Bend Over, America: Portrait of an Illegal Alien Criminal
Burt
> PORTRAIT OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL "WORKING THE SYSTEM" (I.E. SCREWING
> AMERICA):
>
> THIS CRIMINAL . . .
>
> - entered USA illegally on multiple occasions in 1986
>
> - after entering US gave Customs officials a false name (changed what he
> *claims* is his real name, "Antonio Miguel," to the scheming, tripartite "Raul
> Hernandez Reynosa")
>
> - obtained permanent US residency a mere two years after ILLEGALLY entering the
> US
>
> - convicted in a US court of carrying a concealed weapon
>
> - has multiple convictions in US criminal courts for dealing in stolen property
> (probably that of a US citizen derided as a "dumb gringo"); was arrested for
> dealing in stolen property AGAIN just a week after the first conviction
>
> - has three young US-born children (one has to consider the likelihood that
> their non-English-speaking mother is likewise an illegal alien like the father,
> which nonetheless does not prevent her from collecting monthly US Government
> checks/Food Stamps for her offspring), all of whom have had $$LIVER
> TRANSPLANTS$$ (guess who paid for these hugely expensive operations?) and who
> *ALL* require, as per the below newspaper report, "extensive medical attention"
>
> - liver transplants of all three children (one's an infant) are suposedly due
> to a genetic defect (in other words, guess it would have been TOO MUCH TO ASK
> for the criminal illegal alien to use birth control after having TWO MORE kids
> with the same genetic defect after the first, now age 12, was born)
>
> - the criminal's non-English-speaking wife doesn't work
>
> - the criminal's family lives in GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED housing in the US
>
> - the criminal is now getting three square meals a day, free health care,
> almost certainly free legal representation etc. etc.
>
> - the criminal's Anglo-sounding boss "has no problem" with his employee's
> criminal background
>
> and now to the sob story . . .
>
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5148529.htm?template=contentModules/p
> rintstory.jsp
>
> Mon, Feb. 10, 2003
>
> Guatemalan man with three ill children faces deporation
>
> BY CHARLES RABIN
>
> Antonio Miguel talks with his three children daily, but sees them only once
> every three months -- when guards escort him to a judge's chamber at Krome
> detention center.
>
> His three children, ages 10 months, seven years and 12 years, require
> extensive medical attention. Each has had a liver transplant, due to a genetic
> defect.
>
> The youngest, Antonio Jr., has been at Jackson Memorial Hospital the past two
> weeks fighting the rejection of his new liver.
>
> ''The children miss their papi,'' their mother, Candelaria Pascual, says in
> limited English.
>
> The government wants to deport Miguel, a permanent U.S. resident since 1988,
> to his native Guatemala.
>
> Prosecutors say he gave a false name when he crossed the border from Mexico
> to Arizona in 1986. They also point out that Miguel, 35, has been convicted of
> carrying a concealed weapon during a traffic stop in Homestead in 1990, and has
> convictions for dealing in stolen property in 1998 and 1999.
>
> The last two convictions landed him in the Miami-Dade County Jail for 364
> days. Federal laws revised in 1996 call for the deportation of any alien
> convicted of an aggravated felony as defined by immigration law which can apply
> to lesser crimes.
>
> ''You know he's going to be deported because he is poor,'' said Natalia Lasa,
> a volunteer at Miami Children's Hospital who has been with the family through
> all the transplants. ``He's been nothing short of an excellent father.''
>
> Miguel's journey began in 1986 when, after leaving Guatemala, he tried to
> cross the Mexican border into Arizona. Customs agents stopped him. To avoid
> being sent back to Guatemala, Miguel told authorities he was a Mexican named
> Raul Hernandez Reynosa.
>
> It worked. Miguel was returned to Mexico, and a week later managed to sneak
> into the U.S.
>
> Government lawyer Loren Coy brought up the fake name at a hearing before
> immigration Judge Neale Foster at Krome two weeks ago. ''When the man decided
> to lie to the immigration service, he fouled up his own nest,'' Coy said.
>
> Miguel eventually found his way to the south Dade County, picking vegetables
> on a farm. In 1988, Miguel was granted permanent residency. Not long after he
> married Pascual.
>
> Then he got into trouble. In August 1989, Homestead police found a concealed
> gun in Miguel's car during a traffic stop. Five months later he pleaded guilty.
> He served no jail time.
>
> Coy said Miguel was required to disclose the conviction on his application
> for residency. But Miguel's lawyer, Troy Harris, pointed out that the
> conviction came after his application. Coy then asked to continue the hearing
> on Tuesday.
>
> By then, Coy said, he would write a brief stating the government's case or he
> would drop the deportation effort.
>
> Miguel stayed clean until Oct. 21, 1998, when he was charged with dealing in
> stolen property. He was convicted a month later. A week after that conviction,
> Miguel was again arrested for dealing in stolen property.
>
> ''He's committed immigration violations which include obtaining an
> immigration benefit by possible fraud,'' said INS spokeswoman Ana Santiago.
> ``And due to his significant crime history, INS is required by law to keep him
> in custody.''
>
> Harris paraded character witnesses before Foster. Coy asked Miguel's boss at
> a fire safety company, James Hickman, if he was aware of Miguel's criminal
> past.
>
> Hickman said he wasn't: ``If I'd have known before I would have put him on
> probation. But now that I've met him, I have no problem with it.''
>
> Local immigration attorneys say a judge can take sick children into account
> when deciding whether to deport someone.
>
> ''You have to prove extreme hardship,'' said attorney John Pratt. ``You have
> to prove some of your family members will suffer if you leave.''
>
> Now, Pascual, 29, is left to care for her three American-born children alone.
> She has had to quit her job as a farmworker.
>
> She says if Miguel is deported, she will remain here, where her children have
> a brighter future.
>
> ''I go to church a lot. No matter what happens, I have to carry on for the
> children,'' she says.
>
> With friends and South Miami-Dade's Catholic Charities, the family is
> managing, but barely. Home is a small, government-subsidized apartment in
> Homestead. The charity supplies food and clothing for the children.
>
> In a borrowed old beat-up car, Pascual couriers her trio of kids back and
> forth from Jackson at least once a week. Whenever she can she takes them to
> Krome.
>
> Inside the tiny, wood-paneled courtroom at Krome, the kids run to and hug
> their father. He looks at his wife sitting stoically on a bench behind him.
>
> ''Imagine,'' says Lasa, the volunteer and family friend. ``how can these kids
> possibly do without their father?''
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people
> ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign
> influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
> --George Washington, 1796
And we have a "government" demanding our support on numerous projects
while it refuses to enforce the immigration laws. The pressure mounts
to use troops to assist the INS on our southern border. Will the
desire to capture latino votes overide the duty to protect American
citizens? Will the President continue his policy of looking the other
way?
Burt
Roy. Just Roy.
1) Troll sign #3: Crossposting to unrelated groups (milw.general AND
neworleans.general? This guy gets around)
2) I wonder how many criminals meander across the border with Canada.
Of course, they don't count, they're white.
Just another racist spew, wrapped up with the neat candy foil of
immigration reform.
Byron Canfield
news:d4a24bd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> fight...@aol.com1 (FightBack3) wrote in message
news:<20030211020036...@mb-fe.aol.com>...
> > PORTRAIT OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL "WORKING THE SYSTEM" (I.E.
SCREWING
> > AMERICA):
And if you and your ancestors are not Native American Indian, you don't
belong here either. So what's the point?
can...@yahoo.ca
Roy.) wrote:
>2) I wonder how many criminals meander across the border with Canada.
>Of course, they don't count, they're white.
Probably very few, due to low population and low crime rate (except in
those few cities with high latino & black populations, that is.)
r_o...@remove_this.hotmail.com
>Burtm...@hotmail.com (Burt) wrote in message news:<d4a24bd4.0302...@posting.google.com>...
>
>Just another racist spew, wrapped up with the neat candy foil of
>immigration reform.
Ah yes, good ol' LIBERAL COUNTER TATIC #1... tiresome, tried and true:
"anytime someone questions the insanity of this nation's immigration
policies ( or lack thereof ) ... or any social policy, for that matter
... call them a racist, nazi, extremist, anti-semitic, etc."
*yawn*
( modify address for return email )
r_o...@remove_this.hotmail.com
Hmmm ... let's see ... where does this one rank in terms of tired,
overused liberal cliches regarding illegal immigration. I'd put it
#2, after name calling.
1) My ancestors entered this country LEGALLY.
2) Where is it written that ... because a nation is comprised of
immigrants ... it can no longer exercise control of it's future?
And the massive, uncontrolled, ILLEGAL immigration inundating this
country is having effects on this country's future like none before it
Byron Canfield
news:8fij4vsiicg8sv4lm...@4ax.com...
> "Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
> >"Burt" <Burtm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:d4a24bd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> >> fight...@aol.com1 (FightBack3) wrote in message
> >news:<20030211020036...@mb-fe.aol.com>...
> >> > PORTRAIT OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINAL "WORKING THE SYSTEM" (I.E.
> >SCREWING
> >> > AMERICA):
> >
> >And if you and your ancestors are not Native American Indian, you don't
> >belong here either. So what's the point?
> >
>
> Hmmm ... let's see ... where does this one rank in terms of tired,
> overused liberal cliches regarding illegal immigration. I'd put it
> #2, after name calling.
And, of course, when you have no reasonable argument, exercise #2 --
demonize the opponent, right? And then reference your own declaration as
proof that the declaration is true, right?
Seems to be a lot of that going around.
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
Roy. Just Roy.
> Ah yes, good ol' LIBERAL COUNTER TATIC #1
Good ol' boy tactic #1 - anytime anyone uses common sense,
call them a liberal.
> anytime someone questions the insanity of this nation's immigration
> policies
I'll believe that you have a valid point of reference when you
show me the areas of Milwaukee that border Mexico.
What's a matter, Bob, somebody named Gonzalez got promoted ahead of you
on the job site? Maybe it's because he works harder and doesn't spend
good company time farting around in talk.environment.
> 2) Where is it written that ... because a nation is comprised of
> immigrants ... it can no longer exercise control of it's future?
The U.S. Constitution. Try reading it some time. Especially the part about
the inability of the army to act in civil matters. Or to conduct searches
against US citizens.
Due process. What a bummer.
Face it, Bobby, you don't like all dem brown skins tipping your white girls at
the local strip club, do a little border crossing of your own. I hear Canada
has a very low crime rate :)
Squanto
Lulu "Big Mama" Banchetta <Lul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e4a4597...@news.direcway.com...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:20:42 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >
> >> >And if you and your ancestors are not Native American Indian, you
don't
> >> >belong here either. So what's the point?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmmm ... let's see ... where does this one rank in terms of tired,
> >> overused liberal cliches regarding illegal immigration. I'd put it
> >> #2, after name calling.
> >
> >And, of course, when you have no reasonable argument, exercise #2 --
> >demonize the opponent, right? And then reference your own declaration as
> >proof that the declaration is true, right?
> >
> >Seems to be a lot of that going around.
>
> Man. Here the skinny: The first man here might well have been
> European and subsequently killed by the ancestors of "Native
> Americans". Ain't life a bitch?
What is the agreed-upon cut-off date regarding emigration? I look at history
and see a constant state of groups of humans migrating, settling, migrating
again, being overwhelmed by another group that is in turn dispossessed by
another.
What point in time do we declare the settlement patterns to be etched in
stone and for all ancestors of those in those areas to move back to them?
Kinda' silly, huh? About as silly as the knee-jerk rhetorical argument used
to excuse a new modern-day horde to invade the USA.
I still hope that all those advocating the entrance of illegals bear the
brunt of the crimes too-many of those illegals commit. Guard your YOUNG
daughters!!!! Learn to fight, stab and shoot ye illegal lovers. Many of the
invading horde view you and yours as easy pickings!!!!!!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tiny Human Ferret
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 04:20:42 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
> <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>belong here either. So what's the point?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm ... let's see ... where does this one rank in terms of tired,
>>>overused liberal cliches regarding illegal immigration. I'd put it
>>>#2, after name calling.
>>
>>And, of course, when you have no reasonable argument, exercise #2 --
>>demonize the opponent, right? And then reference your own declaration as
>>proof that the declaration is true, right?
>>
>>Seems to be a lot of that going around.
>
>
> Man. Here the skinny: The first man here might well have been
> European and subsequently killed by the ancestors of "Native
> Americans". Ain't life a bitch?
All interested persons will doubtless want to read
_The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey_ by Dr Spencer Wells.
"Spencer Wells was formerly head of the population genetics research group
at Oxford University's Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and is
currently a consultant to the biotechnology industry. The writer and
presenter of the science film The Journey of Man, he has been a consulting
scientist for several other film productions."
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7442.html
That film, "Journey of Man", as recently on PBS and it's quite excellent. I
do not recall it specifically mentioning Kennewick Man but it will shed a
great deal of light on the case.
Among other things, part of Dr Wells's research discovered a man living in
Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan -- that general area -- who shares a marker gene
with all "natives" of the Americas. Someone in his family, many generations
before, had offspring who migrated across the Bering Strait, and some which
remained in Asia. This very caucasian-looking man is related to every
nativeamerican, as are his immediate family.
Dr Wells -- if I recall correctly -- seemed to be of the opinion that the
first wave across the Bering Strait might have consisted of less than
perhaps two dozen individuals, and it was this wave which spread so far and
wide, to the end of southamerica and back, perhaps to meet with subsequent
waves.
I await the publication of all of his data, as that will quite possibly lay
a lot of debates to rest.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
Lets Roll
"Roy. Just Roy." <soylent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6fca96.0302...@posting.google.com...
> r_obert@REMOVE_THIS.hotmail.com wrote in message
news:<qeij4v42tojbbh7lu...@4ax.com>...
>
> > Ah yes, good ol' LIBERAL COUNTER TATIC #1
>
> Good ol' boy tactic #1 - anytime anyone uses common sense,
> call them a liberal.
>
Common sense says none of these people should have been in this country in
the first place and that they should all be shipped back from whence they
came post-haste. The felonious father-figure will rejoin his family when his
prison time is served. If it was an American family whose father was going
behind bars there would be no bleeding hearts wailing for the consequences
to the rest of the criminal family. I see no reason to give these criminals
any special consideration or concessions.
> > anytime someone questions the insanity of this nation's immigration
> > policies
>
> I'll believe that you have a valid point of reference when you
> show me the areas of Milwaukee that border Mexico.
>
They're on their way and should arrive within less than 5 years, if some of
you twits don't realize that is exactly what is happening to your country.
> What's a matter, Bob, somebody named Gonzalez got promoted ahead of you
> on the job site? Maybe it's because he works harder and doesn't spend
> good company time farting around in talk.environment.
>
Maybe there are some felonious employers who need to join the scumbag of the
article in jail.
> > 2) Where is it written that ... because a nation is comprised of
> > immigrants ... it can no longer exercise control of it's future?
>
> The U.S. Constitution. Try reading it some time. Especially the part about
> the inability of the army to act in civil matters. Or to conduct searches
> against US citizens.
>
What a putz.
Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
> Due process. What a bummer.
>
Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first place.
They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
which is zero. If they thought so highly of due process they would have
used due process to get into the country. Due process only becomes
important to them and enablers like yourself when it suits their agendas.
> Face it, Bobby, you don't like all dem brown skins tipping your white
girls at
> the local strip club, do a little border crossing of your own. I hear
Canada
> has a very low crime rate :)
Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
Byron Canfield
news:3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com...
> Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
>
>
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary
numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
http://www.headsprout.com
Flash examples: http://www.canfieldstudios.com/flash5
[I do not respond to private emails regarding issues for which the
appropriate venue is this newsgroup, nor do I reply to posts by email.]
Lets Roll
"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
news:eOI2a.82852$2H6.861@sccrnsc04...
> "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
> news:3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com...
> > Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
> >
> >
> Burn any crosses lately?
>
Since when in your sick and twisted minds does calling for law enforcement
equate to burning crosses?
Why do you perverts want to make racial issues out of security issues? What
terrorist organization do you consort with who will keep easy access to our
country available?
--
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
Roy. Just Roy.
> the first place
No argument there.
> Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
"common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse Comitatus
> Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first place.
> They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
> which is zero.
Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any other
person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell an
illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their papers, mein
fuhrer?
Byron Canfield
>
> "Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
> news:eOI2a.82852$2H6.861@sccrnsc04...
> > "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com...
> > > Yeah, rumor has it bin Laden is looking for recruits just like you.
> > >
> > >
> > Burn any crosses lately?
> >
>
> Since when in your sick and twisted minds does calling for law enforcement
> equate to burning crosses?
> Why do you perverts want to make racial issues out of security issues?
What
> terrorist organization do you consort with who will keep easy access to
our
> country available?
Oh, so now I'm a terrorist for disagreeing with you. Are you sure your name
isn't Bush? Or Hitler? Or Stalin?
Again, burn any crosses lately? Gassed any civilians lately? Maybe a
lynching or two?
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message news:<3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com>...
>
>
>>Common sense says none of these people should have been in this country in
>>the first place
>
>
> No argument there.
>
>
>>Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
>
>
> "common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse Comitatus
>
>
>>Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first place.
>>They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
>>which is zero.
>
>
> Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any other
> person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell an
> illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
> Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their papers, mein
> fuhrer?
What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
Lets Roll
> "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
news:<3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com>...
>
> > Common sense says none of these people should have been in this country
in
> > the first place
>
> No argument there.
>
> > Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
>
> "common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse Comitatus
>
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
supress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
Art. 4 Sect. 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
What is coming across our border is _not_ civilian.
Heavily armed Mexican soldiers and police are crossing the U.S. border
repeatedly, provoking charges from Capitol Hill that they are providing
cover for drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. Last year, there were 23
incursions documented by the U.S. Border Patrol, prompting Rep. Tom Tancredo
to contact Mexican President Vicente Fox last week, asking for an end to
these incidents.
In March, four Mexican soldiers carrying submachine guns and automatic
rifles were detained when they ventured into the United States and
encountered a Border Patrol agent. In October 2000, 10 similarly armed
Mexican soldiers were reported to have fired on a Border Patrol air unit
after taking a position on the U.S. side near Copper Canyon in California.
In March 2000, Border Patrol agents in El Paso, Texas, said that two Mexican
army Humvees, reported by the Mexican government to be on an anti-drug
mission, crossed the U.S. border. Two shots were fired from one of the
Mexican vehicles, agents reported, but no one was hit. One vehicle retreated
into Mexico, but the nine soldiers riding in the second vehicle were
detained temporarily before being returned to their country.
Art.1 Sect 8 (cont.)
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."
Farmers, ranchers, home owners and local residents in border regions are
_not_ receiving equal protection of laws. They are being deprived of their
liberty and property without any due process, watching super-highways for
criminals grow across their grazing lands, their back yards.
You are so loaded up on compassion, where's your compassion for the families
afraid to go anywhere unarmed, even on their own property and in their own
home?
> > Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first
place.
> > They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving here -
> > which is zero.
>
> Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
other
> person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
an
> illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>
> Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their papers,
mein
> fuhrer?
Why do you idiots insist national secuirty is a racial issue? Are you such
a bona fide racists you honestly think it is only white people who live in
border regions and who are victims of criminal illegal aliens?
Get over it. It is not about race or ethnicity. It is about something much
more serious than your sensitivity training equipped you to handle.
Mrs K Morales lives on a ranch in Duvall County, Texas, nearly fifty miles
from the border, but still in the path of the hordes of criminals pouring
into our nation. She has been the victim of 2 home invasions by criminal
aliens:
P.S. There are these other things called private property rights and
trespassing on private property, not enforceable by the federal government,
and which require a land owner making no inquiry into ethnicity,
nationality, immigration status, nor any other type of value judgement.
Until such time as the federal government assumes the responsibility
mandated to it under the Constitution to repel invasions and enforce laws of
the Union, groups like Simcox and Ranch Rescue will continue to flourish in
guarding American properties.
Byron Canfield
news:b2hjom$6l9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> x-no-archive: yes> news:da6fca96.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Lets Roll" <Lets...@Meet-Me-In-Hell.com> wrote in message
news:<3e4a...@news.starnetinc.com>...
> >
> > > Common sense says none of these people should have been in this
country in
> > > the first place
> >
> > No argument there.
> >
> > > Art.I Sect 8...for starters.
> >
> > "common defense" does NOT include enforcing civilian law - Posse
Comitatus
>
>
> > > Due process is what illegal aliens have circumvented in the first
place.
> > > They ought to receive the same amount they excercised in arriving
here -
> > > which is zero.
> >
> > Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
other
> > person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
an
> > illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>
>
> > Or do you want to create spot checks for Hispanics to check their
papers, mein
> > fuhrer?
>
>
>
I think we should spot check for Fascists.
Byron Canfield
> > Again, burn any crosses lately? Gassed any civilians lately? Maybe a
> > lynching or two?
>
> of foreigners who engage in that behavior or who aspire to it.
Well, perhaps you're right. We don't really need anymore of those, since we
already have more in our country than any planet should have, and I number
you among them.
Byron Canfield
news:3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net...
> Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> > Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
other
> > person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
an
> > illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>
> The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
> know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
Ah, but the mind set being demonstrated here lynches first, based on skin
color or land of origin, THEN checks the ID.
Roy. Just Roy.
> What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
> crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
> just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
> and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
And there are spot checks all along I-10. Trucks are weighed and
reweighed for changes in load en route that may indicate human
smuggling.
However, what I will fight you to the DEATH on is the right of a US
Army private, with no training in law enforcement or civil rights, to
enter onto
PRIVATE property, be it ranch, estate, apartment or cardboard box -
and demand
that the owner of that property present ID to prove as such, sans
warrant or probable cause. Such a practice is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Furthermore, what of valid day labor? I personally have met farm hands
from Juarez working cotton in El Paso. They pay their 50 cents, they
cross the bridge, they do their work, they pay their 50 cents, and
they go back to Juarez, all without the US Army on their backs.
What these good ol' boy posters don't realize is that the economy of
these border towns absolutely RELIES on trade with Mexico. To close
the border would choke the survival of these towns.
We have an INS and a Border Patrol that does an excellent job despite
serious budget restraints. Stop trying to turn the effin' world into a
military state, give the boys that KNOW how to do the job more
funding, and leave them alone to do it.
Like I said, common sense.
Graphic Queen
Roy.) wrote:
>Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message news:<3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net>...
>
>> What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
>> crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
>> just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
>> and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
>
>And there are spot checks all along I-10. Trucks are weighed and
>reweighed for changes in load en route that may indicate human
>smuggling.
>
>However, what I will fight you to the DEATH on is the right of a US
>Army private, with no training in law enforcement or civil rights, to
>enter onto
>PRIVATE property, be it ranch, estate, apartment or cardboard box -
>and demand
>that the owner of that property present ID to prove as such, sans
>warrant or probable cause. Such a practice is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and
>UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>
>Furthermore, what of valid day labor? I personally have met farm hands
>from Juarez working cotton in El Paso. They pay their 50 cents, they
>cross the bridge, they do their work, they pay their 50 cents, and
>they go back to Juarez, all without the US Army on their backs.
Guess what? I live up in the Las Cruces area and plenty of those
people don't go back to Juarez. You are just another one of the
whining liberals who think that all Mexicans are such good people and
we owe them anything and everything. You are wrong and you need to
grow up and understand what is going on between these two countries.
>What these good ol' boy posters don't realize is that the economy of
>these border towns absolutely RELIES on trade with Mexico. To close
>the border would choke the survival of these towns.
>
We are also considered a border town and I can tell you that our
economy is not reliant on Mexico in the least. El Paso relies more
heavily on Mexico but they would get by if we were to close the
borders. The main problem that El Paso has and will continue to have
is NAFTA and all of the jobs that have left the city to go down to
Mexico.. That is what has hurt El Paso. You need to understand the
true economy of the border towns and you would understand more. The
small border towns are indeed reliant on Mexico for their economy, but
I am talking SMALL here.
>We have an INS and a Border Patrol that does an excellent job despite
>serious budget restraints. Stop trying to turn the effin' world into a
>military state, give the boys that KNOW how to do the job more
>funding, and leave them alone to do it.
We DO NOT have an INS or Border Patrol that do excellent jobs. You are
way out there on this fact. In fact many, not all I admit, take some
sort of bribery to keep allowing the illegals and drugs to flow right
into our country. You need to get you head out of your ass and learn
what it is like down here on the border and quit trying to act like
you know what is going on.
>
>Like I said, common sense.
Maybe it would help if you got some yourself.
Graphic Queen
Graphic Queen
<barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
>news:3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net...
>> Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>> > Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
>other
>> > person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
>an
>> > illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>>
>> The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
>> know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
>Ah, but the mind set being demonstrated here lynches first, based on skin
>color or land of origin, THEN checks the ID.
Not like the Mexicans don't do the same thing, heh? Get your head out
of your ass and maybe you would realize that it is an invasion down
here on the borders. Actually the Mexicans get treated better than any
damn white citizen does when it comes to all of this. You see mr. know
it all, the Hispanics are quite the racist people. I know because here
in the Las Cruces area a white person does not want to get stopped by
one of the Hispanics cops on a lonely road without witnesses around.
It could be very dangerous for the person, especially if that white
person happens to be a female. The cops and the jailers routinely
attack and rape the women behind bars or the ones they stop who are
alone. I do not go out at night alone at all and neither do any of my
friends because of this.
Graphic Queen
Touch Avalanche
> Not like the Mexicans don't do the same thing, heh? Get your head out
> of your ass and maybe you would realize that it is an invasion down
> here on the borders. Actually the Mexicans get treated better than any
> damn white citizen does when it comes to all of this. You see mr. know
> it all, the Hispanics are quite the racist people. I know because here
> in the Las Cruces area a white person does not want to get stopped by
> one of the Hispanics cops on a lonely road without witnesses around.
> It could be very dangerous for the person, especially if that white
> person happens to be a female. The cops and the jailers routinely
> attack and rape the women behind bars or the ones they stop who are
> alone. I do not go out at night alone at all and neither do any of my
> friends because of this.
>
Off subject, but related:
The Mexican government is bankrupting south Texas farmers by not living
up to the water deal made back in the 1940's. They owe Texas something
like 1.5 billion cubic feet of water. Texas farmers are having to apply
for aid because the Mexicans won't release the water they've promised.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> news:3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net...
>
>>Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>>
>>>Have you ever seen an illegal alien? Guess what, they look just like any
>>
> other
>
>>>person. The problem NO immigration "reformist" can answer is how to tell
>>
> an
>
>>>illegal from just some rancher out checking fences.
>>
>>The rancher has ID on him that gives his address as... wow, what do you
>>know! The address is for the property where he's fixing the fences!
>
>
> Ah, but the mind set being demonstrated here lynches first, based on skin
> color or land of origin, THEN checks the ID.
That is your unsupported bald assertion, attempting to spread Fear
Uncertainty and Doubt.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message news:<3E4BEDEB...@earthops.net>...
>
>
>>What's the difference whether or not someone's "hispanic"? If it's someone
>>crossing the border, or who gives reasonable suspicion to believe that they
>>just crossed the border, they could be a pointy-eared Vulcan from Star Trek
>>and the suspicion of crossing the border is enough to ask for ID.
>
>
> And there are spot checks all along I-10. Trucks are weighed and
> reweighed for changes in load en route that may indicate human
> smuggling.
>
> However, what I will fight you to the DEATH on is the right of a US
> Army private, with no training in law enforcement or civil rights, to
> enter onto
> PRIVATE property, be it ranch, estate, apartment or cardboard box -
> and demand
> that the owner of that property present ID to prove as such, sans
> warrant or probable cause. Such a practice is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Not if it's a martial law situation in a declared Emergency, but you know
that -- and otherwise I agree with you. The military could, within reason
and law, easily detain and question anyone entering or leaving said private
property.
>
> Furthermore, what of valid day labor? I personally have met farm hands
> from Juarez working cotton in El Paso. They pay their 50 cents, they
> cross the bridge, they do their work, they pay their 50 cents, and
> they go back to Juarez, all without the US Army on their backs.
How is this relevant? Those are legal border crossers, crossing legally at
the border crossing! We want the military to stop people who are _not_
crossing legally at legal border crossings.
>
> What these good ol' boy posters don't realize is that the economy of
> these border towns absolutely RELIES on trade with Mexico. To close
> the border would choke the survival of these towns.
Strawman, or maybe you don't understand? We're talking about controlling
illegal crossings. Legal trade will go on, of course.
>
> We have an INS and a Border Patrol that does an excellent job despite
> serious budget restraints.
Letting about one million illegal aliens per year to enter the country is
NOT doing a GOOD ENOUGH job.
> Stop trying to turn the effin' world into a
> military state, give the boys that KNOW how to do the job more
> funding, and leave them alone to do it.
>
> Like I said, common sense.
How about we give them more funding, and still have people help them.
For instance, the Ranch Rescue volunteers are almost all ex-military or
ex-law-enforcement. They aren't "good ol boys"; they're seasoned
professionals with not just training, but careers, behind them.
Lets Roll
Its not the valleys in life I dread so much as the dips.
Carol Lee Smith
Rob
>Detroit has more murders inn one year than all of Canada.
>
5,000,000 people in Detroit in 139 sq. miles. Canada has 31,000,000
people in 3,559,294 square sq. miles. They're out of range of each other.
--
Rob
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Rob
>
>Art.1 Sect 8 (cont.)
>"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
>or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
>any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
>deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
>laws."
>
>
Steven Blackwood
--
Steven Blackwood
swbla...@worldnet.att.net
sbla...@execpc.com
"Rob" <rstei...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3E4F13A7...@mindspring.com...
Byron Canfield
news:6t2q4vcf8r3199rm4...@4ax.com...
> Not like the Mexicans don't do the same thing, heh? Get your head out
> of your ass and maybe you would realize that it is an invasion down
> here on the borders. Actually the Mexicans get treated better than any
> damn white citizen does when it comes to all of this. You see mr. know
> it all, the Hispanics are quite the racist people. I know because here
> in the Las Cruces area a white person does not want to get stopped by
> one of the Hispanics cops on a lonely road without witnesses around.
> It could be very dangerous for the person, especially if that white
> person happens to be a female. The cops and the jailers routinely
> attack and rape the women behind bars or the ones they stop who are
> alone. I do not go out at night alone at all and neither do any of my
> friends because of this.
So that is your justification for be racist? Where, then, will it end?
Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
evidence in this thread of the opposite.
--
Byron Canfield
Graphic Queen
Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
People like you will be the ruination of our country.
Graphic Queen
Carol Lee Smith
> Carol Lee Smith wrote:
> >Detroit has more murders inn one year than all of Canada.
> 5,000,000 people in Detroit in 139 sq. miles. Canada has 31,000,000
> people in 3,559,294 square sq. miles. They're out of range of each other.
'Zat so?
Michael Moore had some interesting ideas in "Bowling for Columbine."
Byron Canfield
> >Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
> >evidence in this thread of the opposite.
>
> Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
> causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
> moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
> isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
> People like you will be the ruination of our country.
And I repeat, so their racism is your justification for be racist? Where
does it end?
How do you propose to end that cycle? Are you proposing that the solution to
racism is to become a racist? Do you realize how silly that sounds?
--
Byron Canfield
Lead Flash Developer
Headsprout, Inc.
http://www.headsprout.com
"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tq025vcisatmb7m44...@4ax.com...
Graphic Queen
Oh I am sorry. I will go right out and kiss the asses of all of the
Mexicans that ruin the homes they live in and oh I forgot, we must not
forget the sons of bitches who can't even use the toilet properly. Go
to hell. You have no idea what it is like down here on the border. You
get what you give and they give racism, theft, lying, nastiness, and
utter laziness.
Graphic Queen
little_plantinga
> > >"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:6t2q4vcf8r3199rm4...@4ax.com...
> > >So that is your justification for be racist? Where, then, will it end?
> > >Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
> > >evidence in this thread of the opposite.
> >
> > Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
> > causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
> > moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
> > isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
> > People like you will be the ruination of our country.
>
> And I repeat, so their racism is your justification for be racist?
Define racist.
Tiny Human Ferret
>>>"Graphic Queen" <graphi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6t2q4vcf8r3199rm4...@4ax.com...
>>>So that is your justification for be racist? Where, then, will it end?
>>>Humans are SUPPOSED to be becoming more enlightened, but there is much
>>>evidence in this thread of the opposite.
>>
>>Why in the hell don't you say this same stuff to the Mexicans who are
>>causing this problem in the first place. I wasn't prejudiced until I
>>moved here and then I saw what they did and how THEY treat others. It
>>isn't a very nice thing to have to live through constantly either.
>>People like you will be the ruination of our country.
>
>
> And I repeat, so their racism is your justification for be racist? Where
> does it end?
> How do you propose to end that cycle? Are you proposing that the solution to
> racism is to become a racist? Do you realize how silly that sounds?
I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
warrior.
This is an Invasion and we had better fight it. Or else we will rightly be
scorned with the French.
Graphic Queen
People like him just use the term racist or racism because they have
no idea what they are talking about. We know that Mexican is a
nationality but all they are able to do is exactly what he does and
that is because they don't seriously understand the problem. I would
be willing to bet that he doesn't live on the border anywhere.
