was trying to
enter the country illegally.
Again, where is your 33% alien inmate population and where are your
million violent felons. It seems that you can only come up with 21,000
even citing completely irrelavent stats.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's
> > > > > still
> > > > > a
> > > > > million violent felons.
> > > >
> > > > And if it were a million violent felons you might have a point.
> > > > However, as its only about 12,000 violent felons, your inflamatory
> > > > harping is just that.
> > >
> > > Cites please.
> >
> > No, please, after you.
>
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/msrmay01/REMOVAL.HTM
>
> And it's not quite as bad as I thought, but far from as rosy as you wish to
> point the picture:
Thats an interesting way of spinning the fact that you were off by
979,000 people, even granting your specious stats.
>
> Total removals for April decreased 10 percent compared to the same month a
> year before.
> In April 2001, INS removed 14,274 aliens from the United States, 5,260 of
> these aliens
> were criminals.
>
> That's 39,511 criminal aliens removed to date of April 31, FY2001. Since the
> fiscal year is about half over, I guess that's a yearly average of about
> 70,000 criminal aliens removed each year. But since you are surely aware
> that the average felon perpetrates a number of crimes before apprehension,
> we can extrapolate upwards from the body-count and guesstimate the number of
> crimes. Perhaps there aren't a million foreign felons, but perhaps there are
> a million felonies by foreigners.
Sorry, but thats utterly pathetic, and in fact ignores most of the data
you cite. Lets start with the fact that 20% were deported merely for
violating imigration law which leaves only fifty-six thousand. Then
eliminate the drug offenses which leaves 27,300 of which 5600 there are
assaulters, 2800 burglars and robbers each and 15700 miscelanous
offenders including the dastardly "voting as an illegal alien" which
means that youre still quite a bit shy of a million violent felonies,
unless each and every one of these guys is a one-man crime spree
comitting fifty violent felonies without getting caught.
> That translates to perhaps a million American-citizen victims!
That stuff in your hand is called straw. By your math 130,000 or so of
those crimes are immigration offenses which are victimless and in
another 275,000 or so the "victims" bought drugs. I'm sure theyre
traumatized.
I ask again, where are your million, *violent* felons?
Prove it, or admit you made it up.
> > None of which was at all present in the article. How many of MS-13 are
> > there in El Salvador? How many people have they killed. How many
> > people ordinarily get killed. How many MS-13 members were deported?
> > How many never left El Salvador. How many are death squad or Contra
> > alumni?
> >
> > Gee, not in the article, how strange.
>
> I'll have to get around to that in the next day or two. In the meantime,
> have some light reading at
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/ganglandexpress/index.html
>
> Definitely see this one for fun links!
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/ganglandexpress/gangrelated.html
Gee, theres a credible resource.
> >
> > <S>
> >
> > >
> > > Which distortion was that? the ones I got from ABC news and PBS and from
> > > Time Magazine?
> >
> > No, the distortion you presented.
>
> Oh. the "distortion" presented by the L.A. network affiliate.
Actually, we're talking about Juarez here.
> > If I write an article on the guys
> > who live on fifth street downtown or the gutterpunks who live under the
> > bridges I'm doing an investigative journalism piece on a topic. I am
> > not, however giving a picture of LA and attempting to depict the
> > articles as such doesn't make the situation the status quo.
>
> Well, take that up with the TV station, not with me.
it wasn't a TV station that put forth the notion that because there are
slums in Juarez, the entire city is decimated, it was you.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > On site, cutting in around trim? Do please find provide a cite for
> > > > this wonder.
> > >
> > > Hell no, just airless. You said "painting", not "interior decorating".
> >
> > I said "paint my house". When you can find a robot that does that,
> > you'll have a point.
>
> No, I have a point already. Have a robot paint the house, or most of it, and
> leave the interior decoration to interior decorators, and anything the robot
> can't do, a human does. But because there are a few things a robot cannot
> do, that is not to say, no robots can do anything, which is what you're
> apparently trying to say.
I think I'm beginning to see whay you were passed over for shape up
work, and it has nothing to do with your alienage. Painting a wall is
not interior decoration. Its painting a wall. You don't hire a
decorator to do it. You hire a painter. Every wall has windows and
doors and trim that need to be painted around. Robots cant do that.
Robots also cant tape or spackle or scrape or prep all of which is
actually about 95% of the work involved in painting a house inside or
out, and having a robot that can spray up a blank wall is neither an
innovation, nor particulary useful.
> The fact remains, many many illegal aliens can be, and increasingly will be,
> replaced by advanced automation.
And someday we'll all be vacationing in space.
> And once again, as stated elsewhere, if the illegal aliens had any sense,
> they'd all pool their money together and develop a plant in Mexico where
> robots make robots. As the owners and stockholders, they could get very very
> rich.
If they had investment capital they probably wouldn't be coming to the
US to wash dishes.
> > > > Was that suposed to be a rebuttal? Just checking, because what
> > > > actually happened is you once again posted something that wasn't true,
> > > > were refuted, and changed the subject to something completely
> > > > irrelavent.
> > >
> > > Prove it. Quotes, please.
> >
> > Do you reall think you can escape your own idiocy by deleting your
> > statement and asking for a quote?
>
> Which idiocy was that?
I freely admit that the examples are so numerous they are hard to keep
track of, which is why I *quoted* it...
> Quotes please.
Right...
Down...
Heeeere...
> >
> > You said "Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to
> > immigration, much of it illegal immigration."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This is not remotely true and going off on a tanget about our hard
> > working seniors doesn't disguise that fact.
> >
> > The strain on the infrastructure in Phoenix is based entirely on the
> > fact that it wen't from being a one horse town ot one of the largest
> > cities in the world in a generation.
>
> And who did that? It's nobody but the old folks? You are saying that there
> are _no_ illegal aliens in Phoenix? Or are you saying that there are hardly
> any?
I'm saying that that "The strain on the infrastructure in Phoenix is
based entirely on the fact that it wen't from being a one horse town ot
one of the largest cities in the world in a generation."
I don't think I can be any clearer.
> You know, if there's nobody there but old folks, why is there such a strain
> on the schools, especially the elementary schools? Old folks not being much
> capable of producing small children dontcha know.
Reading comprehension isn't one of your stronger points.
.
> >
> > Or not. Many illegals have citizen or non-resident aliens. more to
> > the point, you asked what about the fifty relatives? Illegal or not
> > they are still working and filling a major labor vacuum. Contributing
> > to the "commonweath" as you put it.
>
> If they're taking up work that will be needed by the people coming off of
> Welfare, they're keeping Americans from filling that "major labor vacuum".
Which you'd have to prove in order to have a point. Of course it still
wouldn't be the point you were trying to make before being rebutted
here, but at least it would be a point.
> Hey, if there's such a "major labor vacuum", how come those employers aren't
> hiring people off of Welfare rolls?
They are.
> Make honest hardworking taxpayers of them, wouldn't it?
It does. Of course theres still no affordable daycare in place and
they pay starvation wages, but thats a little broader than the labor
pool issue.
> Can't people put their money where their mouth is, and
> hire Americans off of the Welfare rolls?
They do. There's still a labor shortage.
> No? Have to pay Americans too much,
> even if they're getting minimum wage for grunt work? The Huddle study
> indicates that many employers do prefer to hire illegal aliens because they
> can be paid a lot less.
In marginal day labor jobs. Of course, Huddle isn't at all
controversial or ideologically biased, either.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
> > > >
> > > > Hardrock, amazed that he has to point that out.
> > >
> > > Why would you for a moment be amazed that this risable extremist will
> > > grasp
> > > at any straw?
> >
> > At least I don't rely on fabricated
>
> Fabricated? Cites please.
One million violent felons. 33% illegal alien incarceration.
There are plenty more, but you can work with just those two for now.
>
> > support and the rantings of the
> > mouth breathing lunatic fringe to make my points.
>
> Really? Regarding CRASH, you appear to have been quoting the founder of the
> "Voz de Aztlan" group, verbatim.
Who was inturn quoting a massive investigative journalism piece done by
the LA Times, verbatim. This is not coincidence. You see, shocking
though it may seem, sometimes people who disagree with you do actually
have the facts on their side.
> > Extremist indeed.
> >
> > > And by the way, who's been doing all of the cancelling here?
> >
> > I show no cancels
>
> Cancels get cancelled too, these days. I saw a response from Una, for
> instance, only as a very partial quote. Oh well, I suppose I can google it
> if it made it that far.
