The Usual Suspects

[D-FENS]

White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
and another that would expand businesses’ ability to import foreign
workers instead of hiring qualified Americans.

The groups consulted over the larger immigration deals include:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Heritage Foundation
Association of Builders and Contractors
Faith and Freedom Coalition
Council on National Policy
George W. Bush Center
Select Milk Producers
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Libre Initiative
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/26/globalist-business-immigration-talks-white-house/

[kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT]

D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>
> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens

They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
"undocumented immigrants".

They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, and sure as
hell they don't look like E.T.

[D-FENS]

On 3/11/19 2:31 PM, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:
> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>
>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>
> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
> "undocumented immigrants".
>

> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, <snip>


"Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
Jul 30th, 2018 3 min read
COMMENTARY BY
Hans A. von Spakovsky
@HvonSpakovsky

Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including
civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.
Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and
extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.
Delpixart/Getty Images
Key Takeaways

“Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term used to
obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.

The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal
immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal
alien.”

The Justice Department has a constitutional duty to enforce the
immigration laws passed by Congress against illegal aliens.
Copied

The news media is reporting that an internal email at the Justice
Department has reminded its lawyers that the legally correct term they
should be using in their briefs is “illegal alien,” not the euphemism
“undocumented immigrant.”

The Justice Department leadership is correct. Illegal alien is the
correct legal term that should be used.

“Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term adopted
by pro-illegal alien advocacy groups and liberal media outlets to
obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law and
are in the country illegally.

Precision in the law is a vital principle, since the exact words used in
statutes, regulations, contracts, guidance documents, and policy
statements can significantly affect how they are applied and interpreted.

Federal immigration law uses the term “illegal alien.” For example, 8
U.S.C. §1365 is a provision that deals with a reimbursement program the
federal government has for states that are incarcerating illegal aliens.
Its very title refers to “illegal aliens,” and that term is used in the
statute itself, which defines an illegal alien as anyone “who is in the
United States unlawfully.”

“Alien”—rather than “immigrant”—is the correct legal term, since “alien”
is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a)(3) as “any person not a citizen or
national of the United States.”

The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal
immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal
alien.”

In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen pointed this out in his
decision granting an injunction against the implementation of President
Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful
Permanent Residents, the so-called DAPA program.

As Hanen said in a footnote:

The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the
population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The court
uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its
latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v.
U.S., 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).

Hanen was, of course, correct in his assessment. The Supreme Court used
the term “illegal alien” not only in that case, but in numerous prior
decisions, some of which are cited in Arizona v. U.S.

Under federal law, any individual in this country who is not a citizen
is an alien. And any alien who is here without permission is here
illegally. End of story.

But of course, the propaganda war in the public arena cares little for
facts and actual statutory language.

Pro-illegal alien groups, politicians who push “sanctuary” policies and
open borders, and protesters who want to abolish the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agency, want to persuade the American public that
those here illegally are no different than those who followed the rules
to come here lawfully.

Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and
extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.

Advocates for illegal aliens want to stifle debate by making the false
claim that if you are against “undocumented immigrants”—aka illegal
aliens—you must be a racist, a nativist, or someone who hates all
immigrants.

That is false and shameful demagoguery of the worst kind. The United
States is the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal
immigration. We take in more than 1 million legal immigrants a year—more
than any other country in the world.

But support for legal immigration doesn’t mean we must also support
illegal immigration. In fact, we have an obligation to prevent illegal
aliens from breaking our laws and entering our country surreptitiously.

The term “illegal alien” is neither dehumanizing, nor demeaning. It is
the precise legal term for those whose status in this country is unlawful.

President Ronald Reagan once said that “a nation that cannot control its
borders is not a nation.”

© 2019, The Heritage Foundation

[Kurt Schlichter]

D-FENS wrote

> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens

> and another that would expand businessesÉ T ability to import foreign

> workers instead of hiring qualified Americans.
>

Brietbart states that leftists like you are to blame and one day there will
be a final solution to your kind. The very fact that you are likely
decended from immigrants is proof that you represent filth and deserve to be
placed on the Presidential enemies watch list. Trump and the party should
have moved quickly when the time was right.

[zr1Z6⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛2kCZh]

D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 6:43 PM:

On 3/11/19 2:31 PM, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:

D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:

White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens

They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are "undocumented immigrants".

They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, <snip>

"Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law

May you digest this speech from JFK, then hang you head in shame, repent, and change your evil ways. Amen.

A Nation of Immigrants - JFK Address

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBVdpH51NyY

[Siri Cruise]

In article <q66o9o$klk$1...@dont-email.me>, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:

>Undocumented immigrant is a politically correct, made-up term used to
> obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.

Absent any conviction the correct term is alleged illegal immigrant. Which do
you prefer, alleged illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant?

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|¥
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / ¥
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[D-FENS]

The same open borders, pro-illegal alien lefturds who want more
immigrants are the same ones who want to rename Columbus Day to
Indigenous Peoples Day and consider Columbus and the Europeans to be
evil invaders who should go back to Europe and blah blah blah. It's
double plus bad to first steal the land from the indigenous peoples and
then to get self-righteous and start virtue signaling about how
wonderful you are for inviting even more invaders from even more other
parts of the planet to live on the stolen land that Columbus, Cortez,
and other invaders stole from the native Americans (sic). Kennedy's
"address" didn't give a green light for tens of millions of people to
come to the U.S to add insult to injury for the American Indians who
watch with tears in their eyes as their land is further destroyed by
invasive races whom the left give a pass to due to their preferred skin
pigmentation.

[D-FENS]

On 3/11/19 9:46 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <q66o9o$klk$1...@dont-email.me>, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:
>
>> Undocumented immigrant is a politically correct, made-up term used to
>> obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.
>
> Absent any conviction the correct term is alleged illegal immigrant. Which do
> you prefer, alleged illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant?
>

I use the terms "illegal alien" or "invader." "Enemy combatant" fits
for MS 13 gang members, along with the Boston Bombers and Sirhan Sirhan,
among others.

[NHpSY⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛fqkVF]

What you called "illegal aliens" are actually "undocumented immigrant" seeking asylum in the US.

You may call them "asylum seekers" if you so prefer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter (Live)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kl6q_9qZOs

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

— Proverbs 31:8-9

Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.

— Proverbs 22:22-23

A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.

— Proverbs 11:25

It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.

— Proverbs 14:21

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

— Proverbs 14:31

Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done.

— Proverbs 19:17

The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.

— Proverbs 22:9

Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.

— Proverbs 28:27

[Siri Cruise]

In article <q676ov$qd2$2...@dont-email.me>, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:

> On 3/11/19 9:46 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <q66o9o$klk$1...@dont-email.me>, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Undocumented immigrant is a politically correct, made-up term used to
> >> obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.
> >
> > Absent any conviction the correct term is alleged illegal immigrant. Which
> > do
> > you prefer, alleged illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant?
> >
>
> I use the terms "illegal alien" or "invader." "Enemy combatant" fits

So you want to trash the Bill of Right. Quel surprize.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <aFFhE.18910$nk7....@fx16.ams1>,

NHpSY?ũ ? ?????? ??????? ? Ů?fqkVF <8Q...@SegXy.com> wrote:

> What you called "illegal aliens" are actually "undocumented immigrant"
> seeking asylum in the US.

Not always.

[D-FENS]

On 3/11/19 11:03 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <q676ov$qd2$2...@dont-email.me>, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/19 9:46 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <q66o9o$klk$1...@dont-email.me>, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Undocumented immigrant is a politically correct, made-up term used to
>>>> obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.
>>>
>>> Absent any conviction the correct term is alleged illegal immigrant. Which
>>> do
>>> you prefer, alleged illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant?
>>>
>>
>> I use the terms "illegal alien" or "invader." "Enemy combatant" fits
>
> So you want to trash the Bill of Right. Quel surprize.
>

No, I'm exercising my right to freedom of expression / freedom of speech
as per the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/11/2019 3:43 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/11/19 2:31 PM, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:
>> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>>
>>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>>
>> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
>> "undocumented immigrants".
>>
>> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, <snip>
>
>
> "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law

False. "Illegal alien" is satisfying to some, but it's completely
inaccurate. "Illegal" is an adjective that has to modify a noun. The only
noun with it is "alien". A *person* cannot be illegal - impossible. What
is illegal, or preferably "unlawful", is the person's presence. It makes
perfect grammatical and legal sense to refer to an "unlawfully present
alien". It makes no sense at all to talk about an "illegal alien"; it just
appeals to your white supremacist shit-stained mentality.

And don't ever forget: unlawful presence is not a crime.

[Michael A Terrell]

On 3/11/2019 10:04 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <aFFhE.18910$nk7....@fx16.ams1>,

> NHpSY?Å© ? ?????? ??????? ? Å®?fqkVF <8Q...@SegXy.com> wrote:
>
>> What you called "illegal aliens" are actually "undocumented immigrant"
>> seeking asylum in the US.
>
> Not always.
>

Seldom.

[D-FENS]

On 3/11/19 10:45 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/11/2019 3:43 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>> On 3/11/19 2:31 PM, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT
>> wrote:
>>> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>>>
>>>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>>>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>>>
>>> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
>>> "undocumented immigrants".
>>>
>>> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, <snip>
>>
>>
>> "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
>
> False.  "Illegal alien" is satisfying to some, but it's completely
> inaccurate.