Graphic Queen
Bob LeChevalier
>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>
>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
are not in the same category as you. Thus considering "Mexicans" to
be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>Main Entry: rac·ism
>Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
>Function: noun
>Date: 1936
>1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
"community of characteristics"
>Main Entry: 3race
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
>Date: 1580
>1 : a breeding stock of animals
>2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
>3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>warrior.
There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
patterns. Migrations have never been controllable by law, and the
even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
inevitable flow of human migration, and fell trying to stop the
unstoppable "invasion".
>This is an Invasion and we had better fight it. Or else we will rightly be
>scorned with the French.
Why? Are the French scorned because of being invaded? They may be
scorned for other reasons, but not that one.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com...
>> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>> >I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>> >
>> >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>
>> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>> are not in the same category as you. Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>
>individual identity and a group identity.
Not as you use the two. Yes, I am an individual. I am also a member
a whole bunch of different groups, but I do not share traits with
everyone in those groups.
>While some dripping wet Mexicans might be sweet as pie, the collective, the group, share a common,
>obnoxious behavior.
No they don't. You do.
>And of course we judge them.
You do. Intelligent human beings don't, and instead judge others as
individuals and not as exemplars of a group.
>They come, the greatest number of them illegally,
Nope.
>to our country, they assert themselves and their ways rather than assimilate to ours,
Nope. You seem to think that assimilation takes a couple of weeks,
but EVERY group that has come to this country has taken 3 generations
to assimilate.
>and they're obnoxious to us.
No. You are obnoxious to them and to us.
>Certainly and rightly we judge them.
Certainly and wrongly, you mean.
>> >Main Entry: rac·ism
>> >Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
>> >Function: noun
>> >Date: 1936
>> >1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial
>differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>> >2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>> >- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
>>
>> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>> "community of characteristics"
>
> Actually, race is often an indication of culture,
"often" ain't good enough.
>and culture -- the
>values, attitudes, and behavior of a group -- is what those of
>other cultures might find offensive.
Then those cultures are racist.
>Racism is just a
>simpleton facile term to describe something that
>is actually relevant to the quality of life.
Only for the xenophobic. Human beings recognize that differences
between people are necessary and most enjoy them. Viva le difference.
>What
>you refer to as racist is really just behavior
>or attitude in response to seeing the quality
>of life diminished.
It isn't diminished. It is enhanced. YOU are the one who diminishes
it.
>> >Main Entry: 3race
>> >Function: noun
>> >Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
>> >Date: 1580
>> >1 : a breeding stock of animals
>> >2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of
>people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
>> >3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic
>category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing
>traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
>
>> >When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>> >racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>> >don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>> >warrior.
>>
>> There is no invasion.
>
> Hilarious.
>
>> There is simply normal human migration
>> patterns.
>
> Really hilarious, as those "human migration patterns" are
>across our southern border, involve hundreds of thousands
>of humans every year, and are doing all kinds of mischief
>and destruction on the border and inland.
I suggest you read about Attila the Hun, the Visigoths, and
innumerable other tribes that migrated across the borders of the Roman
empire, and all the power of Rome wasn't enough to stop them for more
than a decade or two at a time.
>> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>
> They tend to be controlled by force.
Nope. They NEVER in history have been controlled by force. The best
hope of dealing with migration is to try to assimilate the immigrants,
and that takes a couple of generations.
>> and the
>> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
>> inevitable flow of human migration,
>
> It could have.
No it couldn't. This was a constant problem throughout the era of the
Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
against the next wave).
> The Roman problem was political.
You are ignorant of history.
>> and fell trying to stop the
>> unstoppable "invasion".
>
> After it was too late to stop.
It was too late to stop before the start of the Roman empire. Julius
Caesar wiped out thousands - not just soldiers but women and children
at times to stop individual tribes, but they still kept coming
generation after generation.
lojbab
little_plantinga
> >I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
> >
> >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>
> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
> are not in the same category as you.
I take it you're opposed to Affirmative Action.
> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> make is "racism".
It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
and they have not done so. Instead, they are duplicating Mexican
civilization in the American southwest -- a civilization rife with the
ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan" -- translated to mean "For our race,
everything. For those outside our race, nothing"? MEChA has four
hundred chapters in the American southwest alone. Additionally, you
may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
his past during his campaign.
You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism, either because to
see it you would have to notice group differences, or because it is
only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
> The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
This is a very important mistake. You are tacitly conceding white
superiority, since whites are the only group to adhere to
color-blindness. Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
with their own ethnic interests. But again, to even see this you would
have to notice group differences, and since you refuse to do that, you
put your philosophy of color-blindness in jeopardy. For when whites
are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
white color-blindness will be supplanted by the racial consciousness
of non-whites. But like I said, maybe you only have a hissy fit at any
expression of _white_ ethnocentrism.
<snip>
>
> >When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
> >racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
> >don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
> >warrior.
>
> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
> patterns.
Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
normal.
> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
ethnic homogeneity. How did the US drastically reduce the number of
immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
americankernel
news:735d1e05.0302...@posting.google.com...
Nice work. I don't need to add a thing. This dude needs to go back to
school, or at least read some books or google on "the history of
immigration." He seems to be fairly intelligent, but seriously uninformed.
Doesn't his name, LeChevalier, sound kind of French? I'll bet if you asked
him, he'd tell you how DeGaulle liberated France at the end of WWII, when
all he really did was take a bunch of borrowed American tanks and drive down
the street.
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com>...
>> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> make is "racism".
>
>It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
>duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>and they have not done so.
Why should they? Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
>Instead, they are duplicating Mexican civilization in the American southwest
Nope.
>-- a civilization rife with the
>ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
Liar.
http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
> -- translated to mean "For our race,
>everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
Babelfish translates it as
>By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
>MEChA has four
>hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
Hispanic population in this country. So even if they were as radical
as you made them out to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot.
>Additionally, you
>may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
>for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
>chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
>support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
>his past during his campaign.
Why should he?
David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
Republican.
>You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism,
It isn't my concern. I am not Mexican. American ethnocentrism is my
concern, because I am an American.
>either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences. All
groups act like human beings.
>or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
object to. Especially in the United States of America, which is not
and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
>> The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>
>This is a very important mistake. You are tacitly conceding white
>superiority, since whites are the only group to adhere to
>color-blindness.
No they don't as a group. Many individuals do, but YOU do not.
>Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
>do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
>with their own ethnic interests.
How color-blind of you! Not!
>But again, to even see this you would
>have to notice group differences, and since you refuse to do that, you
>put your philosophy of color-blindness in jeopardy.
You talk nonsense.
>For when whites
>are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
>> patterns.
>
>Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
>normal.
If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
>> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>
>Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
>Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
>Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
>wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
>yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
>ethnic homogeneity.
You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
40 years is a blip in history. Meanwhile, part of what we've been
facing since the end of that 40 years is the backlash that we caused.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Nice work. I don't need to add a thing. This dude needs to go back to
>school, or at least read some books or google on "the history of
>immigration." He seems to be fairly intelligent, but seriously uninformed.
I've been a student of history for a few decades, which by your
manners is probably longer than you've been alive.
>Doesn't his name, LeChevalier, sound kind of French? I'll bet if you asked
>him, he'd tell you how DeGaulle liberated France at the end of WWII, when
>all he really did was take a bunch of borrowed American tanks and drive down
>the street.
This is the sort of silly racist judgement that your ilk would make,
presuming that surnames have real meaning as to ethnicity. Alas for
you, I am pure American melting pot.
lojbab
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>>
>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>
>
> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
> are not in the same category as you.
No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
"nationalism".
>
Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they are
not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's sovereign
borders, contrary to custom and law. I don't care if they're inferior or
not; I want the invasion stopped.
>
>
>>Main Entry: rac·ism
>>Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1936
>>1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>>2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
>>- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
>
>
> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
> "community of characteristics"
Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>
>
>>Main Entry: 3race
>>Function: noun
>>Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
>>Date: 1580
>>1 : a breeding stock of animals
>>2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits,
or characteristics <the English race
>>3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
>
>
>
>
>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>>warrior.
>
>
> There is no invasion.
Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
Invade.
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
or plunder.
3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
See definition #3. But more specifically,
Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
Wade.
1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
Which becomes a body, and doth then invade The state
of life, out of the grisly shade. --Spenser.
2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
the king invaded the rights of the people.
4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
See definition #4.
Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
armed, with one Border Patrol officer being murdered recently, other Federal
agents being beaten and robbed by border crossers, etc.
That beating and robbing and murder come under definition #2.
Definition #1 applies in any case.
> There is simply normal human migration
> patterns. Migrations have never been controllable by law, and the
> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
> inevitable flow of human migration, and fell trying to stop the
> unstoppable "invasion".
Actually that is not why they fell; and you should be a bit more specific
about which part of the Roman empire you're discussing, and in which
timeframe, and geographic area. If you're talking about the Sack of Rome in
the fifth century, there is some slight truth to that if you don't take into
account a lot of other variables, including the cruelty of the
administration and the public disaffection or the ruling classes in Italy.
Furthermore I might add that Roma was quite able to control their borders at
one point in time, it's arguable when they stopped even trying to control
the borders that they are seen to have committed themselves to the
proverbial slippery slope.
In any case, we're a little more advanced that the Romans. Unfortunately, or
fortunately, we're a lot more lacking in the resolution to simply kill
anyone transgressing a line they knew to not cross.
>
>
>>This is an Invasion and we had better fight it. Or else we will rightly be
>>scorned with the French.
>
>
> Why? Are the French scorned because of being invaded? They may be
> scorned for other reasons, but not that one.
The French are scorned because when the Germans came, they would often find
the man of the house sitting in the kitchen saying "welcome to my house,
take what you need, my wife is upstairs in her bed, and I will be downstairs
in the wine-cellar".
The Germans didn't mind an easy victory, but I understand that the scorn for
people who wouldn't even consider "selling the farm dearly" was very great
indeed.
Then again, in the interest of fairness, most military historians are at
something of a loss to understand why there was no post-war Resistance
movement whatsoever in Germany.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
<snip snip including the proposition that Roma could not defend against
"migration">
>> It could have.
>
>
> No it couldn't. This was a constant problem throughout the era of the
> Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
> few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
> barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
> temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
> pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
> other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
> among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
> against the next wave).
That's part of the problem. Mexicans aren't assimilating in sufficient
numbers. Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte". That's not immigration,
that's colonization. The US should not and must not stand still for this.
little_plantinga
> max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com>...
> >> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> >> make is "racism".
> >
> >It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
> >duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
>
> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
I notice you didn't dispute my claim -- that Mexicans have failed to
create a *modest* version of the civilization millions of them yearn
for north of the border.
>
> >and they have not done so.
>
> Why should they?
So the United States will look less attractive to millions of Mexico's
inhabitants. This is reflected by the level of immigration we receive
from that country each year.
> Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
> of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
15 million prefer it to their ancestral homeland.
> >Instead, they are duplicating Mexican civilization in the American southwest
>
> Nope.
Yep. Bi-lingual education became so commonplace in southern
California's taxpayer-supported (and overwhelmingly Hispanic) public
schools that citizens got Proposition 227 on the ballot in 1998 to end
it; the small Texas town of El Cenizo declared Spanish its offical
language a few years ago and has also disallowed federal immigration
laws from being enforced; cars bearing signs exclaiming "Fuck you:
this is still Mexico" are frequently spotted on highways and roads in
southern California; the US soccer team was booed and spat on by
Hispanic fans when it played Mexico in Los Angeles several years ago
(American flags were also also regularly torn apart in the stands);
California governor Gray Davis has explored plans to make Cinquo De
Mayo a California holiday; government officals in Mexico, including
former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, openly brag about the
reconquista of the American southwest. I could go on, but it should be
obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that when a people emigrate
en mass from a different country, with a different culture, language
and history, and who are of a different race, into a country that
explicitly discourages new arrivals from discarding their customs,
language, folkways and traditions, the new arrivals tend to create
replicas of the culture from which they migrated.
> >-- a civilization rife with the
> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>
> Liar.
>
> http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
> http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
Did you bother to read the links you provided?
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud
historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our
territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the
northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming
the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our
people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power,
our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny."
What land do you reckon they intend on "reclaiming"?
"We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly
called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our
hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields,
and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not
recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent"
Can you put 2 and 2 together, Bob? Where do you think the "northern
land of Aztlan" resides? They offer a clue: the place where "those who
plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops" live
alongside "foreign Europeans."
http://www.panam.edu/orgs/MEChA/aztlan.html
> > -- translated to mean "For our race,
> >everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
>
> Babelfish translates it as
> >By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
>
> which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
> group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
The MEChA website, with its references to a "bronze people" who must
protect their "Raza" (race), make their intentions clear.
> >MEChA has four
> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>
> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
> Hispanic population in this country. So even if they were as radical
> as you made them out to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot.
How many Hispanic community leaders, politicians and celebrities have
publicly condemned this group, in contrast to the hysteria that
typically greets appearances by numerically smaller white supremacy
groups?
> >Additionally, you
> >may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
> >for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
> >chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
> >support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
> >his past during his campaign.
>
> Why should he?
> David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
> Republican.
This is beside the point. The fact that Villaraigosa had previously
chaired a racialist Hispanic student group that he failed to
repudiate, coupled with the fact that most of his votes came from
Hispanics who were well aware of his past connections with MEChA,
coupled with the fact that whites _and_ blacks (who traditionally vote
democrat) overwhelmingly rejected him, demonstrates a strong element
of ethnic tribalism in Hispanic Americans.
> >You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism,
>
> It isn't my concern. I am not Mexican. American ethnocentrism is my
> concern, because I am an American.
What is "American ethnocentrism," since the US is comprised of dozens
of ethnicities?
> >either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
>
> I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences.
Then you wouldn't notice "groups" either.
> All
> groups act like human beings.
So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between the
places the Chinese inhabit (Hong Kong, Vancouver BC, San Francisco,
etc) and the places blacks inhabit (sub-Saharan Africa, Gary Indiana,
Haiti, etc)?
> >or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
>
> Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
> I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
>
> And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
> object to.
You don't just object to supremacism, which presumably means rule over
others, you apparently object to groups just wanting to be left alone.
This is evidenced by your reference to the "racism" of the Japanese,
who refuse to be flooded with Polynesians and Cambodians.
> Especially in the United States of America, which is not
> and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
It was created by whites, and was nearly 90 percent white until the
late 1960s.
> >> The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> >> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
> >
> >This is a very important mistake. You are tacitly conceding white
> >superiority, since whites are the only group to adhere to
> >color-blindness.
>
> No they don't as a group.
Yes they do. The notion that people should treat each other as
individuals, and ignore collective group identities, is something only
espoused by whites in societies that remain predominately white. This
notion does not exist in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East or
Central America. Furthermore, liberalism (and the refusal to recognize
group identities that flows from it) only flourishes in Western Europe
and her former colonies. Feminism, gay rights, pluralism,
egalitarianism, environmentalism and inclusiveness do not exist in
Central America, the Middle East (sans Israel), Asia or sub-Saharan
Africa. And as these groups continue to emigrate en mass to America --
a society which embraces the philosophy of "multiculturalism," which
encourages new arrivals to retain their customs and folkways, even if
they're antithetical to liberalism -- not only will color-blindness be
supplanted, but so will liberalism.
> Many individuals do, but YOU do not.
> >Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
> >do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
> >with their own ethnic interests.
>
> How color-blind of you! Not!
Nice cop-out. You didn't dispute my claim because you know it's true.
> >But again, to even see this you would
> >have to notice group differences, and since you refuse to do that, you
> >put your philosophy of color-blindness in jeopardy.
>
> You talk nonsense.
You should recognize your native tongue.
> >For when whites
> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>
> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
You snipped the rest of my sentence. When whites are consigned to
minority status by 2050, the groups displacing them will continue to
assert their racial identities, which you don't object to because
they're not white.
> >> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
> >> patterns.
> >
> >Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
> >normal.
>
> If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
> compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
> essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
This is simply ahistorical. The first naturalization act authored in
1790 reserved immigration solely to white Europeans. It was hardly
"unlimited" for the next hundred years. Aside from some heavy Irish
migration during the mid-19th century, the amount of immigration to
the US until 1890 was relatively mild.
> >> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
> >
> >Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
> >Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
> >Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
> >wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
> >yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
> >ethnic homogeneity.
>
> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
by law," yet the Japanese have done just that, which explicitly
contradicts your claim.
> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>
> 40 years is a blip in history.
Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
by law," yet the US did just that (more than once, in fact), which
explicitly contradicts your claim.
little_plantinga
Thanks. I was initially hesitant to reply to Mr LeChevalier. His
woeful misconstrual of the basic issues, his
arrows-flying-in-every-direction comments, and his suggestion of bad
faith or bad motives on my part -- i.e., calling me a "Liar" -- when
all added together, make it somewhat frustrating to converse with him.
But I enjoy putting liberals in their place.
Bob LeChevalier
>> "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>> >news:iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com...
>> >> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>> >> >I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>> >>
>> >> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>> >> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>> >> are not in the same category as you. Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> >> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> >> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>> >
>> > You ignore the fact that people have at least two identities, an
>> >individual identity and a group identity.
>>
>> Not as you use the two. Yes, I am an individual. I am also a member
>> a whole bunch of different groups, but I do not share traits with
>> everyone in those groups.
>
>certainly do share traits with everyone of that culture.
I am not a nationality. I am a human being, an individual. I
practice my own personal culture, not that of anyone else in the
world. I share no traits with anyone of any particular culture other
than that of being a human being.
>> >While some dripping wet Mexicans might be sweet as pie, the collective, the group, share a
>common,
>> >obnoxious behavior.
>>
>> No they don't. You do.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not a Mexican.
You have the obnoxious behavior down.
>> >And of course we judge them.
>>
>> You do. Intelligent human beings don't, and instead judge others as
>> individuals and not as exemplars of a group.
>
> Intelligent human beings acknowledge reality
Reality is that no two human beings are alike, and attempts to treat
them as if they were, while "convenient" to racists, is unintelligent.
>> >They come, the greatest number of them illegally,
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Sorry, but about 80% of all Mexicans in this country
>arrived here either illegally or as a result of another
>Mexican's illegal arrival. That's just a fact.
Whether someone arrived as the result of another illegal arrival, they
are here legally, so tough cookies. We don't punish A because of the
crimes of B if we can avoid it.
>> >to our country, they assert themselves and their ways rather than assimilate to ours,
>>
>> Nope. You seem to think that assimilation takes a couple of weeks,
>> but EVERY group that has come to this country has taken 3 generations
>> to assimilate.
>
> And no group, other than Mexicans, has arrived from a neighboring
>country with a history of antagonism toward us,
Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>and no group, other than Mexicans,
>insists on imposing their language, their holidays, and other aspects
>of their *culture* upon us.
Baloney. Go to any Chinatown around Chinese New Year. For that
matter, go anywhere at Yule, and observe what kind of language,
holidays, and culture Europeans imposed on the natives who lived here
before us.
>In comparison to other groups, Mexicans
>aren't even taking small steps toward assimilation.
You wouldn't know.
>> >and they're obnoxious to us.
>>
>> No. You are obnoxious to them and to us.
>
> A couple of hundred million Americans would disagree.
Nope. If that were the case you'd have had your isolationist
immigration policy ages ago. The problem is that a huge chunk of
Americans are either immigrants or children of immigrants, and don't
buy your garbage.
>> >Certainly and rightly we judge them.
>
>> Certainly and wrongly, you mean.
>
> No, not it all. I judge them according to my values.
Who other than you gives a flying f*** about YOUR values, such that
anyone should care how YOU judges them by those values.
If people are to be judged, they should be judged by values which all
people share and by no others.
>I believe in law and justice and fairness and good will, among other virtues.
As long as it is YOUR law, and YOUR justice and everything is fair to
YOU, and YOU don't have to show "good will" to any "mud races", in
other words.
>Mexicans seem to care for none of that.
They just don't care about YOU. They want law and justice and
fairness and good will for THEM.
>They arrive here illegally.
Some. Many others arrive perfectly legally, but then don't leave as
legally required.
>They abuse our health, education, and welfare systems.
Nope. They follow the laws regarding those systems.
>I care more about Americans
Only if they share your color and language.
>as well as people in other countries willing
>to arrive here legally than I care about a pack of parasitic,
>colonizing, illegal alien Mexicans. According to my values,
>I judge Mexicans rightly.
Who gives a flying f*** about your values?
>> > Actually, race is often an indication of culture,
>>
>> "often" ain't good enough.
>
> It's perfectly suited to this discussion.
Proof by assertion.
>> >and culture -- the
>> >values, attitudes, and behavior of a group -- is what those of
>> >other cultures might find offensive.
>>
>> Then those cultures are racist.
>
> Really? So in Thailand, for example, if you touch the head
>of a child and his father is offended, the father is racist?
Why are you touching another person, especially a minor without
permission? You are violating their rights.
Meanwhile, if they are offended, they are offended because of your
individual behavior, not because you are a member of a group. If the
father were to discriminate against all Americans because one touched
his child's head, that would be racist.
>If in Japan, you cross your leg and aim the sole of your
>shoe in another person's direction and the person is
>offended, than he's racist?
Nope. But if he is offended at me because you did so, that would be
racist.
>> >What
>> >you refer to as racist is really just behavior
>> >or attitude in response to seeing the quality
>> >of life diminished.
>>
>> It isn't diminished. It is enhanced. YOU are the one who diminishes
>> it.
>
> Would you consider female circumcision to be an enhancement?
>How about ritual animal sacrifice? Or the killing of widows when
>their husbands die, or the killing of female infants merely because
>they're female?
Regardless of how I feel about any of those things, I judge
individuals for what they do, not for what their culture purportedly
does.
>> >> There is simply normal human migration
>> >> patterns.
>> >
>> > Really hilarious, as those "human migration patterns" are
>> >across our southern border, involve hundreds of thousands
>> >of humans every year, and are doing all kinds of mischief
>> >and destruction on the border and inland.
>>
>> I suggest you read about Attila the Hun, the Visigoths, and
>> innumerable other tribes that migrated across the borders of the Roman
>> empire, and all the power of Rome wasn't enough to stop them for more
>> than a decade or two at a time.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about, do you. Furthermore,
>we could stop the Mexicans from invading.
Nope (ignoring the fact that they aren't "invading" so there is
nothing to stop).
1. It would take militarizing the border, which would be frightfully
expensive and would merely cut down on what you call "invasion", not
stop it. There would simply come to be more use of alternative
methods. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>If you've ever visited
>the 38th Parallel in Korea, you'd know what I mean.
And how long is the border, and how much does it cost, and how free is
the society on the south side of that border compared to ours?
Hint - South Korea has almost 700,000 troops to defend that short
stretch of border, almost as many as the entire US active duty
military.
>We also
>managed to keep the Russians from invading Western Europe
>for several decades. Our southern border could be secured
>in a week.
Nope. We couldn't afford the troops (and we couldn't move them that
quickly - look how long it is taking to build up 150,000 troops to
handle Iraq.
>> The best
>> hope of dealing with migration is to try to assimilate the immigrants,
>> and that takes a couple of generations.
>
> Nonsense.
Something you are full of.
>> >> and the
>> >> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
>> >> inevitable flow of human migration,
>> >
>> > It could have.
>>
>> No it couldn't. This was a constant problem throughout the era of the
>> Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
>> few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
>> barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
>> temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
>> pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
>> other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
>> among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
>> against the next wave).
>
> Maybe if you did more reading ... In any event, Rome failed to
>resist because it had citizens with your mentality and it gave out
>citizenship to just about anyone who wanted it.
Guess why? Because they had no choice. Not enough citizens willing
to serve in the military for low wages merely to keep people out. If
we cut out immigration, we'd probably need to reinstate the draft in
order to keep the current level of military (which is a fraction the
size it was the last time we tried to control immigration).
Meanwhile, their economy (like ours) became top-heavy - not enough
people willing to work at low wages to support their "betters", so
they had to keep taking in new workers, and then once they were in,
had to keep them happy with the promise of eventual citizenship.
>> >> and fell trying to stop the
>> >> unstoppable "invasion".
>> >
>> > After it was too late to stop.
>>
>> It was too late to stop before the start of the Roman empire. Julius
>> Caesar wiped out thousands - not just soldiers but women and children
>> at times to stop individual tribes, but they still kept coming
>> generation after generation.
>
> And the Romans stopped killing them and instead awarded
>them citizenship,
They couldn't kill them. We couldn't either, unless we wanted to go
in for genocide.
>so that when the real ugly nasty military invasion came,
There was never an ugly nasty military invasion. None of the
barbarian invasions were particularly militaristic. Just displaced
peoples looking for some new turf on which to settle.
>And after Rome fell, after the invaders -- who arrived to
>plunder rather than to become members of a cohesive,
>cooperative society (remind you of any particular invading
>horde from our south?)
The bulk of the barbarians that entered the Roman empire did not do so
as "attackers", and did not do so in order to plunder. And most of
the "plundering" attacks that DID occur were raids rather than
invasions.
>overtook Rome, a thousand years of Dark Ages began.
I see you are full of even more ignorance. Rome itself was completely
irrelevant to the start of what are called the "Dark Ages" (which
weren't all that Dark)
The eastern Roman Empire, which became the Byzantine Empire, persisted
until the Renaissance, when it was done in by the Turks primarily
because it had been weakened over a couple of centuries by the
European invaders known as the "Crusaders" (who did far more damage
than the Turks ever managed).
>Rome actually regressed into a
>collection of contentious city states, various countries,
Some might have called that an advance, not a regression, if indeed
you had the story straight.
>and not a shred of enlightened progress was made for a thousand years.
Rome wasn't known for making enlightened progress. That was the
Greeks.
>We are now accepting the
>lawless barbarians, are making them citizens, and
>people such as you -- few as they are
If you were in the majority, the laws would reflect your wishes. You
aren't.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Roman empire. They NEVER stopped the barbarian nomads for more than a
>> few years at a time. Julius Caesar came closest - he stopped the
>> barbarians, and then took Gaul where most of the barbarians settled
>> temporarily before moving south yet again under continued migration
>> pressure, and then he ASSIMILATED them into the Roman empire. Every
>> other time the migrations were checked, it was by assimilation (which
>> among other things allowed the new immigrants to serve as soldiers
>> against the next wave).
>
>That's part of the problem. Mexicans aren't assimilating in sufficient
>numbers.
Yes they are. Unfortunately, assimilation takes generations (and
always has). Immigrants themselves rarely assimilate fully - they
can't because of the language barrier. Their children partially
assimilate, and their grandchildren fully assimilate. Sometimes, when
the immigrant is highly educated, this can be cut down to two
generations, but this is rare.
>Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
>to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte".
You may think so, but you are wrong.
>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
Nope.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
>> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>
> Not exactly ... it was *claimed* by Mexico, but Mexicans
>neither inhabited or controlled it.
It had been territorially part of Spain, in the Viceroyalty of Mexico
prior to independence. Legally it was part of Mexico just as the
Louisiana Territory was legally part of the US, and the American
government recognized that legal status, as evidence of the fact that
we required Mexico to cede it to us after the Mexican War, and the
PAID for the Gadsden Purchase. Meanwhile Alta California was
certainly inhabited.
In any event, the US had no legal right to be there. We invaded
Texas, and then Mexico, because of southern slaveholders who wanted to
expand the territory in which slavery was permitted, so as to allow
the Missouri Compromise to continue to balance slave and free states.
>The Comanches, Apaches, and other tribes pretty much had their way.
So?
>> >and they have not done so.
>>
>> Why should they? Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
>> of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
>
> It's closer to them than most. Have you ever seen Haiti?
>Or Mexico? Or the Philippines? Or a hundred other less
>than garden spots around the world?
By our standards we are superior. By their standards, we are merely
rich.
>> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>>
>> Liar.
>
> No society is as stratified along lines of color
>than Mexican society.
What does this have to do with Aztlan?
>> http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
>> http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
I notice that you ignored my actual cites, and could not produce
anything better.
>> > -- translated to mean "For our race,
>> >everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
>>
>> Babelfish translates it as
>> >By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
>>
>> which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
>> group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
>
> Actually, *por* can be translated into by, for, through,
>in, and other prepositions. The statement in question,
>however, certainly isn't racially benign.
Quite benign to me. Another minority seeking strength through unity.
MLK led a similarly spiritual movement - and you probably thought "We
shall overcome" meant that he wanted to overthrow the American
government.
>> >MEChA has four
>> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>>
>> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
>> Hispanic population in this country.
>
> That's what King George said about the American revolutionaries.
Who wouldn't have had a prayer of success without help and the threat
of war from Europe and a 3000 mile supply line. Even so, it was a
near thing.
>> >Additionally, you
>> >may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
>> >for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
>> >chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
>> >support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
>> >his past during his campaign.
>>
>> Why should he?
>
> Because MEChA is a subversive, anti-American organization.
Proof by assertion.
>> David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
>> Republican.
>
> The KKK doesn't call for the overthrow of American government.
Neither have you proven that MEChA done so.
>> >either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
>>
>> I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences. All
>> groups act like human beings.
>
> And certain groups of them have values, attitudes, and behaviors
>that are incompatible with the values, attitudes, and behavior
>of other groups.
Only because you choose to adopt values which are inherently hostile
and xenophobic. That is YOUR problem.
>> >or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
>>
>> Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
>> I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
>>
>> And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
>> object to. Especially in the United States of America, which is not
>> and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
>
> But you're will to tolerate the likes of MEChA.
You haven't convinced me that there is anything unusual to tolerate.
I'm a lot more afraid of John Ashcroft than I am of MEChA.
>> >For when whites
>> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>>
>> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>
> Subsitute the term *whites* for the descendants of those
>who invented and built this country
The DAR and the SAR are a tiny minority of this country. Meanwhile
you of course are probably willing to ignore all those dark-skinned
peoples whose ancestors were brought here in the 1600s and who built
most of the South.
Most American are descendants of immigrants who came here between 1840
and 1920 (many of whom had to deal with just the same sort of shit you
are handing out when they got here).
>and as the carriers of the values, attitudes, and behavior of those inventors and
>builders,
Certainly YOU don't carry any such values or attitudes. I'm not aware
of how you "behave", but relatively few 20th/21st century Americans
abide by 18th century behavioral standards.
>and you have your right and your reason. Or
>do you expect the US to continue as a progressive
>society
I don't think you have a "progressive" thought in your head.
>after people whose values, attitudes, and
>behavior carry no notion or familiarity with that
>progressiveness?
Hint: "progressive" is the opposite of "reactionary". Most
progressives are classified as "liberals" by the obnoxious right. I
myself am not "progressive" or "liberal" but I at least know what the
words mean.
>If we filled Oregon, for example,
>with Japanese, don't you think that Oregon would
>become an approximation of Japan?
Nope. No more than South Boston is an approximation of Ireland,
Detroit is an approximation of Poland, or for that matter, Chinatown
is an approximation of China.
Even when there was nothing to assimilate into, those people who came
from Britain to what is now this country quickly made this place into
something that wasn't an imitation of Britain (and they WERE
"colonists"), why would we expect anyone immigrating from another
country to do differently.
>What do you
>think happens if we fill up much of the country
>with Mexicans?
They'll intermingle and assimilate.
>> >> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
>> >> patterns.
>> >
>> >Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
>> >normal.
>>
>> If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
>> compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
>> essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
>
> Factually inaccurate.
Lets see your facts. The first significant constraint on immigration
was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1885, and it affected only one group
that wasn't a large portion of those who were immigrating. It wasn't
until the 1920s, after 300 years of immigration, that significant
controls were imposed.
>> >> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>> >
>> >Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
>> >wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
>> >yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
>> >ethnic homogeneity.
>>
>> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>
> What is admirable is that they value their culture
>and are smart enough to know how to preserve it.
Actually they are having trouble in that regard. Considering that
they didn't have any significant elements of progressivism in their
society until 1945, they've changed quite rapidly.
>> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>>
>> 40 years is a blip in history. Meanwhile, part of what we've been
>> facing since the end of that 40 years is the backlash that we caused.
>
> Given certain realites, backlash is inevitable and a sign
>of good national health.
Umm, you do realize that you just said that the immigration wave since
the 1970s, which is the backlash I was referring to, was inevitable
and healthy, don't you?
Your racist attitudes are hardly a backlash. They were present when I
was a kid in California in the 60s.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<kv0a5v440649pu2io...@4ax.com>...
>> max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga) wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<iq585vcokquq9mnos...@4ax.com>...
>> >> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> >> make is "racism".
>> >
>> >It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
>> >duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
>>
>> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
>> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>
>I notice you didn't dispute my claim -- that Mexicans have failed to
>create a *modest* version of the civilization millions of them yearn
>for north of the border.
Make up your mind. If they "yearn for" our civilization, why do you
claim that they are trying to change our civilization into theirs?
I suspect that the ones who stay in Mexico are perfectly fine with
their civilization, while the ones who come here want something else.
>> >and they have not done so.
>>
>> Why should they?
>
>So the United States will look less attractive to millions of Mexico's
>inhabitants.
Why would Mexico want to make itself more attractive to people who
want to leave?