I have two newsfeeds. One accepts thrid party cancels. One does not.
The two show no noticable difference.
Jim Dugan
Tiny Human Ferret
Yes yes, we all know all about corrupt cops. Similar farces have been going
on in DC for quite some time now. The DCFRA's management-consultant's
reports on the DC Evidence Room did about the same thing for local
law-enforcement as the cowboys in Rampart did for L.A.
My point was that you are fairly selective about whom you believe about
which facts. For instance, below, you quote the LA Times as an authority.
But when I mentioned the 18th Street Gang being mostly foreign criminals and
armed illegal aliens, you viciously attacked the integrity of the LA Times
as being nothing more than a mouthpiece quoting the CRASH party-line.
So, are they possessed of integrity? Or only when it's convenient to _your_
side of the case? Sure, it's good debating form -- but is it honest? Is this
sort of thing a good example of the quality and character of your own
integrity?
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > and both 18th
> > > > > > > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? Care to support that in any way?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I live roughly ninety seconds from their alleged stronghold and
> > > > > my house, unimproved, is now worth 30% more than it was a year ago.
> > > > > That and the fact that theyre just not there, of course.
> > > >
> > > > Your personal anecdotes, as you will be quick to remind me I would expect,
> > > > have considerably less value than would third-party documentation.
> > >
> > > Feel free to verify it. Property values in Pico Union, West Adams and
> > > South Koreatown are rising faster than in Beverly Hills.
> >
> > This is supposed to come as a surprise? Aren't Beverly Hills properties sort
> > of overvalued or at peak possible value?
>
> No.
>
> > Why on earth would Beverly Hills
> > property values rise?
>
> Because they do and have. Simple supply and demand.
>
> > Property values are on the rise all over the DC area. Hell, property values
> > are rising in _my_ neighborhood, too. But then again, property values are
> > rising in Viers Mill Village, but that doesn't mean I want to move to a
> > Levittown where people steal trash out of each other's garbage cans.
>
> The only state where you can actually steal garbage is California.
> Everywhere else its free. More to the point I was fairly specific in
> that property values are up 30% from last year when they weren't low.
Yes, I know, the real-estate market is generally insane. Oddly, the property
values in the Levittown are rising much more quickly than they are in my own
formerly-upscale neighborhood. Do you know why? Because in the Levittown,
they are in a different school zone. The kids who live there go to a rather
older, but much less crowded, triad of schools. Here, they go to a set of
schools which have fallen from being the second-best set in what was once
one of the top-three public school systems in the country, to being just
about the worst in the county by most standards, and definitely the worst in
terms of overcrowding. Nobody planning on being upscale and with kids wants
to buy a house here. So we have the old folks, PWT, and all of the people
who think it's _good_ to double the size of a house already half-filling a
1/3rd acre lot, and invite all of the relatives from the Old Country and
let's everyone see how many Christenings they can have per calendar-year per
acre.
>
> > >
> > > Pico Union, West Adams and South Koreatown are where MS-13 and 18th
> > > street are from and where they have all but disappeared.
> >
> > So, where'd they go to? Texas? NYC? Northern Virginia?
>
> Actually most of them simply got legitimate jobs. Funny how that
> happens in a booming ecomony.
It happened around here, as well. But as you very well know, that can change
practically overnight.
And so am I. Well, I used to be, until all of the Environmentalist
organizations and fronts decided they'd rather let the planet go to hell
rather than have pussy liberals call them "bigots" because they wanted to
preserve greenspace in the US.
>
>
> > >
> > > Are you aware that that assertion demands support, and not from NPG or
> > > dieoff?
> >
> > You _are_ a silly boy. You're a very very silly boy. Remember that
> > "earthops.org" is Earth Operations Central. It is primarily an ecology and
> > environment site. And we don't do fringe, silly silly boy. We do UN, US and
> > Canadian Government sites, we do NASA, and we deal in science, not
> > fallacious rhetoric.
>
> That, I'm afraid, is a bald faced lie.
Okay, so we deal in not only fallacious rhetoric, but we also deal in
science. And clearly if you can't find it, it's time for me to do a lot more
updating of http://www.earthops.org/earth.html
>
> <S>
>
> >
> > All rather non-fringey there, Jimmee me boy. And all quite well supported
> > and _generally accepted by scientists everywhere_.
>
> Unfortunately, they also don't support your point.
Ah, I see you do a very nice point-by-point deconstruction of how they don't
support my point! Ooopsies, you _didn't_? You mean you just snipped it and
said "neener neener I'm not listening"?
>
> > In summary, "you just plain don't know what the fuck you're talking about,
> > and I do".
>
> Evidently you don't.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you aware that most aquifers nationwide are being depleted faster than
> > > > they are being recharged? It may be one consequence of global warming, but
> > > > even in normally rain-drenched MD-DC-NoVA, for four of the last five years
> > > > there has been insufficient rain to recharge the water table.
> > >
> > > Welcome to the wonderful world of cyclical weather patterns. Are you
> > > aware that in that same time the west coast and the central US have had
> > > record rainfall for the same reasons?
> >
> > See above. It's insufficient for aquifer recharge in most places. It's not
> > in the right places.
>
> Funny, it doesn't say that. It says "Meanwhile, water has been pumped
> from some underground aquifers faster than natural recharge rates"
>
> Some. Doesn't say which or where.
>
> Its also is dated 1997.
>
> > > Again, cite please. I'd also like an expalanation as to how those
> > > uninhabitable lands have been inhabited for thousands of years before
> > > Mulholland.
> >
> > See cites above. And perhaps you'd like to explain how a very few natives
> > living in harmony with the land begins to compare will civilizations in the
> > millions and tens of millions of persons importing something like 96 percent
> > of all water used.
>
> Please do provide a cite for that figure.
Only if you will answer the question: "how many of the original colonies in
the vicinity of LA were decimated by thirst?"
>
> > You have a truly astonishing inability to perceive scale, don't you? Scaling
> > factors and their consequences consistently elude you.
>
> No, owning up to your own words when proven false seems ot elude you;
When did you do that?
> you just change the argument. We're not arguing that water allocation
> and utilization is mismanaged and requires a major overhaul. Thats a
> no-brainer. What we're discussing, generally, is whether curtailing
> illegal immigration is likely to solve that, which it isn't,
Why do you think that it won't even help out on the issue of water-supply?
> and
> specifically that where I live is uninhabitable without impounding the
> Colorado river, which is, just as it was yesterday, completely false.
> Changing the subject isn't going to alter that fact.
Now you're mincing words to the exclusion of all sense. Okay, change that
"uninhabitable" to "barely marginally habitable, and only by numbers quite
low in comparison to those in the region today", and I wind up being
long-winded but correct, incontrovertably.
>
> <S>
>
> >
> > See cites above. If you weren't completely logically impaired, you could
> > follow the really quite mainstream science and come to the reasonable
> > conclusion, no matter how it offends your political leanings. We need to
> > _reduce_ population, we're at nitrogen saturation levels all across North
> > America, we need to _reduce_ our agricultural output. We're of no use to the
> > rest of the world if we smother in fertilizer.
>
> Which is a *conclusion* based on the data set that the people who
> produced it aren't willing to make. I'll side with them, thanks.
Actually, it's at that site that they _do_ come out and say it: we're
killing the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer runoff. Nitrogen Saturation is a
fact and it's also a huge problem. you know that it is, don't you? Am I
going to have to dig up page after page of good science supporting that
statement almost totally, if not totally? you know, sufficient to suspend
doubt in reasonable people.
>
> <snip drivel>
>
> > > The concept of upward mobility of labor is something you might look
> > > into.
> >
> > Illegal aliens cannot apply for immigration except from their country of
> > origins. They then have to go through the processes of immigration and
> > naturalization before they can become cops. This looks like ten years in
> > process. By that time, all of those abundant children of LEGAL immigrants
> > can be upwardly mobile and become cops or lawyers or whatever else is
> > needed.
> >
> > But we're not discussing Legal Immigrants, are we? We never were! We were
> > discussing ILLEGAL ALIENS. I at least know there's a difference, apparently
> > you do not.
>
> Thats nice. Too bad that not what upward mobility of labor means.
But that's not what we're discussing.
>
> > >
> > > > > http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/oct19_00/no_workers.html
> > > >
> > > > This is a side effect of California's ridiculously high rents contrasted
> > > > with the low pay offered for dishwashers. Hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS is not how
> > > > you fix _that_ problem.