False.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illegal-alien

illegal alien
[ih-lee-guh l eyl-yuh n, ey-lee-uh n]
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR illegal alien ON THESAURUS.COM
noun Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or
without the country's authorization.
a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa,
especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who
overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or
businessperson. Compare resident alien.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/11/2019 10:15 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/11/19 10:45 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/11/2019 3:43 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>>> On 3/11/19 2:31 PM, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:
>>>> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>>>>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>>>>
>>>> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
>>>> "undocumented immigrants".
>>>>
>>>> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
>>
>> False.  "Illegal alien" is satisfying to some, but it's completely
>> inaccurate.
>
> False.
>
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illegal-alien

No. As a matter of simple linguistics, "illegal alien" makes no sense at
all. It's just wrong. We all know what it's intended to mean, but it's
wrong. Wrong expressions, used by semi-literate fuckwits like you, come
into existence all the time, and if they're around for long enough, they
might even make it into dictionaries, because dictionaries are no longer
prescriptive, as they once were (and should still be) - they now are only
descriptive, and because illiterate fuckwits like you are too numerous,
dictionaries now describe your wrong speech. But it's still wrong.

No such thing as "illegal alien" - the alien is not illegal, his presence is.

Unlawful presence is not a crime. You acknowledge this.

[D-FENS]

On 3/11/19 11:26 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Unlawful presence is not a crime.  You acknowledge this.

I do? I did not know that. As George Orwell so presciently wrote in
his classic book, 1984, "Big Brother" would use "newspeak" to severely
limit the vocabulary of the oppressed masses in order to limit their
ability to communicate ideas not sanctioned by the police state.
Obviously, you are a tool for Big Brother to carry out this agenda as
per your repeated parroting of the meme that "illegal alien" is not a
construct of two words. You think that if you repeatedly parrot the
meme or trope that "illegal alien" is not a real construct, then you
will prevail. Your next trick will be to use "followup to
alt.fucknozzles" and then use sock puppets to further your
anti-American, anti-white agenda.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/11/2019 10:54 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/11/19 11:26 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Unlawful presence is not a crime.  You acknowledge this.
>
> I do?

Yep.

> I did not know that.

There's lots of shit you do that you don't realize you're doing. This is
just one more.

Unlawful presence is not a crime. That's a fact.

Go fuck yourself, goober.

[D-FENS]

On 3/12/19 12:02 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Unlawful presence is not a crime.  That's a fact.

The words under discussion were / are "illegal alien(s)", not "unlawful
presence." Very lame of you to change the words and then act as if
you've won some major victory by saying some entirely different word
construct is not "a crime."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/11/2019 11:19 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/12/19 12:02 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Unlawful presence is not a crime.  That's a fact.
>
> The words under discussion were / are "illegal alien(s)",

Which are, of course, a nonsense. The persons can't be illegal. Their
presence can be, but, note once again:

*Unlawful presence is not a crime*

That's a fact.

[D-FENS]

On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*

It depends on the definition of "unlawful." You are an anarchist,
obviously.

--
http://globalgulag.us/

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/11/2019 11:55 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*
>
> It depends on the definition of "unlawful."

No, it doesn't. In *no* case is unlawful presence a crime - never.
Illegal entry is, but unlawful presence is not. This is an
incontrovertible fact. Someone who is unlawfully present /may/ have
entered illegally, but maybe not. The large majority of those who are
unlawfully present entered the country legally, on a valid visa.

You have to accommodate yourself to this fact - the fact will not
accommodate you.

[jane....@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:31:13 PM UTC-4, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:
> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
> >
> > White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
> > month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>
> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
> "undocumented immigrants".
>
> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, and sure as
> hell they don't look like E.T.
>

.

They ARE aliens. You simply do not know the origin and definition of the word:

c. 1300, "strange, foreign," from Old French alien "strange, foreign;" as a noun, "an alien, stranger, foreigner," from Latin alienus "of or belonging to another, not one's own, foreign, strange," also, as a noun, "a stranger, foreigner,"

c 1400, "foreigner, citizen of a foreign land,"

c 1500, "residing in a country not of one's birth"


Meaning "residing in a country not of one's birth" is from mid-15c. Sense of "wholly different in nature" is from 1670s. Meaning "not of this Earth" first recorded 1920. An alien priory (c. 1500) is one owing obedience to a mother abbey in a foreign country.

[D-FENS]

Thus you concede you lost the debate over the term "illegal alien." Good.

--
http://globalgulag.us/

[E7feN⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛15U36]

What Rudy is trying to tell you is that it is illogical to use the term
"illegal alien", because it is illogical too say "illegal table",
"illegal chair", "illegal cup", "illegal spoon","illegal horse", .....

Hope that helps.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/12/2019 4:52 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:31:13 PM UTC-4, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:
>> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>>
>>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>>
>> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
>> "undocumented immigrants".
>>
>> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, and sure as
>> hell they don't look like E.T.
>

> They ARE aliens. You simply do not know the origin and definition of the word:

"Alien" is a legal term defined in 8 U.S. Code § 1101: The term “alien”
means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

On the other hand, "illegal" shouldn't be used to describe a person. It
should be used to describe an act. The phrase "undocumented immigrant"
is also a bad because it makes it sound like the person is authorized to
be here and it's just that their paperwork is lost in the mail.

I think the best description is "unauthorized alien."

[D-FENS]

How about "illegal drug" or "illegal contraband"? Try bringing heroin
into Thailand or Turkey while claiming that a drug can't be illegal.

The extreme left, open-borders, pro-wetback types have been trying for
decades to claim that no law has been broken, no crime has been
committed, when someone enters the U.S. by sneaking across the border
instead of going through a port of entry. Rudy is fooling no one with
his word games. He openly states that having a border is, in his
opinion, "racist" and "white supremacist". He is blatantly anti-white,
anti-American and is transparently responsible for the hundreds of
filthy, lying, posts written by a clearly mentally ill, deranged person,
that have plagued this and other newsgroups for over a year. As soon as
he started posting in alt.politics.trump, the loony tunes robo-posts
followed. When he wants attention, they stop. When he couldn't win on
the topic of illegal aliens, he shifted the discussion to "unlawful
presence." We have a nation and, as a nation, we can decide who can or
cannot legally enter through our borders.

Try going to Mexico without a valid passport and proof of medical
insurance. You need a passport to go through a port of entry, upon
arrival at an airport and when checking in a hotel. Mexico would never
take anyone seriously who claimed no one is an illegal alien as far as
an American coming to Mexico. Only mentally deranged leftists play
these word games, and only Americans do it. Try flying to any other
country in the world and see if they would let someone using Rudy's
"logic" talk themselves past customs with nonsense about "no one is
illegal". Nope, won't work. You have to have a passport and look like
you have visible means of support. Your own country, Canada, was
notorious for tearing cars apart, looking for contraband drugs.
Recently, they've become infected with political correctness and now
allow thousands of Haitians and other economic refugees free access to
Canada in a show of virtue signaling and as a statement against Trump.
Canadians will live to regret this lapse in judgment.




--
http://globalgulag.us/

'War is when your government tells you who the enemy is.
A revolution is when you figure it out yourself.'

“Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America.
Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States.
Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within,
every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIALWATCH

[Rudy Canoza]

No, I won that debate, hands down - no contest at all. The alien is not
illegal - his presence is. You lost. Get over it, or fuck off. Better
still: get over it *and* fuck off, you shit-4-braincell loser.

[D-FENS]

As soon as you pulled your followup to alt.fucknozzles, you lost the
"debate." You may as well be arguing that a TV Dinner is not a TV or
that a rocket scientist is not a rocket, or that a step-mother is not a
step. Take your clown show somewhere else.

"Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law

Jul 30th, 2018 3 min read
COMMENTARY BY
Hans A. von Spakovsky
@HvonSpakovsky

Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including
civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.
Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and
extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.
Delpixart/Getty Images
Key Takeaways

“Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term used to

obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law.

The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal
immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal
alien.”

The Justice Department has a constitutional duty to enforce the
immigration laws passed by Congress against illegal aliens.
Copied

The news media is reporting that an internal email at the Justice
Department has reminded its lawyers that the legally correct term they
should be using in their briefs is “illegal alien,” not the euphemism
“undocumented immigrant.”

The Justice Department leadership is correct. Illegal alien is the
correct legal term that should be used.

“Undocumented immigrant” is a politically correct, made-up term adopted
by pro-illegal alien advocacy groups and liberal media outlets to
obscure the fact that such aliens have violated U.S. immigration law and
are in the country illegally.

Precision in the law is a vital principle, since the exact words used in
statutes, regulations, contracts, guidance documents, and policy
statements can significantly affect how they are applied and interpreted.

Federal immigration law uses the term “illegal alien.” For example, 8
U.S.C. §1365 is a provision that deals with a reimbursement program the
federal government has for states that are incarcerating illegal aliens.
Its very title refers to “illegal aliens,” and that term is used in the
statute itself, which defines an illegal alien as anyone “who is in the
United States unlawfully.”

“Alien”—rather than “immigrant”—is the correct legal term, since “alien”
is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a)(3) as “any person not a citizen or
national of the United States.”

The Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal
immigration law, also uses the correct, precise legal term of “illegal
alien.”

In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen pointed this out in his
decision granting an injunction against the implementation of President
Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful
Permanent Residents, the so-called DAPA program.

As Hanen said in a footnote:

The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the
population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The court
uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its
latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v.
U.S., 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).

Hanen was, of course, correct in his assessment. The Supreme Court used
the term “illegal alien” not only in that case, but in numerous prior
decisions, some of which are cited in Arizona v. U.S.

Under federal law, any individual in this country who is not a citizen
is an alien. And any alien who is here without permission is here
illegally. End of story.

But of course, the propaganda war in the public arena cares little for
facts and actual statutory language.

Pro-illegal alien groups, politicians who push “sanctuary” policies and
open borders, and protesters who want to abolish the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agency, want to persuade the American public that
those here illegally are no different than those who followed the rules
to come here lawfully.

Using terms like “undocumented immigrant” is intended to blur and
extinguish the line between legal and illegal immigration.

Advocates for illegal aliens want to stifle debate by making the false
claim that if you are against “undocumented immigrants”—aka illegal
aliens—you must be a racist, a nativist, or someone who hates all
immigrants.