>> >Instead, they are duplicating Mexican civilization in the American southwest
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep. Bi-lingual education became so commonplace in southern
>California's taxpayer-supported (and overwhelmingly Hispanic) public
>schools that citizens got Proposition 227 on the ballot in 1998 to end
>it;
So what? Bilingual education isn't Mexican civilization.
>the small Texas town of El Cenizo declared Spanish its offical
>language a few years ago
So what's wrong with that? English is not the official language of
the US, and we've had many local groups that spoke no English for
generations in our history. Ever heard of the Pennsylvania Deutsch?
>and has also disallowed federal immigration laws from being enforced;
Misrepresentation. They passed an ordinance against cooperating with
the Border Patrol (which ordinance has little effect).
Takoma Park MD and many other localities passed laws making their
locale a "nuclear-free zone" with equally lack of effect.
>cars bearing signs exclaiming "Fuck you:
>this is still Mexico" are frequently spotted on highways and roads in
>southern California;
Thank God for the 1st Amendment, eh? (O upholder of the values of the
people who founded this country)
>the US soccer team was booed and spat on by
>Hispanic fans when it played Mexico in Los Angeles several years ago
The Yankees were booed and spat on in Brooklyn 50 years ago. So what?
>(American flags were also also regularly torn apart in the stands);
Sometimes they're burned on the Capitol steps too. Thank God for the
1st Amendment, eh?
>California governor Gray Davis has explored plans to make Cinquo De
>Mayo a California holiday; government officals in Mexico, including
>former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, openly brag about the
>reconquista of the American southwest.
So? Politicians do all sorts of things.
>I could go on, but it should be
>obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that when a people emigrate
>en mass from a different country, with a different culture, language
>and history,
You mean like the people who came here in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s?
>and who are of a different race,
All members of the human race, so far as I can tell. You on the other
hand are showing evidence of being something else.
>into a country that
>explicitly discourages new arrivals from discarding their customs,
>language, folkways and traditions,
We do? Those bilingual education laws were repealed - such
encouragement!
>the new arrivals tend to create
>replicas of the culture from which they migrated.
Nope.
>> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
>> http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mecha/undersiege.html
>
>Did you bother to read the links you provided?
Yep.
>"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud
>historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our
>territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the
>northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming
>the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our
>people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power,
>our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny."
I don't see that text on either of the two pages I cited. It is on a
subsidiary page and in context is nothing especially threatening.
from the first
>A synopsis of El Plan stipulates: 1) We are Chicanos and Chicanas of
> Aztl?reclaiming the land of out birth (Chicano and Chicana Nation);
> 2) Aztl?belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not
> subject to a foreign culture; 3) We are a union of free pueblos
> forming a bronze nation; 4) Chicano and Chicana nationalism, as the
> key in mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to
> bring consensus to the Chicano and Chicana Movement; 5) Cultural
> values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and 6)
> EPEDA, as a basic plan of Chicano and Chicana liberation, sought the
> formation of am independent national political party that would
> represent the sentiments of the Chicano and Chicana community.
>Both EPDSB and EPEDA served as the historical foundation for the
> establishment of a viable Chicano and Chicana Movimiento, and are
> therefore, fundamental to the M.E.Ch.A. philosophy.
>
>M.E.Ch.A.'S PHILOSOPHY
>
>The Chicano and Chicana student movement has been plagued by
> opportunists that have sought to rechannel the energies of our people
> and divert us from our struggle for self-determination. The
> educational plight of Chicana and Chicano students continues to be
> ignored by insensitive administrators. Overall, Chicano and Chicana
> junior high, high school and college push-out rates have risen since
> 1969, forcing many Chicanos and Chicanas to a life of poverty. These
> factors along with a growing right wing trend in the nation are
> combing to work greater hardships on Chicanos and Chicanas. New
> repressive and racist immigration laws are continuously directed at
> our Gente. The Federal government is campaigning to pacify and
> assimilate our Gente by labeling us "Hispanic." The term "Hispanic"
> seeks to anglicize and deny our indigenous heritage by ignoring our
> unique socioeconomic and historical aspect of our Gente. These
> factors have made it necessary for Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de
> Aztl?to affirm our philosophy of liberation (i.e. educational,
> socioeconomic, and political empowerment) for our Chicano and Chicana
> nation.
>Joining with other community-based Chicano and Chicana nationalist
> organizations, M.E.Ch.A. is committed to ending the cultural tyranny
> suffered at the hands of institutional and systematic discrimination
> that holds our Gente captive. We seek an end to oppression and
> exploitation of the Chicano and Chicana Community
From the second:
>Aztlan as a 1960s political idea sought to reclaim the original
> homeland of the indigenous Mexica or Mexican/Chicano people. Thirty
> years ago, Aztlan was symbolically represented by the lands lost by
> Mexico when the United States warred on its neighbor in 1846.
>
>A generation later, a new idea of Aztlan is emerging, particularly
>among the young members, that they're part of a pan-indigenous spiritual nation, not necessarily part of a geopolitical entity. As an
> anonymous Xicana from Michigan wrote to us last year: "Aztlan is
> everywhere I've ever walked."
>
>While some still cling to the 1960s expression of Aztlan, its new
> adherents are not nationalist, nor do they support patriarchal ideas
> that relegate women to supporting roles. Many are women who spell
> Chicana with an X, symbolizing their indigenous roots. Theirs is not
> a separatist movement. Aztlan has re-emerged in response to this
> population, Mexican/Latinos, being dehumanized to the point where
> today many of this country's problems are attributed to them. This
> feeling of being under siege has created a spirit of unity and a
> spiritual kinship with people from all of the Americas.
>
>To some, the idea of Aztlan indeed sounds like Quebec's separatist
> movement. Yet, this population did not elect to be designated and
> treated by the government as a permanent lower caste of minorities
> and aliens. Nor have they chosen to be segregated by corporations as
> the "Hispanic market." Interestingly, this "segmentation," because it
> involves hundreds of billions of dollars, is not seen by mainstream
> society as separation, but rather as part of the American way.
>
>For those who have been marginalized, viewing themselves as part of a
> spiritual nation is both dignified and liberating. Many view
> themselves as partaking in a process of self-identity, not bound by
> government or corporate definitions, which they see as contributing
> to the systematic eradication of their culture. Many consider the
> U.S. Census Bureau's designation of this population as "white" a
> throwback to an era of shame and a continued effort to obliterate the
> Indian or African within them.
>What land do you reckon they intend on "reclaiming"?
That which they feel belonged to their ancestors. The American Indian
Movement probably has a similar statement of principle.
>"We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly
>called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our
>hearts.
Sounds like something the Cato Institute would support.
>Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields,
>and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans.
Whereas that sounds more like Marx (though he was of course one of
those Europeans).
>We do not
>recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent"
They reject the concept of national borders dividing peoples.
>Can you put 2 and 2 together, Bob?
Yep. I get 22.
>Where do you think the "northern land of Aztlan" resides?
Land doesn't reside. People reside.
>They offer a clue: the place where "those who
>plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops" live
>alongside "foreign Europeans."
Actually per the text, the "foreign Europeans" don't necessarily live
there, they just claim to own the land. That is just anti-capitalism.
>> > -- translated to mean "For our race,
>> >everything. For those outside our race, nothing"?
>>
>> Babelfish translates it as
>> >By the Race all. Outside the Race nothing
>>
>> which leads to a far different conclusion about its symbolism for a
>> group seeking united action. "For" would be "para", not "por".
>
>The MEChA website, with its references to a "bronze people" who must
>protect their "Raza" (race), make their intentions clear.
I dunno. You use the same language about "white people" and
protecting your "race". Why are you any better?
>> >MEChA has four
>> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>>
>> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
>> Hispanic population in this country. So even if they were as radical
>> as you made them out to be, that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot.
>
>How many Hispanic community leaders, politicians and celebrities have
>publicly condemned this group, in contrast to the hysteria that
>typically greets appearances by numerically smaller white supremacy
>groups?
Why should I care? I don't much care for racism of any kind, but
minority racism is usually a response to majority racism.
>> >Additionally, you
>> >may be interested to learn that the 2001 Los Angeles mayoral candidate
>> >for the Democratic party, Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly served as
>> >chairman of the UCLA chapter of MEChA, and received overwhelming
>> >support by hispanics at the ballot box. Villaraigosa did not repudiate
>> >his past during his campaign.
>>
>> Why should he?
>> David Duke didn't repudiate his KKK past when he ran for Congress as a
>> Republican.
>
>This is beside the point.
No it isn't.
>The fact that Villaraigosa had previously
>chaired a racialist Hispanic student group that he failed to
>repudiate, coupled with the fact that most of his votes came from
>Hispanics who were well aware of his past connections with MEChA,
>coupled with the fact that whites _and_ blacks (who traditionally vote
>democrat) overwhelmingly rejected him, demonstrates a strong element
>of ethnic tribalism in Hispanic Americans.
So? Whites don't often vote for black politicians either. And as
recently as 43 years ago, Kennedy was rejected by people for being
Catholic.
>> >You are oddly silent about Mexican ethnocentrism,
>>
>> It isn't my concern. I am not Mexican. American ethnocentrism is my
>> concern, because I am an American.
>
>What is "American ethnocentrism," since the US is comprised of dozens
>of ethnicities?
Anything that attempts to exclude one of those ethnicities, as you do,
usually claiming it is inferior, as you do.
>> All
>> groups act like human beings.
>
>So you're telling me that you can't tell the difference between the
>places the Chinese inhabit (Hong Kong, Vancouver BC, San Francisco,
>etc) and the places blacks inhabit (sub-Saharan Africa, Gary Indiana,
>Haiti, etc)?
I think there are more similarities between San Francisco and Gary
Indiana, than either locale has similarities to sub-Saharan Africa or
Hong Kong.
>> >or because it is only expressions of white ethnocentrism that you object to.
>>
>> Those are the only ones that appear regularly on this newsgroup. But
>> I have tackled ethnocentrism of other groups when appropriate.
>>
>> And while I don't encourage "ethnocentrism", it is supremacism that I
>> object to.
>
>You don't just object to supremacism, which presumably means rule over
>others,
No. It means thinking you are superior to others.
>you apparently object to groups just wanting to be left alone.
That is xenophobia.
>> Especially in the United States of America, which is not
>> and has never been an exclusively "white" country.
>
>It was created by whites,
Nope. Much of the labor was done by blacks. The whites were however
pretty good at industrial espionage, doing to Britain in the
Industrial Revolution what the Japanese did to us this past century.
It wasn't till the Civil War caused the North to become inventive in
the ways of war that "American ingenuity" came into its own. Of
course a huge chunk of those northerners were recent immigrants.
>and was nearly 90 percent white until the late 1960s.
Nope. It was 20% black in the 1790 census. With the cutoff of the
slave trade, coupled with European immigration, this percentage fell
slowly, hitting a low of 11% in 1930 and then starting to rise again.
Even so, in several southern states, blacks were half the population
until well into this century.
And that matters only if you consider "white" a single race. Most of
you racists are perfectly happy to exclude "Hispanics" (who were
considered "white" until the last few decades) and "Jews" when it
suits you. 150 years ago, the "Irish" were considered a 'lesser
race', and the immigration laws of the 1920s were intended to keep out
those dark skinned Italians and Greeks. The Mexicans were still
welcome as long as they only came to pick our crops and then went home
(who did the *work* of building the country, again? The
Transcontinental Railroad was largely built by the Chinese, who were
promptly rewarded by the Exclusion Act).
>> Many individuals do, but YOU do not.
>> >Mexicans, blacks and other non-white groups certainly
>> >do not judge other groups as "individuals," but as separate groups
>> >with their own ethnic interests.
>>
>> How color-blind of you! Not!
>
>Nice cop-out. You didn't dispute my claim because you know it's true.
Since I recognize that "judgement" is an act of individuals, not
groups, I reject your claim.
>> >For when whites
>> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>>
>> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>
>You snipped the rest of my sentence. When whites are consigned to
>minority status by 2050, the groups displacing them will continue to
>assert their racial identities, which you don't object to because
>they're not white.
I make no statement about how I will feel in 2050, except probably
rather dead.
>> >> There is no invasion. There is simply normal human migration
>> >> patterns.
>> >
>> >Incorrect. The current level of immigration to the US is anything but
>> >normal.
>>
>> If you look at history, it is quite normal or even subnormal as
>> compared to what would be predicted of an open border. We had
>> essentially unlimited immigration for most of our history.
>
>This is simply ahistorical. The first naturalization act authored in
>1790 reserved immigration solely to white Europeans.
"Naturalization" is not the same as "immigration".
>It was hardly "unlimited" for the next hundred years. Aside from some heavy Irish
>migration during the mid-19th century, the amount of immigration to
>the US until 1890 was relatively mild.
I have the data right here in front of me, and as usual, you are
wrong. Here is population, # of immigrants, and new immigrants as a
percent of the population
1820 population 9.6 million. immigrants 8,385 .1%
1830 12.9 23,322 .2%
1840 17.1 84,066 .5%
1850 23.2 369,980 1.6% (1.0% non-Irish)
1860 31.4 153,640 .5%
1870 39.8 387,203 1.0%
1880 50.2 457,257 .9%
1890 62.9 455,302 .7%
1900 76.0 448,572 .6%
1910 92.0 1,041,570 1.1%
1920 105.7 430,001 .4%
...
2000 281.4 849,807 .3%
The first couple of decades for which there is data represented the
pre-steam era, when transoceanic travel was both very dangerous and
expensive.
The 1.6% in 1850 would be represented in 2000 by allowing 4.5 million
legal immigrants. Even the lowest percentage immigration (1920) would
correspond to 1.1 million legal immigrants.
If the US had continued immigration at the .4% rate after 1920, there
would have been 4.5 million immigrants in the 1920s, 5 million in the
30s, 5.5 million in the 40s, 6.5 million in the 50s, 8 million in the
60s for a total of 29.5 million in 50 years. Actual immigration was
less than half of that. Using the HIGHEST estimates, ALL OF THE
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TOGETHER don't bring the immigration rate of the
last 80 years up to the .4% per year rate that was the non-wartime low
for 1828 to 1924. The INS official estimate for 2000 of around 7
million illegals amounts to less than 2 years immigration at the 1850
rate.
>> >> Migrations have never been controllable by law,
>> >
>> >Then how have the Japanese prevented hundreds of thousands of
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians from immigrating to Japan? There are many
>> >Cambodians and Polynesians who would like to immerse themselves in the
>> >wealthy, technologically literate society the Japanese have created,
>> >yet the Japanese have prevented this and therefore retained their
>> >ethnic homogeneity.
>>
>> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>
>Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
>by law," yet the Japanese have done just that, which explicitly
>contradicts your claim.
Actually, they haven't controlled it "by law". For much of the first
half of the 20th century they controlled it by genocide. Be that as
it may, however, Japan has the opposite attitude from you:
http://www.migrationint.com.au/news/gibraltar/jul_2000-17mn.html
They need 21 million immigrants over the next 45 years in order to
maintain constant population. That is a half million immigrants a
year - oops - there's that .4% figure again.
>> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>>
>> 40 years is a blip in history.
>
>Irrelevant. You asserted that "Migrations have never been controllable
>by law," yet the US did just that (more than once, in fact), which
>explicitly contradicts your claim.
40 years is a blip in history, we changed that policy because it was
failing, and current illegal immigration is the blowback from that
policy.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>>>
>>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>
>>
>> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>> are not in the same category as you.
>
>No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
>"nationalism".
Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>
>Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
>don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they are
>not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's sovereign
>borders, contrary to custom and law.
Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
unenforceable.
>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
ancestry.
>> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>> "community of characteristics"
>
>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>>>warrior.
>>
>> There is no invasion.
>
>Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
> Invade.
> 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
> rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
>
> 2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
> domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
> or plunder.
>
> 3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
> pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
>
>See definition #3.
which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
obviously disagree about.
>But more specifically,
>
>Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
> n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
> to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
> Wade.
> 1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
> enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
Obs. = obsolete
> 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
> conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
> as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
hostile intent
> Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
>
> 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
> the king invaded the rights of the people.
There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
that bends over backwards to protect rights.
> 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
> progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
>
> Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
>
>See definition #4.
Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
falsely that there is injury.
>Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
>armed,
Proof that this is "increasing"? Pancho Villa was armed 100 years
ago.
>with one Border Patrol officer being murdered recently, other Federal
>agents being beaten and robbed by border crossers, etc.
>
>That beating and robbing and murder come under definition #2.
That MIGHT present a case that those who committed such acts are
invaders, but says nothing about those who do not, and have no intent
to do so.
>Definition #1 applies in any case.
And is obsolete. Learn to read a dictionary.
>> There is simply normal human migration
>> patterns. Migrations have never been controllable by law, and the
>> even the Roman empire at its height was not able to stop the
>> inevitable flow of human migration, and fell trying to stop the
>> unstoppable "invasion".
>
>Actually that is not why they fell; and you should be a bit more specific
>about which part of the Roman empire you're discussing, and in which
>timeframe, and geographic area.
I was talking about the entirety of the Roman Empire throughout its
existence. It NEVER really controlled immigration/invasion, merely
stemmed it in places where they left a standing army. Even Hadrian's
Wall had gates to allow traders in. Not all of them left.
http://myron.sjsu.edu/romeweb/enemies/art17.htm
discusses the later empire. Note that Tacitus said of Germans pretty
much what you say about Mexicans.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sshi/empires/hopkins.pdf
>The City of Rome
>The city of Rome was by far the largest city in the Roman world. By the end of the
>first century BCE, it had a population of about one miliion people. It was as large as
>London in 1800, when London was the largest city in the world. Rome could be so
>large, because it was the capital not just of Italy (population c. 7 million) but of a
>Mediterranean empire. Rome’s population had grown rapidly by more than six times
>from an estimated 150,000 in 225 BCE.19 The capital's growth was fed by three
>streams of immigrants: a) free citizen and allied rural emigrants from Italy (small
>peasant families were displaced by fewer slaves working on larger farms); b) the
>forced and continual immigration of particularly adult male slaves as victims of Rome's
>conquest of the Mediterranean basin in the last two centuries BCE; c) free craftsmen
>and traders, particularly from coastal towns in the Mediterranean.20 The city of Rome
>grew and its huge size was maintained only by a steady stream of immigrants.
Lest this not ring true, consider that Claudius expelled the Jews from
Rome in 48AD - this required of course that the Jews came to Rome in
the first place, which they had done in quantity after Rome conquered
the Holy Land.
The illusion of immigration control was largely because the efforts to
control immigration led to expansion of the empire, such as the
annexation of Gaul, and the wars against Germania. But expansion of
the empire itself was a means of immigration - each new territory
brought many new foreigners into the empire, some of whom eventually
became citizens and some went to Rome itself. In the later empire,
when expansion ceased, there were labor shortages and besides the
barbarian invasions, Rome relied on immigration for its economic
survival:
http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/germanic_invasions.html
>Furthermore I might add that Roma was quite able to control their borders at
>one point in time, it's arguable when they stopped even trying to control
>the borders that they are seen to have committed themselves to the
>proverbial slippery slope.
Actually, it is when immigration ceased to be sufficient to maintain
the population that Rome declined. That reduced immigration came
about because Constantine moved his capital, thereby making Rome no
longer a political magnet for immigrants. Constantinople of course
continued to draw in immigrants in its stead.
>In any case, we're a little more advanced that the Romans. Unfortunately, or
>fortunately, we're a lot more lacking in the resolution to simply kill
>anyone transgressing a line they knew to not cross.
They didn't kill them. They enslaved them, but slaves were still
immigrants, and their descendants became Roman citizens.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>aren't mutally exclusive.
Yes they are. Nationalities are collectives. Human beings are
individuals.
>In fact, being an individual, a
>human being, is pretty much a prerequisite for having
>a nationality.
The pandas in the national zoo have no nationality?
>> You have the obnoxious behavior down.
>
> Certainly to you I'm probably obnoxious, but then few
>people enjoy having their believes contradicted by facts.
I haven't seen a lot of facts out of you. Just opinions.
>> Reality is that no two human beings are alike,
>
> Neither are two snowflakes, Bob, but snow does
>have a kind of collective identity when it's piled
>around the landscape.
And the snowflakes are not the collective.
>> Whether someone arrived as the result of another illegal arrival, they
>> are here legally, so tough cookies. We don't punish A because of the
>> crimes of B if we can avoid it.
>
> When are system and our good will are exploited,
You haven't shown the least bit of "good will".
>> Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
>> unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>
> If any border screamed to be militarized, it is our
>southern border. And it was militarized well into
>the 20th Century.
Not in the sense it would have to be in order to control immigration.
>> For that
>> matter, go anywhere at Yule, and observe what kind of language,
>> holidays, and culture Europeans imposed on the natives who lived here
>> before us.
>
> Yule? You mean Christmas time?
I said Yule. Those "invaders" from Rome took over a perfectly good
pagan holiday and bastardized it.
> And by your comment,
>do you mean that since Europeans imposed a culture on the
>Indians, then it's okay for Mexicans to impose their
>culture here?
No. It means that you have no cause to complain about people doing to
you what your ancestors did to others.
>> Nope. If that were the case you'd have had your isolationist
>> immigration policy ages ago.
>
> The politicians aren't listening to the people on the
>immigration issue.
The aren't getting voted out either. Indeed, Hispanics seem to be
elected with increasing frequency.
>> The problem is that a huge chunk of
>> Americans are either immigrants or children of immigrants, and don't
>> buy your garbage.
>
> Actually, according to every poll done in the past 10
>or so years, my views are in line with the views of
>most Americans.
And you of course believe polls, so long as those polls confirm your
prejudices. If the polls don't agree with you then they are
worthless.
>> >I believe in law and justice and fairness and good will, among other virtues.
>>
>> As long as it is YOUR law, and YOUR justice and everything is fair to
>> YOU, and YOU don't have to show "good will" to any "mud races", in
>> other words.
>
> Actually, my difficulty is with people who abuse our
>system and our altruism
Altruism? You?
>> They just don't care about YOU. They want law and justice and
>> fairness and good will for THEM.
>
> At the expense of Americans.
Why yes. Of course they consider themselves Americans too.
>> >They abuse our health, education, and welfare systems.
>>
>> Nope. They follow the laws regarding those systems.
>
> Actually, no. Or do you believe that the big market
>in false documents if some kind of benign exercise?
False documents aren't an abuse of those systems.
>> >I care more about Americans
>>
>> Only if they share your color and language.
>
> By definition, an American is someone who speaks English.
Show me any dictionary with that definition.
Your definition is bullshit.
>And I really have no problem with color; only with culture.
Yeah, right.
>> >as well as people in other countries willing
>> >to arrive here legally than I care about a pack of parasitic,
>> >colonizing, illegal alien Mexicans. According to my values,
>> >I judge Mexicans rightly.
>>
>> Who gives a flying f*** about your values?
>
> Gosh. I do, Bob.
Sorry. What HUMAN BEING cares? You deny being a human being instead
of a nationality.
>> >> > Actually, race is often an indication of culture,
>> >>
>> >> "often" ain't good enough.
>> >
>> > It's perfectly suited to this discussion.
>>
>> Proof by assertion.
>
> Oh, you're asking for "proof." I'm a white American, Bob.
Which proves?
>Your posts indicate that because I'm a white American, I
>have certain values, attitudes, and behavior
I'm a "white American" too, and I rather doubt that we have the same
values, attitudes, and behavior.
>> > Really? So in Thailand, for example, if you touch the head
>> >of a child and his father is offended, the father is racist?
>>
>> Why are you touching another person, especially a minor without
>> permission? You are violating their rights.
>
> How racist of you.
For insisting that human rights be respected?
>> Meanwhile, if they are offended, they are offended because of your
>> individual behavior, not because you are a member of a group.
>
> Americans touch children's heads.
Not the head of someone else's kid, you better not.
>Thais never do because
>the spirit resides in the head and to touch it is highly offensive.
"Thais" don't believe this. People with certain religious beliefs may
believe this.
>Americans don't share the Thai's beliefs about touching the
>head.
But we do have beliefs about the sanctity of the human body. No
touching without permission. A strange man touches a little kid in
this country, and they are taught to make lots of noise, and the man
can get arrested.
>> >If in Japan, you cross your leg and aim the sole of your
>> >shoe in another person's direction and the person is
>> >offended, than he's racist?
>>
>> Nope. But if he is offended at me because you did so, that would be
>> racist.
>
> You've really drifted from your own point, Bob. Do some
>rereading and figure it out, will you. We're talking about what
>cultures find offensive, that some cultures are in conflict, and
>your claiming that people of one culture who are offended by
>other cultures are racist.
No. They are people who happen to be of one culture, who are offended
by individuals who happen to be of a different culture. It is the
individual behavior transgressing the individual belief that leads to
offense, and that isn't racist.
>> 1. It would take militarizing the border, which would be frightfully
>> expensive and would merely cut down on what you call "invasion", not
>> stop it. There would simply come to be more use of alternative
>> methods. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>
> So the Mexican will and way is ... what? ... more effective
>than the American will and way to keep the Mexicans out?
There is no "American will".
>> >If you've ever visited
>> >the 38th Parallel in Korea, you'd know what I mean.
>>
>> And how long is the border, and how much does it cost, and how free is
>> the society on the south side of that border compared to ours?
>
> Is that your way of claiming that a border can't be protected?
>Try again.
Expenditure of huge amounts of manpower on a tiny border has limited
border crossing, but even so there are agents of the North who get
into Korea. And that border protection is a blip in history that
won't last.
>> Hint - South Korea has almost 700,000 troops to defend that short
>> stretch of border, almost as many as the entire US active duty
>> military.
>
> Your point? You wouldn't be claiming that protecting our
>country is just too darn expensive, would you, Bob?
In our case it is beyond "expensive". Our borders are several times
as long, the terrain is less hospitable to protection, and the rights
guaranteed by our constitution make some aspects of that protection
impossible. Koreans, North or South don't share those rights.
>> Nope. We couldn't afford the troops (and we couldn't move them that
>> quickly - look how long it is taking to build up 150,000 troops to
>> handle Iraq.
>
> Fort Hood and Fort Bliss are equipped to do the job, and
>their getting to the border would involve a short drive.
Hilarious. They could protect a few miles of the border each, if
their troops weren't en route to Iraq.
> >> The best
>> >> hope of dealing with migration is to try to assimilate the immigrants,
>> >> and that takes a couple of generations.
>> >
>> > Nonsense.
>>
>> Something you are full of.
>
> Nonsense.
Yep.
>> > Maybe if you did more reading ... In any event, Rome failed to
>> >resist because it had citizens with your mentality and it gave out
>> >citizenship to just about anyone who wanted it.
>>
>> Guess why? Because they had no choice. Not enough citizens willing
>> to serve in the military for low wages merely to keep people out. If
>> we cut out immigration, we'd probably need to reinstate the draft in
>> order to keep the current level of military (which is a fraction the
>> size it was the last time we tried to control immigration).
>>
>> Meanwhile, their economy (like ours) became top-heavy - not enough
>> people willing to work at low wages to support their "betters", so
>> they had to keep taking in new workers, and then once they were in,
>> had to keep them happy with the promise of eventual citizenship.
>
> You don't know what you'r talking about.
I've been reading history as an avocation for more than 30 years,
probably longer than you've been around.
>> >We are now accepting the
>> >lawless barbarians, are making them citizens, and
>> >people such as you -- few as they are
>>
>> If you were in the majority, the laws would reflect your wishes. You
>> aren't.
>
> Apparently you aren't familiar with the issue and with
>how the government works to keep the will of the
>people from becoming policy.
The magic word is "elections". If people really cared, they'd vote
the bums out of office.
lojbab
Tiny Human Ferret
Care to support this assertion?
In many places which have become concentrations of illegal aliens, we see
the duplication of all of the conditions in Mexico. We see institutionalized
poverty, corruption, poor health, indigence, etc. These are all institutions
more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. In the US, we have prided
ourselves on generation of wealth, rooting out corruption, improving public
health, and being as self-reliant as possible.
>>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
>
>
> Nope.
Try supporting your disagreement.
americankernel
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
> >>>
> >>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
> >>
> >>
> >> But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
> >> treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
> >> are not in the same category as you.
> >
> >No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
> >"nationalism".
>
> Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
> born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
More and more it seems like you operate from a sch"ism" in your cerebral
cortex.
> > Thus considering "Mexicans" to
> >> be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
> >> make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
> >> an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
> >
> >Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
> >don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they
are
> >not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's
sovereign
> >borders, contrary to custom and law.
>
> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
> unenforceable.
Absurd. There is no legitimate comparison between the two concepts.
> >I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>
> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
> income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
> native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
> illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
> than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
> ancestry.
1) If we made it economically impossible for illegals to survive here by
making the penalties for hiring them more onerous, border enforcement would
be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a blatantly
uninformed assertion.
3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work at
an artificially deflated wage. In technology, we have myriad instances in
which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
visa-bearing replacements.
4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize. Thus, we have laws that
ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not citizens,
but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can be
prevented by legislation...and they should be.
> >> see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
> >> "community of characteristics"
> >
> >Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is
racist,
> >at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity
as
> >the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>
> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
see today, regardless of their origin. Thus, we risk the subversion or
subjugation of the very things,
the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
greatness.
> >>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to
become a
> >>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
> >>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by
becoming a
> >>>warrior.
> >>
> >> There is no invasion.
> >
> >Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
> > Invade.
> > 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
> > rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
> >
> > 2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
> > domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
> > or plunder.
> >
> > 3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
> > pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
> >
> >See definition #3.
>
> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
> obviously disagree about.
It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
real.
> >But more specifically,
> >
> >Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
> > n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
> > to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
> > Wade.
> > 1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
> > enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
>
> Obs. = obsolete
>
> > 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
> > conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
> > as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
>
> hostile intent
>
> > Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
> >
> > 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
> > the king invaded the rights of the people.
>
> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
Are you an ACLU shill? You stated a portion of their
reverse-discriminatory, socialist
perspective perfectly. These days, we spend far too much time bending over
backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
of the majority. You've gone Orwellian: "Diversity is strength!"
> > 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
> > progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
> >
> > Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
> >
> >See definition #4.
>
>
> Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
> falsely that there is injury.
Really? Wow. Do you come out of your hole and look around often?
> >Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
> >armed,
>
> Proof that this is "increasing"? Pancho Villa was armed 100 years
> ago.
They don't deliver current newspapers to your hole either, do they?
--
The American Kernel
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't want to be mistaken to think that I support racism... however:
>>>>
>>>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>>
>>>
>>>But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>>>treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>>>are not in the same category as you.
>>
>>No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
>>"nationalism".
>
>
> Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
> born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
I think you have just revealed that you are incapable of rational discussion
on the subject, since you are using a different dictionary and different
interpretations of that dictionary than most people.
>
>>> Thus considering "Mexicans" to
>>>be a distinct category of inferiors deserving of the judgements you
>>>make is "racism". The opposite of racism is to treat every person as
>>>an individual, and judge them based on what they themselves do.
>>
>>Not at all. There is a difference between "racism" and "nationalism". I
>>don't care how nice or wonderful these people might be. I care that they are
>>not Americans and they are forcing their way across this nation's sovereign
>>borders, contrary to custom and law.
>
>
> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
> unenforceable.
Actually, both are quite enforceable. Ask husbands convicted of raping their
wives whether or not laws governing what happens in a bedroom are enforceable.
>
>
>>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>
>
> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet.
I insist on it.
> We might
> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
> income tax to pay for militarizing the border,
Nice presumption. Would you care to provide details as to how a
"militarization" of the border would double the income tax, or would you
care to try to show that militarization of the border would even be required?
> and accepted the lower
> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
> native population),
You are (I suspect intentionally, nobody can be that stupid anymore) mixing
categories. We do get quite a lot of benefits from Legal Immigration,
especially from the intellegentsia. However, we don't get any of these
"benefits" from the uneducated rurals that are the vast majority of the
people sneaking across the borders in the dead of night.
> the elimination of the tourism industry since most
> illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
> than border crossers.
Cites, please.
> Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
> ancestry.
Where they hell did you get _this_ ridiculous idea? "Treated differently
because of their _perceived_ ancestry"? Are you NUTS?
Any one born in the USA is a citizen. That is all. I _do_ favor legal
changes that would give the citizen birthright only to children whose
mothers were legally present in the US at the time of birth. However,
declaring US citizens "illegal" on the basis of race is something I would
not tolerate. Nor would the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think
anyone is going to think that would proceed from increasing border security
and increasing the rate of apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens?
>
>
>>>see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>>>"community of characteristics"
>>
>>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>
>
> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
There's no "ethnicity" to it. Basically they have a birth-certificate or
certificate of naturalization that says they're a citizen, or they show an
unexpired visa, or "green card", or they get sent back home.
We don't care what their "ethnicity" is, we care what their "nationality"
is, and also their citizenship or immigration status.
>
>
>>>>When you ask "Are you proposing that the solution to racism is to become a
>>>>racist" you are asking the wrong question, but in the right format. You
>>>>don't fight racism by becoming a racist; you fight an invasion by becoming a
>>>>warrior.
>>>
>>>There is no invasion.
>>
>>Invasion In*va"sion, n. L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
>> Invade.
>> 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
>> rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
>>
>> 2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
>> domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
>> or plunder.