> > >
> > > Oh, and how *do* you solve that problem?
> >
> > Begging the question, I see.
>
> Back to the logical fallices page for you. Begging the question is
> arguing tautologically, not asking a question.
Actually, what _you_ are doing is trotting out a lot of information that
only marginally supports your position.
>
> > Do you think sarcasm will troll me off into
> > some pointless speculation on matters where I'm totally uninformed and you
> > can shred me? Nah.
>
> You raised the issue.
Of hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS as COPS? Hardly.
>
> > I don't solve that problem, you're the Californian and that problem affects
> > Californians. You solve it.
>
> We do, we solve it with illegal aliens, the same as the rest of the
> country.
So, you're arguing in favor of a permanent underclass? Um, so, when are you
planning to reinstate open Slavery?
>
> > ILLEGAL ALIENS are not exclusively a Californian problem. Illegal aliens are
> > all over the US. Thus, it's a national issue, not your private little
> > California issue. Right now, it's very much an Arizona issue, you know.
>
> Yes, because the economic upturn created such a labor vacuum that the
> demand became national. I know you think its pure coincidence that
> gang violence rose during the recession and illegal migration rose
> during economic boom, but everybody else sees the correlation.
Oh, and what's going to happen when there's an economic downturn? All of
those illegal aliens are just going to go back wherever they came?
I think that everyone can see _that_ too, you know.
>
> >
>
> > > Gee, I've worked in urban planning and renewal since I learned to type.
> > > Its what my wife does for a living, its what may father does for a
> > > living. Do you really think that you can equate zero population growth
> > > with zoning and I wouldn't notice?
> >
> > I am in _no way_ equating ZPG with zoning! You're the one who is making that
> > assertion!
> >
> > strawman.
> >
> > I am equating halting massive illegal immigration with permitting ZPG in the
> > US.
>
> Which has what exactly to do with urban planning?
Where they hell did you get urban planning from? And where the hell did you
get zoning from?
I just want illegal aliens out of the country as fast as possible. The
country is growing far too quickly, resources are being depleted at
outlandish rates, unscrupulous employers are using ILLEGAL ALIENS to bust up
unions and lower wages for American workers, and you appear to think that
all of those things are good things. And you're trotting out wacked shit
equating Invasion with Zoning regulations.
>
> > Or are you actually making the statement that control of the sovereign
> > borders of the United States equates to _city zoning regulations_?
>
> Thats what urban planners *do* genius.
Guard the borders. Yeah right.
that's it, you're insane.
>*plonk*<
--
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3B264F13...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> > rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3B219682...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
<snips>
> > under 1996 law if they engage in a
> > felony that makes them deportable,
>
> Only if theyre non-resident aliens. Immigrants with full citizenship
> do, also, speak Spanish, you know. Further, youve never alleged any
> felony, merely misdemeanor.
>
State of Maryland is a Common Law State, and
Mayhem/Tar-and-Feather/Disfigurement is a common-law Felony, and a violent
one, 5-15 years. As if that were not enough, under the state codes, Second
Degree Assault is a Felony as well, 15-25 years, and that is defined as
injuring someone in such a manner as to deprive them of functionality. That
includes things like blinding, maiming, breaking fingers, etc etc etc --
anything that deprives a person of the function of any limb or organ or
portion thereof, whether or not permanently. If three or more person do such
a thing, or at in such a manner that a reasonable person would be in fear of
such a thing happening, that is Felony Riot. If three or more persons are
party to discussing such a thing and all express intent, that's pretty close
to Felony Conspiracy to Riot, it may even be exactly that.
Also, I might add that carrying a weapon of specific types is permitted when
one has a reasonable apprehension of danger, which reasonable apprehension
one may be required to explain to the satisfaction of a judge; however,
deliberate possession of arms to the intent of specific actions against a
specific individual or member of a class of individuals is felonious and
violently so, particularly if carried out by three or more individuals, etc
etc etc.
Let's just say, I'm a citizen, I know the law, and I'm not the one breaking
it. I sit still in person for a lot of crap, simply because that whole thing
about Felony Riot is really hard to prove, it's the word of three
individuals against the word of one individual, usually. And co-actors or
co-conspirators generally have their stories straight and stick to it. All I
have is my poor little Linux box and a willingness to publicly embarass
myself instead of just sucking it up and facing the fact that my Nation's
Capital environs are occupied by a lot of fuckheads who firmly believe that
if they backstab someone and elude prosecution, that makes them winners and
real cool guys. And hey, majority rules, I guess. Censorship by Intimidation
is a grand old Latin tradition.
Clearly anyone who remains possessed of their morals and acts according to
their convictions about being law-abiding is the loser in this contest, to
fail to be a criminal is to be a victim. Well, sorry, fuckhead, I'm not
about to abandon my civility and humanity so I can be a better _animal_.
But you go right ahead. Mazeltov, muchacho, mazeltov.
And again, you may think you're smarter in this debate. You may even be
right in thinking that. But the fact remains that you are just plain wrong.
And I think everyone with a lick of sense will see that someone who is
smarter than them and is just plain wrong is The Enemy.
Or at least, a FuckHead.
And I reiterate, *plonk*
<snips>
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> > How about a somewhat more succinct quotation:
> >
> > ³An organized criminal subculture thrived within the LAPD, where a
> > secret fraternity of anti-gang officers and supervisors committed
> > crimes and celebrated shootings.²
> >
> > Thats not Mexican nationalists, thats the LA Times.
> >
> > FYI more than thirty convictions have been overturned and charges were
> > dropped against another hundred defendants as a result of perjury and
> > miscondouct and the city has had to reorganize its entire budget to pay
> > out outstanding and future civil awards.
>
> Yes yes, we all know all about corrupt cops. Similar farces have been going
> on in DC for quite some time now. The DCFRA's management-consultant's
> reports on the DC Evidence Room did about the same thing for local
> law-enforcement as the cowboys in Rampart did for L.A.
>
> My point was that you are fairly selective about whom you believe about
> which facts. For instance, below, you quote the LA Times as an authority.
> But when I mentioned the 18th Street Gang being mostly foreign criminals and
> armed illegal aliens, you viciously attacked the integrity of the LA Times
> as being nothing more than a mouthpiece quoting the CRASH party-line.
Because the quotation you cited was six years old. CRASH was formed in
'92 to combat increasing gang violence. In 1995 they were the poster
boys for agressive law enforcement. They had a publictity department.
They were cited as experts. In 1996 however, it began to come to light
that their "sucess" was far more a result of creative accounting and
total disregard for the constitution and law than effective police
work. Got a gang homicide you can solve? Record it and it goes in the
"win" column. Cant solve it? Well then its not gang related. The
bottom line is tha they *lied*, constantly, provably, and in far more
insidiuos way than just pumping up their numbers to the LA Times.
> So, are they possessed of integrity? Or only when it's convenient to _your_
> side of the case? Sure, it's good debating form -- but is it honest? Is this
> sort of thing a good example of the quality and character of your own
> integrity?
I never impugned the Time's integrity. Six years ago, they reported
what they belived was the truth from a credible source. That source
has since proved to be remarkably less than credible, which is why you
cant find a remotely recent source to back up your claim.
> > > Property values are on the rise all over the DC area. Hell, property
> > > values
> > > are rising in _my_ neighborhood, too. But then again, property values are
> > > rising in Viers Mill Village, but that doesn't mean I want to move to a
> > > Levittown where people steal trash out of each other's garbage cans.
> >
> > The only state where you can actually steal garbage is California.
> > Everywhere else its free. More to the point I was fairly specific in
> > that property values are up 30% from last year when they weren't low.
>
> Yes, I know, the real-estate market is generally insane. Oddly, the property
> values in the Levittown are rising much more quickly than they are in my own
> formerly-upscale neighborhood. Do you know why? Because in the Levittown,
> they are in a different school zone. The kids who live there go to a rather
> older, but much less crowded, triad of schools. Here, they go to a set of
> schools which have fallen from being the second-best set in what was once
> one of the top-three public school systems in the country, to being just
> about the worst in the county by most standards, and definitely the worst in
> terms of overcrowding. Nobody planning on being upscale and with kids wants
> to buy a house here. So we have the old folks, PWT, and all of the people
> who think it's _good_ to double the size of a house already half-filling a
> 1/3rd acre lot, and invite all of the relatives from the Old Country and
> let's everyone see how many Christenings they can have per calendar-year per
> acre.