That is false and shameful demagoguery of the worst kind. The United
States is the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal
immigration. We take in more than 1 million legal immigrants a year—more
than any other country in the world.

But support for legal immigration doesn’t mean we must also support
illegal immigration. In fact, we have an obligation to prevent illegal
aliens from breaking our laws and entering our country surreptitiously.

The term “illegal alien” is neither dehumanizing, nor demeaning. It is
the precise legal term for those whose status in this country is unlawful.

President Ronald Reagan once said that “a nation that cannot control its
borders is not a nation.”

© 2019, The Heritage Foundation

[K7oZD⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛Pbppu]

D-FENS wrote on 3/12/2019 4:13 PM:
> On 3/12/19 12:56 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/12/2019 7:03 AM, D-FENS wrote:
>>> On 3/12/19 1:04 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2019 11:55 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on the definition of "unlawful."
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't.  In *no* case is unlawful presence a crime - never.
>>>> Illegal entry is, but unlawful presence is not.  This is an
>>>> incontrovertible fact.  Someone who is unlawfully present /may/
>>>> have entered illegally, but maybe not.  The large majority of those
>>>> who are unlawfully present entered the country legally, on a valid
>>>> visa.
>>>>
>>>> You have to accommodate yourself to this fact - the fact will not
>>>> accommodate you.
>>>
>>> Thus you concede you lost the debate over the term "illegal alien."
>>
>> No, I won that debate, hands down - no contest at all.  The alien is
>> not illegal - his presence is.  You lost.  Get over it, or fuck off. 
>> Better still:  get over it *and* fuck off, you shit-4-braincell loser.
>
> As soon as you pulled your followup to alt.fucknozzles, you lost the
> "debate."  You may as well be arguing that a TV Dinner is not a TV or
> that a rocket scientist is not a rocket, or that a step-mother is not
> a step.  Take your clown show somewhere else.
>

Everybody under the sun is presumed innocent until proven guilt in a
court of law.

The word "alien" itself has a negative connotation. That is a hateful
word to describe someone who is seeking asylum.

By using the term "illegal alien" to describe someone, you have
arbitrarily convicted a person that you don't like, and know nothing
about. That's why "undocumented immigrant" is the correct terminology.

If you insist on using the word "illegal", then consider using the term
"suspected illegal presence".

Hope that helps.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/12/2019 1:13 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/12/19 12:56 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/12/2019 7:03 AM, D-FENS wrote:
>>> On 3/12/19 1:04 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2019 11:55 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on the definition of "unlawful."
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't.  In *no* case is unlawful presence a crime - never.
>>>> Illegal entry is, but unlawful presence is not.  This is an
>>>> incontrovertible fact.  Someone who is unlawfully present /may/ have
>>>> entered illegally, but maybe not.  The large majority of those who are
>>>> unlawfully present entered the country legally, on a valid visa.
>>>>
>>>> You have to accommodate yourself to this fact - the fact will not
>>>> accommodate you.
>>>
>>> Thus you concede you lost the debate over the term "illegal alien."
>>
>> No, I won that debate, hands down - no contest at all.  The alien is not
>> illegal - his presence is.  You lost.  Get over it, or fuck off.  Better
>> still:  get over it *and* fuck off, you shit-4-braincell loser.
>
> As soon as

Bullshit.

>
>
> "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law

False.

"Illegal alien" is a nonsense.

[Steve is offline now]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:38:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 3/12/2019 4:52 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:31:13 PM UTC-4, kI7Na?? ? ?????? ??????? ? ??lnArT wrote:
>>> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>>>
>>>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>>>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>>>
>>> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
>>> "undocumented immigrants".
>>>
>>> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, and sure as
>>> hell they don't look like E.T.
>>
>> They ARE aliens. You simply do not know the origin and definition of the word:
>

>"Alien" is a legal term defined in 8 U.S. Code §?1101: The term “alien”

>means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
>
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
>
>On the other hand, "illegal" shouldn't be used to describe a person. It
>should be used to describe an act. The phrase "undocumented immigrant"
>is also a bad because it makes it sound like the person is authorized to
>be here and it's just that their paperwork is lost in the mail.
>
>I think the best description is "unauthorized alien."

I think "illegals" describes them better.

[D-FENS]

On 3/12/19 3:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/12/2019 1:13 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>> On 3/12/19 12:56 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2019 7:03 AM, D-FENS wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/19 1:04 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2019 11:55 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on the definition of "unlawful."
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't.  In *no* case is unlawful presence a crime - never.
>>>>> Illegal entry is, but unlawful presence is not.  This is an
>>>>> incontrovertible fact.  Someone who is unlawfully present /may/
>>>>> have entered illegally, but maybe not.  The large majority of those
>>>>> who are unlawfully present entered the country legally, on a valid
>>>>> visa.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to accommodate yourself to this fact - the fact will not
>>>>> accommodate you.
>>>>
>>>> Thus you concede you lost the debate over the term "illegal alien."
>>>
>> No, I won that debate, hands down - no contest at all.  The alien is
>> not illegal - his presence is.  You lost.  Get over it, or fuck off.
>> Better still:  get over it *and* fuck off, you shit-4-braincell loser.
>

> Bullshit.
>

Now you're talking, to yourself.

>>
>>
>> "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
>
> False.

Cites?

[D-FENS]

ce

Not Donald Trump, apparently. Robert Mueller has been digging for any
crime he can find to pin on the President since the inauguration.

>
> The word "alien" itself has a negative connotation. That is a hateful
> word to describe someone who is seeking asylum.

Every migrant coming across the border is now seeking asylum, having
been coached by "immigrant rights activists", often funded by George
Soros, on just what to say to exploit the system set up for people who
are truly in fear for their lives, not economic migrants. Note that
South African whites are never given asylum, despite their much more
dire circumstances than the people from Central America. It's a sad
comment on Central America and Mexico that 100 percent of the people
sneaking across the border are in fear of their lives in those
countries. Despite the fact that people from those countries claim to
live in a living Hell, "liberals" and "progressives" in the U.S. and
Canada dream of the day when Hispanics outnumber non-Hispanic whites so
they can turn the U.S. into a carbon copy replica of El Salvador.

>
> By using the term "illegal alien" to describe someone, you have
> arbitrarily convicted a person that you don't like, and know nothing
> about.

No I haven't. I'm not a judge or a cop. What words I use in this
newsgroup doesn't result in a criminal conviction of someone. Get real.

> That's why "undocumented immigrant" is the correct terminology.

That's like saying you should use the term "making love" instead of
"copulating" or "fucking." They all refer to the same act. Some people
think it's "nicer" to say you "slept with" someone rather than that you
"had sex with" or "copulated" with someone. At the end of the day, they
all describe the same thing.

So it's "nicer" to call a person who illegally entered the U.S. a "new
arrival" or "immigrant" than using the nasty, hateful, racist, bigoted
term that offends you or Rudy -- but at the end of the day, you just
want to sugar coat the reality that they are an illegal alien. I would
think a person of your years in the world would realize that life is
often nasty, brutish, and people say things that aren't nice or
pleasant. I would think that a person truly seeking refuge from the
MS-13 gangs in Central America would hope and pray that Trump keeps
those gangs out of the U.S., instead of not wanting to call the Mara
Salvatruchas mean names, like "aliens" or something "offensive." When
over 60 percent of the migrant women are raped coming through Mexico, it
might give the lugenpresse pause when the get all bent out of shape
because Trump called Mexicans "rapists."

>
> If you insist on using the word "illegal", then consider using the term
> "suspected illegal presence".
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
>
>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/12/2019 3:47 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/12/19 3:32 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/12/2019 1:13 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>>> On 3/12/19 12:56 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2019 7:03 AM, D-FENS wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/19 1:04 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/11/2019 11:55 PM, D-FENS wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It depends on the definition of "unlawful."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't.  In *no* case is unlawful presence a crime - never.
>>>>>> Illegal entry is, but unlawful presence is not.  This is an
>>>>>> incontrovertible fact.  Someone who is unlawfully present /may/ have
>>>>>> entered illegally, but maybe not.  The large majority of those who
>>>>>> are unlawfully present entered the country legally, on a valid visa.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to accommodate yourself to this fact - the fact will not
>>>>>> accommodate you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus you concede you lost the debate over the term "illegal alien."
>>>>
>>> No, I won that debate, hands down - no contest at all.  The alien is not
>>> illegal - his presence is.  You lost.  Get over it, or fuck off. Better
>>> still:  get over it *and* fuck off, you shit-4-braincell loser.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>>
>>>

>>> "Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
>>
>> False.
>
> Cites?

Sorry - your claim, your burden. Fuck off with your "cites", you bitch faggot.

[Rudy Canoza]

Trump has committed hundreds if not thousands of crimes. He has not been
convicted for any of them - yet. Be patient.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/12/2019 1:06 PM, D-FENS wrote:
> On 3/12/19 12:56 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> No, I won that debate, hands down - no contest at all.  The alien is not
>> illegal - his presence is.
>

> The term illegal alien

Is a nonsense. Yes.

[D-FENS]

Interpretation, you can't back up your bullshit lie and you respond with
the kind of gutter language that someone who has spent a lot of time
behind bars would use. I might be a lot of things, but "bitch faggot"
isn't one of them. You're projecting.

[Rudy Canoza]

None needed. Your claim, which is nothing more than the opinion of a
knuckle-dragging fuckstain, is bullshit.

[D-FENS]

That's ripe coming from the same Rudy Canoza who joined the chorus of
haters who wanted the Covington Boys doxed and their families lives
ruined because you were certain they were white supremacists and picked
on the poor American Indian and those Black Isrealis who were calling
them faggots and products of incest. How is your pal Jussie Smollet
liking his time behind bars? You have no honor or decency. Fuck you.