>>
>> 3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
>> pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.
>>
>>See definition #3.
>
>
> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
> obviously disagree about.
We're NOT talking about Legal Immigrants -- which is what you seek to imply
when you use the word "immigration" -- we are talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Don't try to fuzz the issue, I will call you on it _every_ time.
>
>
>
>>But more specifically,
>>
>>Invade In*vade", v. t. imp. & p. p. Invaded; p. pr. & vb.
>> n. Invading. L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
>> to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
>> Wade.
>> 1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
>> enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. Obs.
>
>
> Obs. = obsolete
>
>
>> 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
>> conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
>> as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
>
>
> hostile intent
>
>
>> Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
>>
>> 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
>> the king invaded the rights of the people.
>
>
> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
>
>
>> 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
>> progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
>>
>> Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See Attack.
>>
>>See definition #4.
>
>
>
> Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
> falsely that there is injury.
See http://www.bordercounties.org/ for the "Border Counties Coalition". They
have some excellent documentation there, facts, figures, footnotes -- and
all of it Federal -- which amply demonstrated the HUGE financial injuries
borne by the taxpayers of the counties along or near the border with Mexico.
>
>
>>Besides, increasingly those crossing the border with Mexico are coming
>>armed,
>
>
> Proof that this is "increasing"? Pancho Villa was armed 100 years
> ago.
Yes, and they sent the army after him, didn't they. They should do it again!
>
>
>>with one Border Patrol officer being murdered recently, other Federal
>>agents being beaten and robbed by border crossers, etc.
>>
>>That beating and robbing and murder come under definition #2.
>
>
> That MIGHT present a case that those who committed such acts are
> invaders, but says nothing about those who do not, and have no intent
> to do so.
We cannot measure intent. We can, however, measure the illegality of
presence in the USA, and deport those who astisfy the criteria of being "out
of status" or "entered without inspection".
>
>
>>Definition #1 applies in any case.
>
>
> And is obsolete. Learn to read a dictionary.
It's not at all obsolete; it's the precise usage we see in the newspapers
everytime we read about "home invasions".
Get a grip.
<interesting references on Rome, snipped, thanks for digging them up, I'll
read them later>
Bob LeChevalier
>>>Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
>>>to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte".
>>
>>
>> You may think so, but you are wrong.
>
>Care to support this assertion?
>
>In many places which have become concentrations of illegal aliens, we see
>the duplication of all of the conditions in Mexico. We see institutionalized
>poverty, corruption, poor health, indigence, etc.
That is called economics. You concentrate poor people in a locale,
and sure enough, conditions of poverty will abound. We have (and will
have) poverty in this country whether or not we have illegal aliens.
It might be that we will have LESS poverty because of them; so the
economists think.
>These are all institutions
>more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. In the US, we have prided
>ourselves on generation of wealth,
Tromping on the poor both in this country and other countries in order
to do it.
>rooting out corruption,
And generating ten times as much to replace it. Look at the campaign
finance laws.
>improving public health,
Check out infant mortality in the inner cities. Third world levels if
you don't have health insurance.
>and being as self-reliant as possible.
That rates a LOL. Reliant on our ability to screw our neighbor.
>>>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Try supporting your disagreement.
It's all opinion on both sides.
lojbab
LeBob Liercheva
<3E57D8B...@earthops.net>...
> I think you have just revealed that you are incapable of rational discussion
> on the subject, since you are using a different dictionary and different
> interpretations of that dictionary than most people.
That's what I keep telling people in misc.education, however, this newsgroup
seems to be infested with non-readers and non-counters just LIKE him!!
> You are (I suspect intentionally, nobody can be that stupid anymore)
Nope. He is.
> Where they hell did you get _this_ ridiculous idea? "Treated differently
> because of their _perceived_ ancestry"? Are you NUTS?
Yes, he is.
> Don't try to fuzz the issue, I will call you on it _every_ time.
He won't admit to it.
Bob LeChevalier
>> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
>> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
>> unenforceable.
>
>Absurd. There is no legitimate comparison between the two concepts.
Difficulty of enforcing without destroying our constitutional rights,
and a general disconnect between law and custom are things they both
have in common.
>> >I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>>
>> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
>> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
>> income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
>> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
>> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
>> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
>> native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
>> illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
>> than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
>> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
>> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
>> ancestry.
>
>1) If we made it economically impossible for illegals to survive here by
>making the penalties for hiring them more onerous,
Such as? Prisons, whether for illegals or people who hire illegals,
are overflowing, and they cost more do build and maintain than people
want to pay, not to mention that no one wants a prison in their
neighborhood. And of course you have to enforce these penalties,
which means more cops at $100K a year including bennies, and more
courts at even higher costs. And they still have to PROVE a violation
of law without violating constitutional rights, which is hard.
The only people we'd make it economically impossible for would be the
American people.
>border enforcement would
>be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
Nonsense.
>2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a blatantly
>uninformed assertion.
I didn't say that. I said that a substantial percentage comes from
people who enter the country legally via tourism, student visas, and
other means, but who decide not to go home.
>3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
>work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work at
>an artificially deflated wage.
If the wage is higher, then SOMEONE will pay that higher wage. That
person will be the American consumer. Or if the American consumer
doesn't want to pay that amount, then the business goes bankrupt.
>In technology, we have myriad instances in
>which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
>visa-bearing replacements.
And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
>4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
>drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize.
I doubt that such was anticipated, given the explicit wording.
>Thus, we have laws that
>ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not citizens,
Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
> citizens of the United States;
Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
>but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
>MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can be
>prevented by legislation...and they should be.
I doubt that it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny, given the
unambiguous wording of the 14th.
>> >Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>> >at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>> >the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>>
>> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>
>OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
>to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
>see today, regardless of their origin.
That argument is unsupported, since I posted immigration statistics to
show that current immigration as a percentage of the population, even
including illegals, is low by the standards of most of the 19th
century.
>Thus, we risk the subversion or
>subjugation of the very things,
>the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
>greatness.
This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
>> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
>> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
>> obviously disagree about.
>
>It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
>real.
At the moment it is rather gray here.
But you haven't proven that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, and
you can't given the number of countries that seek immigrants in order
to keep their economies working.
>> > 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
>> > the king invaded the rights of the people.
>>
>> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
>> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
>
>Are you an ACLU shill?
No.
>These days, we spend far too much time bending over
>backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
>of the majority.
Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
trampling on the rights of political minorities.
> You've gone Orwellian: "Diversity is strength!"
It is (whether Orwell said it or not).
lojbab
americankernel
Watch what happens to Tyson. That will be a benchmark to determine if the
government is serious. It didn't take any extra cops to get Tyson. You're
out in La-la land on this issue.
> The only people we'd make it economically impossible for would be the
> American people.
>
> >border enforcement would
> >be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
>
> Nonsense.
You really the kind of loon others have suggested you are, aren't you?
> >2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a
blatantly
> >uninformed assertion.
>
> I didn't say that. I said that a substantial percentage comes from
> people who enter the country legally via tourism, student visas, and
> other means, but who decide not to go home.
Sure. Right. Nonsense.
> >3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
> >work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work
at
> >an artificially deflated wage.
>
> If the wage is higher, then SOMEONE will pay that higher wage. That
> person will be the American consumer. Or if the American consumer
> doesn't want to pay that amount, then the business goes bankrupt.
Like I said before, you don't get out much, do you?
> >In technology, we have myriad instances in
> >which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
> >visa-bearing replacements.
>
> And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
Google it yourself, idiot. There's information about the issue all over the
place.
> >4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
> >drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize.
>
> I doubt that such was anticipated, given the explicit wording.
Again, it isn't hard to find the debate and the commentary that occurred
immediately after Congress put it up if you know how to search. I'm not
going to be your schoolmarm. If you wish to remain ignorant, so be it.
Amen.
> >Thus, we have laws that
> >ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not
citizens,
>
> Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
> >Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
> ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
> > citizens of the United States;
>
> Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
> nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
You're also sorely lacking in knowledge of the concept of "legislative
intent."
> >but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
> >MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can
be
> >prevented by legislation...and they should be.
>
> I doubt that it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny, given the
> unambiguous wording of the 14th.
Again, you don't understand the concept of legislative intent. Have you
ever worked on legislation? Have you worked in Congress? Have you worked
as a lobbyist? I can tell the answer. I can also guarantee that my answers
to these very questions differ 180 degrees from yours.
> >> >Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is
racist,
> >> >at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same
ethnicity as
> >> >the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
> >>
> >> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
> >
> >OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
> >to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
> >see today, regardless of their origin.
>
> That argument is unsupported, since I posted immigration statistics to
> show that current immigration as a percentage of the population, even
> including illegals, is low by the standards of most of the 19th
> century.
Oh really? Can I have some of that stuff you've been smoking? You are so
loony, you're almost headed for Plonkville. What a moron.
> >Thus, we risk the subversion or
> >subjugation of the very things,
> >the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
> >greatness.
>
> This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
> immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
> international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
> by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
> stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
> opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
> the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
> of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
If it was so great, how come the voters basically kicked out Congress, or
flipped them on the issue of immigration, and closed the borders for 40
years after 1924? Many more people consider the 50's to be our greatest
decade...you know...when we had a 4% foreign born population? Today we're
at 11% and headed for 15%.
I don't even know why I bother with you. You are plainly an idiot with
preconceptions that are not backed by study, reading or fact. I feel a
plonk coming.
> >> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
> >> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
> >> obviously disagree about.
> >
> >It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
> >real.
>
> At the moment it is rather gray here.
Gray sky above. No gray matter in the noggin. A pity.
>
> But you haven't proven that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, and
> you can't given the number of countries that seek immigrants in order
> to keep their economies working.
>
> >> > 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
> >> > the king invaded the rights of the people.
> >>
> >> There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
> >> that bends over backwards to protect rights.
> >
> >Are you an ACLU shill?
>
> No.
>
> >These days, we spend far too much time bending over
> >backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the
"rights"
> >of the majority.
>
> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
I keep my copy of the Constitution on my desk next to me, along with the
Federalist Papers. There's a copy of Washington's Farewell Address on my
hard-drive. You ought to read that, too. But you won't. It would conflict
with the silly notions already crammed into that error crowded space between
your ears. Sheesh.
> > You've gone Orwellian: "Diversity is strength!"
>
> It is (whether Orwell said it or not).
Yeah, right. Thank GOD there aren't many who think like you in this nation.
We'd be doomed. Now, don't come back and tell me that there are more like
you because I've been clued in...you're alone with your thoughts and
concepts in just about every post you make, no matter which group you
infest.
My guess is, you're about as relevant as Esperanto in just about everything
you do. And that comment meant EXACTLY what you think it might have. I
take the time to do research. I can see from your posts that you generally
don't.
--
The American Kernel
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>>Rather than becoming a part of America, they are doing their best
>>>>to make parts of America into "Mexico del Norte".
>>>
>>>
>>>You may think so, but you are wrong.
>>
>>Care to support this assertion?
>>
>>In many places which have become concentrations of illegal aliens, we see
>>the duplication of all of the conditions in Mexico. We see institutionalized
>>poverty, corruption, poor health, indigence, etc.
>
>
> That is called economics. You concentrate poor people in a locale,
> and sure enough, conditions of poverty will abound. We have (and will
> have) poverty in this country whether or not we have illegal aliens.
> It might be that we will have LESS poverty because of them; so the
> economists think.
Which economist, exactly?
Cites, please.
>
>
>>These are all institutions
>>more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. In the US, we have prided
>>ourselves on generation of wealth,
>
>
> Tromping on the poor both in this country and other countries in order
> to do it.
Care to support this assertion with more than slogans?
>
>>rooting out corruption,
>
>
> And generating ten times as much to replace it. Look at the campaign
> finance laws.
Very close to irrelevant, and surely nothing but a diversion from topic.
Please elaborate, if it's not irrelevant to you.
>
>
>>improving public health,
>
>
> Check out infant mortality in the inner cities. Third world levels if
> you don't have health insurance.
No kidding. And would those be those parts of the inner-cities that are most
overrun by ILLEGAL ALIENS?
>
>
>>and being as self-reliant as possible.
>
>
> That rates a LOL. Reliant on our ability to screw our neighbor.
More sloganeering. Care to elaborate? Or should I just say "cites please".
>
>
>>>>That's not immigration, that's colonization.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>Try supporting your disagreement.
>
>
> It's all opinion on both sides.
Not if you support your argument with a wide variety of documentation,
ideally from non-aligned and respected (or potentially respectable) sources.
Tiny Human Ferret
> "americankernel" <america...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>>Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
>>>unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
>>>unenforceable.
>>
>>Absurd. There is no legitimate comparison between the two concepts.
>
>
> Difficulty of enforcing without destroying our constitutional rights,
> and a general disconnect between law and custom are things they both
> have in common.
Again, ask the husband who is convicted of raping his wife, whether or not
his "unenforcable" violation of laws against what's done in a bedroom, are
unConstitutional.
>
>
>>>>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>>>
>>>Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet. We might
>>>be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
>>>income tax to pay for militarizing the border, and accepted the lower
>>>GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
>>>reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
>>>people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
>>>native population), the elimination of the tourism industry since most
>>>illegal immigration comes from legal visitors who don't go home rather
>>>than border crossers. Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
>>>Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
>>>allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
>>>ancestry.
>>
>>1) If we made it economically impossible for illegals to survive here by
>>making the penalties for hiring them more onerous,
>
>
> Such as? Prisons, whether for illegals or people who hire illegals,
> are overflowing, and they cost more do build and maintain than people
> want to pay, not to mention that no one wants a prison in their
> neighborhood.
100 percent garnisee and seizure of all assets of employers of illegal
aliens would be a very good place to start.
> And of course you have to enforce these penalties,
> which means more cops at $100K a year including bennies, and more
> courts at even higher costs. And they still have to PROVE a violation
> of law without violating constitutional rights, which is hard.
We'll make it easier. We intend to reform the laws regarding the employer's
collection of Form I-9 ("legal right to work in the US") identification
documentation instantly verifiable, and to increase penalties for failure to
verify. The fines collected from those who don't stick to the rules will
certainly pay for all of the needed cops and their "bennies", and for the
courts as well... until the problem disappears enough so that we need
neither the cops nor the courts to run overtime.
It's all ver simple, as is deconstructing your arguments based on Fear
Uncertainty and Doubt.
>
> The only people we'd make it economically impossible for would be the
> American people.
How so? No more sloganeering from you; explain yourself!
>
>
>>border enforcement would
>>be reduced to stopping those who come to do physical harm to America.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
>>2) Most illegal immigration does NOT come from tourists. Thats a blatantly
>>uninformed assertion.
>
>
> I didn't say that.
you said exactly that, and then you snipped the evidence from your response.
> I said that a substantial percentage comes from
> people who enter the country legally via tourism, student visas, and
> other means, but who decide not to go home.
You said "most".
>
>
>>3) You've bought into the fallacy that we lack the people to do certain
>>work. In some instances we *may* lack people willing to do certain work at
>>an artificially deflated wage.
>
>
> If the wage is higher, then SOMEONE will pay that higher wage. That
> person will be the American consumer. Or if the American consumer
> doesn't want to pay that amount, then the business goes bankrupt.
This is total crap.
For instance, in the recent "disaster sales" where midwest drought-stricken
farmers sold off their herds at rock-bottom prices, you'd have expected the
price of meat to go down. Actually, it went UP in many places. Did the
corporations pass the savings on to the consumer? Hell NO. They pocketed the
profits.
It's the same thing with illegal-aliens. They don't bring down prices for
the consumer, they raise profits for the shareholders, and there are no
bigger shareholders than the CEOs in most cases.
If the crooked CEOs have to take a pay cut to stop gouging the American
People by preferring to employ cheap Union-Busting illegals, they'll just
have to do that, or be prepared to go to jail or have their companies
destroyed by BOYCOTT. Just like what's happening to Tyson's, the consumer
needs to send the message, no profiteering for the corporation at the
expense of the consumer.
>
>
>>In technology, we have myriad instances in
>>which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
>>visa-bearing replacements.
>
>
> And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
>
>
>>4) The enabling Federal legislation that was anticipated by those who
>>drafted the 14th Amendment has yet to materialize.
>
>
> I doubt that such was anticipated, given the explicit wording.
The explicit wording, maybe, of Amendment 14 Section 5? "The Congress shall
have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this
article"?
>
>>Thus, we have laws that
>>ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not citizens,
>
>
> Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
>
>>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>
> ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
>>citizens of the United States;
>
>
> Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
> nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
Wrong. See Section 5 of Amendment 14, cited above.
>
>>but children born to illegals who run across the border or hop a plane to
>>MIA to give birth are citizens. That's just stupid. Anchor babies can be
>>prevented by legislation...and they should be.
>
>
> I doubt that it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny, given the
> unambiguous wording of the 14th.
You had better read the whole thing, not just Section 1.
>
>
>>>>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>>>>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>>>>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>>>
>>>Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>>
>>OK. But our argument is that the issue is this nation lacks the ability
>>to assimilate and enculturate masses in the unprecedented numbers that we
>>see today, regardless of their origin.
>
>
> That argument is unsupported, since I posted immigration statistics to
> show that current immigration as a percentage of the population, even
> including illegals, is low by the standards of most of the 19th
> century.
15 percent increase in ten years? You're nuts. The closest it ever came to
this was in the 1900-1920 period.
>
>
>>Thus, we risk the subversion or
>>subjugation of the very things,
>>the seeds or "kernel" if you will, that enabled this nation to aspire to
>>greatness.
>
>
> This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
> immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
> international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
> by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
> stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
> opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
> the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
> of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
We became leaders because we developed the best industry, mostly because of
the shortage of manpower in the 1830s which led directly to the invention of
McCormick's mechanical harvester. Industry exploded and most of it was very
innovative; this gave us a great lead over most other nations with the
exception of England and Germany, which hadn't anywhere near the size nor
natural resources had by the US.
>
>
>>>which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
>>>the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
>>>obviously disagree about.
>>
>>It appears to me that you're trying to say that the sky is not blue. Get
>>real.
>
>
> At the moment it is rather gray here.
>
> But you haven't proven that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, and
> you can't given the number of countries that seek immigrants in order
> to keep their economies working.
Red Herring. The US is not "other countries".
Also see http://www.bordercounties.org/ for LOTS of evidence that
Immigration -- both legal and illegal, and especially from Mexico -- is
extremely hurtful and pernicious to the counties at or near the border with
Mexico. Especially see the figures for expenditured by local hospitals, and
local law-enforcement and prisons systems.
>
>
>>>> 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
>>>> the king invaded the rights of the people.
>>>
>>>There is no attack, and no one's rights are violated in this country
>>>that bends over backwards to protect rights.
>>
>>Are you an ACLU shill?
>
>
> No.
Are you a flaming imbecile, then?
>
>
>>These days, we spend far too much time bending over
>>backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
>>of the majority.
>
>
> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
FOREIGN INVADERS ARE NOT "POLITICAL MINORITIES".
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:obnf5vcnnbt95umuc...@4ax.com...
>> >which 15-year technical employees have unwittingly trained their H1B
>> >visa-bearing replacements.
>>
>> And you can cite some of these myriads, with references?
>
>Google it yourself, idiot. There's information about the issue all over the
>place.
...
>> >Thus, we have laws that
>> >ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not
>citizens,
>>
>> Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
>> >Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>> ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
>> > citizens of the United States;
>>
>> Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
>> nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
>
>You're also sorely lacking in knowledge of the concept of "legislative
>intent."
I'm not lacking in the concept of "read the words". The literal
reading of the words themselves override any "legislative intent".
>> This nation acquired its greatness precisely in the years when
>> immigration was highest. During the Civil War, we were an
>> international nonentity that had to back down when faced with offenses
>> by Britain and France. In WWI, our entry changed the balance from
>> stalemate that destroyed Tsarist Russia into a victory by the forces
>> opposing Germany, and we became the primary world power, able to sink
>> the world's economy with our Depression, and able to sink the League
>> of Nations by refusing to participate in it after setting it up.
>
>If it was so great, how come the voters basically kicked out Congress, or
>flipped them on the issue of immigration, and closed the borders for 40
>years after 1924?
xenophobic racism
>Many more people consider the 50's to be our greatest decade...
Fans of McCarthy perhaps.
>I don't even know why I bother with you. You are plainly an idiot with
>preconceptions that are not backed by study, reading or fact. I feel a
>plonk coming.
I could say the same for you. Feel free to plonk. If you hadn't
cross-posted to misc.education, I would neither have seen nor
responded to you.
>My guess is, you're about as relevant as Esperanto in just about everything
>you do. And that comment meant EXACTLY what you think it might have.
If that is the case, then thank you for the compliment. I daresay
that we could have little ambition to be more relevant than Esperanto
in the next generation or so, unless something unexpected happens.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>>ensure that children born on US soil to foreign diplomats are not citizens,
>>
>>
>> Cite? Sounds like a violation of the 14th amendment:
>>
>>>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
>>
>> ***^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
>>>citizens of the United States;
>>
>>
>> Do you see the word "all". No exceptions. NONE! Neither Congress
>> nor the states have the power to make any exceptions.
>
>Wrong. See Section 5 of Amendment 14, cited above.
Section 5 does not empower Congress to ignore the explicit wording of
Section 1.
>> That argument is unsupported, since I posted immigration statistics to
>> show that current immigration as a percentage of the population, even
>> including illegals, is low by the standards of most of the 19th
>> century.
>
>15 percent increase in ten years? You're nuts. The closest it ever came to
>this was in the 1900-1920 period.
Did you read the statistics I posted?
>> At the moment it is rather gray here.
>>
>> But you haven't proven that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, and
>> you can't given the number of countries that seek immigrants in order
>> to keep their economies working.
>
>Red Herring. The US is not "other countries".
>
>Also see http://www.bordercounties.org/ for LOTS of evidence that
>Immigration -- both legal and illegal, and especially from Mexico -- is
>extremely hurtful and pernicious to the counties at or near the border with
>Mexico. Especially see the figures for expenditured by local hospitals, and
>local law-enforcement and prisons systems.
Lobbying groups don't impress me.
>>>These days, we spend far too much time bending over
>>>backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
>>>of the majority.
>>
>>
>> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
>> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
>> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
>
> FOREIGN INVADERS ARE NOT "POLITICAL MINORITIES".
Read the words carefully. In almost all cases, constitutional rights
appertain to "people" not to "citizens.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>But racism is generalized to dividing people into categories and
>>>>treating them differently (and generally as inferiors) because they
>>>>are not in the same category as you.
>>>
>>>No, that's a whole lot of differing "isms" in that one lump, including
>>>"nationalism".
>>
>> Any ism that treats people differently because of groups they were
>> born into is racism, regardless of what other names are used.
>
>I think you have just revealed that you are incapable of rational discussion
>on the subject, since you are using a different dictionary and different
>interpretations of that dictionary than most people.
I cited the definition from Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary.
They are the largest publisher of dictionaries these days. My usage
falls strictly within the definitions. Racism is considering one race
superior to another or discriminating against a race. Any of several
definitions of race support my understanding:
>a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
>b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
>3c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
If you discriminate on the basis of any of these, or consider your own
race superior according to any of these definitions of "race", then
you are a racist.
>> Actually it is quite in accord with custom. The law is what is
>> unenforceable. Just as laws governing what you do in a bedroom are
>> unenforceable.
>
>Actually, both are quite enforceable. Ask husbands convicted of raping their
>wives whether or not laws governing what happens in a bedroom are enforceable.
How many such convictions have there been compared to the rate at
which men have forced their wives to have sex?
But I was referring to adultery and sodomy laws.
>>>I don't care if they're inferior or not; I want the invasion stopped.
>>
>> Whoopie for you. You don't want to pay the price, I'll bet.
>
>I insist on it.
You have one vote. I have one vote. You don't win.
>> We might
>> be able to control immigration for another 40 years if we doubled the
>> income tax to pay for militarizing the border,
>
>Nice presumption. Would you care to provide details as to how a
>"militarization" of the border would double the income tax, or would you
>care to try to show that militarization of the border would even be required?
No. You'd just disagree with all my assumptions anyway. You or
someone cited Korea as an example of successful border defense. It is
the most militarized frontier in the world, with 750,000 troops
defending a much shorter border than the US/Mexican border. And it
only prevent armed troops. North Korea still gets spies into the
country.
> > and accepted the lower
>> GNP and standard of living that would result from increased taxes,
>> reduced trade, and labor shortages (both day laborers and high tech
>> people who come from overseas because we don't produce enough from the
>> native population),
>
>You are (I suspect intentionally, nobody can be that stupid anymore) mixing
>categories. We do get quite a lot of benefits from Legal Immigration,
>especially from the intellegentsia. However, we don't get any of these
>"benefits" from the uneducated rurals that are the vast majority of the
>people sneaking across the borders in the dead of night.
Actually we do. They do the work that keeps our economy afloat.
>> Not to mention the elimination of the Bill of
>> Rights and the 14th amendment, which would have to go in order to
>> allow people to be treated differently because of their perceived
>> ancestry.
>
>Where they hell did you get _this_ ridiculous idea? "Treated differently
>because of their _perceived_ ancestry"? Are you NUTS?
>
>Any one born in the USA is a citizen. That is all. I _do_ favor legal
>changes that would give the citizen birthright only to children whose
>mothers were legally present in the US at the time of birth. However,
>declaring US citizens "illegal" on the basis of race is something I would
>not tolerate. Nor would the vast majority of Americans. Why do you think
>anyone is going to think that would proceed from increasing border security
>and increasing the rate of apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens?
Reality is that people would use skin color as a basis for the level
of scrutiny applied to a person crossing the border.
>>>>see especially definition 2, which includes "nation" as well as
>>>>"community of characteristics"
>>>
>>>Okay, are you actually saying that defending the nation's borders is racist,
>>>at any time when those attempting to invade are not of the same ethnicity as
>>>the majority of the inhabitants on the other side?
>>
>> Any time the decision is based on "ethnicity", it is racist.
>
>There's no "ethnicity" to it. Basically they have a birth-certificate or
>certificate of naturalization that says they're a citizen, or they show an
>unexpired visa, or "green card", or they get sent back home.
When do they get checked? If only at the borders, you fail to stop
the non-exiting visitors.
Will all citizens be required to carry around their proof of
citizenship, so that the cops can randomly check people, or in fact
will the cops profile people by skin color so that only those of
certain skin shades will need to carry proof?
>We don't care what their "ethnicity" is, we care what their "nationality"
>is, and also their citizenship or immigration status.
Current reality is that citizens aren't required to carry proof of
citizenship. If that doesn't change, then you have no way to prove
that a person X is not a citizen who isn't carrying documentation. If
it does change, then we will have adopted Soviet style Big Brotherism.
The public won't accept that.
>> which is connotation based on 2 (see the word "attack") - and it makes
>> the assumption that immigration is hurtful or pernicious, which we
>> obviously disagree about.
>
>We're NOT talking about Legal Immigrants -- which is what you seek to imply
>when you use the word "immigration" -- we are talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS.
We do not agree that illegal immigration is hurtful or pernicious.
>> Again connotational based on the earlier definitions, and it presumes
>> falsely that there is injury.
>
>See http://www.bordercounties.org/ for the "Border Counties Coalition". They
>have some excellent documentation there, facts, figures, footnotes -- and
>all of it Federal -- which amply demonstrated the HUGE financial injuries
>borne by the taxpayers of the counties along or near the border with Mexico.
But I'll bet they don't document the even larger financial gains from
the taxpayers who happen to be illegal aliens. Nor do they document
the contribution to GNP of their labor.
>>>Definition #1 applies in any case.
>>
>>
>> And is obsolete. Learn to read a dictionary.
>
>It's not at all obsolete; it's the precise usage we see in the newspapers
>everytime we read about "home invasions".
I'll believe the dictionary, not you.
lojbab
lisieux
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Rob wrote:
>
> > Carol Lee Smith wrote:
> > >Detroit has more murders inn one year than all of Canada.
>
> > 5,000,000 people in Detroit in 139 sq. miles. Canada has 31,000,000
> > people in 3,559,294 square sq. miles. They're out of range of each other.
>
>
> 'Zat so?
>
> Michael Moore had some interesting ideas in "Bowling for Columbine."
I've been to Bosnia, Belfast and Beirut, I had to go to the USA to
hear about a kid getting a G3 Assault rifle for Christmas. About two
dozen Americans got plugged at the Battle of Yorktown, that would be a
very quiet night in Detroit.
Columbine was a factor of liberal parenting, heavy metal music and the
inability of the school board to hand out flak jackets to its pupils.
The idea of blaming the gun lobby is merely an Al Qaeda plot to disarm
the United States of America. Lax immigration controls from Canada
might also be part of the problem. Canadians could be brain-washing
American kids for all the FBI cares.
lisieux
> Detroit has more murders in one year than all of Canada.
Take those statistics from my cold dead hands. However if Canada
invades Michigan then Governor Engler will be able to throw in a few
Detroit SWAT teams at them. In Detroit the SWAT teams have updated
their glass windows on some of their police vehicles to survive a
direct hit from a thermo-nuclear missile.
They have steel bearings inserted by medical experts into their
arm-pits to prevent deflection shots in case the 12 inches of kevlar
lets them down. You are just a girl, you probably think Kevlar is a
cosmetic. Ooops - I think Stephanie Kwolek invented the stuff so I
take that last comment back.
Carol Lee Smith
> The idea of blaming the gun lobby is merely an Al Qaeda plot to disarm
> the United States of America.
Armed Americans will not be able to intercept such suicide bombers as were
involved in 9/11.
Or do you propose to arm all airline passengers?
Uncle Cato
wrote:[...]
>>Also see http://www.bordercounties.org/ for LOTS of evidence that
>>Immigration -- both legal and illegal, and especially from Mexico -- is
>>extremely hurtful and pernicious to the counties at or near the border with
>>Mexico. Especially see the figures for expenditured by local hospitals, and
>>local law-enforcement and prisons systems.
>
>Lobbying groups don't impress me.
You be a silly man then. They are responsible for 90% of everything
you hear come out of Washington.
>
>>>>These days, we spend far too much time bending over
>>>>backwards to protect the "rights" of the minority by trampling the "rights"
>>>>of the majority.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
>>> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
>>> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
>>
>> FOREIGN INVADERS ARE NOT "POLITICAL MINORITIES".
>
>Read the words carefully. In almost all cases, constitutional rights
>appertain to "people" not to "citizens.
Our foriegn invaders (illegals) do not have any "rights" that trump
statutes and regs that apply to them. They are here in violation of
federal law, guilty of a federal crime, and eminently deportable (not
to mention, jail-able). The Right that they possess, a right every
person within the US has (as you point out) is a right to due process
under the law. That's just what we want to do: Process them outta
here.
>
>lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>Lobbying groups don't impress me.
>
>You be a silly man then. They are responsible for 90% of everything
>you hear come out of Washington.
I'll amend that. The BS they put up on their web sites is 100% agenda
driven and hence not to be believed.
>>>> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
>>>> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
>>>> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
>>>
>>> FOREIGN INVADERS ARE NOT "POLITICAL MINORITIES".
>>
>>Read the words carefully. In almost all cases, constitutional rights
>>appertain to "people" not to "citizens.
>
>Our foriegn invaders (illegals) do not have any "rights" that trump
>statutes and regs that apply to them.
Constitutional rights trump all law which is inferior to the
constitution, which includes all statutes and regulations.
> They are here in violation of
>federal law, guilty of a federal crime, and eminently deportable (not
>to mention, jail-able). The Right that they possess, a right every
>person within the US has (as you point out) is a right to due process
>under the law. That's just what we want to do: Process them outta
>here.
Due process takes years, and costs beaucoup dollars.
lojbab
Uncle Cato
wrote:
>Uncle Cato <cata...@usbastards.org> wrote:
>>>Lobbying groups don't impress me.
>>
>>You be a silly man then. They are responsible for 90% of everything
>>you hear come out of Washington.
>
>I'll amend that. The BS they put up on their web sites is 100% agenda
>driven and hence not to be believed.
I understand you don't respect them, or may not care for their
agendas, but most of what you actually see in terms of legislation,
programs and all of that, begins with special interest groups and
their lobbying.
>
>>>>> Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
>>>>> why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
>>>>> trampling on the rights of political minorities.
>>>>
>>>> FOREIGN INVADERS ARE NOT "POLITICAL MINORITIES".
>>>
>>>Read the words carefully. In almost all cases, constitutional rights
>>>appertain to "people" not to "citizens.
>>
>>Our foriegn invaders (illegals) do not have any "rights" that trump
>>statutes and regs that apply to them.
>
>Constitutional rights trump all law which is inferior to the
>constitution, which includes all statutes and regulations.
You're right, I said that incorrectly. The thing is, we always hear
bellicose whining about "rights", or "racism", or this and that. And
all of that is normally a dust cloud thrown up by those who do not
want these illegals arrested and given due process. You corner these
people about the Rights they say are being violated, these rights
supreme over immigration statute and regs, and they can't even answer
as to what they might be.
>
>> They are here in violation of
>>federal law, guilty of a federal crime, and eminently deportable (not
>>to mention, jail-able). The Right that they possess, a right every
>>person within the US has (as you point out) is a right to due process
>>under the law. That's just what we want to do: Process them outta
>>here.