Which is rather completely irrelvant in a dsitrict whose school system
is the LAUSD, the worst metropolitan system in the country. No one is
moving to Pico Union for the schools.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Pico Union, West Adams and South Koreatown are where MS-13 and 18th
> > > > street are from and where they have all but disappeared.
> > >
> > > So, where'd they go to? Texas? NYC? Northern Virginia?
> >
> > Actually most of them simply got legitimate jobs. Funny how that
> > happens in a booming ecomony.
>
> It happened around here, as well. But as you very well know, that can change
> practically overnight.
Whcih doesn't change the fact that you tried to paint my neighborhood
as the wild, wild west as part of your deluded rhetorical diatribe.
Once again, you said something that is completely false. Once again
you attempt to change the subject when proven wrong.
> > I'm pretty comfortable with the company I keep,
> > thanks.
>
> And so am I. Well, I used to be, until all of the Environmentalist
> organizations and fronts decided they'd rather let the planet go to hell
> rather than have pussy liberals call them "bigots" because they wanted to
> preserve greenspace in the US.
But wait, I thought all the environmentalist groups *agreed* with you.
Now it seems they dont, but theyre lying. What a difference a day
makes.
> >
> > That, I'm afraid, is a bald faced lie.
>
> Okay, so we deal in not only fallacious rhetoric, but we also deal in
> science. And clearly if you can't find it, it's time for me to do a lot more
> updating of http://www.earthops.org/earth.html
Oh, theres a lot of data there, it just doesn't support your point,
which I suppose is part of the dastrardly envirnmental movement's
coverup.
> >
> > <S>
> >
> > >
> > > All rather non-fringey there, Jimmee me boy. And all quite well supported
> > > and _generally accepted by scientists everywhere_.
> >
> > Unfortunately, they also don't support your point.
>
> Ah, I see you do a very nice point-by-point deconstruction of how they don't
> support my point! Ooopsies, you _didn't_? You mean you just snipped it and
> said "neener neener I'm not listening"?
Listening to what? I'll be happy to listen to anything you cite that
supports your point (do you remember what it is?) I'm not, however,
going to do a line-by-line pointing out every bit of specious reasoning
every time you throw up a page of quotations, just to have you delete
it like you did at the bottom here.
> >
> > Please do provide a cite for that figure.
>
> Only if you will answer the question: "how many of the original colonies in
> the vicinity of LA were decimated by thirst?"
Theyre not colonies, they're missions, and none. The reason that LA
developed as a city instead of Capistrano or Santa Barabara is
*because* they had a massive aquifer. Theres no navigable waterway, no
sheltered harbor, no reason for a settlement whatsoever save large
tracts of flat, arable land.
> >
> > > You have a truly astonishing inability to perceive scale, don't you?
> > > Scaling
> > > factors and their consequences consistently elude you.
> >
> > No, owning up to your own words when proven false seems ot elude you;
>
> When did you do that?
You said that the land was uninhabitable. Its not. I proved it. now
youre tyring to weasel your way out of it.
>
> > you just change the argument. We're not arguing that water allocation
> > and utilization is mismanaged and requires a major overhaul. Thats a
> > no-brainer. What we're discussing, generally, is whether curtailing
> > illegal immigration is likely to solve that, which it isn't,
>
> Why do you think that it won't even help out on the issue of water-supply?
Because the problems are indemic and systemic. Most of the water goes
to grow *food*. Food that is not going to feed the illegals, but the
Japanese and the Russians.
> > and
> > specifically that where I live is uninhabitable without impounding the
> > Colorado river, which is, just as it was yesterday, completely false.
> > Changing the subject isn't going to alter that fact.
>
> Now you're mincing words to the exclusion of all sense. Okay, change that
> "uninhabitable" to "barely marginally habitable, and only by numbers quite
> low in comparison to those in the region today", and I wind up being
> long-winded but correct, incontrovertably.
No, you wind up being every bit as full of shit as you were before.
The LA basin's aquifer is capable of supporting half a million people
*with* major agricultural useage. Thats not barely, marginally
habitable, thats one of the largest urban aquifers in the country. New
York's aquifer can't support New York and hasn't been able to since
1840 when its population was less than half a million. Ditto DC,
Philadelphia or pretty much any other major city you care to name.
Thats called very, very habitable.
> >
> > <S>
> >
> > >
> > > See cites above. If you weren't completely logically impaired, you could
> > > follow the really quite mainstream science and come to the reasonable
> > > conclusion, no matter how it offends your political leanings. We need to
> > > _reduce_ population, we're at nitrogen saturation levels all across North
> > > America, we need to _reduce_ our agricultural output. We're of no use to
> > > the
> > > rest of the world if we smother in fertilizer.
> >
> > Which is a *conclusion* based on the data set that the people who
> > produced it aren't willing to make. I'll side with them, thanks.
>
> Actually, it's at that site that they _do_ come out and say it: we're
> killing the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer runoff. Nitrogen Saturation is a
> fact and it's also a huge problem. you know that it is, don't you? Am I
> going to have to dig up page after page of good science supporting that
> statement almost totally, if not totally? you know, sufficient to suspend
> doubt in reasonable people.
Funny, it looks to me like we need to modify our farming techniques,
not reduce our output.
> >
> > Thats nice. Too bad that not what upward mobility of labor means.
>
> But that's not what we're discussing.
Its not? Then why do you continue discussing it below?
> > > Begging the question, I see.
> >
> > Back to the logical fallices page for you. Begging the question is
> > arguing tautologically, not asking a question.
>
> Actually, what _you_ are doing is trotting out a lot of information that
> only marginally supports your position.
Even if thats true, I was not begging the question, which is what you
said.
> >
> > > Do you think sarcasm will troll me off into
> > > some pointless speculation on matters where I'm totally uninformed and you
> > > can shred me? Nah.
> >
> > You raised the issue.
>
> Of hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS as COPS? Hardly.
<sigh> I guess, I'm going to have to spell it out for you. Overtaxed
labor markets result in vacancies at all levels, which given fair
market wages results in an upward concentration of the labor pool, that
is people move from marginal jobs to more desirable jobs leaving the
greatest vacuum at the least desirable end of the spectrum. Pay
attention now, this is the important part: That there are unfillable
vacancies in well-paying career track jobs that require no specialized
education is a leading indicator of a heavily constricted labor market
and one of the primaray data sets used to determine the availability of
the labor pool.
Welcome to introductory level economics.
> >
> > > I don't solve that problem, you're the Californian and that problem
> > > affects
> > > Californians. You solve it.
> >
> > We do, we solve it with illegal aliens, the same as the rest of the
> > country.
>
> So, you're arguing in favor of a permanent underclass? Um, so, when are you
> planning to reinstate open Slavery?
No, because immigrants, regardless of status are usually the lowest
rung on the economic ladder, but they don't stay there, which is why
there aren't any Italian or Irish slums anymore, and not coincidentally
why we need a continous supply of immigrant labor.
> >
> > > ILLEGAL ALIENS are not exclusively a Californian problem. Illegal aliens
> > > are
> > > all over the US. Thus, it's a national issue, not your private little
> > > California issue. Right now, it's very much an Arizona issue, you know.
> >
> > Yes, because the economic upturn created such a labor vacuum that the
> > demand became national. I know you think its pure coincidence that
> > gang violence rose during the recession and illegal migration rose
> > during economic boom, but everybody else sees the correlation.
>
> Oh, and what's going to happen when there's an economic downturn? All of
> those illegal aliens are just going to go back wherever they came?
Actually yes, that pretty much exactly what happens. Quite a lot of
them do that already, prefering to come here make money and go home.
> I think that everyone can see _that_ too, you know.
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Gee, I've worked in urban planning and renewal since I learned to type.
> > > > Its what my wife does for a living, its what may father does for a
> > > > living. Do you really think that you can equate zero population growth
> > > > with zoning and I wouldn't notice?
> > >
> > > I am in _no way_ equating ZPG with zoning! You're the one who is making
> > > that
> > > assertion!
> > >
> > > strawman.
> > >
> > > I am equating halting massive illegal immigration with permitting ZPG in
> > > the
> > > US.
> >
> > Which has what exactly to do with urban planning?
>
> Where they hell did you get urban planning from? And where the hell did you
> get zoning from?