[Rudy Canoza]

That's bullshit, you squat-to-piss homo. I did no such thing. Come say
that to my face, cocksucker, and you'll be shitting your teeth about five
hours later.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/11/2019 11:55 PM, D-FENS wrote:

> On 3/12/19 12:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> *Unlawful presence is not a crime*
>
> It depends on

It doesn't "depend on" anything, shit-4-braincell faggot. It just isn't a
crime, full stop.

[jane....@gmail.com]

.

I agree completely.

The term "unauthorized alien" is like calling a thief an "unauthorized customer".

The real issue is not the terminology; the real issue is,

What is the motivation of those who want to change the terminology?

[David Hartung]

No matter the language used to describe those who enter this country in
violation of our law, until the public discussion differentiates between
those aliens who enter and remain legally, and those who enter and
remain illeglly, we will make no progress.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/15/2019 5:35 AM, fucking Google Groups spammer bullshitted:

> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 6:21:22 PM UTC-4, Steve is offline now wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:38:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2019 4:52 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:31:13 PM UTC-4, kI7Na?? ? ?????? ??????? ? ??lnArT wrote:
>>>>> D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last
>>>>>> month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
>>>>>
>>>>> They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are
>>>>> "undocumented immigrants".
>>>>>
>>>>> They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, and sure as
>>>>> hell they don't look like E.T.
>>>>
>>>> They ARE aliens. You simply do not know the origin and definition of the word:
>>>
>>> "Alien" is a legal term defined in 8 U.S. Code §?1101: The term “alien”
>>> means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
>>>
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
>>>
>>> On the other hand, "illegal" shouldn't be used to describe a person. It
>>> should be used to describe an act. The phrase "undocumented immigrant"
>>> is also a bad because it makes it sound like the person is authorized to
>>> be here and it's just that their paperwork is lost in the mail.
>>>
>>> I think the best description is "unauthorized alien."
>>
>> I think "illegals" describes them better.
> .
>
> I agree completely.

No, it's stupid. That is turning an adjective into a noun. It's something
only illiterates do.

>
> The term "unauthorized alien" is like calling a thief an "unauthorized customer".

Nope. Not at all the same. Stealing is a crime. Unlawful presence is
not. The thief isn't a customer at all. A customer is someone who pays
for the merchandise or service. Right-wingnuts make a big fuss trying to
restrict the word "immigrant" to mean only those who have lawfully entered
the country and settled in it. It doesn't have that restrictive meaning.
An immigrant is any foreigner who has entered the country and settled in
it, whether lawfully or not. That's what an immigrant is.

>
> What is the motivation of those who want to change the terminology?

To stop demonizing people.

[Rudy Canoza]

Such a distinction already exists.

[David Hartung]

Then why is it that those who wish to get a handle on illegal entry, are
accused of hating all immigrants?

[David Hartung]

But illegal entry is.

> The thief isn't a customer at all.  A customer is someone who pays
> for the merchandise or service.  Right-wingnuts make a big fuss trying
> to restrict the word "immigrant" to mean only those who have lawfully
> entered the country and settled in it.  It doesn't have that restrictive
> meaning. An immigrant is any foreigner who has entered the country and
> settled in it, whether lawfully or not.  That's what an immigrant is.

You have just proven my point. To call one who illegally enters any
country an immigrant rather than an illegal alien, is to try and
dishonestly give the law breaker legitimacy.

>> What is the motivation of those who want to change the terminology?
>
> To stop demonizing people.

Those who are in the country illegally need to be called what they are,
illegal aliens.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/15/2019 7:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/15/2019 5:35 AM, fucking Google Groups spammer bullshitted:
>> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 6:21:22 PM UTC-4, Steve is offline now
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:38:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

{snip}

>>>> I think the best description is "unauthorized alien."
>>>
>>> I think "illegals" describes them better.
>> .
>>
>> I agree completely.
>
> No, it's stupid.  That is turning an adjective into a noun.  It's
> something only illiterates do.
>
>> The term "unauthorized alien" is like calling a thief an "unauthorized
>> customer".

In addition to Rudy's comments below about your misuse of the word
customer, we don't refer to a thief as an "illegal customer" or "an
illegal" either. I'm not sure of we refer to any criminal as an illegal.

> Nope.  Not at all the same.  Stealing is a crime.  Unlawful presence is
> not.  The thief isn't a customer at all.  A customer is someone who pays
> for the merchandise or service.  Right-wingnuts make a big fuss trying
> to restrict the word "immigrant" to mean only those who have lawfully
> entered the country and settled in it.  It doesn't have that restrictive
> meaning. An immigrant is any foreigner who has entered the country and
> settled in it, whether lawfully or not.  That's what an immigrant is.

That's a good point. For someone who is lawfully present in the
country, they are called an "immigrant" only when they get their green
card. Until such time, they have a temporary visa implying they haven't
settled here permanently. When should we consider someone who is
unlawfully settled here permanently?

>> What is the motivation of those who want to change the terminology?
>
> To stop demonizing people.

Exactly. However in addition, the phrase "undocumented immigrant"
should not be used because it is an inaccurate euphemism that implies
the person is a legal immigrant who is merely waiting for the
bureaucracy to finish his paperwork.

[Rudy Canoza]

For the same reason you and your side accuse those who advocate for less
aggressive action against unauthorized immigrants of being in favor of
"open borders". It's dirty politics - political slander. Your side is
just as bad, and you support it.

[Rudy Canoza]

Irrelevant. That does nothing to salvage fake "jane's" bullshit false
equivalence above.

>> The thief isn't a customer at all.  A customer is someone who pays for
>> the merchandise or service.  Right-wingnuts make a big fuss trying to
>> restrict the word "immigrant" to mean only those who have lawfully
>> entered the country and settled in it.  It doesn't have that restrictive
>> meaning. An immigrant is any foreigner who has entered the country and
>> settled in it, whether lawfully or not.  That's what an immigrant is.
>
> You have just proven my point. To call one who illegally enters any country
> an immigrant rather than an illegal alien, is to try and dishonestly give
> the law breaker legitimacy.

I've disproved your point, of course. The person is still an immigrant -
he came from a foreign country and settled here. That's an immigrant. His
presence is unlawful, but "unauthorized immigrant" captures that status
just fine. Also, a visa overstay who has settled didn't enter the country
illegally, but his status is the same as someone who did.

>>> What is the motivation of those who want to change the terminology?
>>
>> To stop demonizing people.
>
> Those who are in the country illegally need to be called what they are,

They are: unauthorized immigrants.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/15/2019 8:09 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 3/15/2019 7:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/15/2019 5:35 AM, fucking Google Groups spammer bullshitted:
>>> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 6:21:22 PM UTC-4, Steve is offline now wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:38:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
>>>>> I think the best description is "unauthorized alien."
>>>>
>>>> I think "illegals" describes them better.
>>> .
>>>
>>> I agree completely.
>>
>> No, it's stupid.  That is turning an adjective into a noun.  It's
>> something only illiterates do.
>>
>>> The term "unauthorized alien" is like calling a thief an "unauthorized
>>> customer".
>
> In addition to Rudy's comments below about your misuse of the word
> customer, we don't refer to a thief as an "illegal customer" or "an
> illegal" either.  I'm not sure of we refer to any criminal as an illegal.

We don't. "Illegal" is not a noun - full stop. In addition, using it as
an adjective to describe a person is simply grammatically incorrect. Some
aspect of a person - his action, his presence - can be illegal, but not the
person himself.

>
>> Nope.  Not at all the same.  Stealing is a crime.  Unlawful presence is
>> not.  The thief isn't a customer at all.  A customer is someone who pays
>> for the merchandise or service.  Right-wingnuts make a big fuss trying to
>> restrict the word "immigrant" to mean only those who have lawfully
>> entered the country and settled in it.  It doesn't have that restrictive
>> meaning. An immigrant is any foreigner who has entered the country and
>> settled in it, whether lawfully or not.  That's what an immigrant is.
>
> That's a good point.  For someone who is lawfully present in the country,
> they are called an "immigrant" only when they get their green card.  Until
> such time, they have a temporary visa implying they haven't settled here
> permanently.  When should we consider someone who is unlawfully settled
> here permanently?

It's fine to have a legal distinction in official immigration laws and
regulations. That doesn't invalidate the usage in the vernacular. It's
worth noting that "illegal alien" does not appear in federal law.

>
>>> What is the motivation of those who want to change the terminology?
>>
>> To stop demonizing people.
>
> Exactly.  However in addition, the phrase "undocumented immigrant" should
> not be used because it is an inaccurate euphemism that implies the person
> is a legal immigrant who is merely waiting for the bureaucracy to finish
> his paperwork.

A fair point. I would substitute "unauthorized" for "undocumented".

[Anonymous Reactionary]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:25:56 -0400, "NHpSY⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚
𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛fqkVF" wrote:

> What you called "illegal aliens" are actually "undocumented immigrant"
> seeking asylum in the US.
>
> You may call them "asylum seekers" if you so prefer.

How about we call them 'invaders'?

> — Proverbs 31:8-9

Your lies are the same as those of your father: Satan.

"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and
especially for their own household, has denied the faith
and is worse than an unbeliever."
- 1 Timothy 5:8

"It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it
to the dogs."
- Matthew 15:26

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to
dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined
the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation."
- Acts 17:26

[jane....@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 1:37:34 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/15/2019 8:09 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On 3/15/2019 7:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> On 3/15/2019 5:35 AM, fucking Google Groups spammer bullshitted:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 6:21:22 PM UTC-4, Steve is offline now wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:38:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > {snip}
> >
> >>>>> I think the best description is "unauthorized alien."
> >>>>
> >>>> I think "illegals" describes them better.
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> I agree completely.
> >>
> >> No, it's stupid.  That is turning an adjective into a noun.  It's
> >> something only illiterates do.
> >>
> >>> The term "unauthorized alien" is like calling a thief an "unauthorized
> >>> customer".
> >
> > In addition to Rudy's comments below about your misuse of the word
> > customer, we don't refer to a thief as an "illegal customer" or "an
> > illegal" either.  I'm not sure of we refer to any criminal as an illegal.