>
>Due process takes years, and costs beaucoup dollars.
For illegals, no, it doesn't. They have the right to a hearing, that
establishes for a judge whether they are in fact here without legal
status. Takes minutes. If they are not, they are supposed to be
deported. The Dept of Corrections here in CA moves people all day
every day, as does the BP down near the border. It can become
complicated if additional criminal charges are involved, but not in
the way you are putting forward.
And as far as expense goes, it is just much more expensive to do
nothing about them. The taxpayer costs for these people is
astronomical, it is bankrupting and closing hospitals, throwing states
into endless bond issues to pay for new schools, and we can point at a
dozen similar issues. These things are happening right now, not
tomorrow. They cost far more than they pay in taxes, because of their
demographic, the sizes of their families, language issues, the
diseases they bring endemic to their countries. This is all fully
documented, not controversial. These things matter; they are costs in
the billions, not academic in the slightest.
Why should we bother making excuses or putting a false shine on any of
this? It's a jumbo doggiedoo sandwich; there is nothing redeeming nor
justifiable about it at all. Every one of them should be deported and
prevented from illegally crossing again. They came up here illegally,
they can be returned right where they started. That is their country,
they know perfectly well how to live there - it's not the end of the
world or anything.
I will be generous: People who derive a bunch of racial crap or
diminution of "rights" from that probably have too much free time on
their hands.
>
>lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>Constitutional rights trump all law which is inferior to the
>>constitution, which includes all statutes and regulations.
>
>You're right, I said that incorrectly. The thing is, we always hear
>bellicose whining about "rights", or "racism", or this and that. And
>all of that is normally a dust cloud thrown up by those who do not
>want these illegals arrested and given due process.
I don't want to pay the costs for arresting them and giving them due
process. And I suspect that finding them to arrest them will end up
costing *us* our civil liberties in unacceptable ways, for those of us
who are not northern European in appearance (which is probably most of
us).
>You corner these
>people about the Rights they say are being violated, these rights
>supreme over immigration statute and regs, and they can't even answer
>as to what they might be.
Most people think that there is a right of privacy (though it is not
explicitly stated in the Constitution, the courts seem to back up the
existence of this right). Having the government forcing innocent
people to answer nosey questions in order to more easily catch guilty
ones is unacceptable.
>>Due process takes years, and costs beaucoup dollars.
>
>For illegals, no, it doesn't.
Due process takes as long for a legal as for an illegal.
>They have the right to a hearing, that
>establishes for a judge whether they are in fact here without legal
>status. Takes minutes. If they are not, they are supposed to be
>deported.
They have a right to an attorney. They have the right to appeal.
they have the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
>The Dept of Corrections here in CA moves people all day
>every day, as does the BP down near the border. It can become
>complicated if additional criminal charges are involved, but not in
>the way you are putting forward.
>
>And as far as expense goes, it is just much more expensive to do
>nothing about them. The taxpayer costs for these people is
>astronomical, it is bankrupting and closing hospitals, throwing states
>into endless bond issues to pay for new schools, and we can point at a
>dozen similar issues.
I think that the picture is at best ambiguous on that matter, and the
more reports that I look at over the years written by researchers that
aren't being paid by lobbyists, the more I see a mixed picture with,
if anything, a long term benefit economically from immigration and
even from illegal immigration. Meanwhile the costs of enforcement are
non-trivial, and likely to MUCH higher if we were to try to enforce
the immigration laws at the level needed to actually reduce the
numbers of illegals. Reducing legal immigration would probably only
exacerbate the problems with illegals. One of the reports I cite
below mentioned a backlog of a million unmarried kids and spouses of
legal permanent residents, who are in immigration limbo waiting for
their own green cards. Small wonder that many of them come illegally.
http://www.house.gov/kolbe/issue_borderinitiatives.htm
Notice the costs of these funding initiatives A million or two here
and there to handle the impacts of illegal aliens on hospitals, a few
HUNDRED million to increase the ability to enforce the borders, a few
HUNDRED million to par for incarceration costs, an average of $120K
for each *single* agent increase in the border patrol (that's a per
year cost, too).
http://www.afsc.org/news/1997/nrtexmex.htm
This addresses something that someone called me on a couple posts ago,
about the majority of illegal immigration being overstaying of tourist
visas:
>"The immigration bills now before Congress would worsen the problem of
> violence and abuse on our southern border," says Maria Jimenez,
> director of ILEMP. Proposed legislation would increase the use of
> military equipment and fortifications on the southern border, mandate
> dramatic increases in border guards, and seriously erode the civil
> and human rights of both immigrants and citizens. The INS has
> concentrated 88 percent of its enforcement staff on the southwestern
> border, even though 60 percent of undocumented immigration occurs
> away from the border, not involving illegal entries, but people who
> enter with valid tourist visas and stay past their expiration.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/benson/bibnot/bn-84.html
looks like a well-balanced bibliography. There are books and reports
that say that the cost of immigration is high, and there are books and
reports that say that the gains to our society exceed the costs.
Clearly the story is not as one-sided as your side wants to think it
is.
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/reports.html
Is one of the reports on immigration law reform. I read it a few
years ago. A brief reskimming reminded me of the following:
There were 5 million undocumented aliens in the report (I hear numbers
of 7-8 million nowadays). The US is managing to obtain maybe 130,000
deportation orders per year, only around half of which are enforced.
The reformers want a billion dollars for local governments just to pay
for the incarceration and law enforcement costs for what is being done
now.
It seems likely to me that to deport more aliens than come in
illegally each year (in spite of all the increased border
enforcement), we'd probably have to increase the budget 100-fold. I
don't think people can imagine the impacts to our society of such an
increase. I don't think it would be pretty.
>These things are happening right now, not
>tomorrow. They cost far more than they pay in taxes, because of their
>demographic, the sizes of their families, language issues, the
>diseases they bring endemic to their countries. This is all fully
>documented, not controversial. These things matter; they are costs in
>the billions, not academic in the slightest.
Not controversial? The Cato Institute (a right-wing libertarian
bastion, lest anyone call this a "liberal" thing) found precisely the
opposite:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html
I note in the report that they reference the survey of economists I
was thinking of, wherein something like 80% of economists said that
current immigration levels were a net positive for the country, and a
majority said that *illegal* immigration was good for the economy.
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/RRR.winter97.8.localgov/immigration.html
point to several studies that basically say that we don't know the
costs and benefits - that most of the numbers are guesswork. One
study suggests that the impact in California may be especially
negative, probably because of the volume of immigration there.
This is backed by the NAS studies which indicates that the costs of
immigration in California are high, but are much lower in New Jersey
(which still has a high immigration rate, but not as uncontrolled as
CAs)
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/index.html
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/index.html
http://books.nap.edu/books/030905592X/html/index.html
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309052750/html/index.html
http://www.rnha.org/issues/immigration/immigration.costbenefit.html
reports the results of one of those studies:
>A recent study entitled “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and
> Fiscal Effects of Immigration” completed by the National Research
> Council, validates what many pro immigration supporters have said for
> years, “Immigration produces a net gain for the US economy overall.”
> The study focused on the experiences of two highly populated states
> with significant immigrant populations, California and New Jersey.
>
>This study was requested by a congressionally appointed committee
> called the US Commission on Immigration Reform and was asked to
> “examine immigration's effects on the economy and the nation's
> population.” It concluded that short-term costs exceed short-term
> contributions significantly. This is due to the fact that immigrant
> households have more school age children than non-immigrants. During
> the time their children are in the public education system, immigrant
> head of households are poorer, earn less in wages and own less real
> estate. Therefore, they pay less in taxes. However, the relationship
> between costs and benefits shifts dramatically in later years, as the
> immigrant becomes a more productive worker. In fact, according to the
> study, an immigrant entering the work force with “more than a high
> school education” produces a net gain of almost $200,000.
http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-3/conference%20papers/martin-straubhaar.pdf
is one of several papers presented at a conference on migration. This
one specifically deals with the economic effects of migration from
Mexico to the US and the policies associated therewith. It presents a
mixed picture with the overall point seeming to be that if we bolster
Mexico's economy enough through NAFTA, illegal immigration will fall
after a 20 year hump or so (which we are half way through).
lojbab
John Gault
A lesson you obviously missed Carol (which isn't surprising) is that
Americans really don't need guns on planes to deal with hijackers and
suicide bombers. Take a good look at how Richard Reid looked when he was
taken off the plane in Boston. The passengers beat the holy shit out of the
asshole. If I was the judge, I'd sentence him to being put back on that
plane with those same passengers and telling them that whatever they did to
him would be legal.
I don't think I would want to be a hijacker on any American aircraft ever
again. But then it seems some of those terrorists aren't real long on the
brains department.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Uncle Cato <cata...@usbastards.org> wrote:
>
>>>Lobbying groups don't impress me.
>>
>>You be a silly man then. They are responsible for 90% of everything
>>you hear come out of Washington.
>
>
> I'll amend that. The BS they put up on their web sites is 100% agenda
> driven and hence not to be believed.
>
>
>>>>>Read the Bill of Rights and the history thereof. That is PRECISELY
>>>>>why it was put in the Constitution - to prevent the majority from
>>>>>trampling on the rights of political minorities.
>>>>
>>>> FOREIGN INVADERS ARE NOT "POLITICAL MINORITIES".
>>>
>>>Read the words carefully. In almost all cases, constitutional rights
>>>appertain to "people" not to "citizens.
>>
>>Our foriegn invaders (illegals) do not have any "rights" that trump
>>statutes and regs that apply to them.
>
>
> Constitutional rights trump all law which is inferior to the
> constitution, which includes all statutes and regulations.
If Congress is authorized by the Constitution to write laws in furtherance
of enforcing the dictates of the Constitution, how can those laws be trumped
if they're not adjudged unConstitutional?
The only thing that the 14th Amendment grants to non-citizens is equal
protection of the laws.
The law requires that they be rounded up and deported? Cool, they get due
process in their deportation hearings.
>
>
>>They are here in violation of
>>federal law, guilty of a federal crime, and eminently deportable (not
>>to mention, jail-able). The Right that they possess, a right every
>>person within the US has (as you point out) is a right to due process
>>under the law. That's just what we want to do: Process them outta
>>here.
>
>
> Due process takes years, and costs beaucoup dollars.
Not for deportation! That can be over and done with in hours if done right.
Bob LeChevalier
>> >> Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
>> >> unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>> >
>> > If any border screamed to be militarized, it is our
>> >southern border. And it was militarized well into
>> >the 20th Century.
>>
>> Not in the sense it would have to be in order to control immigration.
>
>Mexicans every year a hundred years ago.
They were Southern and Eastern Europeans instead, generally even
poorer when they got here (transatlantic transportation wasn't cheap),
and coming in larger numbers (*much* larger in proportion to the
native population).
>> > Yule? You mean Christmas time?
>>
>> I said Yule. Those "invaders" from Rome took over a perfectly good
>> pagan holiday and bastardized it.
>
> You are confused, aren't you.
You are aware, I hope, that the biblical account of Christ's birth
doesn't support a midwinter event (shepherds with their flocks in the
night)? The date of Christmas celebration came about when the Roman
church tried to appropriate the pagan holy days (Saturnalia in Rome
proper, Yule in the Celtic lands, and Mithras in the Eastern lands) in
an effort to win pagans over to Christianity.
>> >> Nope. If that were the case you'd have had your isolationist
>> >> immigration policy ages ago.
>> >
>> > The politicians aren't listening to the people on the
>> >immigration issue.
>>
>> The aren't getting voted out either. Indeed, Hispanics seem to be
>> elected with increasing frequency.
>
> And still, politicians aren't listening to Americans on the
>issue of immigration.
Americans have different answers on immigration depending on how the
question is phrased.
>> > Actually, according to every poll done in the past 10
>> >or so years, my views are in line with the views of
>> >most Americans.
>>
>> And you of course believe polls, so long as those polls confirm your
>> prejudices. If the polls don't agree with you then they are
>> worthless.
>
> Please provide a poll that disagrees with my position. Thanks.
One of the cites I posted yesterday - I think it was one of the NAS
reports, analyzed poll results and showed how they varied
significantly with the form of the question.
>> >> They just don't care about YOU. They want law and justice and
>> >> fairness and good will for THEM.
>> >
>> > At the expense of Americans.
>>
>> Why yes. Of course they consider themselves Americans too.
>
> No, actually, they tend not to. Assimilation seems no longer to be
>an aspiration among immigrants, particularly among Mexicans.
Really? Then why was there any support for Prop 187 in California
among the Hispanic community? How did it pass in a state where whites
are a minority?
Assimilation is a 3 generation process, and has been since time
immemorial. Assimilation has actually been slightly quicker for
modern immigrants, possibly because of television and universal public
education, so that immigrants learn the language a little quicker and
their kids learn English even when it isn't spoken at home.
There is little difference between California today and New York City
a century ago, though New York City supported more different languages
and cultures, having multiple separate ghettos instead of just one
large barrio.
>And
>what they want and what they get tend to be at the expense
>of Americans.
They *are* Americans once they get here. And they and their children
contribute to the welfare of this country (their children will be the
ones supporting you in your old age with their social security
payments).
>> >> >They abuse our health, education, and welfare systems.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. They follow the laws regarding those systems.
>> >
>> > Actually, no. Or do you believe that the big market
>> >in false documents if some kind of benign exercise?
>>
>> False documents aren't an abuse of those systems.
>
> Apparently, connecting some simple dots of logic
>is beyond you, isn't it, Bob.
I can connect the dots. But you aren't making any case - just waving
your arms and making accusations without support.
>> >> >I care more about Americans
>> >>
>> >> Only if they share your color and language.
>> >
>> > By definition, an American is someone who speaks English.
>>
>> Show me any dictionary with that definition.
>
> Show me an American who doesn't speak English.
About 10% of American citizens do not speak English as their native
tongue. Some don't speak it at all (though this isn't common)
This is not merely an artifact of recent immigration. Along the
Southeast coast, communities of former black slaves speak Gullah and
have done so for centuries. A large chunk of New York Jews spoke
Yiddish. Go to any Chinatown (they've been around for 150 years) and
people speak Chinese. In the Pennsylvania Deutsch country, they spoke
German (and there were entire brigades of Union soldiers in the Civil
War that spoke only German, a fact that cause no small amount of
problems for the generals).
And then there are the native Americans. You know - the REAL
"Americans".
>> > Oh, you're asking for "proof." I'm a white American, Bob.
>>
>> Which proves?
>
> That I don't practice Zulu or Mexican or Chinese culture.
>That, being white in America pretty much suggests my culture.
Maybe to you it does. I guess you are unaware of the factionalism
between those of Irish descent in Boston and everyone else, the
centuries of strife between Catholics and Protestants. You ignore or
denigrate the difference in culture between a Bible Belt "fundie" and
a Boston "liberal". And you, a western (probably Californian) "white"
haven't a clue how weird the "whites" of the east think Californians
are (since I grew up in California and have lived 20 years in
Virginia, I can't escape knowing).
Historically this was even more so, and still has its remnants today.
The cultural differences between North and South led to the Civil War
and hardly went away when slavery was abolished. Go 100 miles from
Richmond to Baltimore and the cultural change is startling. Go 300
miles from Roanoke to New Jersey and except for language, the
differences are just as much as the differences between you and the
Mexican immigrants you denigrate.
>> >Your posts indicate that because I'm a white American, I
>> >have certain values, attitudes, and behavior
>>
>> I'm a "white American" too, and I rather doubt that we have the same
>> values, attitudes, and behavior.
>
> We certainly do, Bob.
Nope.
>And when you become informed and
>thoughtful on the issue of massive immigration, we'll have even
>more in common.
>
>> >> > Really? So in Thailand, for example, if you touch the head
>> >> >of a child and his father is offended, the father is racist?
>> >>
>> >> Why are you touching another person, especially a minor without
>> >> permission? You are violating their rights.
>> >
>> > How racist of you.
>>
>> For insisting that human rights be respected?
>
> For claiming that the father has every right to be offended.
>You claimed in another post that only racists were offended
>by cultural differences.
The father is justifiably offended under both cultures. Unlike
Thailand, in this country, I might call the cops if you didn't stop
touching my kid.
>> >> Meanwhile, if they are offended, they are offended because of your
>> >> individual behavior, not because you are a member of a group.
>> >
>> > Americans touch children's heads.
>>
>> Not the head of someone else's kid, you better not.
>
> Under certain common circumstances, touches a kid's head
>is perfectly normal and acceptable. You're a pretty uptight
>guy, aren't you, Bob.
I just don't trust racist perverts.
Meanwhile if a European gentleman came up and kissed you and hugged
you, YOU would be offended no matter how "white" he was.
>> > You've really drifted from your own point, Bob. Do some
>> >rereading and figure it out, will you. We're talking about what
>> >cultures find offensive, that some cultures are in conflict, and
>> >your claiming that people of one culture who are offended by
>> >other cultures are racist.
>>
>> No. They are people who happen to be of one culture, who are offended
>> by individuals who happen to be of a different culture.
>
> Right, Bob, and they're offended by behavior that is perfectly
>normal and acceptable in one culture, because in their own
>culture such behavior is unacceptable.
In this country, if it isn't against the law, it is to be tolerated.
You have no right to say that my behavior is "unacceptable" as long as
it is legal. They call this "freedom", as American a fundamental
value as they come.
>> >> 1. It would take militarizing the border, which would be frightfully
>> >> expensive and would merely cut down on what you call "invasion", not
>> >> stop it. There would simply come to be more use of alternative
>> >> methods. Where there is a will, there is a way.
>> >
>> > So the Mexican will and way is ... what? ... more effective
>> >than the American will and way to keep the Mexicans out?
>>
>> There is no "American will".
>
> What?
If there was a single "American will" we wouldn't have all those
immigrants - SOMEONE lets them is and SOMEONE hires them. We also
wouldn't have such high stress debates over so many topics from
abortion to gun control to religion in schools to homosexuality and
other sexual freedom. There wouldn't be any debate over going to war
with Iraq; we'd all think as one and the mindless Borg of America
would rule the world.
>> Expenditure of huge amounts of manpower on a tiny border has limited
>> border crossing, but even so there are agents of the North who get
>> into Korea. And that border protection is a blip in history that
>> won't last.
>
> And still, we could protect our southern border. Furthermore,
>is we prosecute those who employ illegals and provide jail time
>and heavy fines, guess what? No illegals.
Prosecution and jail time cost a lot more than the fines would bring
in. Shutting down businesses that use illegals, or even fining them
too heavily, would kill our economy - look at how the tobacco industry
has gotten off for their illegal activities: the states and the
Federal government know that fining the companies in accordance with
the damages they caused as defined by law would shut them down and
devastate huge chunks of the economy, and probably gain less money
from them that slowly milking them over time.
>> In our case it is beyond "expensive". Our borders are several times
>> as long, the terrain is less hospitable to protection, and the rights
>> guaranteed by our constitution make some aspects of that protection
>> impossible. Koreans, North or South don't share those rights.
>
> What rights? Invaders have no "rights?"
"Persons" in this country have country have rights under the
constitution.
Meanwhile read the Geneva conventions and you'll find that even real
military invaders have rights that must be respected.
>> I've been reading history as an avocation for more than 30 years,
>> probably longer than you've been around.
>
> I earned a degree in History longer ago than that.
You seem to have forgotten most of it.
>> > Apparently you aren't familiar with the issue and with
>> >how the government works to keep the will of the
>> >people from becoming policy.
>>
>> The magic word is "elections". If people really cared, they'd vote
>> the bums out of office.
>
> If only it were that simple ...
Well, if you are so virtuous and sure that the public agrees with you,
let's see YOU get elected.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Meanwhile Alta California was
>> certainly inhabited.
>
> A few points along the coast of California were inhabited
>by Spaniards and the descendants of Spaniards -- the
>Californios never considered themselves Mexicans,
After 1822 they did. They weren't Spaniards any more.
but
>most of the state was empty or inhabited by Indians.
>In 1846, the Spanish-speaking population amounted
>to about 10,000, which is fewer than now inhabit
>any given square mile of San Francisco.
>
>> In any event, the US had no legal right to be there.
>
> Legal right. What law did we violate?
We were "illegal immigrants" into Texas and into California.
>> We invaded
>> Texas,
>
> Actually, the Mexican government recruited American
>agents such as Austin to recruit American settlers in Texas.
>So what are you talking about?
When we sent troops into Texas to take it away from the Mexicans. Not
all of those in the Alamo were Texas residents (the infamous Davy
Crockett was Tennessean).
>> and then Mexico, because of southern slaveholders who wanted to
>> expand the territory in which slavery was permitted, so as to allow
>> the Missouri Compromise to continue to balance slave and free states.
>
> Bob, you're an excellent example of the danger of having
>a little knowledge.
Just especially well read on the Civil War and the events leading up
to that war.
>> >The Comanches, Apaches, and other tribes pretty much had their way.
>>
>> So?
>
> So the Mexicans didn't *own* the territory; they claimed it.
International treaty had given that land to the Spanish, which passed
to the Mexicans when Monroe recognized their government. We legally
recognized that ownership, and negotiated its transfer by treaty when
we ended the war, and PAID FOR the Gadsden Purchase (not to mention
the earlier Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Florida, and the
purchase of Alaska and the Russian coastal colonies). Every single
one of these purchases recognized that the land belonged to another
country, and that ownership did not require enormous amounts of
settlement (most of Louisiana was far less settled by the French than
California by the Spanish/Mexicans).
It was recognized at the time that we were breaking international law
to invade Mexico, and we played games for more than a year to come up
with a pretext to cross the Rio Grande. That war, and the
simultaneous eruption of the first wave of anti-immigration sentiment
led to the destruction of the Whig party which enabled the birth of
the Republican party.
They called your ilk "Know-Nothings" back then.
>> >> >and they have not done so.
>> >>
>> >> Why should they? Do they think that our civilization is the pinnacle
>> >> of life's ideals? I rather doubt it.
>> >
>> > It's closer to them than most. Have you ever seen Haiti?
>> >Or Mexico? Or the Philippines? Or a hundred other less
>> >than garden spots around the world?
>>
>> By our standards we are superior. By their standards, we are merely
>> rich.
>
> Apparently you don't believe that meeting the material needs
>of a population are important.
I rather think that most in this country think this is an individual
responsibility. In any event, most of our wealth isn't individual
"needs". We squander our wealth, and most of what we have is a luxury
by the standards of all other nations.
>> >> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>> >>
>> >> Liar.
>> >
>> > No society is as stratified along lines of color
>> >than Mexican society.
>>
>> What does this have to do with Aztlan?
>
> The poster claimed that Mexican culture is rife with
>ethnocentrism. You called him a liar.
That is not what he said, and not what I called a lie. Learn to read.
The lie is "the popular hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is
to merge California with Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan""
There is in fact nothing in there about political unity with Mexico,
and indeed it is clear that the unity they are talking about is the
unity of a culturally-based political party.
>> > Actually, *por* can be translated into by, for, through,
>> >in, and other prepositions. The statement in question,
>> >however, certainly isn't racially benign.
>>
>> Quite benign to me. Another minority seeking strength through unity.
>> MLK led a similarly spiritual movement - and you probably thought "We
>> shall overcome" meant that he wanted to overthrow the American
>> government.
>
> And any of that suggests to you ... what? ... that La Raza, that
>the people in the Aztlan Movement, that MEChA aren't
>ethnocentric? Hilarious.
Of course they are ethnocentric. They are even "racist". So what?
They are the minority out of power, and "racism" by minorities is
commonly used to acquire an equal share of power in the face of
opposing racism by others.
>> >> >MEChA has four
>> >> >hundred chapters in the American southwest alone.
>> >>
>> >> Whoopie. All of them put together probably don't amount to 1% of the
>> >> Hispanic population in this country.
>> >
>> > That's what King George said about the American revolutionaries.
>>
>> Who wouldn't have had a prayer of success without help and the threat
>> of war from Europe and a 3000 mile supply line. Even so, it was a
>> near thing.
>
> Relevance?
I assume you thought that the American revolutionaries were relevant.
Why'd you bring them up? MEChA has less chance of reuniting with
Mexico (even if they really wanted to do so) than the American
revolutionaries had of getting independence, and our chances were
rather based on the luck of world circumstances at the time.
>> >> Why should he?
>> >
>> > Because MEChA is a subversive, anti-American organization.
>>
>> Proof by assertion.
>
> Actually, proof exists only in mathematics. The weight of evidence
>in the case of MEChA indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that
>it's a subversive, anti-American organization.
It's a nascent political party. Parties in power always consider
opposition parties to be "subversive anti-American organizations".
Just listen to the Republicans talk about the Democrats (and vice
versa).
>> >> >either because to see it you would have to notice group differences,
>> >>
>> >> I notice that groups exist. I do not notice any differences. All
>> >> groups act like human beings.
>> >
>> > And certain groups of them have values, attitudes, and behaviors
>> >that are incompatible with the values, attitudes, and behavior
>> >of other groups.
>>
>> Only because you choose to adopt values which are inherently hostile
>> and xenophobic. That is YOUR problem.
>
> I don't adopt values. I simply have them, owing to upbringing,
>education, ability to comprehend and evaluate ...
In other words, you claim not to have chosen them, but rather that
they were chosen by your parents who raised you in them. Hardly a
self-compliment that you don't think for yourself on such matters.
The values of most Americans change in the course of their lives.
>> >> >For when whites
>> >> >are consigned to minority status in the middle of the present century,
>> >>
>> >> So what? By what right are whites a perpetual majority.
>> >
>> > Subsitute the term *whites* for the descendants of those
>> >who invented and built this country
>>
>> The DAR and the SAR are a tiny minority of this country. Meanwhile
>> you of course are probably willing to ignore all those dark-skinned
>> peoples whose ancestors were brought here in the 1600s and who built
>> most of the South.
>
> Are you claiming that whites didn't build this country?
Not as "whites" they didn't. And in the South it was blacks that did
most of the building.
Of course the anti-Semites will say that the Jews did it all since
they funded all those who acquired power with their secret cabals.
>> Most American are descendants of immigrants who came here between 1840
>> and 1920 (many of whom had to deal with just the same sort of shit you
>> are handing out when they got here).
>
> And many Americans opposed that immigration because it
>did change their society in ways they didn't approve of.
We're stronger and better for it.
In any event, many reactionaries oppose change in their society that
they don't approve of, but if you really have studied history, you
should be aware that change is inevitable.
>> >and as the carriers of the values, attitudes, and behavior of those inventors and
>> >builders,
>>
>> Certainly YOU don't carry any such values or attitudes.
>
> Sure I do.
You want to tear down and destroy businesses if they happen to employ
someone you don't approve of. You want to keep inventive foreigners
from coming to our shores and enriching our country instead of their
native country with their new ideas.
>> I'm not aware
>> of how you "behave", but relatively few 20th/21st century Americans
>> abide by 18th century behavioral standards.
>
> Your narrowness is pretty stunning, Bob.
I'm generally considered broad-minded. But most people have little
understanding of 18th century mores.
>> >and you have your right and your reason. Or
>> >do you expect the US to continue as a progressive
>> >society
>>
>> I don't think you have a "progressive" thought in your head.
>
> I know that filling the country with Mexicans isn't progressive.
It certainly is.
>> >after people whose values, attitudes, and
>> >behavior carry no notion or familiarity with that
>> >progressiveness?
>>
>> Hint: "progressive" is the opposite of "reactionary". Most
>> progressives are classified as "liberals" by the obnoxious right. I
>> myself am not "progressive" or "liberal" but I at least know what the
>> words mean.
>
> You continue to avoid the point.
Actually it is precisely the point of my disagreement with you of what
constitutes a "progressive society".
>> No more than South Boston is an approximation of Ireland,
>> Detroit is an approximation of Poland, or for that matter, Chinatown
>> is an approximation of China.
>
> I've never been to South Boston or Detroit, but I have spent
>lots of time over many years in and around Chinatown in San
>Francisco, and I promise you, having been to China, Chinatown
>*is* an approximation of a Chinese city.
But I thought you were saying that "real Americans" all assimilate.
Chinatown has been there a lot longer than you have.
>> Even when there was nothing to assimilate into, those people who came
>> from Britain to what is now this country quickly made this place into
>> something that wasn't an imitation of Britain (and they WERE
>> "colonists"), why would we expect anyone immigrating from another
>> country to do differently.
>
> Read *Democracy In America* by de Tocqueville. You don't
>know what you're talking about.
De Tocqueville was a Frenchman who got a perverted sense of the way
this country worked, mostly because he focused on its differences from
France (and America WAS different from France, but then so was
Britain).
But I was referring to the period from 1607 to 1789, when we made and
evolved this country into something so different from Britain that we
ceased to consider ourselves to be British. Most of those changes
took place in the last 40 years before 1789, and those changes were
far more drastic than anything you or I are likely to see.
>> >What do you
>> >think happens if we fill up much of the country
>> >with Mexicans?
>>
>> They'll intermingle and assimilate.
>
> They aren't.
Nonsense. You even said that many Mexicans from earlier generations
have assimilated enough to denigrate the current generation. And that
is what it is - the older generation always considers that the newer
one is inferior - you just think that it is because it has a higher
minority component, that it is the minority aspect that drives those
offensive behaviors. Here in the east where there is no dominant
minority, "we" recognize that "all Gen-Xers are obnoxious destroyers
of all the values we hold dear", and the teenagers will be even worse.
Of course then as we look back at history, we notice that every
generation has said this about the next, and yet we generally perceive
society as having progressed positively.
>> and it affected only one group
>> that wasn't a large portion of those who were immigrating. It wasn't
>> until the 1920s, after 300 years of immigration, that significant
>> controls were imposed.
>
> The first immigration act was passed by Congress in
>1790.
Naturalization, not immigration. There were no controls on
immigration (how could there be, with no means to enforce any
controls). The government did not even keep statistics on immigrants
until 1820, so we don't in fact know what immigration rates were prior
to that time; we can only look at evidence.
>It was significant. And not until the 1840s did
>we have anything that could remotely be described
>as mass immigration.
1830s, O corrector of trivia. It wasn't till the 1840s that it was a
single non-British country that was the source of the immigration, and
thus the immigration aroused opposition. There was actually a steady
rise in immigration from 1824-1836, and by 1832 immigration as a
percentage of the native population exceeded current levels.
The 380,000 who came here in 1851 (3/4 from England and Ireland was
1.6% of the current native population - we'd need more than 4 million
immigrants a year to have corresponding "mass immigration" today. The
German immigrants in 1854 (over 200,000) would correspond to 2.5
million Mexicans immigrating to this country in one year today.
>> >> You think Japanese racism is an admirable thing, of course.
>> >
>> > What is admirable is that they value their culture
>> >and are smart enough to know how to preserve it.
>>
>> Actually they are having trouble in that regard.
>
> Trouble?
The Japanese culture is "under assault from Western values". Women
are entering the work force, and the same effects are resulting
(perhaps more quickly even because of the economic stagnation) than
when women started entering the work force in this country as a result
of the Civil War (when women ran many of the farms and business while
their men went off to war, and then continued to run them when the men
didn't come back or came back disabled).
>> Considering that
>> they didn't have any significant elements of progressivism in their
>> society until 1945, they've changed quite rapidly.
>
> The Meiji wasn't progressive? Hilarious.
Peter the Great was relatively progressive in Russia too. But the
progressive elements pretty much vanished when he died; they weren't
really "part of society". So too, other than education, did many of
the Meiji reforms vanish for a couple of generations till the end of
WW II.
(I'll admit that I am less well read on Japanese history that European
and American history, but the reactionary conservatism of Japanese
society seems to be a long running theme in what I have read.
>> >> >How did the US drastically reduce the number of
>> >> >immigrants for forty consecutive years beginning in 1924? By waving a
>> >> >magic wand? Your claim that "migrations have never been controllable
>> >> >by law" is nothing but an unsupported, bald assertion.
>> >>
>> >> 40 years is a blip in history. Meanwhile, part of what we've been
>> >> facing since the end of that 40 years is the backlash that we caused.
>> >
>> > Given certain realites, backlash is inevitable and a sign
>> >of good national health.
>>
>> Umm, you do realize that you just said that the immigration wave since
>> the 1970s, which is the backlash I was referring to, was inevitable
>> and healthy, don't you?
>
> I figured you were referring to American's backlash at massive
>immigration. Try to make yourself clear, will you, Bob.
Clearly, backlash is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Current
immigration is a backlash against what came before - if we had acted
differently towards Mexicans in the 1930s to 1960s, likely there would
be less immigration from there now.
>> Your racist attitudes are hardly a backlash.
>
> It isn't racist to want to preserve one's own culture
>and country.
Our country is not threatened with destruction. And if your culture
is threatened, it is because you aren't as successful at teaching your
kids your values as you claim your parents were at inculcating values
into your psyche. My culture certainly isn't threatened by
immigration; I adopted two kids from overseas by choice (who are fully
assimilated to the point where no one recognizes them as non-native,
and when they point it out, people guess they are Hispanics, which is
10,000 miles in error - so much for the "obviousness" of race when you
don't have an accent to lead you on).