I got urban planning because you *said* urban planing. Right here:
"This is the position of... the majority of Urban Planners"
> I just want illegal aliens out of the country as fast as possible. The
> country is growing far too quickly, resources are being depleted at
> outlandish rates, unscrupulous employers are using ILLEGAL ALIENS to bust up
> unions and lower wages for American workers, and you appear to think that
> all of those things are good things. And you're trotting out wacked shit
> equating Invasion with Zoning regulations.
Youre frothing again. You brought up urban planning. I just said
you're full of shit. Suck it up.
>
> >
> > > Or are you actually making the statement that control of the sovereign
> > > borders of the United States equates to _city zoning regulations_?
> >
> > Thats what urban planners *do* genius.
>
> Guard the borders. Yeah right.
No, they analyze the most beneficial allocation of land and public
resources.
> that's it, you're insane.
>
> >*plonk*<
Uh, huh, right. Why do I suspect you'll be back as soon as the
outstanding list of bullshit claims youve made fades into the mists of
your pea-sized cranuim.
I notice that your claim of a six million reduction on aggrigate jobs
disappeared before you sulked away, too, BTW.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B264F13...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > > rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3B219682...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > > > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
> > > under 1996 law if they engage in a
> > > felony that makes them deportable,
> >
> > Only if theyre non-resident aliens. Immigrants with full citizenship
> > do, also, speak Spanish, you know. Further, youve never alleged any
> > felony, merely misdemeanor.
> >
>
> State of Maryland is a Common Law State, and
> Mayhem/Tar-and-Feather/Disfigurement is a common-law Felony, and a violent
> one, 5-15 years.
<snip rant>
I am in facr remarkably aware of the muddled state of Criminal Code of
Maryland. Its somewhat famous in that you can be imprisoned for up to
18 years on a misdemeanor charge.
None of this remotely indicates what the fuck youre talking about,
however. All I can divine from this is that some people did something
bad to you, you didn't bother to press charges, and youre pissed
because youre convinced that theyre illegal aliens.
> But you go right ahead. Mazeltov, muchacho, mazeltov.
>
> And again, you may think you're smarter in this debate. You may even be
> right in thinking that. But the fact remains that you are just plain wrong.
Says the guy who makes up the bulk of his facts.
> And I think everyone with a lick of sense will see that someone who is
> smarter than them and is just plain wrong is The Enemy.
Ooooh, I get a proper noun title. Does that come with a parking space?
> Or at least, a FuckHead.
>
> And I reiterate, *plonk*
Funny think about killfiling people. If you actually *do* it, there
really isn't any reitterating.
Jim Dugan
Le Mod Pol
flames" several "unsupported bald assertions".
However he has not provided any support for any of
HIS assertions some of which are obvious Texas cow plop
:~)
In Politics, Moderation Is The Best Policy
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> rad...@spam.earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B1D584A...@clark.net>, Tiny Human Ferret
> > <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > And you can't type for fuckall when you're shitfaced drunk, can you. Hint:
> > > > > type s-l-o-w-l-y. And then wait for your eyes to uncross a time or two
> > > > > before you hit "send".
> > > >
> > > > Um:
> > > > visitng
> > > > eon
> > > > Australians
> > > > experience
> > > > youself
> > > > suddent
> > > > judgment
> > > >
> > > > If youre going to make pathetic jibes at my typing, invest the time in
> > > > a spell check. You can't afford to look like any more of an ass than
> > > > you already do.
> > >
> > > Oh, I wasn't making a spelling flame at you, I was making a drunken fuckwad
> > > flame at you. I though that even you should be able to see through the haze
> > > sufficiently to realize that.
> >
> > Um, yeah. Right. Perhaps you ought to reread that definition of
> > cogent again.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yes you are its your stereotypical boogeyman. Unfortuantely, you know
> > > > fuck all about it save what youve parroted from other net-kooks.
> > >
> > > But you see, it's only your exceptional paranoia that makes you insist that
> > > I'm singling out California. You do know that illegal aliens are in every
> > > State of the Union, right?
> >
> > "Los Angeles, 2005."
> >
> > "BTW, the US loses."
> >
> > "Hey man, everyone I know who visits
> > California gets quizzed by me when they return."
> >
> > "They're not laughing in Los Angeles,"
> >
> > "18th-Street Gang and the Mara Salvatrucha, you generally
> > don't take into account that both of those very large and violent
> > criminal organizations are almost entirely composed of illegal alien
> > criminals."
> >
> > "For instance, based on terms of raw numbers of people of Mexican
> > descent, Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city."
> >
> > [Of L.A.] "Carry a nonlethal and be prepared to scream endlessly. And
> > know where you are and where you should not go. and if you see lots of
> > illegal aliens blocking your passage and making very strange gestures
> > with their hands, make your peace with your Maker while you
> > still have a moment or two of composure."
> >
> > FYI, should you like to inject some actual facts into your world view,
> > 18th street is not lagrgely coposed of illegal immigrants
>
> According to the LA Times, as of 1995, it was.
>
> > and both 18th
> > street and MS13 have basically been gentrified out of existance.
>
> Really? Care to support that in any way?
>
> > Despite the bombast of our oh-so-honest Rampart CRASH unit, neither
> > gang has more than 100 active members and have actuallu shot fewer
> > people than Rampart officers, and thier activities are largely
> > non-violent. Its just no fun to mention that on the news.
> >
> > And if we count "descent" New York is the largest Irish city in the
> > world. So what?
>
> New York doesn't mostly speak Gaelic, and even on St. Padriac's day, most of
> the guys out there wearing green and getting 'faced will tell you they're
> proud to be Americans. And they don't drive around with signs in their cars
> that say "fuck you, this is still Ireland".
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now. I would like you to get this straight. If I am getting all over the
> > > > > map
> > > > > in the matter of the ILLEGAL ALIEN Invasion, I am _not_ singling
> > > > > California
> > > > > out. I really don't care all that much, as you have observed I haven't
> > > > > been
> > > > > there in years and years and years and I have absolutely no interest in
> > > > > visitng. If I want horizon-to-horizon ghetto punctuated by a few tall
> > > > > buildings and interspersed with a lot of alcoholic hicks living in
> > > > > trailers
> > > > > that would be hauled away wholesale if they could be dragged off in one
> > > > > piece and not make more of a mess than they are just sitting there, well,
> > > > > I
> > > > > can stay here on the East Coast and see all of that I want. But my
> > > > > concerns
> > > > > are not for your State, nor for my State, but rather for the whole grand
> > > > > American ideal. American ideals are to some degree embodied in the US
> > > > > Constitution, and oen of those ideals is that the goddamned military will
> > > > > fucking defend us from Invasion. Relevant text would be in Article IV
> > > > > Section 4, Article I Section 8 paragraph 15, Article I Section 10
> > > > > paragraph
> > > > > 3 final clauses, and last but not least, Amendments 9 and 10.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, you seem to think I'm all opposed to Mexicans because they're
> > > > > Mexicans,
> > > > > or to "hispanics" because they're "hispanic". I am not. However, there are
> > > > > at least 9 million illegal aliens in the country right now, and the
> > > > > national
> > > > > head-count has increased by a bit more than one percent a year. The
> > > > > country
> > > > > is FULL. We can admit the most desperate or deserving refugees, we can
> > > > > admit
> > > > > the intelligentsia and the creative, in my opinion solely on Permanent
> > > > > Resident or Citizenship tracks.
> > > >
> > > > And yet despite repeated oportunity youve done nothing to establish a
> > > > credible basis for this assertion.
> > >
> > > Which credible basis for the _which_ assertion?
> > >
> > > Oh, that there might be as many as 9 million illegal aliens in the country?
> >
> > No, that the country is "FULL" despite the fact that we have billions
> > of acres of unimproved land,
>
> And where do you intend to get the water needed to develop it? Hint: it's a
> rare day when the Colorado River makes it all of the way to the sea. And you
> might also want to check the water levels of the aquifer serving the Rio
> Bravo (Rio Grande del Norte) area. You might also want check the level of
> industrial pollution in the water recharging that aquifer at about 1/10th
> the rate it's being drained.
>
> One unsupported bald assertion flyin in the face of the facts shot down in
> flames. Next:
>
> > food to feed the entire planet if we'd
> > just get around to sharing it,
>
> Really? Can you support this statement? Can you also support the sort of
> utterly non-sustainable agricultural practices that would have to be
> employed to do this, if it can be done at all?
>
> Another unsupported bald assertion shot down in flames. Next:
>
> > and a massive labor shortage.
>
> Can you document this "massive labor shortage"? Especially can you support
> it when unemployment is rising, and there are about 6 million workers who
> just hit the streets in the last six months or so? I didn't think so.