> It's worth noting that "illegal alien" does not appear in federal law.
>

.

Yes it does. Federal law provides for reimbursement to state for expense incurred while detaining an "illegal alien".

You should do your homework before making false presumptions.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/15/2019 10:37 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/15/2019 8:09 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 3/15/2019 7:46 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

{snip}

>>> Right-wingnuts make a big
>>> fuss trying to restrict the word "immigrant" to mean only those who
>>> have lawfully entered the country and settled in it.  It doesn't have
>>> that restrictive meaning. An immigrant is any foreigner who has
>>> entered the country and settled in it, whether lawfully or not.
>>> That's what an immigrant is.
>>
>> That's a good point.  For someone who is lawfully present in the
>> country, they are called an "immigrant" only when they get their green
>> card.  Until such time, they have a temporary visa implying they
>> haven't settled here permanently.  When should we consider someone who
>> is unlawfully settled here permanently?
>
> It's fine to have a legal distinction in official immigration laws and
> regulations.  That doesn't invalidate the usage in the vernacular.  It's
> worth noting that "illegal alien" does not appear in federal law.

Aside from the law, I would not refer to someone here on a student or
worker's visa as an immigrant. So in the vernacular, when does an
unlawfully present person cross from being an alien to an immigrant?

[U7p2Q⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛e2Y2l]

Anonymous Reactionary wrote on 3/15/2019 2:00 PM:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:25:56 -0400, "NHpSY⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚
𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛fqkVF" wrote:

What you called "illegal aliens" are actually "undocumented immigrant"
seeking asylum in the US.

You may call them "asylum seekers" if you so prefer.

How about we call them 'invaders'?

May the good Lord have mercy on your soul, but I doubt it.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

— Proverbs 31:8-9

Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.

— Proverbs 22:22-23

A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.

— Proverbs 11:25

It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.

— Proverbs 14:21

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

— Proverbs 14:31

Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done.

— Proverbs 19:17

The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.

— Proverbs 22:9

Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.

— Proverbs 28:27

[David Hartung]

Ho do these apply to those people by their act of entering the country
illegally, show disdain for our laws?

[3tDP5⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛XzFgv]

These are asylum seekers. They are legal in the eyes of the Lord because they are seeking shelter from the storm.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter (Live)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kl6q_9qZOs

[Rudy Canoza]

Give the law now.

[Rudy Canoza]

They're not considered settled.

[Rudy Canoza]

None of those proverbs say anything about the law, you fucking idiot.

[D-FENS]

The rights and wishes of American citizens count for nothing, according
to the DNC, RINOS, "immigrant rights activists", the United Nations,
George Soros, and posters like "Mighty Wannabe." I'm rather certain that
the Old Testament and New Testament Bibles don't claim that the
inhabitants of a nation have no voice in their own affairs. Charity
begins at home.

The Dream of Nebuchadnezzar, as interpreted by Daniel, is of a statue,
where the feet of iron and clay represent the last empire before it is
turned to dust by a huge rock, which symbolizes the wrath of God. To
me, the iron represents the people who live in the final empire, while
the clay represents invaders from outside the empire. The two peoples
don't mix and the empire crumbles. The feet are the Anglo-American
Empire and the clay represents migrants, illegal aliens, "refugees," and
their supporters.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:56:44 -0600, D-FENS <df...@cocks.net> wrote:

>On 3/15/19 12:17 PM, 3tDP5?? ? ?????? ??????? ? ??XzFgv wrote:
>> David Hartung wrote on 3/15/2019 2:10 PM:

>>> On 3/15/19 1:08 PM, U7p2Q?? ? ?????? ??????? ? ??e2Y2l

>>> wrote:
>>>> Anonymous Reactionary wrote on 3/15/2019 2:00 PM:

No, 62% of American citizens say in 2019 that immgrants strengthen the
country:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of-americans-continue-to-say-immigrants-strengthen-the-u-s/

And another poll, last year, says 69% of Americans believe immigrants
are an important part of American identity:

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/629415700/npr-ipsos-poll-american-views-on-immigration-policy

The people who don't are NOT most American citizens. They're the
right-wing fringe, who tend to be xenophobic paranoids who have more
in common with neo-nazis than with the majority of Americans.

And a really, large majority of us don't give a flying fuck about the
Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

Face it, Steve. You have no idea what Americans want. What you know is
the paranoid yelps of neo-nazis going down for the third time in the
fever swamp.

> I'm rather certain that
>the Old Testament and New Testament Bibles don't claim that the
>inhabitants of a nation have no voice in their own affairs. Charity
>begins at home.
>
>The Dream of Nebuchadnezzar, as interpreted by Daniel, is of a statue,
>where the feet of iron and clay represent the last empire before it is
>turned to dust by a huge rock, which symbolizes the wrath of God. To
>me, the iron represents the people who live in the final empire, while
>the clay represents invaders from outside the empire. The two peoples
>don't mix and the empire crumbles. The feet are the Anglo-American
>Empire and the clay represents migrants, illegal aliens, "refugees," and
>their supporters.

<Yawn>
--
Ed Huntress

[hWLRe⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛gIAuR]

Your country has elected its leaders to govern the country. In every
issue there are always opposing opinions. There will be total chaos if
everybody insists on "my way or the highway". Apparently you haters are
still the minority in the US. You will feel better if you understand
that these asylum seekers are the result of your country's foreign
policies in Latin America. You may call it karma, or chickens coming
home to roost.

[jane....@gmail.com]

.

The poll was poorly worded.

It did not consider (or report in the news article) those of us who believe that immigration strengthens the country, BUT also believe in a strong immigration policy.

Those two might seem in conflict to some, but it makes a lot of sense. We allow immigration, but we control it. A loose immigration policy CAN weaken a country.

If you disagree with me, just go to a Native American Reservation and ask a Native American about the effects of a poor immigration policy.

[David Hartung]

> No, 62% of American citizens say in 2019 that immigrants strengthen the
> country:

Immigrants yes, illegal aliens no.

[David Hartung]

Out of curiosity, what is you country, and what do its immigration laws
say about those who enter without first getting permission?

[Kt78z⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛IqFxE]

They are called "undocumented immigrants".

Only a court of law can assigned the label "illegal" to the asylum
seekers through due process. And by the way, these asylum seekers do not
look like E.T. at all.

[Rudy Canoza]

Trump doesn't want any new immigrants at all, legal or otherwise.

[I7mGv⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛c3PWr]

Canada.

> and what do its immigration laws say about those who enter without
> first getting permission?

Refugees and asylum seeker are exceptions to the normal immigration
process. I leave those decisions to my elected leaders. I have better
things to do.

[Ed Huntress]

And what's your proof of that? Roughly 76% of immigrants are here
legally. In a survey a few years ago, 71% of Americans say the
unauthorized ones should be given a way to stay here legally.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/28/most-say-illegal-immigrants-should-be-allowed-to-stay-but-citizenship-is-more-divisive/

The "evidence" that undocumented aliens are a problem is very slim.
Most of the evidence indicates the opposite.

So what is your evidence that "illegal aliens" don't strengthen the
country?

--
Ed Huntress

[David Hartung]

if as much of 24 of "immigrants" are in the countr illegally, ,that
itself is a problem.

[7R1YI⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛OunHq]

If you expedite the paperwork, then they won't be "undocumented"
anymore. Most of them want to work and contribute. They are in no way a
burden to the system.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

When do we consider an unlawfully present person settled?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/15/2019 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/15/2019 11:05 AM, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 1:37:34 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:

{snip}

>>> It's worth noting that "illegal alien" does not appear in federal law.
>>

>> Yes it does.  Federal law provides for reimbursement to state for
>> expense incurred while detaining an "illegal alien".
>
> Give the law now.

8 U.S. Code § 1365

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1365

[Rudy Canoza]

What's the problem? (/petitio principii/ is imminent)

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:31:33 -0500, David Hartung

No, it's not. Nor are 24,000 of them.

Except, of course, to paranoid xenophobes. They rarely show any
particular regard for the rule of law, unless they can use it as a red
herring to hide what they really want -- to end immigration
altogether, in this case. That's why Trump is slow-walking asylum
hearings. He'd rather end asylum entirely..

I wonder if they stop to think what would have happened to their
ancestors if they were subject to the same attitude that they express
now.

And as one whose ancestors were NOT immigrants, I'm not so sure about
the rest of you.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Anonymous Reactionary]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:08:12 -0400, "U7p2Q⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚
𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛e2Y2l" wrote:

> May the good Lord have mercy on your soul, but I doubt it.

God created the nations. Reread what I posted. But since you
didn't address it, instead opting to delete it and repost your
spam, I hope you have to watch while an illegal immigrant
mestizo massacres your wife and children.

[Anonymous Reactionary]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:38:52 -0400, "7R1YI⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚
𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛OunHq" wrote:

> If you expedite the paperwork, then they won't be "undocumented"
> anymore. Most of them want to work and contribute. They are in no way a
> burden to the system.

Most immigrants are on welfare.

[7dcvM⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛gPyMg]

Asylum seekers are not gangsters.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <q6hgb7$thf$1...@neodome.net>,
Anonymous Reactionary <anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:08:12 -0400, "U7p2Q?← ? ??????
> ??????? ? →?e2Y2l" wrote:
>
> > May the good Lord have mercy on your soul, but I doubt it.
>
> God created the nations. Reread what I posted. But since you
> didn't address it, instead opting to delete it and repost your
> spam, I hope you have to watch while an illegal immigrant
> mestizo massacres your wife and children.

'Hate your neighbours as you hate your enemies.' ~~ Gospel of Hartung

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|¥
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / ¥
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[TmlRo⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛rKakp]

https://4thworldmovement.org/immigrants-come-use-welfare/

Poverty Myth: Immigrants Come to the US to Use Welfare

FALSE!

Immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to use welfare programs and don’t even qualify for welfare benefits in most cases. Not only don’t immigrants come to the US to use welfare, but in many cases potential immigrants must prove their financial independence before even qualifying for a visa, making them far less likely to need support than native-born Americans.

This is a myth that has been getting a lot of attention lately, with some of the highest elected officials in the land arguing that we must curb legal immigration so that immigrants can’t, in the words of Donald Trump, “Come in and just immediately go sign up for welfare.” [1]

False claims like that one are based on studies which have shown that a majority of “immigrant households” use some kind of social welfare program – but these claims are based on a statistical sleight of hand that misrepresents reality.

A Person vs. a Household

The law on immigration and welfare is clear: When a person becomes a legal permanent resident of the United States, they are required to pay taxes but they are ineligible to receive almost any welfare benefits until they have resided in the country for at least five years [2].

So, what is meant by an “immigrant household” then? Well, according to the census a household is a group of people living together under the same roof. A household is labeled an “immigrant” household if the “head of household” is an immigrant – even if everyone else in the household is a citizen. Moreover, a “head of household” is simply whoever happens to respond when the census taker comes and knocks on the door, no matter if they are the primary earner for the family.

What does this mean for this debate? Imagine then a family of four where one parent is an immigrant but the other parent and both children are citizens. And let’s say they rent out their basement to a local college student who is also a citizen. For census purposes, the household consist of five people. Even though four of them are citizens, if the one non-citizen opens the door when the census bureau comes, it is labeled an immigrant household. This means that if the student in the basement is using some kind of social program, even if the other adults in the household are billionaires, this is counted in census data as an immigrant household using benefits.

This situation is actually surprisingly common. Many immigrants have children who are citizens – and citizens are legally able to apply to any program in our social safety net. A child who is a citizen might qualify to receive Medicare, for instance, while their parents do not. In a study looking at households, this would be counted as an immigrant household (because of the parents) receiving a benefit (because of the kids) – despite the fact that, again, no non-citizen is actually receiving government assistance.

So using “households” instead of “individuals” lets opponents to legal immigration make dramatic claims about immigrant welfare use.

But it’s still not enough

Perhaps most significant though, even playing the household vs. individual game doesn’t justify their most grandiose findings. An analysis by the Libertarian think tank The Cato Institute found that using the same numbers when you control for socioeconomic factors, “Overall, immigrant households in poverty consume less welfare than native [U.S.-born] households in poverty.” [emphasis added] [4]

Going farther, the Cato Institute broke down the numbers available by individuals in a report titled, (SPOILER ALERT!) “Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens.”

The study found that, you guessed it, “Low-income immigrants use public benefits […] at a lower rate than low-income native-born citizens.” [5] Adult low-income immigrants used Medicaid at a lower rate (20% vs. 25%) than citizens, and their children were less likely to use CHIP (49% vs. 65%) or SNAP (33% vs. 51%). Moreover, even when immigrants are qualified and enrolled, their cost per person is lower than that for citizens. In the case of Medicaid, for instance, low-income immigrant adults cost 42% less per person than citizens. In the case of CHIP, low-income immigrant children cost 66% less per person than citizens. [5]

And then lastly, we have to point out that this whole discussion focuses on documented immigrants, who are eligible after five years to apply for welfare programs. Undocumented immigrants never have this right unless they change their immigration status, which means that despite the fact that undocumented immigrants pay close to a billion dollars in taxes each year, they never have the right to benefit from the system they help support [3].

But wait… What is this poverty myth really about?

There is a deeper question that we should be asking here though: If immigrants pay taxes, and those taxes contribute to our social safety net, isn’t it reasonable that they should be able to use that safety net when times get tough? Why does this idea create such a backlash?

The answer is that what is really going on here is yet another example of anti-poor bias in our country’s political discourse. When a politician says immigrants are “on welfare,” what they are really saying is that immigrants are not good Americans. They are seen as “takers” not “makers.” They are judged to be lazy, dishonest, frauds & cheats. Being “on welfare” is something someone is supposed to be ashamed of. It is a moral failing and anyone needing this help for a period of time is considered a drain on our country’s resources.

A quick survey of the myriad fact-checking sites that have debunked this false claim about immigrants reveals though that none of them have addressed this deeper point. Liberal or libertarian, voices across the political spectrum have risen to defend the honor of immigrants in the face of a blatantly false statement. The fact that none of those same voices have asked the more basic question – So what if a taxpayer uses the benefits they pay for? – is a sign of how deep that anti-poor bias is rooted across the political spectrum.

That is the real tragedy of this myth.

[Anonymous Reactionary]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:07:55 -0400, "TmlRo⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚
𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛rKakp" wrote:

> https://4thworldmovement.org/immigrants-come-use-welfare/
>
>
> Poverty Myth: Immigrants Come to the US to Use Welfare
>
>
> FALSE!

USA Today must be lying then:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

> An analysis by the Libertarian think tank The Cato Institute found
> that using the same numbers when you control for socioeconomic
> factors,

In other words, so they can rape and twist the stats.

[Tnfi1⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛oASrN]

Anonymous Reactionary wrote on 3/15/2019 9:26 PM:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:07:55 -0400, "TmlRo⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚
> 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛rKakp" wrote:
>
>> https://4thworldmovement.org/immigrants-come-use-welfare/
>>
>>
>> Poverty Myth: Immigrants Come to the US to Use Welfare
>>
>>
>> FALSE!
> USA Today must be lying then:
>
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

From your link:
"Camarota said one of the most shocking findings from the report was the
high number of native-born Americans also on welfare. About 76% of
immigrant households with children are on welfare, but so are 52% of
native-born households with children."


The immigrants need help in starting a new life in a new country. The
native-born are people like Mark Wieber (a.k.a. Gunner Asch) cheating
the system.

[D-FENS]

Pew Research has, going back more than a decade, been a tool for The
National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and the League of Latin American
Citizens (LULAC)and other fronts for open borders types to come up with
rigged or even outright fake polls that always show Americans in favor
of immigrants. I take their data with a huge grain of salt.

>
> And another poll, last year, says 69% of Americans believe immigrants
> are an important part of American identity:
>
> https://www.npr.org/about-npr/629415700/npr-ipsos-poll-american-views-on-immigration-policy

The way the polls are presented, the people agreeing to take the poll
think of Albert Einstein, Werner Von Braun, Henry Kissinger, Madelyn
Albright, or the First Lady when they respond to polls about immigrants.
Of course they view those kinds of immigrants favorably. They're not
thinking of Sirhan Sirhan or some illegal alien who shot a tourist, or a
Somali cop who shot an Australian woman in Minnesota, or a migrant who
killed a woman jogging in Iowa. Yet Pew Research or the NPR Ipsos poll
will be presented as evidence that Americans are in favor of illegal
aliens or "refugees" from Somalia.

>
> The people who don't are NOT most American citizens. They're the
> right-wing fringe, who tend to be xenophobic paranoids who have more
> in common with neo-nazis than with the majority of Americans.

No, more in common with Israelis and their Prime Minister than with
Hitler.

'Infiltrators' from Africa are greater threat than terrorists - Netanyahu

African migrants pose a greater threat to Israel than terrorism,
according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli
leader made the remarks as he complimented the country’s border ‘wall’
with Egypt. Speaking at the Negev Conference in the Israeli city of
Dimona, Netanyahu said the fence along the Israel-Egypt border is all
that stands between Israel’s Jewishness and it turning into a country
overrun by “infiltrators”. Without the fence, the country would be at
its “wits’ end” with “attacks by terrorist groups in the Sinai, and the
worst thing – a flood of illegal infiltrators from Africa,” Netanyahu
said, as cited by the Times of Israel.

https://www.rt.com/news/421861-netanyahu-african-migrants-worse-terrorism/

>
> And a really, large majority of us don't give a flying fuck about the
> Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

That makes you an Anti-Semite.

https://www.amren.com/news/2018/08/remember-how-brazil-ecuador-and-peru-condemned-arizona-over-illegal-immigration-in-2010/

Remember How Brazil, Ecuador and Peru Condemned Arizona over Illegal
Immigration in 2010?

Remember how Arizona Governor Jan Brewer got piled on by 17 Latin
American nations in 2010, condemning her state for attempting to enforce
federal immigration law based on the reality that Arizona was being
overrun by illegals and the Obama administration was doing nothing? It
was bad enough that the Obama administration sued her state to end the
law, something it only did with partial success. But then Latin states
such as Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador joined the fun, piously
weighing in to sign on to a highly questionable Friend of the Court
brief led by Mexico, condemning Arizona for trying to enforce U.S.
immigration law.

Scroll forward to 2018. Now the shoe is on the other tootsie.

Because right now, those are the very nations pulling up the drawbridge
to illegals as their own countries get inundated by vast human waves of
Venezuelans flooding over their borders without papers.

>
> Face it, Steve. You have no idea what Americans want. What you know is
> the paranoid yelps of neo-nazis going down for the third time in the
> fever swamp.

Who needs neo-nazis (sic) when you have the Democrats electing Muslims
into Congress who hate Jews?

https://moonbattery.com/why-democrats-cant-primary-ilhan-omar/

Ilhan Omar has humiliated Speaker Nancy Pelosi and has helped other
maniacs like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib position the
Democratic Party on the far side of the lunatic fringe, where votes are
few outside inner cities. No doubt any rational people who have not yet
walked away from the degenerating party wish they could unload this
extraordinarily obnoxious Jew-baiting Islamomarxist. But that is easier
said than done in Omar’s Minneapolis district, which is populated
largely by Somali welfare colonists and mindlessly PC hipster
millennials. It would be easy to find a vastly more qualified candidate
to primary her, except that in this district, more qualified means more
appealing to intersectional moonbats than an ultra-left woman of color
Muslim refugee from Somalia. From The Hill:

“There’s definitely some buzz going around about it, but it’s more
a buzz of is anyone talking about finding someone to run against her
than it is anyone saying they’re going to run against her or contemplate
it. There’s definitely talk about people wanting someone to run against
her,” said state Sen. Ron Latz (D), who represents a portion of Omar’s
district.