> In fact, isn't it racist, and bordering on
>genocidal, as defined by the UN, to want to destroy
>the culture and people of a country?
The UN doesn't define racism. "Genocide" has a specific definition,
and is hardly used as loosely as you do. Even "ethnic cleansing"
falls short of "genocide" even though it is a war crime.
>> They were present when I
>> was a kid in California in the 60s.
>
> And you're still a kid in lots of inappropriate ways,
>aren't you, Bob.
My kids think I'm a reactionary old fuddy-duddy, and they are more
correct than you are.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> >> >It also corresponds to reality. Mexicans have had several centuries to
>> >> >duplicate a modest version of the civilization north of the border,
>> >>
>> >> Mexico got its independence in the 1820s. For the next 20-25 years or
>> >> so, much of what is now the southwestern US was part of Mexico.
>> >
>> >I notice you didn't dispute my claim -- that Mexicans have failed to
>> >create a *modest* version of the civilization millions of them yearn
>> >for north of the border.
>>
>> Make up your mind. If they "yearn for" our civilization, why do you
>> claim that they are trying to change our civilization into theirs?
>
> They want the benefits of ours but the cultural elements of
>their own.
Evidence is lacking. EVERY immigrant culture wants to preserve the
best of their mother culture while adopting the new country.
>> I suspect that the ones who stay in Mexico are perfectly fine with
>> their civilization, while the ones who come here want something else.
>
> And yet they create the conditions from which they fled.
Really. It could easily be claimed that WE created them. WE after all
conquered Mexico in the 1840s, then left the remnants to pick up the
pieces absent the legitimacy of having defended their country against
aggression (and Mexico was then conquered by France in 1860,
destroying much of what remained). Ever since, we have been quite
adept at sucking profits from Mexico. America is nothing if it isn't
superior at sucking profit from weaker countries.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> constitution, which includes all statutes and regulations.
>
>If Congress is authorized by the Constitution to write laws in furtherance
>of enforcing the dictates of the Constitution, how can those laws be trumped
>if they're not adjudged unConstitutional?
>
>The only thing that the 14th Amendment grants to non-citizens is equal
>protection of the laws.
It defines citizens to include anyone born here, so that Congress
cannot define the children of aliens born here to be non-citizens.
The laws that the 14th amendment grants equal protection of, include
the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights. Incorporation of the
Bill of Rights to the state level is long acknowledged by all sides of
the political spectrum (The states cannot violate religious freedom or
freedom of speech, and they also cannot take away the right to bear
arms - if the 14th is interpreted to allow vouchers, expect that
limits on states enacting gun controls will be equally threatened.
>The law requires that they be rounded up and deported? Cool, they get due
>process in their deportation hearings.
Also in the means used to find them and round them up. Pretty hard to
find people who don't want to be found, without making mincemeat of
constitutional rights.
>>>They are here in violation of
>>>federal law, guilty of a federal crime, and eminently deportable (not
>>>to mention, jail-able). The Right that they possess, a right every
>>>person within the US has (as you point out) is a right to due process
>>>under the law. That's just what we want to do: Process them outta
>>>here.
>>
>> Due process takes years, and costs beaucoup dollars.
>
>Not for deportation! That can be over and done with in hours if done right.
The only deportation that happens that quickly is when aliens are
caught sneaking across the border. Once they are here and
established, it becomes a lot harder. If they have an American
citizen as spouse or offspring it gets harder still, because the
rights of the citizen come into play.
The costs and ineffectuality of current efforts to deport such aliens
is evidence that cannot be trumped by bald assertion. If it was easy,
I'm sure it would have been done long ago.
lojbab
Uncle Cato
[...]
Bob, I have to say that you are among the rarest of the rare, on your
side of the issue. You actually move to document your arguments
thoroughly.
As you are apparently intelligent, you know as we all do that it is
possible to document and make cogent argument on virtually any side of
an issue, and often convincingly so. This is, of course, just what
Think Tanks and interest groups spend their time thinking about. I
have actually watched persons, bright but uninformed on an issue,
whipsaw from one side the issue to the other and back again, by that
sort of thing. It is the practice of pro rhetoric and analysis at its
finest, and I much admire that talent, even if I think it is the
natural work of scoundrels.
What I always ask myself, when I read those sort of debates, is what
is the advocate is actually doing with his analysis: Is he practicing
discovery, that is, revealing the factual basis of the issue, such
that the reader will be genuinely educated. Or is the advocate
practicing persuasion. The purpose of persuasion is to pursuade; not
to educate per se.
The current Immigration situation has spun so far out of control, that
it has become something of the National Question. High-stakes and
extraordinarily consequencial to this society's future. As such, I've
come to consider it too important to accept simple persuasion.
Sorry, you are practicing persuasion.
>>You're right, I said that incorrectly. The thing is, we always hear
>>bellicose whining about "rights", or "racism", or this and that. And
>>all of that is normally a dust cloud thrown up by those who do not
>>want these illegals arrested and given due process.
>
>I don't want to pay the costs for arresting them and giving them due
>process. And I suspect that finding them to arrest them will end up
>costing *us* our civil liberties in unacceptable ways, for those of us
>who are not northern European in appearance (which is probably most of
>us).
That is your own feeling about it. Courts are already holding court,
and local jails attempt to keep themselves full by grabbing kids with
bags of pot. Illegals are checked and very often, released. They could
just as easily be held. Cost? Some costs, yes.
Still, you make something out of nothing there.
I share the concern about profiling "browness", I know too many people
who are brown and olive and american, and who could get rousted if
rousting where the strategy.
But it is not, and need not become so. Every time we are stopped in
our car, or go to get a job, do our daily financial transactions, and
a half-dozen other things, we are asked to prove our identity. It is
right and reasonable that we do so. I'm not going to type chapters on
verification, they have already been thoroughly typed into this ng.
It is a boggie man, usually served with red herrings.
>
>>You corner these
>>people about the Rights they say are being violated, these rights
>>supreme over immigration statute and regs, and they can't even answer
>>as to what they might be.
>
>Most people think that there is a right of privacy (though it is not
>explicitly stated in the Constitution, the courts seem to back up the
>existence of this right). Having the government forcing innocent
>people to answer nosey questions in order to more easily catch guilty
>ones is unacceptable.
Boggie men, served with red herrings.
>>>Due process takes years, and costs beaucoup dollars.
>>
>>For illegals, no, it doesn't.
>
>Due process takes as long for a legal as for an illegal.
>
>>They have the right to a hearing, that
>>establishes for a judge whether they are in fact here without legal
>>status. Takes minutes. If they are not, they are supposed to be
>>deported.
>
>They have a right to an attorney. They have the right to appeal.
>they have the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
True, and nevertheless, persons "out-of-status" are a straight-forward
issue in the court. You may be surprised to know that the great
majority of them opt to repatriate without all that. They know they
are guilty, they know the court will find out quite quickly, and they
don't care to eat jail food whilst waiting for the inevitable.
>>The Dept of Corrections here in CA moves people all day
>>every day, as does the BP down near the border. It can become
>>complicated if additional criminal charges are involved, but not in
>>the way you are putting forward.
>>
>>And as far as expense goes, it is just much more expensive to do
>>nothing about them. The taxpayer costs for these people is
>>astronomical, it is bankrupting and closing hospitals, throwing states
>>into endless bond issues to pay for new schools, and we can point at a
>>dozen similar issues.
>
>I think that the picture is at best ambiguous on that matter, and the
>more reports that I look at over the years written by researchers that
>aren't being paid by lobbyists, the more I see a mixed picture with,
>if anything, a long term benefit economically from immigration and
>even from illegal immigration. Meanwhile the costs of enforcement are
>non-trivial, and likely to MUCH higher if we were to try to enforce
>the immigration laws at the level needed to actually reduce the
>numbers of illegals. Reducing legal immigration would probably only
>exacerbate the problems with illegals. One of the reports I cite
>below mentioned a backlog of a million unmarried kids and spouses of
>legal permanent residents, who are in immigration limbo waiting for
>their own green cards. Small wonder that many of them come illegally.
Horseflop. There's nothing ambiguous about it.
http://www.bordercounties.org/
And the backlog is part of what the reorganisation is supposed to
address. It is also supposed to address the real reason why so many
illegals are created here: Lack of enforcement of visa stipulation and
regs.
People will cheat and rob, if everybody else is doin it and getting
away with it, and calling back home to tell family and friends about
the free-for-all. It's as simple as that. Their motivations and
desires are at once obvious, and irrrelevent. This is an attractive
thing to you?
>
>http://www.house.gov/kolbe/issue_borderinitiatives.htm
>
>Notice the costs of these funding initiatives A million or two here
>and there to handle the impacts of illegal aliens on hospitals, a few
>HUNDRED million to increase the ability to enforce the borders, a few
>HUNDRED million to par for incarceration costs, an average of $120K
>for each *single* agent increase in the border patrol (that's a per
>year cost, too).
You are attempting to compare the immediate deficits of a few
hospitals with the capital and reoccuring costs of INS and BP
infrastructure. If he were asking for federal funds to build and staff
new hospitals, your comparison would fall down.
>
>http://www.afsc.org/news/1997/nrtexmex.htm
>This addresses something that someone called me on a couple posts ago,
>about the majority of illegal immigration being overstaying of tourist
>visas:
>>"The immigration bills now before Congress would worsen the problem of
>> violence and abuse on our southern border," says Maria Jimenez,
>> director of ILEMP. Proposed legislation would increase the use of
>> military equipment and fortifications on the southern border, mandate
>> dramatic increases in border guards, and seriously erode the civil
>> and human rights of both immigrants and citizens. The INS has
>> concentrated 88 percent of its enforcement staff on the southwestern
>> border, even though 60 percent of undocumented immigration occurs
>> away from the border, not involving illegal entries, but people who
>> enter with valid tourist visas and stay past their expiration.
>
>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/benson/bibnot/bn-84.html
>looks like a well-balanced bibliography. There are books and reports
>that say that the cost of immigration is high, and there are books and
>reports that say that the gains to our society exceed the costs.
>Clearly the story is not as one-sided as your side wants to think it
>is.
Books and books. There are sides to every issue and its knarly
interest groups. We see a lot of fine rhetorical weaving and
vacillating from hispanic identity groups and cheap labor groups, as
they work diligently to justify what is intrisically unjustifiable in
a developed, democratic nation. Or any nation. You (and they) would
practice that "persuasion" that I mentioned earlier.
Note the above paragraph by Jimenez. Fuzzy scare rhetoric, followed by
whining that the too many BP are after her ethnic compatriots,
followed by "Hey, lookie over there, guys! No not here, over there!"
Yes, we get the picture alright.
The history of american immigration is _rife_ with then-recent migrant
groups attempting to bring in unlimited numbers of their countrymen.
It is human nature, it is distinctly aggresive and "racist" in nature,
and squarely at odds with the workings of assimulation and the
american "melting pot". Earlier gens put a stop to that when it lifted
it's head, and that obviously worked out very well, for all of us.
If "anti-racists" and the like really desired to go after nests of
racists, they would hardly even bother with immigration-reformers,
these ethnic-identity groups are the Motherload, and they are not
simply playing the part. These lib people do not do that, in fact they
hug and justify these people. This is quite obviously about fuzzy
emotions and peculiar self-serving endeavours on their part.
And I haven't even mentioned the cheap-labor lobby.
>
>http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/reports.html
>Is one of the reports on immigration law reform. I read it a few
>years ago. A brief reskimming reminded me of the following:
>There were 5 million undocumented aliens in the report (I hear numbers
>of 7-8 million nowadays). The US is managing to obtain maybe 130,000
>deportation orders per year, only around half of which are enforced.
>The reformers want a billion dollars for local governments just to pay
>for the incarceration and law enforcement costs for what is being done
>now.
>
>It seems likely to me that to deport more aliens than come in
>illegally each year (in spite of all the increased border
>enforcement), we'd probably have to increase the budget 100-fold. I
>don't think people can imagine the impacts to our society of such an
>increase. I don't think it would be pretty.
>
>>These things are happening right now, not
>>tomorrow. They cost far more than they pay in taxes, because of their
>>demographic, the sizes of their families, language issues, the
>>diseases they bring endemic to their countries. This is all fully
>>documented, not controversial. These things matter; they are costs in
>>the billions, not academic in the slightest.
>
>Not controversial? The Cato Institute (a right-wing libertarian
>bastion, lest anyone call this a "liberal" thing) found precisely the
>opposite:
>http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html
Hey! The aforementioned cheap labor lobby. The Cato Institute is one
of their think tanks.
Golly, if there is anything I can do to further shove labor supply &
demand in favor of self-serving employers, I hope they'll give me a
call.
Got anything from the US Chamber of Commerce?
>
>I note in the report that they reference the survey of economists I
>was thinking of, wherein something like 80% of economists said that
>current immigration levels were a net positive for the country, and a
>majority said that *illegal* immigration was good for the economy.
>
>http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/RRR.winter97.8.localgov/immigration.html
>
>point to several studies that basically say that we don't know the
>costs and benefits - that most of the numbers are guesswork. One
>study suggests that the impact in California may be especially
>negative, probably because of the volume of immigration there.
>
>This is backed by the NAS studies which indicates that the costs of
>immigration in California are high, but are much lower in New Jersey
>(which still has a high immigration rate, but not as uncontrolled as
>CAs)
>http://books.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/index.html
>http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/index.html
>http://books.nap.edu/books/030905592X/html/index.html
>http://books.nap.edu/books/0309052750/html/index.html
>
>http://www.rnha.org/issues/immigration/immigration.costbenefit.html
Let's bring the title and authorship of this piece out right here:
"Cost or Benefit: A Financial Analysis of Immigration
by Larry Meneses, MSCED, RNHA Northeast Representative
From The American Hispanic July-August 1998"
Nuff' said, eh?
Think the conferees would agree to bet, say, their personal 401-Ks are
the eventual accuracy of their report?
I wish the best for Mexico's economy, but the US is not a moshpit, it
is a democratic nation of laws. Their illegals are called illegals for
a reason. This is the same-old wornout aspect of pro-illegals debate
and their advocates: Selective favor and enforcement of the law, to
bring about something that is intrinsically self-serving and wrongful.
The american observer is not so stupid.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob, I have to say that you are among the rarest of the rare, on your
>side of the issue. You actually move to document your arguments
>thoroughly.
Thank you.
>As you are apparently intelligent, you know as we all do that it is
>possible to document and make cogent argument on virtually any side of
>an issue, and often convincingly so.
Indeed. Which is why whenever I see only one side of an issue
presented, I *immediately* recognize flaws.
>What I always ask myself, when I read those sort of debates, is what
>is the advocate is actually doing with his analysis: Is he practicing
>discovery, that is, revealing the factual basis of the issue, such
>that the reader will be genuinely educated. Or is the advocate
>practicing persuasion. The purpose of persuasion is to pursuade; not
>to educate per se.
>
>The current Immigration situation has spun so far out of control, that
>it has become something of the National Question. High-stakes and
>extraordinarily consequencial to this society's future. As such, I've
>come to consider it too important to accept simple persuasion.
>
>Sorry, you are practicing persuasion.
Actually not. I am not expecting to persuade my opponents to change
sides, nor do I expect them to cease being racists (which I would not
find so much fault with provided that they did not reject the label -
I've done some racist things in my time, and for some I still think I
did the right thing for me, but I admit that I did so for reasons that
were racially based and thus ultimately irrational. But human beings
don't have to be rational.)
More than anything I want to counterbalance the apparently one-sided
"persuasion" by providing the other side. I know the other side has
its weaknesses too, but until the one side admits its case isn't one
sided, I can't justifiably concede any more from the other side.
>>I don't want to pay the costs for arresting them and giving them due
>>process. And I suspect that finding them to arrest them will end up
>>costing *us* our civil liberties in unacceptable ways, for those of us
>>who are not northern European in appearance (which is probably most of
>>us).
>
>That is your own feeling about it. Courts are already holding court,
>and local jails attempt to keep themselves full by grabbing kids with
>bags of pot. Illegals are checked and very often, released. They could
>just as easily be held. Cost? Some costs, yes.
Yep. Americans are more bothered about kids smoking dope than they
are about undocumented aliens working in abusive minimum wage jobs.
Indeed, many are aware that Americans would demand higher pay for
those jobs and the businesses would pass the increased costs to the
customer. The high percentage of Americans that run businesses means
that more than in most countries are aware of this.
>But it is not, and need not become so. Every time we are stopped in
>our car, or go to get a job, do our daily financial transactions, and
>a half-dozen other things, we are asked to prove our identity.
I don't get stopped in my car, and I don't change jobs. I had to
prove my identity once to get my ATM card, and seldom since (and the
proof of identity wasn't much). I've been shocked in recent weeks by
how much more my daughter needs to bring as proof of identity to get
her learner's permit, than I had to bring to get mine 34 years ago,
including documents that I did not have when I was that age (birth
certificate and social security card). I don't think that it is worth
it, since it seems apparently that the professional smugglers have the
wherewithal to create fake birth certificates, and drivers licenses,
and all the other stuff. So who is really impacted - not the aliens,
who get supplied the fake documents, but the normal Americans who may
not even know how to obtain a copy of their birth certificate.
>>Most people think that there is a right of privacy (though it is not
>>explicitly stated in the Constitution, the courts seem to back up the
>>existence of this right). Having the government forcing innocent
>>people to answer nosey questions in order to more easily catch guilty
>>ones is unacceptable.
>
>Boggie men, served with red herrings.
But it is a boogie man that some (and in this case the libertarian
right especially) tend to consider especially boogieman. I chose my
red herrings carefully because the "liberal" red herring of ethnic
profiling will get lambasted for being "liberal". Rightwingers tend
to think twice before attacking a libertarian. (I am anything but a
libertarian, but have no problem in throwing extremist's arguments
back at them.)
>>>They have the right to a hearing, that
>>>establishes for a judge whether they are in fact here without legal
>>>status. Takes minutes. If they are not, they are supposed to be
>>>deported.
>>
>>They have a right to an attorney. They have the right to appeal.
>>they have the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
>
>True, and nevertheless, persons "out-of-status" are a straight-forward
>issue in the court. You may be surprised to know that the great
>majority of them opt to repatriate without all that. They know they
>are guilty, they know the court will find out quite quickly, and they
>don't care to eat jail food whilst waiting for the inevitable.
Yet apparently not enough, or it wouldn't be an issue that half of all
deportation orders go unfulfilled.
>>>And as far as expense goes, it is just much more expensive to do
>>>nothing about them. The taxpayer costs for these people is
>>>astronomical, it is bankrupting and closing hospitals, throwing states
>>>into endless bond issues to pay for new schools, and we can point at a
>>>dozen similar issues.
>>
>>I think that the picture is at best ambiguous on that matter, and the
>>more reports that I look at over the years written by researchers that
>>aren't being paid by lobbyists, the more I see a mixed picture with,
>>if anything, a long term benefit economically from immigration and
>>even from illegal immigration. Meanwhile the costs of enforcement are
>>non-trivial, and likely to MUCH higher if we were to try to enforce
>>the immigration laws at the level needed to actually reduce the
>>numbers of illegals. Reducing legal immigration would probably only
>>exacerbate the problems with illegals. One of the reports I cite
>>below mentioned a backlog of a million unmarried kids and spouses of
>>legal permanent residents, who are in immigration limbo waiting for
>>their own green cards. Small wonder that many of them come illegally.
>
>Horseflop. There's nothing ambiguous about it.
>
>http://www.bordercounties.org/
As I've said, that is a one-sided lobbyist group. Most of the cites I
posted show two sides - they don't necessarily say that immigration is
an unmitigated good, but that there are tradeoffs. A site that does
not admit the tradeoffs is not an honest site.
>>http://www.house.gov/kolbe/issue_borderinitiatives.htm
>>
>>Notice the costs of these funding initiatives A million or two here
>>and there to handle the impacts of illegal aliens on hospitals, a few
>>HUNDRED million to increase the ability to enforce the borders, a few
>>HUNDRED million to par for incarceration costs, an average of $120K
>>for each *single* agent increase in the border patrol (that's a per
>>year cost, too).
>
>You are attempting to compare the immediate deficits of a few
>hospitals with the capital and reoccuring costs of INS and BP
>infrastructure. If he were asking for federal funds to build and staff
>new hospitals, your comparison would fall down.
But there aren't needs for new hospitals. The problem is that low
income people can't pay medical costs in this country, whether they
are native or immigrant, illegal or not. The illegals are usually low
income, so they are just a small portion of the hospital cases that
aren't covered - but they happen to be one for which the hospitals
have a publicity hook with which to seek extra funding. They complain
equally bitterly about the insufficient reimbursements for Medicaid,
but since billions are already spent on Medicaid, this is seen by the
public as "increased welfare spending" not "reimbursing hospitals for
costs they are required by law to absorb".
>The history of american immigration is _rife_ with then-recent migrant
>groups attempting to bring in unlimited numbers of their countrymen.
>It is human nature, it is distinctly aggresive and "racist" in nature,
>and squarely at odds with the workings of assimulation and the
>american "melting pot".
It may seem "at odds", but EVERY ONE of those groups assimilated, and
all in approximately the same amount of time. (The Irish have
assimilated slightly less because of ties to the old country and the
Northern Ireland dispute; likewise Jews by ties to Israel, and a
religious commandment of separatism - which is indeed racist, but
anti-racism vs. freedom of religion is a victory for religion in this
country)
>Earlier gens put a stop to that when it lifted it's head,
But they didn't stop it.
I hate to resort to a fictional reference, but "The Godfather" is true
enough to the Italian culture to be an example if not evidence of
ethnicity vs. assimilation (and of course it does tell a story about
assimilation of a sort).
>If "anti-racists" and the like really desired to go after nests of
>racists, they would hardly even bother with immigration-reformers,
>these ethnic-identity groups are the Motherload, and they are not
>simply playing the part. These lib people do not do that, in fact they
>hug and justify these people. This is quite obviously about fuzzy
>emotions and peculiar self-serving endeavours on their part.
>
>And I haven't even mentioned the cheap-labor lobby.
That's because it is right wing and not "liberal" The
anti-immigration types, who are usually right wingers, have great love
for attacking "liberals" but try to pretend that it is Republican big
business that wants immigration and cheap labor more than any other
faction. The "liberals" merely want fairness to the people who are or
aren't let in, and many of them think that we should help the other
countries so that not so many WANT to come here. But that costs tax
money too, and we gotta have our tax cut.
>Got anything from the US Chamber of Commerce?
I haven't read it but the search engine found it easily enough.
http://www.uschamber.com/government/issues/immigration/default
Without reading it, I no idea what side of the issue they take.
>>
>>This is backed by the NAS studies which indicates that the costs of
>>immigration in California are high, but are much lower in New Jersey
>>(which still has a high immigration rate, but not as uncontrolled as
>>CAs)
>>http://books.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/index.html
>>http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/index.html
>>http://books.nap.edu/books/030905592X/html/index.html
>>http://books.nap.edu/books/0309052750/html/index.html
>>
>>http://www.rnha.org/issues/immigration/immigration.costbenefit.html
>
>Let's bring the title and authorship of this piece out right here:
>
>"Cost or Benefit: A Financial Analysis of Immigration
>by Larry Meneses, MSCED, RNHA Northeast Representative
>From The American Hispanic July-August 1998"
>
>Nuff' said, eh?
That is why I gave the actual references. The pro-immigration summary
gave selective quotes, but people can look at the full report and see
for themselves. The reports give stuff on both sides.
>>http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-3/conference%20papers/martin-straubhaar.pdf
>>is one of several papers presented at a conference on migration. This
>>one specifically deals with the economic effects of migration from
>>Mexico to the US and the policies associated therewith. It presents a
>>mixed picture with the overall point seeming to be that if we bolster
>>Mexico's economy enough through NAFTA, illegal immigration will fall
>>after a 20 year hump or so (which we are half way through).
>
>Think the conferees would agree to bet, say, their personal 401-Ks are
>the eventual accuracy of their report?
I'm already betting my social security on it, and most Americans are
more dependent on social security than on a 401-K. (After the last 3
years, anyone who doesn't realize that they bet their 401-K every day
they leave money in it, is living in lala land.)
>I wish the best for Mexico's economy, but the US is not a moshpit, it
>is a democratic nation of laws. Their illegals are called illegals for
>a reason. This is the same-old wornout aspect of pro-illegals debate
>and their advocates: Selective favor and enforcement of the law, to
>bring about something that is intrinsically self-serving and wrongful.
I wonder why we don't see comparable demand for enforcing the laws on
adultery, sodomy, and of course speeding. The person who doesn't
break the law sometime isn't alive. Thus we inherently need fewer
laws, or we will have selective enforcement. It then becomes a
tradeoff as to which laws are worth selectively enforcing.
As I said before, I am more afraid of Ashcroft than I am of most
illegal aliens. Meanwhile, we could do more to cut illegal aliens by
building a few more factories just south of the border and building
homes for the workers there. Maybe even pay for education programs,
since educated and employed people have fewer kids. The costs would
be less than that of enforcing our laws, and it would make the world a
better place.
But it sounds too liberal to have a prayer.
lojbab
Tiny Human Ferret
>>The law requires that they be rounded up and deported? Cool, they get due
>>process in their deportation hearings.
>
>
> Also in the means used to find them and round them up. Pretty hard to
> find people who don't want to be found, without making mincemeat of
> constitutional rights.
Not at all. The Constitution's checkas and balances are limits on the power
of the Government, not on the People; see also Amendments 9 and 10.
We the People can get away with one hell of a lot more than can the
Government, especially when it comes to finding the people who don't want to
be found: when they're pissing on our sidewalks, breaking glass bottles
where our little children can be expected to play, blatantly shoplifting in
our stores.
There's a hell of a lot of power in the Citizen's Arrest, and all you have
to do is have a legitimate charge for an offense that you have witnessd
personally, and you hold them for the sheriff or take them before an officer
of the courts and charge them. At that point in time, whether or not they
wanted to be found, they're found all right. And the system has to deal with
them, whether or not they wanted to look for them; as a citizen, you can
demand the equal protection of the laws, to wit, the prosecution of the
offender against your rights.
Stick a fork in you, you're done.
americankernel
> Uncle Cato <cata...@usbastards.org> wrote:
> >Bob, I have to say that you are among the rarest of the rare, on your
> >side of the issue. You actually move to document your arguments
> >thoroughly.
>
> Yep. Americans are more bothered about kids smoking dope than they
> are about undocumented aliens working in abusive minimum wage jobs.
> Indeed, many are aware that Americans would demand higher pay for
> those jobs and the businesses would pass the increased costs to the
> customer. The high percentage of Americans that run businesses means
> that more than in most countries are aware of this.
Americans also wonder where all the "entry level" jobs went and where their
kids are going to get the "first job" experience that they did. Also, I
know that I'd be more than happy to pay $.50 more, even $1 more for a pound
of any kind of meat to know that legal Americans processed it. Lots of
people are aware that the number of recalls for contaminated meat have
skyrocketed in direct proportion to the advent of illegals flooding in at a
number in excess of 800 thousand per year.
>
<snip>
> But there aren't needs for new hospitals. The problem is that low
> income people can't pay medical costs in this country, whether they
> are native or immigrant, illegal or not. The illegals are usually low
> income, so they are just a small portion of the hospital cases that
> aren't covered - but they happen to be one for which the hospitals
> have a publicity hook with which to seek extra funding. They complain
> equally bitterly about the insufficient reimbursements for Medicaid,
> but since billions are already spent on Medicaid, this is seen by the
> public as "increased welfare spending" not "reimbursing hospitals for
> costs they are required by law to absorb".
Having been both a lobbyist for a medical organization and an administrator
at one of this nation's largest public hospital systems, I can tell you
without reservation that you are more than wrong here, you're dangerously
wrong. People who spout such gibberish help maintain fallacies that hurt
Americans. Way to go!
The FACTS:
It is extremely rare for any illegal to show up for care with any insurance,
public or private. Illegals show up sicker, with an extraordinarily high
rate of multiple illnesses and complications which makes the cost of their
care skyrocket. The higher costs associated with each illegal also impacts
the system for a longer term because it takes them longer to recover. In
addition, they are less likely to follow post-treatment protocols: they come
back even sicker the next time! Many illegals have never seen a "real
doctor" before they make their first American ER visit to access the system.
There are more than 40 million uninsured in this nation, and more than 10
million (government figures are intentionally understated because you cannot
count what you cannot find, according to an INS Agent acquaintance of mine)
illegals in this nation. Whichever way you cut it, nearly one quarter or
slightly more than one quarter of all persons who fall into the
"uncompensated care" case load in the United States is attributable to
illegals. Using a simple multiplier that accounts for the increased
severity of the average illegal alien medical case, it is likely that more
than one-third of "uncompensated care" cost is attibutable to illegals.
This has a very significant impact on the cost of insurance and contributes
to additional American workers losing coverage as the cost outstrips small
business' ability to pay for it.
Illegals, by "domino effect," are more than likely the largest impediment
toward righting our listing healthcare system.
> >The history of american immigration is _rife_ with then-recent migrant
> >groups attempting to bring in unlimited numbers of their countrymen.
> >It is human nature, it is distinctly aggresive and "racist" in nature,
> >and squarely at odds with the workings of assimulation and the
> >american "melting pot".
>
> It may seem "at odds", but EVERY ONE of those groups assimilated, and
> all in approximately the same amount of time. (The Irish have
> assimilated slightly less because of ties to the old country and the
> Northern Ireland dispute; likewise Jews by ties to Israel, and a
> religious commandment of separatism - which is indeed racist, but
> anti-racism vs. freedom of religion is a victory for religion in this
> country)
>
> >Earlier gens put a stop to that when it lifted it's head,
>
> But they didn't stop it.
Yes, they did. Between 1924 and 1965, there were years in which the net
immigration to this land was represented by a negative number. The foreign
born population percentage fell from a high of 14.8 percent in 1910 to 4% in
the mid-1950's. That is the main factor that forced the 1880 to 1910 flood
to finally and almost fully assimilate. That is what must happen again...a
moratorium or near moratorium for an extended period. You don't cure
someone who is being poisoned by leaving an IV drip filled with poison
flowing into the patient's arm.
In addition, it is crucial to note that throughout our history prior to
1965, one of three immigrants to America left for various reasons. They
either couldn't cut it, couldn't assimilate, got homesick...whatever. One
third left. Now, with the huge government teat we've built for them to glom
onto like leeches, virtually none leave unless they are deported.
<snip>
> >If "anti-racists" and the like really desired to go after nests of
> >racists, they would hardly even bother with immigration-reformers,
> >these ethnic-identity groups are the Motherload, and they are not
> >simply playing the part. These lib people do not do that, in fact they
> >hug and justify these people. This is quite obviously about fuzzy
> >emotions and peculiar self-serving endeavours on their part.
> >
> >And I haven't even mentioned the cheap-labor lobby.
>
> That's because it is right wing and not "liberal" The
> anti-immigration types, who are usually right wingers, have great love
> for attacking "liberals" but try to pretend that it is Republican big
> business that wants immigration and cheap labor more than any other
> faction. The "liberals" merely want fairness to the people who are or
> aren't let in, and many of them think that we should help the other
> countries so that not so many WANT to come here. But that costs tax
> money too, and we gotta have our tax cut.
It sure is interesting how all the liberals are more concerned about
fairness for people who were not born here than they are in the future
well-being of American children...unless we're talking about the health and
infant mortality statistics of "anchor babies." Those are stats that get
any liberal's blood pumping faster through his or her pathetic, bleeding
anti-American heart.
> >Got anything from the US Chamber of Commerce?
>
> I haven't read it but the search engine found it easily enough.
> http://www.uschamber.com/government/issues/immigration/default
>
> Without reading it, I no idea what side of the issue they take.
If American Express (actually American-Indian-Phillipean Express) and Bank
of America (actually Bank of America and India) along with a host of other
US corporations with anti-American globalist notions are the US Chamber's
primary source of membership dues, where would it be likely that they land
on this issue?
Duh.
<snip>
> >I wish the best for Mexico's economy, but the US is not a moshpit, it
> >is a democratic nation of laws. Their illegals are called illegals for
> >a reason. This is the same-old wornout aspect of pro-illegals debate
> >and their advocates: Selective favor and enforcement of the law, to
> >bring about something that is intrinsically self-serving and wrongful.
>
> I wonder why we don't see comparable demand for enforcing the laws on
> adultery, sodomy, and of course speeding. The person who doesn't
> break the law sometime isn't alive. Thus we inherently need fewer
> laws, or we will have selective enforcement. It then becomes a
> tradeoff as to which laws are worth selectively enforcing.
Red Herring
See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
> As I said before, I am more afraid of Ashcroft than I am of most
> illegal aliens. Meanwhile, we could do more to cut illegal aliens by
> building a few more factories just south of the border and building
> homes for the workers there. Maybe even pay for education programs,
> since educated and employed people have fewer kids. The costs would
> be less than that of enforcing our laws, and it would make the world a
> better place.
Nice thoughts. But since Mexico's elite prefers using the U.S. as a relief
valve, it cannot occur. Since the American pubic has been kept
intentionally ignorant to the full range of costs associated with illegals,
they wouldn't stand for such a "waste of taxpayer money."