>
> Another unsupported bald assertion that flies in the face of the facts, shot
> down in flames.
>
> The country is in fact damned near FULL.
>
> >
> > > > Not to mention when push comes to
> > > > shove you froth the same bigoted rantings completely free of any
> > > > objective correlation to illegal status, cf. your aged mother in the
> > > > bario.
> > >
> > > Now let's talk about utterly non-sequitur statements! Seems to me you've
> > > lost all objectivity. In fact, you're ranting.
> >
> > Hardly. Anyone you don't like who's brown is an "ILLEGAL ALIEN" just
>
> Really? Putting words in my mouth are we? Arguing to a strawman again?
>
> Yawn.
>
> > waiting to make off with your TV or worse. Heres a news flash there
> > are 32 million hispanics in this country, that means even graonting
> > your figures there are 28 million perfectly legal hispanic residents of
> > our fair nation (clearly the extra alleged seven million are not part
> > of that 32 million of the oficial figures). How exactly can you tell
> > the apart, Kreskin?
>
> Speaking English fluently might be one clue, but to be honest, the law at
> present requires that people present certain identification documents at the
> time of employment which establish either citizenship or a legal right of
> noncitizen to work.
>
> And since there's a pretty large problem with document fraud, clearly the
> present system which requires checking for Child Support payment obligations
> must be extended to validating identification and determining right-to-work
> and citizenship/immigration status.
>
> By the way, I got you coming and going on this. I do believe I shall enjoy
> shredding you on this issue.
> >
> > > Here's some credible basis for the assertions about 9 million illegal
> > > aliens:
> >
> > You mean like this one, which total supports what I've been saying?
>
> What exactly did you say that supports this?
>
> > thanks for the tip.
> >
> > > Most of the undocumented workers found employment in the new economy, and
> > > their availability may even have helped fuel it, according to the study by
> > > economists at Northeastern University.
> >
> > >
> > > See also http://www.numag.neu.edu/0001/economy.html
> >
> > I think you rather missed the point of this one.
>
> And what point would that be, that there are huge numbers of illegal aliens
> in the US? That the numbers on which the economists based Federal economic
> policy were flawed, leading to improper changes in the Prime Rate, leading
> to the present economic slowdown and possible recession?
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Or alternately youve rationalized a clear racial bias that way.
> > >
> > > Or alternatively you have done the same, and can't face clear facts,
> > > because, as a racist, you see all opposition to your viewpoints as racist;
> > > or, you simply wish to categorize it thus because you believe that an
> > > "appeal to political correctness" is your best (fallacious, you being you)
> > > argument, since otherwise you don't have an argument, only appeal to
> > > emotion... which is all you ever had on this issue in any case.
> >
> > That would be so much more persuasive if the base of your argument
> > wasn't that the evil brown people are going to slit all our throats in
> > the night.
>
> Oh, care to provide a full quote _in context_?
>
> I don't think that all inimical or criminal illegal aliens are "brown" as
> you racists like to express it.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > And thats really what it comes down to, doesn't it.
> > >
> > > Your words, not mine, racist.
> >
> > How that could possibly be when I was responding to a direct
> > quoatation, eludes me.
>
> Please provide this quotation, and make sure you give the whole thing, _in
> context_.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The fuckin'
> > > > beaners offend. They don't slip into your pie-eyed american ideal
> > > > because they live in barrios and have the audacity to speak a language
> > > > that has been in use on this very soil, uninterupted for five hundred
> > > > years and theyre brown so you can spot 'em.
> > >
> > > Spanish has not been the native language of Maryland, ever.
> >
> > Thats because Maryland doesn't have a native language. Neither does
> > the rest of the US.
>
> Actually, it's got quite a few native languages. Unfortunately, Cortes and
> the Conquistadores imported a disease that killed off most of the speakers
> of those languages.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The Canadians may not offend, but one might think that as the do come
> > > > here in great numbers and do take skilled jobs at lower pay *in your
> > > > very field* you might, if you had even a credible pretense of
> > > > objectivity, have issues with that.
> > >
> > > I do have an issue when people of lesser skill are used to replace older
> > > workers for far less pay. Age discrimination is an unquestioned reality in
> > > the Information Technology field.
> > >
> > > And Canadians don't come here in "great numbers", and when they do come
> > > here, they come here LEGALLY. Now, I do have extreme issues with uncrupulous
> > > employers abusing the H1-B visa and I've never felt otherwise about it.
> >
> > "In Fiscal Year 1996, over 95,414 individuals
>
> Of what nationality? Canadian? Or all of these?
>
> By the way, 1996 is pretty old data, especially since the Invasion from
> Mexico didn't really become massive until 1998.
>
> > were refused
> > admission, or withdrew their application for admission, or were
> > referred to an Immigration Judge at Ports-of-Entry along the northern
> > border."
> >
> > "While it is not well known, according to the INS official
> > estimates, Canadian citizens themselves are the fourth largest illegal
> > immigrant population in the United States. according to the INS."
>
> In which year? And while they might have been fourth largest, you're not
> giving any raw numbers.
>
> >
> > TESTIMONY OF DONNA KAY BARNES CHIEF INSPECTOR, DIVISION OF INSPECTIONS
> > IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
> > COMMITTEE
> >
> > Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population for Top Twenty Countries of
> > Origin (1996):
> >
> > 4. Canada 120,000
> >
> > Now more than double that for legal immigration since 1990 and lo and
> > behold 1% of the Canada lives here
>
> And lo and behold, one seventh of Mexico lives here.
>
> I'd say that Mexican ILLEGAL ALIENS _Vastly_ outnumber Canadian ILLEGAL
> ALIENS.
>
> I'd bet this is even more true if you use current numbers.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > They come, if they overstay, the vast majority overstay a short
> > > > > period, and when they're told to go home, the vast majority do and while
> > > > > they were here they generally were a boon.
> >
> > Care to back that up?
>
> You're the one who just posted the numbers indicating the really quite low,
> regarding the relative numbers of Canadian to "latino" ILLEGAL ALIENS.
>
> It is a fairly easily supportable statement, considering that Canadians are
> allowed to enter almost universally unencumbered, they are given extremely
> long times of visitation, may travel anywhere within the US with no
> restrictions during their visits, etc etc. Hell, I think they can even buy
> guns here if they want to do so.
>
> >
> > > > Caare to cite any evidence for this delusion, or can we chalk this one
> > > > up with the fact that you think asians are cool?
> > >
> > > What makes you think I think that Asians are cool?
> >
> > The fact that you constantly compare them unfavoarbly to hispanics. I
> > can quote if you'd like.
>
> Please do. Make sure it's me that you're quoting. Be sure to give the entire
> quote -- including Message-ID -- and make sure to quote the whole thing, in
> context.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > What I'm on about here is solving problems. Canadians are, by and large,
> > > > > nothing remotely resembling a problem.
> > > >
> > > > Except that they do *everything* that you denounce about Mexicans and
> > > > the generally do it further up the economic scale geometrically
> > > > aggrivating the attendant cost.
> > >
> > > Prove it. Let's see your hard eivdence that "Canadians do everything that
> > > [I] denounce about Mexicans".
> >
> > They come by the tens of thousands in violation of US law,
>
> Mexicans come in the millions.
>
> > take jobs
> > away from US citizens, smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants
> > (particularly from Asia) and pretty much anything else you can name.
>
> Give the proportions. You'll see that most of the Canadians smuggling drugs
> and illegal-aliens aren't even Canadian citizens, but are rather British
> Commonwealth subjects, generally semi-Canadianised expatriates of Hong Kong.
> Note also the that vast majority of drugs smuggled out of Canada are
> high-quality marijuana, not high-quality heroin and cocaine and methedrine.
>
> Again, it's all a matter of proportion.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > Get a fucking sense of proportion, okay?
> > > >
> > > > I have, and it recognizes the extent of your backpedaling into the most
> > > > vituperative of arguments.
> > >
> > > Care to elaborate? Or is this just another unsupported semantic null
> > > statement devoid of anythign other than badly-polished rehtorical intent?
> >
> > When confronted with actual facts,
>
> With which exact "actual facts" have I been confronted? All anyone has seen
> from you is unsubstantiated allegations, assorted namecalling, arguments to
> strawmen, and egneral crap which you've conveniently snipped. Feel free to
> repost them, so everyone can judge these "actual facts".