Here’s a possibility:

Minneapolis City Councilwoman [sic] Andrea Jenkins, the first
openly transgender African-American woman elected to public office in
the United States.

Any transsexual of politically preferred pigmentation has impressive
qualifications for high office. However, Muslim tops transsexual in the
Cultural Marxist caste system. Consequently,

Jenkins told The Hill on Wednesday [he] is not interested in
running for Congress, and [he] backs Omar for reelection.

Jenkins says Omar has been “unfairly targeted” for shackling the
Democrat Party to anti-Semitism

>
>> I'm rather certain that
>> the Old Testament and New Testament Bibles don't claim that the
>> inhabitants of a nation have no voice in their own affairs. Charity
>> begins at home.
>>
>> The Dream of Nebuchadnezzar, as interpreted by Daniel, is of a statue,
>> where the feet of iron and clay represent the last empire before it is
>> turned to dust by a huge rock, which symbolizes the wrath of God. To
>> me, the iron represents the people who live in the final empire, while
>> the clay represents invaders from outside the empire. The two peoples
>> don't mix and the empire crumbles. The feet are the Anglo-American
>> Empire and the clay represents migrants, illegal aliens, "refugees," and
>> their supporters.
>
> <Yawn>
>


--

[Rudy Canoza]

Fuck off, liar.

[D-FENS]

Sanctuary State Mayhem

Is aiding and abetting murder still against the law? If so, every
Democrat in the sanctuary state of California had better seek
representation in light of the infuriating case of Carlos Eduardo
Arevalo Carranza:

An illegal immigrant with prior convictions and multiple arrests
for offenses such as false imprisonment and battery has been taken into
custody in the stabbing death of a woman in San Jose, California.

The first of his US arrests was for illegally crossing the border from
Mexico. If only that were not so easy to do, it would not have led to a
far more serious arrest.

According to police,

Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza, 24, stalked 59-year-old Bambi
Larson before breaking into her home and killing her in her bedroom last
month.

Uh oh. This might be a violation of his probation for false
imprisonment, burglary, and drug charges.

Kate Steinle’s death made no impression on California’s moonbat ruling
class.

Prior to the murder,

Santa Clara County officials ignored no less than nine U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests for the
self-professed gang member.

That likely resulted in Bambi Larson’s death. It is what we have come to
expect of the liberal weenies running the erstwhile Golden State. They
will always side with foreigners against Americans, and with criminals
against the law-abiding.

Speaking of weenies, the killer will be glad to hear that Gavin Newsom
has unilaterally declared a moratorium on executions, in arrogant
opposition to the will of the voters as expressed in propositions 66 and
62 in 2016. Prop 66 fast-tracked executions in California; it passed.
Prop 62 would have abolished the death penalty; it failed. No matter,
Governor Gavin has spoken.

https://moonbattery.com/sanctuary-state-mayhem/

[D-FENS]

Profiles in Multiculturalism: Hawo Osman Ahmed

Ilhan Omar is the most conspicuously pernicious Somali-American — but
she does have some competition. Introducing Hawo Osman Ahmed:

Hawo Osman Ahmed, 26, is charged with a Class C felony of
Terrorizing stemming from an incident last November 29 when she
confronted three women from her Grand Forks [North Dakota] apartment
complex with a knife.

This will come as no surprise:

In an interview last Thursday with Valley News Live, Ahmed claimed
she is being targeted because of her race and religion.

The first thing they learn after the word “asylum” is how to play the
race and Islam cards.

It isn’t the first time Hawo has enriched our multicultural tapestry.

Ahmed has been charged in a string of incidents in Iowa, North
Dakota, and Minnesota, including third degree assault and giving a false
name to a police officer. On September 11 of last year, Ahmed was
charged with a Class A misdemeanor for violating a disorderly conduct
restraining order.

Ahmed was also charged as part of a massive 2010 federal case of
human sex trafficking involving three connected Somali gangs — the
Somali Outlaws, the Somali Mafia, and the Lady Outlaws — who ran a
prostitution ring in Minnesota, Tennessee, and Ohio. … According to the
FBI, the prostitution ring trafficked girls as young as 13 from
Minnesota to Nashville and Columbus.

She confronted and got into a fight with a key federal witness in the
sex trafficking case, but got off due to misconduct by a local police
officer, whom she is of course suing.

At her current home in Grank Forks, she is “known for climbing onto
apartment balconies and breaking into other apartments.”

When you import people from Somalia, you are importing Somalia. Watch
Black Hawk Down or listen to any random speech by Ilhan Omar to get an
idea of what that means.

Too bad our own government does not wish our country well. If it did, it
would go back to basing immigration policy on our needs rather than the
needs of grasping foreign colonists. Our first need right now is to
drastically curtail immigration for a few decades so that assimilation
can take place — at least to the extent assimilation is possible.

https://moonbattery.com/profiles-in-multiculturalism-hawo-osman-ahmed/

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 00:45:00 +0000, Anonymous Reactionary
<anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:38:52 -0400, "7R1YI?? ? ??????
>??????? ? ??OunHq" wrote:
>
>> If you expedite the paperwork, then they won't be "undocumented"
>> anymore. Most of them want to work and contribute. They are in no way a
>> burden to the system.
>
>Most immigrants are on welfare.

A Cato Institute study:

"We found that immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and
entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans.
Immigrants are less likely to use the individual programs in most
cases and, when they do, the benefits they receive tend to be
smaller."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state

--
Ed Huntress

[D-FENS]

Social Security is not an "entitlement" program as the "commentary"
falsely states. Immigrants who have not paid into Social Security will
obviously not be eligible to receive Social Security retirement
payments, since they had not paid into the fund. I would not be
surprised if the Cato Institute deliberately blurs the distinction
between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens in order to, figuratively,
put lipstick on a pig. As far as I'm concerned, the statement that

"immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and entitlements benefits per

person than native-born Americans" is hardly comforting. Let's see the
actual numbers rather than "39 percent fewer." If immigrants make up,
say, 8 percent of the total population and "use 39 percent fewer welfare
and entitlement benefits" than native born Americans, the true dollar
figures must be shocking.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 01:26:00 +0000, Anonymous Reactionary
<anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:07:55 -0400, "TmlRo?? ? ??????
>??????? ? ??rKakp" wrote:
>
>> https://4thworldmovement.org/immigrants-come-use-welfare/
>>
>>
>> Poverty Myth: Immigrants Come to the US to Use Welfare
>>
>>
>> FALSE!
>
>USA Today must be lying then:
>
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

There was no "lie." USA Today just reported the findings of the CIS
study. Having read botth he CIS and the Cato studies, it appears they
did so accurately. It's unlikely that USA Today could, or would, get
into an analysis of the CIS methodology.

But Cato did, and you and I therefore can do so as well. See below.

>
>> An analysis by the Libertarian think tank The Cato Institute found
>> that using the same numbers when you control for socioeconomic
>> factors,
>
>In other words, so they can rape and twist the stats.

Recognize first that Cato is a libertaian/conservative think tank,
with a strong reputation for integrity (they're the ones who brought
us the Heller Supreme Court case, and its RKBA conclusion), while CIS
is an anti-immgrant group. I can't comment on their integrity -- I
don't know much about their work -- but as a former editor and
(medical) research analyst, I find their methodology to be very
misleading.

First, they counted households, mixed immigrant/citizen or not, while
Cato counted individuals. See what Cato said about that below. But the
far more telling point is that CIS treated all incidents of "welfare"
alike. A subsidized school lunch program, whith costs the government
around $55/month, is counted the same as a SSI check, average payments
of which are $1,234/month in 2019. Immigrants commonly use the former;
native-born Americans, the latter. It sure looks like CIS has "twisted
the stats" to make a point they tend to favor. Cato did not.

Here's what Cato said about it. Keep in mind that the Cato study was
done in 2018, three years after the CIS study:

"Previous analyses by the Center for Immigration (CIS) come to
contrary conclusions regarding the relative use of public benefits by
immigrants and natives. The main reason for our differing findings is
that CIS analyzes welfare use by entire households based on whether
the head is an immigrant, whereas we examine individuals by
immigration status. Focusing on persons is more accurate because
households headed by immigrants often contain multiple native-born
Americans, including spouses and children. Furthermore, the unit of
assistance for the largest welfare programs of Medicaid, CHIP, SSI,
Social Security retirement benefits, and Medicare is the individual,
not the household. CIS’s focus on the household unit of assistance for
all welfare programs — regardless of the actual unit of assistance
used in apportioning benefits — inflates immigrant welfare use. "

If you're one of the rare anonymous reactionaries who cares about
facts, here is the CIS methodology:

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

Note that they focus on "welfare use," equating school lunches with
SSI and Medicare -- a likely sign of intentional misdirection, IMO.

And here is the Cato methodology:

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates#endnote-018

-- or --

https://tinyurl.com/y5ejvb7q

If you still think that immigrants "consume" more welfare after seeing
what CIS did with that data, let us know. There may still be a cure.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

*Everybody* involved in research counts on Pew as one of the very best
research organizations in the world. Overall, the Pew organization is
slightly conservative, but their research is unimpeachable. The only
people who complain about them are people who make a habit of denying
and disparaging reality -- usually, for political reasons.

>
>>
>> And another poll, last year, says 69% of Americans believe immigrants
>> are an important part of American identity:
>>
>> https://www.npr.org/about-npr/629415700/npr-ipsos-poll-american-views-on-immigration-policy
>
>The way the polls are presented, the people agreeing to take the poll
>think of Albert Einstein, Werner Von Braun, Henry Kissinger, Madelyn
>Albright, or the First Lady when they respond to polls about immigrants.