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>> "D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Such a history of antagonism that we have one of the longest
>> >> >> unmilitarized borders in the world with them?
>> >> >
>> >> > If any border screamed to be militarized, it is our
>> >> >southern border. And it was militarized well into
>> >> >the 20th Century.
>> >>
>> >> Not in the sense it would have to be in order to control immigration.
>> >
>> > We didn't have an invasion of hundreds of thousands of
>> >Mexicans every year a hundred years ago.
>>
>> They were Southern and Eastern Europeans instead, generally even
>> poorer when they got here (transatlantic transportation wasn't cheap),
>> and coming in larger numbers (*much* larger in proportion to the
>> native population).
>
>not Ellis Island.
The topic is immigration policy, and we should not be discriminating
based on what border they cross.
>Furthermore, just to counter your point, irrelevant
>as it is, percentages are meaningless when resources are finite.
Resources pertain to the entire ecology of the world, and are just as
finite whether someone is in this country or outside of it.
>The second Pilgrim off the boat doubled the colonists' population.
>In the past 50 or so years, the population of our country has about
>doubled. It is expected to about double again in the next 50 to
>60 years. By 2100, the population is expected to be about
>one billion. Forget percentages.
Scare projections.
>> You are aware, I hope, that the biblical account of Christ's birth
>> doesn't support a midwinter event (shepherds with their flocks in the
>> night)? The date of Christmas celebration came about when the Roman
>> church tried to appropriate the pagan holy days (Saturnalia in Rome
>> proper, Yule in the Celtic lands, and Mithras in the Eastern lands) in
>> an effort to win pagans over to Christianity.
>
> And which "invaders from Rome" were you referring to?
Christian missionaries. Unwelcome people from another culture trying
to change the local culture.
>Do you see the problem, Bob?
No. It's a specious argument, so I give a specious argument back.
>> Really? Then why was there any support for Prop 187 in California
>> among the Hispanic community? How did it pass in a state where whites
>> are a minority?
>
> Whites weren't the minority then,
It didn't change in a year or two.
> and indeed, some people with
>Spanish surnames did vote for the Proposition. I know some of
>them. But the fact remains that Mexicans tend not to assimilate.
Yes they do. Just not instantaneously.
>Americans with Spanish surnames notice it more than anyone,
>in my experience, and they seem to resent them more than most
>other Americans do.
Those "Americans with Spanish surnames" are Mexicans that assimilated.
It takes 3 generations.
>> Assimilation is a 3 generation process, and has been since time
>> immemorial. Assimilation has actually been slightly quicker for
>> modern immigrants, possibly because of television and universal public
>> education, so that immigrants learn the language a little quicker and
>> their kids learn English even when it isn't spoken at home.
>>
>> There is little difference between California today and New York City
>> a century ago, though New York City supported more different languages
>> and cultures, having multiple separate ghettos instead of just one
>> large barrio.
>
> And that is exactly the problem -- Mexicans don't need to
>assimilate as their numbers, along with certain PC indulgences
>provided by government, isolate them from the need to
>assimilate. Mexicans are, in effect, colonists.
But they DO assimilate, so that we end up with "Spanish-surname
Americans".
>> > Apparently, connecting some simple dots of logic
>> >is beyond you, isn't it, Bob.
>>
>> I can connect the dots. But you aren't making any case - just waving
>> your arms and making accusations without support.
>
> Let me connect the dots then: false documents allow illegals to
>obtain various benefits.
The false documents are illegal independent of whether they seek
benefits. Furthermore, there is a difference between "fraud" and
"abuse".
>Furthermore, various benefits, such
>as food stamps, housing assistance, health care, education ...
>are available to illegals.
That isn't abuse, so long as the law permits it.
>They are a net drain on our economy and society.
And their kids are a net plus (as are most of them when they've been
here 20 years).
>> About 10% of American citizens do not speak English as their native
>> tongue.
>
> Again, Bob, you make a leap in logic. I write "American,"
>and you respond with "American citizen." The terms aren't
>synonymous.
All American citizens are Americans. That is the definition (unless
one uses the worldwide definition of America to refer to the entire
hemisphere, in which case most Americans speak Spanish.
>> Some don't speak it at all (though this isn't common)
>
> Again, an American by definition speaks English. That
>is what you need to refute. Unfortunately for your
>position, it's irrefutable.
In is insupportable. There is no definition of "American" that fits
that claim.
>> This is not merely an artifact of recent immigration. Along the
>> Southeast coast, communities of former black slaves speak Gullah and
>> have done so for centuries. A large chunk of New York Jews spoke
>> Yiddish. Go to any Chinatown (they've been around for 150 years) and
>> people speak Chinese. In the Pennsylvania Deutsch country, they spoke
>> German (and there were entire brigades of Union soldiers in the Civil
>> War that spoke only German, a fact that cause no small amount of
>> problems for the generals).
>
> And this is 2003, Bob, not 1865.
The still speak Gullah, Chinese, Yiddish. Not sure whether the
Pennsylvania Deutsch still speak German.
The definition of "American" hasn't changed.
>> And then there are the native Americans. You know - the REAL
>> "Americans".
>
> Indians don't speak English? Okay, I know of a handful -- a
>dozen or so -- Navajoes who are elderly and have lived all their
>lives on the reservation whose English isn't too good -- are those
>the ones you're referring to?
They are Americans, aren't they?
>> Maybe to you it does. I guess you are unaware of the factionalism
>> between those of Irish descent in Boston and everyone else, the
>> centuries of strife between Catholics and Protestants. You ignore or
>> denigrate the difference in culture between a Bible Belt "fundie" and
>> a Boston "liberal". And you, a western (probably Californian) "white"
>> haven't a clue how weird the "whites" of the east think Californians
>> are (since I grew up in California and have lived 20 years in
>> Virginia, I can't escape knowing).
>
> That's just silly. Compare any of those people to a Mexican
>or a Russian or an Egyptian, and then tell me the vast differences
>among white Americans.
You mean my kids, Russian born, who are indistinguishable from their
native peers?
>> Historically this was even more so, and still has its remnants today.
>> The cultural differences between North and South led to the Civil War
>
> No, Bob, economic differences led to the Civil War.
Not the whole story, and teh economic differences came in part from
the cultural differences.
>> and hardly went away when slavery was abolished. Go 100 miles from
>> Richmond to Baltimore and the cultural change is startling. Go 300
>> miles from Roanoke to New Jersey and except for language, the
>> differences are just as much as the differences between you and the
>> Mexican immigrants you denigrate.
>
> That's just nonsense, Bob. Your idea of cultural differences
>amounts to variations on the same themes.
The Mexican culture is just a variation on the same theme too. It is
called "human culture".
>> Nope.
>
> That we're willing to discuss these issues rather than whip
>out pistols is one indication of my position.
Meaning that you think that whites don't duel but Mexicans habitually
do so? Aaron Burr and Alex Hamilton ring any bells?
>> The father is justifiably offended under both cultures. Unlike
>> Thailand, in this country, I might call the cops if you didn't stop
>> touching my kid.
>
> Apparently you image some adult touching some kid in a
>dark alley, or something. You've at least *seen* an adult
>tussel some kids hair, haven't you, Bob. Your worldview
>seems a bit perverse.
I don't see strangers doing so.
>> Meanwhile if a European gentleman came up and kissed you and hugged
>> you, YOU would be offended no matter how "white" he was.
>
> That would depend on the circumstances, and you're mentioning
>it reinforces my position. Thanks.
But that is "white culture" too.
>> In this country, if it isn't against the law, it is to be tolerated.
>> You have no right to say that my behavior is "unacceptable" as long as
>> it is legal. They call this "freedom", as American a fundamental
>> value as they come.
>
> Bob, I'm entitled to an opinion of what is and is not
>acceptable and I have a right to express that opinion,
>don't you think?
Yes. And I have the right to opine and state that your opinions are
racist and wrong.
>> If there was a single "American will" we wouldn't have all those
>> immigrants - SOMEONE lets them is and SOMEONE hires them.
>
> And that in no way, given political realities, indicates that
>there is "no American will."
"Political realities" is another way of saying that there is no will,
because those political realities result from the same will.
>> We also
>> wouldn't have such high stress debates over so many topics from
>> abortion to gun control to religion in schools to homosexuality and
>> other sexual freedom. There wouldn't be any debate over going to war
>> with Iraq; we'd all think as one and the mindless Borg of America
>> would rule the world.
>
> Yet another leap, Bob. The subject is the will and way of
>Americans to keep the Mexicans out. The subject isn't
>Iraq or religion or the price of rice in Japan.
The subject is whether there is a single American will. If there were
so on one issue, there would be so on all issues.
>> Meanwhile read the Geneva conventions and you'll find that even real
>> military invaders have rights that must be respected.
>
> Invaders tend to be shot. The Geneva Convention is okey
>with that.
Better read them.
lojbab
toto
wrote:
>Americans also wonder where all the "entry level" jobs went and where their
>kids are going to get the "first job" experience that they did. Also, I
>know that I'd be more than happy to pay $.50 more, even $1 more for a pound
>of any kind of meat to know that legal Americans processed it. Lots of
>people are aware that the number of recalls for contaminated meat have
>skyrocketed in direct proportion to the advent of illegals flooding in at a
>number in excess of 800 thousand per year.
Correlation is not causation. Note that it is the *bosses* who want
to get around safety regulations not the workers. If the industry
actually adhered to the safety standards that they are supposed to
adher to, the problems would not be in the processing plants. As it
is the government allows meat processors to get away with unsanitary
conditions. The government has decimated the inspections by cutting
the number of inspectors, allowing the plants to know when they will
be inspected and accepting data from the company as valid.
To promote mass production and profits, the fast food industry
must keep labor and material costs low. Teenagers and recent
immigrants make up much of the fast food workforce, often
under intimidating and poor conditions. Turnover is huge, and
the companies profit from it: Short-term workers accrue few
benefits and are less likely to organize.
*********
http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/books081001.asp
:To witness the gruesome business of meat-processing, Schlosser
:visited slaughterhouses. What he discovered was both repugnant
:and hazardous. Among the mostly unskilled workforce, severe
:injuries are common. The meat-processing industry and restaurant
:chains continually lobby against regulations that would improve
:worker and food safety. "Anyone who brings raw ground beef into
:his or her kitchen today must regard it as a potential biohazard,"
:writes Schlosser. High-volume meat production makes it easy for
:virulent strains of bacteria to travel far and wide. Schlosser minces
:no words in explaining a major source of contamination. It's simple,
:he says: "There is shit in the meat."
:
:Fast Food Nation ends with a call for consumers to demand better
:treatment of workers and more healthful, safer food. "Nobody in the
:United States is forced to buy fast food," writes Schlosser. "The first
:step toward meaningful change is by far the easiest: Stop buying it."
:After reading this book, you shouldn't find that a hard choice to make.
I suggest you read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser for the details
of what happens and why. It doesn't have much to do with illegal
immigration, but with the desire of big corporations to keep prices
down by cutting corners. Of course, we (Americans) could simply
refuse to buy the products.
One thing that is happening is that cattle producers have become
little more than processing stations for the corporations that buy the
cattle. It's not a pretty picture.
Dorothy
--
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
Bob LeChevalier
>> International treaty had given that land to the Spanish, which passed
>> to the Mexicans when Monroe recognized their government. We legally
>> recognized that ownership, and negotiated its transfer by treaty when
>> we ended the war, and PAID FOR the Gadsden Purchase (not to mention
>> the earlier Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Florida, and the
>> purchase of Alaska and the Russian coastal colonies). Every single
>> one of these purchases recognized that the land belonged to another
>> country, and that ownership did not require enormous amounts of
>> settlement (most of Louisiana was far less settled by the French than
>> California by the Spanish/Mexicans).
>
>*own* the territory because the definition of ownership of
>such territory requires occupation and control.
Since when? Ownership is a legal determination. There are many
situations where a renter occupies and has near-total control, but
they don't own anything.
>> and we played games for more than a year to come up
>> with a pretext to cross the Rio Grande.
>
> Actually, the Nueces Strip was under dispute. Mexicans
>crossed the Rio Grande and attacked the American army.
If it was "under dispute", then the US entering it was no more nor
less an act of war than Mexicans entering it. But we put the troops
there to provoke a war. Polk campaigned and was elected on the idea
of annexing Texas and California.
>Is that your idea of "a pretext?" Try again.
I've read histories and some first person accounts. Under your
"occupied" argument above, there were Mexican villages north of the
Rio Grande. We sent our army into there with the explicit intent to
provoke a war.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/MexicanWar.htm
By treaty, we recognized the Nueces as the border. Our troops crossed
that border. Thus we invaded. (We also blockaded the Rio Grande
before war was declared, which is an act of war.)
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/march19/herita.htm
>In 1834, Antonio López de Santa Anna assumed the presidency of Mexico.
> Endorsing the concept of a strong centralized government, Santa Anna
> discarded the Constitution of 1824 and, from Mexico City, the
> nation's capital, began regulating the people in the various Mexican
> states, much as the U.S. government does today to the American people
> from Washington, D.C.
>>
>By this time, the seven-year grace period for tariff exemption for the
> American-Mexican colonists had expired. Santa Anna announced that
> customs stations were being established along the eastern border of
> Texas. He also sent Mexican troops to Texas to maintain order.
> Believing that American-Mexican immigrants, including American
> illegal aliens, were threatening Mexico with their foreign language
> and foreign culture, he closed the Texas territory to any further
> immigration by Anglo Americans. The American Mexicans were outraged
> over Santa Anna's imposition of immigration controls and tariffs.
> They considered these actions tyrannical, and petitioned the Mexican
> government for redress of grievances. But the petitioning process had
> never been part of the Mexican or Spanish political system, and the
> Mexican officials considered the petition to be an unlawful
> questioning of their authority. Santa Anna assumed the position of
> commander in chief and led the Mexican army north to quell the
> growing resistance to his rule.
In other words, the Alamo fight came about because Mexico enacted
strict immigration controls against American immigrants. I wonder how
many Texas soldiers were "illegal aliens" - people like Crockett, for
example.
>> That war, and the
>> simultaneous eruption of the first wave of anti-immigration sentiment
>> led to the destruction of the Whig party which enabled the birth of
>> the Republican party.
>
> And the point of that information is ... what? That
>Mexico *owned* Texas or the Southwest?
That Americans at the time were in dispute over whether we had the
legal right to take Mexico and California, and that this was a cause
of national turmoil.
>> They called your ilk "Know-Nothings" back then.
>
> Right. And the Know Nothings were correct, at least
>to those who favor Jeffersonian democracy.
They LOST. (And "Jeffersonian democracy" was never the system of
government in this country, not that I agree with your conclusion).
>> In any event, most of our wealth isn't individual
>> "needs". We squander our wealth, and most of what we have is a luxury
>> by the standards of all other nations.
>
> And so Haitians and other billions of impoverished, starving,
>diseased, ignorant, superstitious third-world masses would
>view eating as a luxury. You're right, Bob. They would.
Eating the quantities that we eat is a luxury. Mexicans as a populace
aren't starving (1997 per capita daily food intake 3097 calories, 133%
of recommended minimums. The US consumes 3699 calories per day per
capita).
>> >> >> >-- a civilization rife with the
>> >> >> >ethnocentrism you object to. Why else is the slogan of the popular
>> >> >> >hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is to merge California with
>> >> >> >Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > No society is as stratified along lines of color
>> >> >than Mexican society.
>> >>
>> >> What does this have to do with Aztlan?
>> >
>> > The poster claimed that Mexican culture is rife with
>> >ethnocentrism. You called him a liar.
>>
>> That is not what he said,
>
> "... a civilization rife with ethnocentrism..." is what he wrote, Bob.
>Have a look, above, for yourself.
You deleted 3 words "you object to" which changes the meaning of the
claim. I don't in fact object to their ethnocentrism - it is their
country and they have a right to live the way they choose. In OUR
country, systematic "ethnocentrism" is in most cases illegal when not
unconstitutional.
>> and not what I called a lie. Learn to read.
>> The lie is "the popular hispanic student group MEChA -- whose goal is
>> to merge California with Mexico and re-name it "Aztlan""
>>
>> There is in fact nothing in there about political unity with Mexico,
>> and indeed it is clear that the unity they are talking about is the
>> unity of a culturally-based political party.
>
> MEChA identifies with Mexicans and with Mexico. You're
>trying to make a distinction where none really exists.
I am calling it a lie that they want to merge California with Mexico
and rename it "Aztlan".
>> > And any of that suggests to you ... what? ... that La Raza, that
>> >the people in the Aztlan Movement, that MEChA aren't
>> >ethnocentric? Hilarious.
>>
>> Of course they are ethnocentric. They are even "racist". So what?
>> They are the minority out of power,
>
> And long may they remain that way.
That is determined by voters.
>> MEChA has less chance of reuniting with
>> Mexico (even if they really wanted to do so) than the American
>> revolutionaries had of getting independence,
>
> Nonsense. Filling this country with Mexicans is a big
>step in that direction.
You mean like filling Texas with Americans was a big step in annexing
Texas.
>> and our chances were
>> rather based on the luck of world circumstances at the time.
>
> Sure, Bob. The imagination and actions of Americans
>had nothing to do with it.
Did I say that? Without international support, all the imagination
and actions of Americans would have been their death sentence for
treason.
>> > Actually, proof exists only in mathematics. The weight of evidence
>> >in the case of MEChA indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that
>> >it's a subversive, anti-American organization.
>>
>> It's a nascent political party.
>
> Aren't all political parties at some point "nascent?"
But political parties aren't "subversive anti-American organizations".
They are the American Way.
>> > Are you claiming that whites didn't build this country?
>>
>> Not as "whites" they didn't.
>
> Did they do it as Zulus, Bob?
>
>> And in the South it was blacks that did
>> most of the building.
>
> Only in the sense that they performed some of the physical
>labor.
Well isn't "building" physical labor?
>But about 85 to 90 percent of Southerners never
>owned slaves,
http://www.salisburypost.com/columns/slavery_support121398.htm
and any number of other sites indicate it was 25-30% that owned
slaves. There seems to be a raft of sites that say 5%, but that does
not match census records. (About 5% owned 20 or more slaves).
>and most Southerners never saw a slave until they walked to battles during the Civil War.
You are full of **it. Blacks, almost all of them slaves, were close
to 50% of the population. There were slave auctions in every major
town and probably a lot of minor ones.
>> In any event, many reactionaries oppose change in their society that
>> they don't approve of, but if you really have studied history, you
>> should be aware that change is inevitable.
>
> Change is inevitable, but certainly immigration is the imposition
>of change rather than some cosmic inevitability.
There has been no society in history that has prevented it for any
significant period.
>> You want to tear down and destroy businesses if they happen to employ
>> someone you don't approve of.
>
> I want to tear down and destroy employers of illegal aliens.
In other words you agree with me, since those employers are
businesses.
>> You want to keep inventive foreigners
>> from coming to our shores and enriching our country instead of their
>> native country with their new ideas.
>
> Which "inventive foreigners" are you referring to? Some
>dripping wet Mexican? Hilarioius.
You also expressed hostility to the high tech visas.
>> >> I'm not aware
>> >> of how you "behave", but relatively few 20th/21st century Americans
>> >> abide by 18th century behavioral standards.
>> >
>> > Your narrowness is pretty stunning, Bob.
>>
>> I'm generally considered broad-minded. But most people have little
>> understanding of 18th century mores.
>
> In your view, wanting to preserve this country by limiting
>immigration is ... what? ... an 18th Century behavioral standard?
No. I am claiming that you don't know what you are talking about in
making your claim about me above.
>What do you hate about this country that you want to turn it
>into someplace else and someplace less?
I don't. YOU are the one who wants change. The status quo is
immigration and medium enforcement of illegal alien laws. And you
have no more basis for saying that the result will be "someplace less"
than you have for disputing my claim that America is stronger because
of our immigration policies.
>> > I know that filling the country with Mexicans isn't progressive.
>>
>> It certainly is.
>
> Really hilarious. Exactly how is filling the country with
>ignorant, often criminal, superstitious, impoverished,
>uneducated third-world latinos "progressive?" I can't
>wait for your answer.
Because they don't stay that way. They become working Americans, and
their kids become educated Americans.
>> Actually it is precisely the point of my disagreement with you of what
>> constitutes a "progressive society".
>
> Apparently *progressive* means to you allowing millions of
>squalid third-worlders into the US. That's just silly. Progressive
>is a whole lot of things, but none of them include a dedication to
>ignorance, superstition, corruption, lying, and other unsavory
>characteristics of river-swimming Mexicans or opportunistic
>airliner immigrants from India and Pakistan. The clamoring,
>grasping third-world masses tend not to be progressive, Bob.
>Quite to the contrary ...
But admitting them to our country IS progressive.
>> >> No more than South Boston is an approximation of Ireland,
>> >> Detroit is an approximation of Poland, or for that matter, Chinatown
>> >> is an approximation of China.
>> >
>> > I've never been to South Boston or Detroit, but I have spent
>> >lots of time over many years in and around Chinatown in San
>> >Francisco, and I promise you, having been to China, Chinatown
>> >*is* an approximation of a Chinese city.
>>
>> But I thought you were saying that "real Americans" all assimilate.
>> Chinatown has been there a lot longer than you have.
>
> Right. It's been an approximation of China for a long time.
>Some Chinese assimilate, but many don't. And those in
>Chinatown tend to remain pretty close to Chinese in China.
So the residents of Chinatown are not Americans even if their
ancestors were here before the ancestors of most Americans. (And the
Gullah speakers in Georgia whose ancestor were brought as slaves in
the 1600s aren't "American" because they don't speak English.)
>> But I was referring to the period from 1607 to 1789, when we made and
>> evolved this country into something so different from Britain that we
>> ceased to consider ourselves to be British.
>
> Whoa re you speaking for? Many Americans thought of themselves
>as British. They were called Tories.
I didn't say 1776. By 1789, they were either gone or they were no
longer Tories.
> Your theory has one crucial problem, and that is this: no population
>so large and from one country has ever immigrated to this country
>and lived as colonists at any point in US history.
Your premise that they "live as colonists".
>You have no
>precident by which to draw your conclusions. Furthermore,
>Mexicans are often currently, if not hostile,
>then at least contemptuous of Americans and our ways,
I am equally contemptuous of people like you and your ways.
>You refer to Mexicans from earlier generations, and the
>ancestors of the huge majority of those Mexicans arrived
>between 1910 and 1920, in flight from a civil war.
Nope. They are the grandchildren of Cezar Chavez's farm workers of
1966, most of whom had not been here since 1920.
>They
>were comparatively few in number and assimilated without
>ever being a political or social or cultural threat to the
>existing population.
I grew up in California in the 60s, and there were just as many
complaints about Mexicans then as there are now.
>Today's Mexicans are much different.
So their culture is not the culture you attribute to Mexicans of
1910-20? If the culture can change that quickly, then why do you
assume that children of the Mexican immigrants of today won't be just
as assimilated in 2100?
>> > The first immigration act was passed by Congress in
>> >1790.
>>
>> Naturalization, not immigration. There were no controls on
>> immigration (how could there be, with no means to enforce any
>> controls).
>
> States and local communities enforced immigration.
Nope. States did not try to pass immigration laws until after the
Civil War
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/history/articles/oview.htm
There were no significant controls on immigration, and in fact, until
1855, immigrants were simply dropped off when they got here.
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/legishist/index.htm
Up until 1862 there were no immigration restrictions at all. (There
was a limit on ship's passengers that made a de facto limit on how
many could possibly arrive by ship.) Ship's captains had to report
admissions.
>> There was actually a steady
>> rise in immigration from 1824-1836, and by 1832 immigration as a
>> percentage of the native population exceeded current levels.
>
> Percentage is meaningless.
Disagree. Percentage indicates the impact of immigrants on the
non-immigrant population. A million immigrants a year into China
might not be noticed for a long time.
>> > I figured you were referring to American's backlash at massive
>> >immigration. Try to make yourself clear, will you, Bob.
>>
>> Clearly, backlash is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Current
>> immigration is a backlash against what came before - if we had acted
>> differently towards Mexicans in the 1930s to 1960s, likely there would
>> be less immigration from there now.
>
> American behavior toward Mexico from the 1930s to the
>1960s has nothing whatsoever to do with Mexican
>immigration today.
The academics who write on the subject disagree with you.
>> Our country is not threatened with destruction.
>
> Filling it with Mexicans and other third-world immigrants
>at a rate of more than a million per year certainly does
>threaten this country with destruction.
Unsupported assertion.
>> > In fact, isn't it racist, and bordering on
>> >genocidal, as defined by the UN, to want to destroy
>> >the culture and people of a country?
>>
>> The UN doesn't define racism. "Genocide" has a specific definition,
>> and is hardly used as loosely as you do.
>
> Read the UN definition of genocide.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
>Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
>
>Article 1
>The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
>
>Article 2
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Nothing about culture in there.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> > They want the benefits of ours but the cultural elements of
>> >their own.
>>
>> Evidence is lacking. EVERY immigrant culture wants to preserve the
>> best of their mother culture while adopting the new country.
>
>the wonders of multiculturalism and how our strength is
>in our diversity. Assimilation is passe, if not entirely
>discouraged, Bob.
False. Multiculturalism doesn't stop assimilation.
>> >> I suspect that the ones who stay in Mexico are perfectly fine with
>> >> their civilization, while the ones who come here want something else.
>> >
>> > And yet they create the conditions from which they fled.
>>
>> Really. It could easily be claimed that WE created them. WE after all
>> conquered Mexico in the 1840s, then left the remnants to pick up the
>> pieces absent the legitimacy of having defended their country against
>> aggression (and Mexico was then conquered by France in 1860,
>> destroying much of what remained). Ever since, we have been quite
>> adept at sucking profits from Mexico. America is nothing if it isn't
>> superior at sucking profit from weaker countries.
>
> Hilarious. Mexico drains billions of dollars every year out of
>this country. We have a trade deficit with Mexico. Mexicans
>are parasties on this country, whether they're here or
>in Mexico. Get in touch with reality.
By that logic, Canada, Japan, Germany, and China are even bigger
parasites on this country
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh14.txt
lojbab
americankernel
news:3okn5vsaitlupe9hm...@4ax.com...
I'll partially concede your point that the meat processors are to blame for
a *some* of the problem. But I will never again absolve a lawbreaker for
his deeds simply because our government doesn't enforce the law.
Fortunately on the meat-processing issue, I get the scoop from a
brother-in-law who managed a meat packing plant until 20 years ago. Since
then, he's been on the road selling meat packing machinery and supplies to
processors throughout a large chunk of the Midwest. If there was even the
slightest humanity-centric business ethic in play, the cuts in inspectors
would not make that great a difference.
However, I'm going to buy the rest of his explanation before I'll consider
some extremist points like those you posted. While the plant owners
facilitate lax quality, it is the lack of communication, hygiene, and
cultural problems with both the legal immigrant and illegal immigrant
members of the workforce who are the key factor in passing on the most
dangerous diseases.
So, yeah, there's "shit in the meat" and too often, it doesn't just come
from the animals being processed. If you hire workers who are alliterate,
that is lacking any language skills above basic functionality and grunts,
you get at least some workers who wipe with their hands and some workers who
don't wash afterwards. I suppose you also get at least a few who follow
both types of hygienically unsound practices. Multilingual signs and
pictograms cannot overcome culturally-ingrained stupidity.
What it all still comes 'round to is that if there were a moratorium on all
immigration and stiff penalties with economic consequences for hiring
illegals, this mess (and a host of other problems) would get cleaned up
faster than you can "wipe your butt with Charmin."
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:76vl5vg6kqbrl06hh...@4ax.com...
>kids are going to get the "first job" experience that they did.
There doesn't seem to be any lack. Indeed, even with kid and a high
immigration rate, this area has a shortage of fast food workers such
that wages are significantly above minimum wage ($7-8 per hour
starting).
>Also, I
>know that I'd be more than happy to pay $.50 more, even $1 more for a pound
>of any kind of meat to know that legal Americans processed it.
You might be. Most Americans shop their pocketbook.
>Lots of
>people are aware that the number of recalls for contaminated meat have
>skyrocketed in direct proportion to the advent of illegals flooding in at a
>number in excess of 800 thousand per year.
Like that fast food meat that turned out to be kangaroo meat - it was
processed in Australia? All those Americans who eat fast food neither
know nor care what country it came from.
>The FACTS:
>It is extremely rare for any illegal to show up for care with any insurance,
>public or private.
It is extremely rare for any poor person to show up for care with any
insurance. Illegals are generally poor persons.
>Illegals show up sicker, with an extraordinarily high
>rate of multiple illnesses and complications which makes the cost of their
>care skyrocket.
Sounds like their lack of access to medical care means that they don't
see a doctor early enough. That's an argument for universal medical
coverage, so that they aren't as sick when they show up.
> The higher costs associated with each illegal also impacts
>the system for a longer term because it takes them longer to recover. In
>addition, they are less likely to follow post-treatment protocols: they come
>back even sicker the next time!
All of this can equally be said about the poor who aren't illegal.
>> >Earlier gens put a stop to that when it lifted it's head,
>>
>> But they didn't stop it.
>
>Yes, they did. Between 1924 and 1965, there were years in which the net
>immigration to this land was represented by a negative number.
1931-1937, due to the Depression. But that isn't a stop to
immigration, but to net immigration.
The foreign
>born population percentage fell from a high of 14.8 percent in 1910 to 4% in
>the mid-1950's.
And it is not yet up to 14.8%
>In addition, it is crucial to note that throughout our history prior to
>1965, one of three immigrants to America left for various reasons. They
>either couldn't cut it, couldn't assimilate, got homesick...whatever. One
>third left. Now, with the huge government teat we've built for them to glom
>onto like leeches, virtually none leave unless they are deported.
The census bureau estimates emigration at around 200K per year.
>> That's because it is right wing and not "liberal" The
>> anti-immigration types, who are usually right wingers, have great love
>> for attacking "liberals" but try to pretend that it is Republican big
>> business that wants immigration and cheap labor more than any other
>> faction. The "liberals" merely want fairness to the people who are or
>> aren't let in, and many of them think that we should help the other
>> countries so that not so many WANT to come here. But that costs tax
>> money too, and we gotta have our tax cut.
>
>It sure is interesting how all the liberals are more concerned about
>fairness for people who were not born here than they are in the future
>well-being of American children.
And the conservatives are more concerned with protection businesses
from regulation and higher wage costs. Don't try to make the
immigration thing a "liberal" issue, because it isn't. The biggest
increases in immigration occurred under Reagan.
>> >Got anything from the US Chamber of Commerce?
>>
>> I haven't read it but the search engine found it easily enough.
>> http://www.uschamber.com/government/issues/immigration/default
>>
>> Without reading it, I no idea what side of the issue they take.
>
>If American Express (actually American-Indian-Phillipean Express) and Bank
>of America (actually Bank of America and India) along with a host of other
>US corporations with anti-American globalist notions are the US Chamber's
>primary source of membership dues, where would it be likely that they land
>on this issue?
In other words, you are anti-big-business, but want to blame the
"liberals" for immigration. Hypocrite.
>> >I wish the best for Mexico's economy, but the US is not a moshpit, it
>> >is a democratic nation of laws. Their illegals are called illegals for
>> >a reason. This is the same-old wornout aspect of pro-illegals debate
>> >and their advocates: Selective favor and enforcement of the law, to
>> >bring about something that is intrinsically self-serving and wrongful.
>>
>> I wonder why we don't see comparable demand for enforcing the laws on
>> adultery, sodomy, and of course speeding. The person who doesn't
>> break the law sometime isn't alive. Thus we inherently need fewer
>> laws, or we will have selective enforcement. It then becomes a
>> tradeoff as to which laws are worth selectively enforcing.
>
>Red Herring
No it isn't. If we are a "nation of laws", why are those laws not as
important as the ones you care about? You can't use the "nation of
laws" argument unless you are willing to accept all that it entails.
Otherwise, the correct word is "hypocrite".
>See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
>> As I said before, I am more afraid of Ashcroft than I am of most
>> illegal aliens. Meanwhile, we could do more to cut illegal aliens by
>> building a few more factories just south of the border and building
>> homes for the workers there. Maybe even pay for education programs,
>> since educated and employed people have fewer kids. The costs would
>> be less than that of enforcing our laws, and it would make the world a
>> better place.
>
>Nice thoughts. But since Mexico's elite prefers using the U.S. as a relief
>valve, it cannot occur. Since the American pubic has been kept
>intentionally ignorant to the full range of costs associated with illegals,
>they wouldn't stand for such a "waste of taxpayer money."
I daresay that the American public is far more aware of the costs of
immigration and illegals than they are with the benefits.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>>>The law requires that they be rounded up and deported? Cool, they get due
>>>process in their deportation hearings.
>>
>> Also in the means used to find them and round them up. Pretty hard to
>> find people who don't want to be found, without making mincemeat of
>> constitutional rights.
>
>Not at all. The Constitution's checkas and balances are limits on the power
>of the Government, not on the People; see also Amendments 9 and 10.
>
>We the People can get away with one hell of a lot more than can the
>Government, especially when it comes to finding the people who don't want to
>be found: when they're pissing on our sidewalks, breaking glass bottles
>where our little children can be expected to play, blatantly shoplifting in
>our stores.