>
> > you universally retreat to the
> > basest and most inflamatory alarmism, replete with specious
> > capitalization. the fact remains that only a tiny fraction if illegal
> > hispanics engage in any sort of criminal enterprise save their status.
>
> Then why are about 1/3rd of major-felony prisoners throughout the US
> southwest illegal-aliens, generally of Mexican nationality?
>
> > of that fraction, an even tinier portion engage in violent crime.
>
> Hey, a million violent felons might be a small proportion, but it's still a
> million violent felons.
>
> >
> > > > I also wieght proportionately any
> > > > assertions of massive criminal syndicalism you make given the past
> > > > track record of your assertions in the department cf: that a couple of
> > > > San Fernando losers were in fact crack Yugoslavian shock troops.
> > >
> > > Well, no documentation can be posted to support my position that those guys
> > > were YACS.
> > >
> > > However, as regards massive criminal syndicalism in the Mexican and Central
> > > American smuggling gangs:
> > >
> >
> > Gee, tougher countermeasures create more organized resistance. How
> > novel.
>
> More organized resistance creates more and tougher countermeasures.
>
> So, do you support Escalation? does Total War appeal to you?
>
> >
> > > Further, and quite applicable to lovely Los Angeles California:
> > >
> > >
> > > ...
> > > L.A.'s Dirty Export
> > > CBS 2 News Special Assignment
> >
> > <S>
> >
> > I'd be a bit more impressed if that inflamatory little gem had managed
> > to spell Mara Salvatrucha properly
>
> I see that you have nothing but a spelling flame to offer against that very
> illuminating little piece. I suppose that you will now argue that the US
> deporting a shitload of violent-felon illegal-alien gangsters didn't really
> happen, the MS-13 was driven out of LA by "gentrification'. Ooops, you did
> that already, didn't you! Cauht in a lie yet again?
>
> >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Well there Jim, I think that damned well about covers FOREIGN CRIMINAL
> > > MILITIA operating on US soil, especially in lovely little Los Angeles, gem
> > > of the SouthWest.
> >
> > No, its a sound bite piece done by a local news team about Salvadoran
> > gangs operating in El Salvador.
>
> Who are in El Salvador and causing problems because they were deported by
> the US!
>
> Of course, you _do_ know that they tend to not remain in El Salvador.
>
> >
> > > And doesn't it just wring your bleeding little PC heart
> > > that they're getting sent home by the plane-load.
> >
> > The entirity of active Mara Salvatrucha bangers in LA wouldn't fill a
> > turbo prop
>
> Possibly because they're all migrating to Northern Virginia?
>
> >
> > > <snips of snivelling>
> > >
> > > > > ILLEGAL ALIENS have no opposing viewpoint.
> > > >
> > > > And yet why do I suspect that if I were to make the same dismissal
> > > > regarding unemployed, middle-aged guys living with their mothers who's
> > > > social interaction consists of internet diatribes I'd be accused of
> > > > hostility? Sucks to be marginalized, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > You should know as well as me.
> >
> > I don't live with my mommy and I pay my own mortgage.
>
> Ah, so you're the sort of guy who'd leave their poor old mother to fend for
> themselves in an increasingly marginalized neighborhood? You're incredibly
> shameless, you know that, right?
>
> >
> > > Like you said in the part that I snipped for
> > > snivelling, you too live in a barrio, right?
> >
> > I'm sure you'd call it that. We have brown people. I'm also smack dab
> > in the middle of your alleged MS13/18th street turf war. Funny that
> > theres utterly no evidence of it despite the fact that CRASH who've
> > been annointing themselves as our last line of defence from the evil
> > hoardes have been disbanded..
>
> That's "hordes". It might interest you to know that there is an ongoing
> migration of all Salvadorans in the LA area into the Greater Washington DC
> Metro Area, including elements of the MS-13. 18th-Street doesn't appear to
> be in evidence since there's hardly any Mexican presence in the DC SMSA,
> legal or illegal.
>
> >
> > > Bu t apparently since you get
> > > along so so well, I guess I have to guess that you've gone out of your way
> > > to be assimilated.
> >
> > You'd be incorrect, although I must admit to having had a burrito for
> > dinner. It was tasty.
>
> I personally bemoan the complete lack of sopapillas hereabouts.
>
> >
> > > And Assimilationists are always a bit marginalized before
> > > they decide to succumb, aren't they?
> >
> > Funny, a major thrust of you vitriol agains hispanics seems to assume
> > that failure to assimilate results in marginalization.
>
> Locally it results in American children of
> illegal-immigrant/extended-refugee-status parents arriving at school unable
> to speak a word of English.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Especially if they are getting
> > > > > violent on this particular citizen's pissed-off self.
> > > >
> > > > And evidently the millions who aren't as well.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When was the last time you were actually in
> > > > > > > > Mexico?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cuidad Juarez in about 1970. I was not favorably impressed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gee, how enlightened of you.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no better today.
> > > >
> > > > And you would know that how, exactly?
> > >
> > > Well, I can and do watch the news, and check the newspapers. There was a
> > > really nice special on PBS -- generally noted for its even-handedness -- or
> > > perhaps one of the mainstream news stations.
> >
> > Well, gee, that narrows it down to something easily verifiable.
>
> Well, Time Magazine, all across the country, this week? ABC news last night?
> Washington Post over the last year or two?
>
> >
> > >
> > > ...
> > > Unfortunately life has not changed for everyone in Juárez: hourly pay is
> > > still about $1.25. Many workers have to travel hours each way by bus from
> > > colonias like Anapra, subdivisions that have sprung up without paved roads,
> > > water or sewer service. The homes look like preschool art projects, glued
> > > and stapled together from cardboard and plywood and tin. Bootleg power lines
> > > drop from overhead wires, loop down to the ground and are held in place by a
> > > rock, then snake through the sand to a house. Some wires are live, and arc
> > > and spit when it rains. The young women who live here are favored by the
> > > maquila bosses for their nimble fingers and obedience. But more than 200
> > > women, many of them maquila workers, have been murdered since 1993 - often
> > > raped, strangled and mutilated during their long, dark treks home to remote
> > > colonias. Most large maquilas have begun providing bus service, but it has
> > > failed to stop the killings.
> >
> > Gee the poorest people in a third world country are poor. I'm stunned.
> > Of course the last time I was in Juarez I ate at a Denny's.
>
> And that's the "real Juarez", right? an American chain-restaurant?
>
> >
> > > > > Actually, I have made considerable sacrifices towards the improvement of
> > > > > the
> > > > > condition of my fellow citizens. But with a fuckhead such as yourself "I'm
> > > > > not at liberty to discuss it".
> > > >
> > > > Of course you aren't.
> > >
> > > Of course I am not, and I can resist your sort of troll for as long as I'd
> > > like.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you do have a tendency to annoint yourself, unbidden.
> > Congratulations for single handedly saving you 'hood from ruin.
>
> Unfortunately, I have hardly done that. I do admit to having had some
> influence in getting those immigrants who are of good reputation and intent
> to look closely at those who aer not of good reputation and intent. That is
> a good thing.
>
> >
> > > Troll on, troll.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW, most illegals don't make enough money to pay anything but
> > > > > > > > regressive taxes to either nation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And they cost quite a lot, especially in the border states where some
> > > > > > > counties are spending really ridiculous amounts of their local revenue
> > > > > > > apprehending and jailing illegal-alien criminals. See House
> > > > > > > Resolution 823
> > > > > > > and Senate Bill 169 under http://thomas.loc.gov/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, and they also contribute billions to the US economy filling
> > > > > > necessary low wage jobs for which there is a massive labor shortage.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are preventing the development and deployment of automation, so long
> > > > > as
> > > > > they work for so cheaply.
> > > >
> > > > Horrors. When Rosie the Robot quits the Jetsons and mows my lawn, then
> > > > we'll talk.
> > >
> > > Well, of course you'd make that argument.
> > >
> > > http://www.smarthome.com/3255.html
> > > http://www.robomow.com/
> > > http://www.ri.cmu.edu/projects/project_422.html
> > >
> > > That's just for starters.
> > >
> > > But of course, as long as unscrupulous employers PREFER to pay near-slave
> > > wages to illegal aliens in preference of paying living wages to legal
> > > workers, there won't be as much incentive to develop these thigns and bring
> > > them to market. But you know that already.
> >
> > I also know, insofar as I do my own landscaping, that nothing that
> > can't walk upright with arms is likely to be doing any large scale
> > landscaping any time soon. Or replumb my kitchen. Or paint my walls.