That's a figment of your fecund imagination and the weird narrative
that you use as an alternative to the world as it really is.

Living in the state with the 4th highest percentage of undocumented
aliens in the US, just barely below California, I think of them as the
short guys who ride their bicycles to their roofing and landscaping
jobs at 6:00 in the morning, in the cold and rain, while their
children attend the classes that my wife teaches.

BTW, the first lady, like most European models who immigrate to the
US, violated US immigration laws. She made her original auditions
while she was here on a tourist visa, which is illegal. That's
documented, and it's so common among models that nobody bothers to
arrest them. The way the law is set up, they have little choice if
they want a job here. It's Catch 22; they can't get a work visa unless
they can document a job that's waiting for them, and they can't get a
job unless they have a work visa. ICE ignores it, but it is the law.

> Of course they view those kinds of immigrants favorably. They're not
>thinking of Sirhan Sirhan or some illegal alien who shot a tourist, or a
>Somali cop who shot an Australian woman in Minnesota, or a migrant who
>killed a woman jogging in Iowa. Yet Pew Research or the NPR Ipsos poll
>will be presented as evidence that Americans are in favor of illegal
>aliens or "refugees" from Somalia.

You, on the other hand, ARE thinking about them. You can't seem to get
your mind off of them, ignoring the fact that they make up a very
small percentage of undocumented aliens -- fewer than native
Americans, in fact.

>
>>
>> The people who don't are NOT most American citizens. They're the
>> right-wing fringe, who tend to be xenophobic paranoids who have more
>> in common with neo-nazis than with the majority of Americans.
>
>No, more in common with Israelis and their Prime Minister than with
>Hitler.

When Mexican immgrants start making rockets and firing them into your
neighborhood, you'll have something to talk about. Meantime, you're in
fantasy land.

>
>'Infiltrators' from Africa are greater threat than terrorists - Netanyahu
>
>African migrants pose a greater threat to Israel than terrorism,
>according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli
>leader made the remarks as he complimented the country’s border ‘wall’
>with Egypt. Speaking at the Negev Conference in the Israeli city of
>Dimona, Netanyahu said the fence along the Israel-Egypt border is all
>that stands between Israel’s Jewishness and it turning into a country
>overrun by “infiltrators”. Without the fence, the country would be at
>its “wits’ end” with “attacks by terrorist groups in the Sinai, and the
>worst thing – a flood of illegal infiltrators from Africa,” Netanyahu
>said, as cited by the Times of Israel.
>
>https://www.rt.com/news/421861-netanyahu-african-migrants-worse-terrorism/

They're violating their UN charter. Israel is a country with no legal
basis for sovereignty -- like many of us, but they were a century too
late to get a free pass.

>
>>
>> And a really, large majority of us don't give a flying fuck about the
>> Dream of Nebuchadnezzar.
>
>That makes you an Anti-Semite.
>
>https://www.amren.com/news/2018/08/remember-how-brazil-ecuador-and-peru-condemned-arizona-over-illegal-immigration-in-2010/

Nope. It makes me aware of the lunacy of caring about the
proclamations of a 6th-century BC neo-Babylonian.

You really have to be a little outré to care, except as a historical
curiosity. What matters is what happened.

Speaking of anti-Semitism, I'm old enough to remember when
conservatives hated Jews more than they hated Arabs. Then they saw
"Lawrence of Arabia." We must have had a warm spot for Turks in those
days. Life is funny.

>
>Remember How Brazil, Ecuador and Peru Condemned Arizona over Illegal
>Immigration in 2010?
>
>Remember how Arizona Governor Jan Brewer got piled on by 17 Latin
>American nations in 2010, condemning her state for attempting to enforce
>federal immigration law based on the reality that Arizona was being
>overrun by illegals and the Obama administration was doing nothing? It
>was bad enough that the Obama administration sued her state to end the
>law, something it only did with partial success. But then Latin states
>such as Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador joined the fun, piously
>weighing in to sign on to a highly questionable Friend of the Court
>brief led by Mexico, condemning Arizona for trying to enforce U.S.
>immigration law.

Oh, yeah. Arizona's racial-profiling law. That was a real winner, eh?
New Jersey got into big trouble over racial profiling in the '70s. A
buddy of mine said he got pulled over on the NJ Turnpike four times
for Driving While Black. He eventually started taking a different
route to work.

Our biggest mistake was allowing Arizona into the union in the first
plact. If I had been alive then, I would have opposed it. It was a
perfectly good retirement home and scorpion preserve. They had over 30
species! I didn't know there were that many different kinds of
scorpions. Congressman Paul Gosar may be one of their descendants.

>
>Scroll forward to 2018. Now the shoe is on the other tootsie.
>
>Because right now, those are the very nations pulling up the drawbridge
>to illegals as their own countries get inundated by vast human waves of
>Venezuelans flooding over their borders without papers.

Uh, they had to eat the papers. That's all they had left, after they
boiled their boots.

>
>>
>> Face it, Steve. You have no idea what Americans want. What you know is
>> the paranoid yelps of neo-nazis going down for the third time in the
>> fever swamp.
>
>Who needs neo-nazis (sic) when you have the Democrats electing Muslims
>into Congress who hate Jews?

Hell, only 7% of Republicans in Congress opposed Trump's attempted
Muslim ban. Why not have a little balance?

Listen, Omar is a clumsy oaf, but she was dead right about Aipac (it's
NorPac here in NJ, but they do more direct contributing to policians
than Aipac does). They don't directly contribute to political races,
but they do it in spades through their members. They've intimidated a
lot of politicians with financial threats. Omar's loopy, stupid remark
had one redeeming quality -- it was dead right.

>
>https://moonbattery.com/why-democrats-cant-primary-ilhan-omar/

"Moonbattery.com"? I have to hand it to you -- you're a regular font
of weirdness. I never would have found such a place on my own.

It's like a window into the back ward of an insane asylum.

--
Ed Huntress

[jTziA⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛qsVih]

D-FENS wrote on 3/16/2019 2:28 AM:

On 3/15/19 10:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 00:45:00 +0000, Anonymous Reactionary
<anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:38:52 -0400, "7R1YI?? ? ??????
??????? ? ??OunHq" wrote:

If you expedite the paperwork, then they won't be "undocumented"
anymore. Most of them want to work and contribute. They are in no way a
burden to the system.

Most immigrants are on welfare.

A Cato Institute study:

"We found that immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and
entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans.
Immigrants are less likely to use the individual programs in most
cases and, when they do, the benefits they receive tend to be
smaller."

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state

Social Security is not an "entitlement" program as the "commentary" falsely states.  Immigrants who have not paid into Social Security will obviously not be eligible to receive Social Security retirement payments, since they had not paid into the fund.  I would not be surprised if the Cato Institute deliberately blurs the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens in order to, figuratively, put lipstick on a pig.  As far as I'm concerned, the statement that "immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans" is hardly comforting.  Let's see the actual numbers rather than "39 percent fewer."  If immigrants make up, say, 8 percent of the total population and "use 39 percent fewer welfare and entitlement benefits" than native born Americans, the true dollar figures must be shocking.

Did you find that the native-born white trash Mark Wieber (a.k.a. Gunner Asch) admitting defrauding the system $3 million in medical bill shocking?

[Anonymous Reactionary]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 03:09:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

> And here is the Cato methodology:

Cato is conflating means-tested welfare programs with Social
Security and Medicare, which recipients are supposed to have
paid into. This makes it look like immigrants use less
"welfare" than actual Americans.

[D-FENS]

I do not follow the life and times of the man. The story immediately
conjured up the story of Elizabeth Warren falsely claiming to be an
American Indian in order to gain advantages in life that "rightfully"
should have gone to a person who was truly American Indian, rather than
to a lying impostor.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/16/2019 9:05 AM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 03:09:44 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

>> And here is the Cato methodology:
>>

>> https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates#endnote-018
>>
>> -- or --
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y5ejvb7q
>>
>> If you still think that immigrants "consume" more welfare after seeing
>> what CIS did with that data, let us know. There may still be a cure.
>> d8-)
>

> Cato is conflating means-tested welfare programs with Social
> Security and Medicare, which recipients are supposed to have
> paid into.

You didn't read the methodology. Cato is not "conflating" anything.
They're looking at it the right way, and CIS isn't. To say that
"immigrants" are receiving welfare because native-born children living in a
household headed by an immigrant are receiving the benefits is simply lying.

[Rudy Canoza]

A stupid lie.

[D-FENS]

On 3/16/19 4:01 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Moonbattery.com"? I have to hand it to you -- you're a regular font
> of weirdness. I never would have found such a place on my own.
>
> It's like a window into the back ward of an insane asylum.

That's precious coming from you, who infested AS about the time Rudy
brought his clown show into AS, turning it into the padded room of usenet.

[Rudy Canoza]

I saw something funny in the NY Times the other day. It was a piece about
the rabidly anti-Semitic representative Ilhan Omar. The opinion author wrote:

There’s an old joke about upper-class British anti-Semitism: It means
someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary. Ilhan Omar, the
freshman representative from Minnesota, more than meets the progressive
American version of that standard.

The crack about "more than is strictly necessary" made me laugh.

I always get a laugh out of right-wingnut fuckwits like this goof and Mark
Wieber trying to play the "racism" or "anti-Semitism" card - basically,
trying to steal it and co-opt it from the left's deck of cards. One might
substantively criticize a black or a Jew for something, and one of these
fuckwits is sure to accuse the critic of "racism" or "anti-Semitism." It's
transparently obvious what they're trying to do. Wieber is really big on this.

[Rudy Canoza]

Wieber has claimed the same. He is exactly as she is: white.