You have no more ability as a private citizen to determine whether a
person is green carded or illegal than the government. The government
cannot ask without due cause, because otherwise they have no way to
know whether they are asking citizens, immigrants, or illegals. If
they do so based on accent or skin color that is unconstitutional
ethnic profiling. If you do so as an employer, that is illegal
discrimination.
As for those behaviors you criticize, plenty of native-born Americans
do those things too. They can be arrested for doing them; you as a
citizen can't do much of anything to them except call the police.
>There's a hell of a lot of power in the Citizen's Arrest, and all you have
>to do is have a legitimate charge for an offense that you have witnessd
>personally, and you hold them for the sheriff or take them before an officer
>of the courts and charge them.
Whereupon the prosecutor decides to let them off because they have
more important things to prosecute.
>At that point in time, whether or not they
>wanted to be found, they're found all right.
But you don't know they are illegal aliens. You're charging them with
breaking other laws.
>And the system has to deal with
>them, whether or not they wanted to look for them; as a citizen, you can
>demand the equal protection of the laws, to wit, the prosecution of the
>offender against your rights.
Sorry, but there is no requirement that the government prosecute all
people charged. And the offenses you describe aren't offenses against
your personal rights in any event, but rather are simple lawbreaking.
So is speeding. You want the world to start reporting you every time
you exceed the speed limit and "demanding equal protection of the
law".
lojbab
americankernel
> "americankernel" <america...@msn.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:76vl5vg6kqbrl06hh...@4ax.com...
> >Lots of
> >people are aware that the number of recalls for contaminated meat have
> >skyrocketed in direct proportion to the advent of illegals flooding in at
a
> >number in excess of 800 thousand per year.
>
> Like that fast food meat that turned out to be kangaroo meat - it was
> processed in Australia? All those Americans who eat fast food neither
> know nor care what country it came from.
>
> >The FACTS:
> >It is extremely rare for any illegal to show up for care with any
insurance,
> >public or private.
>
> It is extremely rare for any poor person to show up for care with any
> insurance. Illegals are generally poor persons.
You really don't know much about this topic and you should abandon your
attempts to debate on an issue in which your skills don't even reach the
comparative level of "plebe."
The majority of American poor (not uninsured,which is a different category)
are at least recipients of Medicaid and have the communicative skills to
at least partially follow post medical care
instructions. They have far better outcomes than illegals, have Average
Length of Stay (ALOS) statistics far below that of illegals and show far
fewer Advanced Patient Refined Diagnostically Related Groups (APRDRG's) on
their charts; thus, they are not only less expensive to treat, but they also
are a better medical liability risk. Any physician who treats too many
patients with high ALOS and a high-variety of APRDRG numbers will see a
greater increase in his or her medical malpractice insurance rates.
Give it up on this issue. You're way out of your league and will only
continue to look more and more the fool with every attempt at a reply. I've
LIVED inside these numbers for a paycheck. You cannot even come close to
grasping them...unless you want to spend 11 years working with them every
day.
>
> >Illegals show up sicker, with an extraordinarily high
> >rate of multiple illnesses and complications which makes the cost of
their
> >care skyrocket.
>
> Sounds like their lack of access to medical care means that they don't
> see a doctor early enough. That's an argument for universal medical
> coverage, so that they aren't as sick when they show up.
They never had any access to care from whence they came. It is a cost
burden that they carry with them the instant they break the law and cross
our border. It is not an argument for universal healthcare, in fact, if we
were to remove all illegals and quash the anchor baby issue, our
healthcare system would improve drastically almost overnight. As I said
before, doing so would eliminate one-fourth of all uncompensated care cases.
> > The higher costs associated with each illegal also impacts
> >the system for a longer term because it takes them longer to recover. In
> >addition, they are less likely to follow post-treatment protocols: they
come
> >back even sicker the next time!
>
> All of this can equally be said about the poor who aren't illegal.
Only to a point. American citizens grew up with at least a cursory school
health program and some health education, even in the early grades. Poor
illegals don't have this and never had this. They exhibit in far worse
shape in nearly every instance. Period. You cannot dance around it, or
refute it...in fact, you aren't even capable of discussing it with even the
slightest modicum of intelligence. You only have your personal preference
and what is beginning to look like an enormous chip on your shoulder.
You cannot win on this. Your position is untenable and indefensible.
> >> >Earlier gens put a stop to that when it lifted it's head,
> >>
> >> But they didn't stop it.
> >
> >Yes, they did. Between 1924 and 1965, there were years in which the net
> >immigration to this land was represented by a negative number.
>
> 1931-1937, due to the Depression. But that isn't a stop to
> immigration, but to net immigration.
I'm not going to google it for you, and if you choose to remain a completely
ignorant boob about what happened in Congress between 1921 and 1924 on the
issue, that's your problem. I'm tired of reposting the links and history
for each and every moron with a predisposition who comes down the pike.
Maybe one of my other friends here will post links, but I'm growing tired of
dealing with your level of intransigence, which seems to be eclipsed only by
your idiocy and disdain for American tradition.
> The foreign
> >born population percentage fell from a high of 14.8 percent in 1910 to 4%
in
> >the mid-1950's.
>
> And it is not yet up to 14.8%
No not yet. We're at 11%, but the 36 million (conservatively stated)
illegals we have today is nearly three times the 13.8 million we had in
1910.
In addition, nearly all of today's immigrants stay here. Then, nearly a
third left within a short time. The census indicates we'll surpass the
15% foreign born mark sometime within the next five to eight years
if we do not secure our borders and start going after illegals already
here. You can talk all you want about assimilation, but it simply
cannot occur when entire large colonies are a part of the picture.
> >In addition, it is crucial to note that throughout our history prior to
> >1965, one of three immigrants to America left for various reasons. They
> >either couldn't cut it, couldn't assimilate, got homesick...whatever.
One
> >third left. Now, with the huge government teat we've built for them to
glom
> >onto like leeches, virtually none leave unless they are deported.
>
> The census bureau estimates emigration at around 200K per year.
What percentage of those emigrating are American citizens? Of late, there's
been a huge push for Americans Jews to move to Israel. Still others, many
of them retirees, are relocating to tax-haven countries. I haven't seen any
number by the census that indicates any of the illegals are leaving unless
forced to do so.
And so what if a few illegals are leaving? It still is a far cry from the
one-third historic average? The net-net is at least a plus annual
immigrants .6 million and up. Are we supposed to be placated by
these (probably grossly underreported) numbers? I think not.
> >> That's because it is right wing and not "liberal" The
> >> anti-immigration types, who are usually right wingers, have great love
> >> for attacking "liberals" but try to pretend that it is Republican big
> >> business that wants immigration and cheap labor more than any other
> >> faction. The "liberals" merely want fairness to the people who are or
> >> aren't let in, and many of them think that we should help the other
> >> countries so that not so many WANT to come here. But that costs tax
> >> money too, and we gotta have our tax cut.
> >
> >It sure is interesting how all the liberals are more concerned about
> >fairness for people who were not born here than they are in the future
> >well-being of American children.
>
> And the conservatives are more concerned with protection businesses
> from regulation and higher wage costs. Don't try to make the
> immigration thing a "liberal" issue, because it isn't. The biggest
> increases in immigration occurred under Reagan.
Huh? You're just deluded. You haven't looked at the numbers at
all. Ever consider working for Enron? The 1990's were the time of greatest
acceleration of sheer immigrant numbers, both legal and illegal, in this
nation's history. That was mostly under Clinton's watch. The previous most
stupid fiasco was the Mariel boatlift in 1980-81; thank Nobel Prize Winning
Idiot Jimmy Carter!
Recent foreign born population numbers:
1960 - 9,738,143
1970 - 9,619,302
1980 - 14,079,906
1990 - 19,767,316
2000 - 36,000,000*
*Unconfirmed and still slightly fluctuating estimate.
> >> >Got anything from the US Chamber of Commerce?
> >>
> >> I haven't read it but the search engine found it easily enough.
> >> http://www.uschamber.com/government/issues/immigration/default
> >>
> >> Without reading it, I no idea what side of the issue they take.
> >
> >If American Express (actually American-Indian-Philippine Express) and
Bank
> >of America (actually Bank of America and India) along with a host of
other
> >US corporations with anti-American globalist notions are the US Chamber's
> >primary source of membership dues, where would it be likely that they
land
> >on this issue?
>
> In other words, you are anti-big-business, but want to blame the
> "liberals" for immigration. Hypocrite.
I'm anti-globalization and a conservative. That's a position right in
balance with maintaining traditional American culture, mores and values
while being traditionally non-elitist Republican. It also means I'm
anti-forced-diversity, I believe that multiculturalism is cultural socialism
and I think that the ACLU is a subversive, openly socialist group.
I read constantly...even liberal drivel to keep me on my toes...and I blow
morons like you out of the water for fun. However, I am more than happy
to split the blame equally between political parties for this immigration
fiasco.
>
> >> >I wish the best for Mexico's economy, but the US is not a moshpit, it
> >> >is a democratic nation of laws. Their illegals are called illegals for
> >> >a reason. This is the same-old wornout aspect of pro-illegals debate
> >> >and their advocates: Selective favor and enforcement of the law, to
> >> >bring about something that is intrinsically self-serving and wrongful.
> >>
> >> I wonder why we don't see comparable demand for enforcing the laws on
> >> adultery, sodomy, and of course speeding. The person who doesn't
> >> break the law sometime isn't alive. Thus we inherently need fewer
> >> laws, or we will have selective enforcement. It then becomes a
> >> tradeoff as to which laws are worth selectively enforcing.
> >
> >Red Herring
>
> No it isn't. If we are a "nation of laws", why are those laws not as
> important as the ones you care about? You can't use the "nation of
> laws" argument unless you are willing to accept all that it entails.
> Otherwise, the correct word is "hypocrite".
Yes, it is a herring, fishbreath. Haven't you worn out your tap-dancing
shoes yet?
> >See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
>
> >> As I said before, I am more afraid of Ashcroft than I am of most
> >> illegal aliens. Meanwhile, we could do more to cut illegal aliens by
> >> building a few more factories just south of the border and building
> >> homes for the workers there. Maybe even pay for education programs,
> >> since educated and employed people have fewer kids. The costs would
> >> be less than that of enforcing our laws, and it would make the world a
> >> better place.
> >
> >Nice thoughts. But since Mexico's elite prefers using the U.S. as a
relief
> >valve, it cannot occur. Since the American pubic has been kept
> >intentionally ignorant to the full range of costs associated with
illegals,
> >they wouldn't stand for such a "waste of taxpayer money."
>
> I daresay that the American public is far more aware of the costs of
> immigration and illegals than they are with the benefits.
First, please note that I said "the full range of costs." The "benefits"
you tout are a product of and subject to opinion and interpretation, while
the costs are visible as line items, they show up on property tax bills and
they sometimes even show up in the unavailability of vaccines for my little
girl. But those only scratch the surface of the full cost that illegals
bring with them. Folks like me and Ferret and Roll and Cato and Icon
all have our thinking caps on...we're getting the word out and we're all
pretty upbeat about the prospects of making people like you miserable.
The coolest thing is that Usenet is an obscure, predominately liberal place,
yet there are tons of folks expressing the need for reform and drastic
action that would upset you a lot. My conversations in my community, the
most liberal area of my state, indicate that there is a lot of support for
curtailing legal and ending illegal immigration. I had figured that
my informal surveys of my associates and neighbors would radically differ
from the national polls that show 70% of Americans think your position is
stupid. I've been pleasantly surprised time after time after time.
Your position on immigration issues has what we in political circles call
"lost traction." Considering the volatile state of the world, the growing
number of Joe Lunchbuckets waking up to full ramifications of immigrant
invasion and the accompanying natural human defensive moves toward
selectivity about the things for which people are willing to exhibit
"tolerance" in times of stress, I'd guess that your goose is about to have
its little plastic timer thingy in the fully popped-up position very soon.
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>> >The FACTS:
>> >It is extremely rare for any illegal to show up for care with any
>insurance,
>> >public or private.
>>
>> It is extremely rare for any poor person to show up for care with any
>> insurance. Illegals are generally poor persons.
>
>You really don't know much about this topic and you should abandon your
>attempts to debate on an issue in which your skills don't even reach the
>comparative level of "plebe."
I know enough to check unsupported data claims. To wit:
>The majority of American poor (not uninsured,which is a different category)
>are at least recipients of Medicaid and have the communicative skills to
>at least partially follow post medical care instructions.
http://www.ilcusa.org/_lib/pdf/projectsagingsouth.pdf
>Georgia has a higher percentage of non-elderly
>uninsured than the national average. While
>Medicaid covers just under half of the poor in the
>U.S., the proportion is substantially lower in
>Georgia.
Here's Texas, just for example. Population 20 million.
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Medicaid/Med_info/medfacts.html
15% in poverty (3 million) 23% without health insurance (4.6 million)
Number receiving Medicaid 1.8 million. So you might barely be right
about the percentage with Medicaid being a majority of those in
poverty, but they are hardly a majority of those without health
insurance.
>Number of childless, non-elderly, non-disabled, non-pregnant
>Medicaid eligible adults in 1999: 0
In other words 100% of the poor who don't have kids and don't qualify
for Medicare, don't get Medicaid.
As for following doctor's orders, here is one study of CA tuberculosis
where they even used detention to try to enforce compliance. Note
that most of the patients were born in the US and a higher percentage
were black than Hispanic - hence your claim that Mexicans are unusual
in not following doctor's orders is counterfactual.
>They have far better outcomes than illegals, have Average
>Length of Stay (ALOS) statistics far below that of illegals and show far
>fewer Advanced Patient Refined Diagnostically Related Groups (APRDRG's) on
>their charts; thus, they are not only less expensive to treat, but they also
>are a better medical liability risk. Any physician who treats too many
>patients with high ALOS and a high-variety of APRDRG numbers will see a
>greater increase in his or her medical malpractice insurance rates.
Let's see the numbers for illegals vs. non-illegals. I could find no
web source.
Meanwhile, closely related, I found:
http://econpapers.hhs.se/paper/nbrnberwo/5388.htm
which suggests that immigrants indeed do stay away from doctors and
hospitals longer due to lack of medical coverage, which would explain
increased severity of problems when they do come.
>Give it up on this issue. You're way out of your league and will only
>continue to look more and more the fool with every attempt at a reply. I've
>LIVED inside these numbers for a paycheck. You cannot even come close to
>grasping them...unless you want to spend 11 years working with them every
>day.
I'll put it to you real simple.
If you want the American public to understand your issue and support
your claim, you need to make it so that the American public CAN grasp
the issue without spending 11 years. That means that for those of us
with some education, who know that there are two sides to every story,
you need to give the data in clearly understood terms, with a
verifiable source so that I can't trivially find a countering source
like I did above on the majority of people in poverty not being
covered by Medicaid.
Then, since your remedy goes a long way beyond reimbursing hospitals
for extraordinary medical costs, you need to counter the economists
who disagree with you about the effects of immigration
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/immigrat/pdimm/immjan98a.html
Immigrants are LESS likely to be criminals than natives.
http://www.nber.org/papers/h0093
Concentrations of immigrants persisting over time seem to be due to
natives being unwilling to move into areas with immigrants rather than
vice versa, as compared with 19th century behavior
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/6677.html
Borjas actually supports reducing immigration levels and has some good
arguments (unlike yours), but even he concludes that immigration is a
net positive for the economy (but not necessarily for the immigrants).
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/index.html
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/index.html
give somewhat stronger pictures than Borjas for benefits to society
from immigration.
>> Sounds like their lack of access to medical care means that they don't
>> see a doctor early enough. That's an argument for universal medical
>> coverage, so that they aren't as sick when they show up.
>
>They never had any access to care from whence they came.
Yep. So they die. Not that you care. Mexico's infant mortality is 3
1/2 times ours.
>It is a cost
>burden that they carry with them the instant they break the law and cross
>our border. It is not an argument for universal healthcare, in fact, if we
>were to remove all illegals and quash the anchor baby issue, our
>healthcare system would improve drastically almost overnight.
And more kids would die. They just wouldn't be in this country, so
you wouldn't give a shit. Just as you don't really give a shit
whether they die IN this country - you'd be glad to help them along.
>> > The higher costs associated with each illegal also impacts
>> >the system for a longer term because it takes them longer to recover. In
>> >addition, they are less likely to follow post-treatment protocols: they
>come
>> >back even sicker the next time!
>>
>> All of this can equally be said about the poor who aren't illegal.
>
>Only to a point. American citizens grew up with at least a cursory school
>health program and some health education, even in the early grades. Poor
>illegals don't have this and never had this.
Their kids attend public schools too.
>They exhibit in far worse
>shape in nearly every instance. Period. You cannot dance around it, or
>refute it...in fact, you aren't even capable of discussing it with even the
>slightest modicum of intelligence. You only have your personal preference
>and what is beginning to look like an enormous chip on your shoulder.
Not half so much as yours. If I were debating with a Borjas, who
favors reducing immigration but clearly can look at multiple sides of
the question, I am not so oppositional as I am with a bigot like you.
>You cannot win on this. Your position is untenable and indefensible.
My vote counts as much as yours. If you can't convince people like
me, you lose.
>I'm not going to google it for you, and if you choose to remain a completely
>ignorant boob about what happened in Congress between 1921 and 1924 on the
>issue, that's your problem. I'm tired of reposting the links and history
>for each and every moron with a predisposition who comes down the pike.
>Maybe one of my other friends here will post links, but I'm growing tired of
>dealing with your level of intransigence, which seems to be eclipsed only by
>your idiocy and disdain for American tradition.
The tradition FAVORS immigration. Remember the words on the Statue of
Liberty, an emblem of our "tradition" if there ever was one.
>> The foreign
>> >born population percentage fell from a high of 14.8 percent in 1910 to 4%
>in
>> >the mid-1950's.
>>
>> And it is not yet up to 14.8%
>
>No not yet. We're at 11%, but the 36 million (conservatively stated)
>illegals we have today is nearly three times the 13.8 million we had in
>1910.
36 million. Don't make me laugh. That's about the percentage of
Spanish-speaking people including legals. And you note below that
this is the number of foreign born, not the number of illegals. Of
course by your mindset, all immigrants are illegals. Your ancestors
got here so you get your share; why should anyone else's ancestors be
allowed to come?
>In addition, nearly all of today's immigrants stay here.
>> The census bureau estimates emigration at around 200K per year.
>
>What percentage of those emigrating are American citizens? Of late, there's
>been a huge push for Americans Jews to move to Israel.
There aren't that many, and a lot of THEM come back here.
Still others, many
>of them retirees, are relocating to tax-haven countries. I haven't seen any
>number by the census that indicates any of the illegals are leaving unless
>forced to do so.
I doubt that you've looked.
>And so what if a few illegals are leaving? It still is a far cry from the
>one-third historic average? The net-net is at least a plus annual
>immigrants .6 million and up. Are we supposed to be placated by
>these (probably grossly underreported) numbers? I think not.
I don't much care whether you are placated.
>> >It sure is interesting how all the liberals are more concerned about
>> >fairness for people who were not born here than they are in the future
>> >well-being of American children.
>>
>> And the conservatives are more concerned with protection businesses
>> from regulation and higher wage costs. Don't try to make the
>> immigration thing a "liberal" issue, because it isn't. The biggest
>> increases in immigration occurred under Reagan.
>
>Huh? You're just deluded. You haven't looked at the numbers at
>all. Ever consider working for Enron? The 1990's were the time of greatest
>acceleration of sheer immigrant numbers, both legal and illegal, in this
>nation's history. That was mostly under Clinton's watch.
Actually not:
1981 to 1990 . . . . . . . 7,338 3.1 (734K per year, all Republican
administrations)
then add 3 years under Bush 1:
1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,536 6.1
1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,827 7.2
1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . 974 3.8
and you get 11.7 million over 13 years or 900K per year.
Now look at the Clinton years:
1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . 904 3.5
1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 3.1
1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 720 2.7
1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . 916 3.4
1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 3.0
1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 2.4
1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 647 2.4
2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 3.1
6.3 million over 8 years is under 800K per year, and no year more than
half as much as under Bush in 1991.
2001 under Bush 2 1064
higher than any of the Clinton years.
2002 numbers aren't out yet so far as I can tell.
The previous most
>stupid fiasco was the Mariel boatlift in 1980-81; thank Nobel Prize Winning
>Idiot Jimmy Carter!
How many illegals were legalized by the Reagan administration in 1986?
>Recent foreign born population numbers:
>
>1960 - 9,738,143
>1970 - 9,619,302
>1980 - 14,079,906
>1990 - 19,767,316
>2000 - 36,000,000*
>
>*Unconfirmed and still slightly fluctuating estimate.
The Census Bureau (where the other numbers came from) says 28.4
million.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign.html
>> >> >Got anything from the US Chamber of Commerce?
>> >>
>> >> I haven't read it but the search engine found it easily enough.
>> >> http://www.uschamber.com/government/issues/immigration/default
>> >>
>> >> Without reading it, I no idea what side of the issue they take.
>> >
>> >If American Express (actually American-Indian-Philippine Express) and
>Bank
>> >of America (actually Bank of America and India) along with a host of
>other
>> >US corporations with anti-American globalist notions are the US Chamber's
>> >primary source of membership dues, where would it be likely that they
>land
>> >on this issue?
>>
>> In other words, you are anti-big-business, but want to blame the
>> "liberals" for immigration. Hypocrite.
>
>I'm anti-globalization and a conservative. That's a position right in
>balance with maintaining traditional American culture, mores and values
>while being traditionally non-elitist Republican.
But you blame Clinton and "liberals" for the positions of the CATO
Institute and the Chamber of Commerce. What percentage of political
contributions by big business went to "liberals"?
>It also means I'm
>anti-forced-diversity, I believe that multiculturalism is cultural socialism
>and I think that the ACLU is a subversive, openly socialist group.
One of those who flashes the "s" word along with the "l" word. The
ACLU has no position on economic matters, so they can hardly be
socialist. Their thing is civil liberties. They are extremist at
time about those, but I've never heard of the Bill of Rights being a
"socialist" document.
>I read constantly...even liberal drivel to keep me on my toes...and I blow
>morons like you out of the water for fun. However, I am more than happy
>to split the blame equally between political parties for this immigration
>fiasco.
I don't see it above, when you lambast Carter and Clinton, when the
immigration waves took place under Reagan and the Bushes.
>> >Nice thoughts. But since Mexico's elite prefers using the U.S. as a relief
>> >valve, it cannot occur. Since the American pubic has been kept
>> >intentionally ignorant to the full range of costs associated with illegals,
>> >they wouldn't stand for such a "waste of taxpayer money."
>>
>> I daresay that the American public is far more aware of the costs of
>> immigration and illegals than they are with the benefits.
>
>First, please note that I said "the full range of costs." The "benefits"
>you tout are a product of and subject to opinion and interpretation,
So are the costs.
>while the costs are visible as line items,
Not the proportion due to immigration.
>they show up on property tax bills and
>they sometimes even show up in the unavailability of vaccines for my little
>girl. But those only scratch the surface of the full cost that illegals
>bring with them. Folks like me and Ferret and Roll and Cato and Icon
>all have our thinking caps on...we're getting the word out and we're all
>pretty upbeat about the prospects of making people like you miserable.
I'm hardly miserable. This isn't even my issue, and I think I hold my
own pretty well.
>The coolest thing is that Usenet is an obscure, predominately liberal place,
It is? Most people seem to think it is a predominantly libertarian
place.
>yet there are tons of folks expressing the need for reform and drastic
>action that would upset you a lot. My conversations in my community, the
>most liberal area of my state, indicate that there is a lot of support for
>curtailing legal and ending illegal immigration. I had figured that
>my informal surveys of my associates and neighbors would radically differ
>from the national polls that show 70% of Americans think your position is
>stupid. I've been pleasantly surprised time after time after time.
All in the poll wording.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imopi.html
>Your position on immigration issues has what we in political circles call
>"lost traction." Considering the volatile state of the world, the growing
>number of Joe Lunchbuckets waking up to full ramifications of immigrant
>invasion and the accompanying natural human defensive moves toward
>selectivity about the things for which people are willing to exhibit
>"tolerance" in times of stress, I'd guess that your goose is about to have
>its little plastic timer thingy in the fully popped-up position very soon.
The number of Joe Lunchbuckets in this country has been steadily
declining.
lojbab
Karen Kilty
"Mexican" problem strongly feel the need to speak.
My husband works with illegal Mexican people in a factory here in New
Jersey.
He comes home from work angry every day simply because he still "cares"
about the quality of the work that they all do, and he does the same job
the Mexican people there do. As it is a night shift and a long one 12
hours everybody gets tired not just the Americans. However, and I am
not exagerating at all here, the Mexican workers, mostly women, actually
lay down on the pallets and go to sleep while they are supposed to be
working just as he is. Now my husband is just another of the workers,
they all do the same job, however, since he is English speaking, he is
kind of "in charge" when they work since his employer only has l
American speaking person at a time on the shift. When I tell my husband
he does not accomplish anything by yelling at these people he gets mad
at me and tells me I don't "understand". Believe me, I do understand,
having worked with human beings for over 50 years myself. People are
people, some lazy some consencious.
But these people, unfortuntely, and I say this because I have tried my
whole life to overcome being predjudiced having been brought up as an
American born child in a German immigrant family, these people are just
plain lazy. If they are so tired they should sleep more during the day
or get a different job but no they are safe.
The employers know what is happening and just don't care because they
work without benefits, the illigals, and nobody will dare get rid of
them. Why is this allowed to be I ask?
They are "temps" working thru a "temp" agency, are happy to make their
$8 an hour, save their money for awhile and return to Mexico to as I
have heard "live like kings" till the money is gone and then come back
here again and do the same thing.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Tiny Human Ferret
Sure, the resources are finite.
However, an illegal alien in the US _consumes_ far more resources than an
illegal alien in rural and totally undeveloped areas.
Just from walking on a streetlit street, they consume more resources than
they would walking down an unlit dirt path.
Back in the undeveloped homeland, they're living on what their environment
produces for them, mostly; living in the US, they're yet another contributor
to the rape of the planet. Never forget that.
The best thing we can do for them is to assure them of a good and reliable
supply of birth-control.
>
>
>>The second Pilgrim off the boat doubled the colonists' population.
>>In the past 50 or so years, the population of our country has about
>>doubled. It is expected to about double again in the next 50 to
>>60 years. By 2100, the population is expected to be about
>>one billion. Forget percentages.
>
>
> Scare projections.
No, See http://www.census.gov/ for projections. Doug is off a bit, the
population will only be (probably, central projection) a bit over a
half-billion.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>
>>>Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The law requires that they be rounded up and deported? Cool, they get due
>>>>process in their deportation hearings.
>>>
>>>Also in the means used to find them and round them up. Pretty hard to
>>>find people who don't want to be found, without making mincemeat of
>>>constitutional rights.
>>
>>Not at all. The Constitution's checkas and balances are limits on the power
>>of the Government, not on the People; see also Amendments 9 and 10.
>>
>>We the People can get away with one hell of a lot more than can the
>>Government, especially when it comes to finding the people who don't want to
>>be found: when they're pissing on our sidewalks, breaking glass bottles
>>where our little children can be expected to play, blatantly shoplifting in
>>our stores.
>
>
> You have no more ability as a private citizen to determine whether a
> person is green carded or illegal than the government.
You'd think that the government would have more ability to determine
citizenship that the average joe!
> The government
> cannot ask without due cause, because otherwise they have no way to
> know whether they are asking citizens, immigrants, or illegals. If
> they do so based on accent or skin color that is unconstitutional
> ethnic profiling. If you do so as an employer, that is illegal
> discrimination.
This is absolute BILGE.
The law REQUIRES all employers to use specific types of documentation on a
standard Federal Form I-9 (also known as the "right to work in the USA" form).
And in the situation I described, the Citizen does not NEED to have the
ability to determine nationality; they've ARRESTED the person for a CRIME
that they themselves have witnessed.
Having arrested the person, they turn them over to the Sheriff or the
Justice of the Peace (police commissioner or clerk-of-court in some
jurisditions). At this point, the cops have every reasonable suspicion to
ask questions, such as address, etc., date of birth, ID, etc.
>
> As for those behaviors you criticize, plenty of native-born Americans
> do those things too. They can be arrested for doing them; you as a
> citizen can't do much of anything to them except call the police.
Maybe not in YOUR jurisdiction. In most US States, certainly all of those
along the border with Mexico, Citizen's Arrest is a defined power.
Legislation states for what crimes and under what circumstances these
arrests can be made, and procedure is described in detail. For instance, see
the Arizona statutes.
>>There's a hell of a lot of power in the Citizen's Arrest, and all you have
>>to do is have a legitimate charge for an offense that you have witnessd
>>personally, and you hold them for the sheriff or take them before an officer
>>of the courts and charge them.
>
>
> Whereupon the prosecutor decides to let them off because they have
> more important things to prosecute.
Maybe not. Part of the point was to get the individual's name on record, to
get them in front of the cops who have access to the information system that
can determine immigration or citizenship status.
>>At that point in time, whether or not they
>>wanted to be found, they're found all right.
>
>
> But you don't know they are illegal aliens. You're charging them with
> breaking other laws.
That's right. The COPS can find out their immigration/citizenship status.
>>And the system has to deal with
>>them, whether or not they wanted to look for them; as a citizen, you can
>>demand the equal protection of the laws, to wit, the prosecution of the
>>offender against your rights.
>
>
> Sorry, but there is no requirement that the government prosecute all
> people charged. And the offenses you describe aren't offenses against
> your personal rights in any event, but rather are simple lawbreaking.
> So is speeding. You want the world to start reporting you every time
> you exceed the speed limit and "demanding equal protection of the
> law".
I don't speed, scofflaw!
little_plantinga
<snip>
>
> The tradition FAVORS immigration. Remember the words on the Statue of
> Liberty, an emblem of our "tradition" if there ever was one.
Poetry should not be policy.
americankernel
news:735d1e05.03022...@posting.google.com...
Nor should any insipid blather written to win a contest...A CONTEST...to
determine the words that adorn that second-hand, burqua wearing,
piece-of-crap statue pawned off on us by the French. It was initially
intended to be a gift to Egypt, but they found it to be too tacky. They
were right.
Not only is it ugly and worthless, but Ms. Lazarus' words that adorn it have
somehow become more "gospel" about what it means to be American than the
words of our founders. Disgusting! I've even had second and third
generation Cubans in Miami claim to me that their parents and grandparents
had some "right" to come to America because our "Constitution" says "Give me
your poor, your tired, your huddled..." That's just sick and ignorant.
Unfortunately, it has proved to be a pervasive misconception held by many
immigrants, their kids and their grandkids. But butthead Bob here still
claims that they "all" assimilate. My ass they do!
It figures that the myths sold to the public in the P.T. Barnum-esque manner
as Bitch Liberty was would be gobbled up as facts by so many people. This
metal mistake's existence makes it so much easier these days for people to
become "Americans of convenience," as is sadly the case with almost all of
today's immigrants, than to truly learn about what this nation is all about.
That damned statue is the root of more revisionist history than anything
else that is or could ever possibly be conceived.
Proof? Well, it leads to having really ignorant people making stupid
statements like "the tradition FAVORS immigration," when historically, there
have been more years since our founding in which virtually zero immigrants
arrived than there have been years in which we had net gains. The last 40
years of immigration policy are doing the exact same things to this nation
that cancer does to a being.
We need not and we should not suffer fools who foment such crap lightly.
--
The American Kernel
Bob LeChevalier
>illegal alien in rural and totally undeveloped areas.
>
>Just from walking on a streetlit street, they consume more resources than
>they would walking down an unlit dirt path.
Really? And how is this? The street will be lit whether or not there
is an illegal alien walking on it, so the existence of the illegal
alien is irrelevant to resource consumption.
>Back in the undeveloped homeland, they're living on what their environment
>produces for them, mostly; living in the US, they're yet another contributor
>to the rape of the planet. Never forget that.
>
>The best thing we can do for them is to assure them of a good and reliable
>supply of birth-control.
The most reliable supply of birth control is education and employment.
When 3rd world countries raise education levels, their birthrate goes
down correspondingly.
>>>The second Pilgrim off the boat doubled the colonists' population.
>>>In the past 50 or so years, the population of our country has about
>>>doubled. It is expected to about double again in the next 50 to
>>>60 years. By 2100, the population is expected to be about
>>>one billion. Forget percentages.
>>
>>
>> Scare projections.
>
>No, See http://www.census.gov/ for projections. Doug is off a bit, the
>population will only be (probably, central projection) a bit over a
>half-billion.
The central projection assumes current rates. Economists believe that
current rates are a bubble that will decline within a dozen years due
to NAFTA. Such a decline is not factored into Census projections any
more than a change in immigration policy is factored into them.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Liberty, an emblem of our "tradition" if there ever was one.
>
>Poetry should not be policy.
But poetry can and does indicate "tradition", which is what the
question was.
If the poetry indicates the tradition, then current policy reflects
tradition (or perhaps is even more restrictive than tradition
requires).
lojbab