> >
> > Your yuppie toy notwithstanding.
>
> Time marches on, as does progress. As for painting the walls, that has been
> possible for some 10 years now. It's just not as cheap as illegal-alien
> labor.
>
> Nice haughty tone as you utter FUD, by the way. And the technologists are
> laughing at you, Luddite.
>
> >
> > > What gets me is the Europeans are probably laughing at you, since they have
> > > a much graeter ag-worker shortage than the US does, and they are plowing
> > > very large sums into agricultural robotics... and they presently have quite
> > > a lead on the US. So, the US will move politically and economically more
> > > towards favoring Slavery over Technoligization. and Europe may very well go
> > > the other way, and wind up as our technological superiors, because they
> > > prefer to exclude illegal workers and thus chances to exploit them, in
> > > short, they'll be better than us because of what you in your pathetic
> > > shortsightedness call "bigotry".
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > They also drive down wages for American workers,
> > > > > enable unscrupulous employers to evade OSHA regs.
> > > >
> > > > Blame the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters. Thats cogent.
> > >
> > > I didn't do/say that. Unscrupulous employers must be aggressively targeted
> > > for arrest and if possible for attachment of their businesess.
> >
> > And how many tens of thousands of people do you think it would take to
> > do that? You could employ ever illegal in the country trying to find
> > every subcontractor, restaurant and homeowner committing this "crime
> > wave". BTW, you still labeled the illegals, not their bosses as the
> > root of the problem.
>
> There is no "root" of the problem. Both the unscrupulous employers and the
> illegal aliens are essentially co-conspirative, enabling the others' crimes.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Hey, I bet all of the
> > > > > equipment you give you your illegals has the safety interlocks defeated,
> > > > > or
> > > > > never had them! More profit in your pockets, eh? Plus, there's no better
> > > > > way
> > > > > to bust up the Unions than illegal aliens, is there?
> > > > >
> > > > > And my goodness! while the GAO admits that there's a very slight benefit
> > > > > at
> > > > > the Federal level due to those few illegal aliens who actually have
> > > > > Federal
> > > > > income tax withheld, State and Local government disproportionately feel
> > > > > the
> > > > > impact, especially in infrastructure deployment, infrastructure upgrades
> > > > > in
> > > > > ghettoized areas, indigent costs to hospitals and clinics, and nobody gets
> > > > > hit like the schools. But you knew all of this, didn't you?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. It also doesn't address the positive economic benefit that this
> > > > is simply a byproduct of. Phoenix's population has grown two thousand
> > > > percent since WWII. Strangely enough, this strains the infrastructure.
> > >
> > > Strangely enough, almost all of that strain is due to immigration, much of
> > > it illegal immigration.
> >
> > And *none* of it is from the fact that a million and a half people
> > moved to the middle of the desert in the last thirty years, fully half
> > of whom are geriatric rust-belters who consume huge portions of social
> > services and infrastructure.
>
> For which they've paid into the system all of their lives, and all of which
> they directly support with their taxes, or with direct payments in the form
> of building houses, etc.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Its just that El Paso and Phoenix arent going whining to the government
> > > > > > about the increase in their tax base for housing starts, renovations,
> > > > > > farmland improvements and general increase in productivity that even a
> > > > > > low end, unskilled labor pool contributes massively to. You see they
> > > > > > don't actually want the illegals to go home, they just want to pass of
> > > > > > the attendant cost to the fed while reaping the benefits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phoenix will be one of the first to tell you about the massive costs due
> > > > > to
> > > > > police being spread far too thin, about the incredible number of calls
> > > > > they
> > > > > have to answer mostly due to "culture clash", they'll tell you about how
> > > > > the
> > > > > costs in the hospital/clinic sector far outweigh ALL tax benefits. And
> > > > > THEN
> > > > > they will tell you about the costs from the schools, and those are only
> > > > > the
> > > > > financial costs, not the costs to the teachers' frazzled nerves or to
> > > > > what's
> > > > > left of the social structure.
> > > >
> > > > Evidently, that methedrine cartel makes stops at your place. Phoenix's
> > > > tax base has more than doubled in the last ten years, and their
> > > > infrastructure costs are directly levied on developers via impct
> > > > assessments. In fact Phoenix is the national poster child of managed
> > > > growth, having learned from their explosive growth difficulties in the
> > > > sixties. Perhaps you ought to check your facts.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should check yours. I note that you're only citing the gains.
> > > Trying to stack the deck? The costs are greater than the gains, aren't they?
> >
> > Not even close, which was my point. See it works like this: Illegal
> > immigrant works on building fifty condos. Eventually illegal immigrant
> > brakes arm, wrecks truck and cost Phoenix a couple of grand. Meanwhile
> > twenty yuppies and thirty septugenarians clamoring for the low cost of
> > living provided by cheap labor move into those houses and pump a couple
> > of million dollars into the local economy that otherwise would have
> > stayed in Sandusky. Its called cost benefit analysis.
>
> But what about the fifty relatives of the illegal alien with the broken arm?
>
> You know, your argument has a lot of unstated assumptions which generally
> amount to unlimited-growth as a given. It's not, it's impossible, and in the
> end it will all unravel and it's better to not let it get started. Get this
> through your head if you learn nothing else: Civilization is not a Ponzi
> Scheme, not if you want it to last.
>
> >
> > > Hmm? And would you care to tell us who does the impact assessments and
> > > perhaps tell us how accurate they've been?
> >
> > The city of Phoenix and very.
> >
> > > > Was this supposed to be cogent?
> > >
> > > No, I'm being SARCASTIC. Heavily Sarcastic.
> > >
> > > You're hardly being "cogent" either. Do you know what "cogent" means?
> > > "Compelling, convincing, appealing to the intellect"?
> >
> > Yes, like the fact that there are 120,00 illegal canadians in the US,
> > and not like KCBS went to El Salvador for ratings week and couldn't
> > managed to spell their subjects names properly.
>
> Oh, you're not being very cogent! You're in fact being non-sequitur.
>
> <unaddressed rest of thread trimmed>
>
> --
> Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
> Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
> Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
a
bobsun
Le Mod Pol wrote in message <3B2A399B...@espmail.com>...
>The Tiny Human Ferret claims to have "shot down in
>flames" several "unsupported bald assertions".
>However he has not provided any support for any of
>HIS assertions some of which are obvious Texas cow plop
>
American. He wouldn't recognize Texas cow plop if he stepped in it.
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:39:41 -0400, Le Mod Pol <mod...@espmail.com>,
> in a moment of semi-lucidity, wrote:
>
> >The Tiny Human Ferret claims to have "shot down in
> >flames" several "unsupported bald assertions".
> >However he has not provided any support for any of
> >HIS assertions some of which are obvious Texas cow plop
> >
> >:~)
> >
> >In Politics, Moderation Is The Best Policy
>
> And you quoted over 800 lines of text to make this statement?
>
>
Says the guy with the ten line sig file, and the five one-line replies
to a single post.
Your pot is quite black, Dr. Bandwidth.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> >B) Develop infrastructure which requires abundant cheap labor at a
> >rate equal to, and preferably in excess of, the rate of growth.
> >
> >Which do you think they chose? (Hint: Phoenix is still there)
>
> The Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area has one of the highest transient
> populations in the country - transient, as in moving, not as in
> homeless.
>
> While the area is, and has been, growing quite rapidly, the growth
> does not match the numbers arriving. If we didn't have a constant
> stream of people moving out, just like the constant stream of people
> moving in, the area would have a population base approaching, if not
> surpassing, that of LA.
>
And in what way does this address the fact that in the aggrigate,
Phoenix has grown well over a thousandfold in less than fifty years?
People come, people go; no one is abandoning their homes to the
tumbleweeds rather than dedicate streets, last I checked.
Jim Dugan
rad...@spam.earthlink.net
<jam...@jammin1.S.P.A.M.S.U.X.com> wrote:
> >
> >Says the guy with the ten line sig file, and the five one-line replies
> >to a single post.
>
> Says the guy that cut the 800+ line post down to five, small, easily
> managed messages.
Which wastes five times as much bandwidth.
> The same guy that doesn't attempt to compare 10
> lines to 800+.
Theyre quite comparable, actually. Both display a complete ignorance
of nettiquette and protocol, making you a hypocrite.
> Now, back under your rock.
Is that what passes for wit over in az.general? Pity.
Jim Dugan