Mexican Immigrant March in Dallas

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Last of all, JUST REMEMBER TO VOTE when it comes time. It is going to be a HUGE issue this coming election, pay attention to the issues.

There is no issue where I live. In the state of Arkansas, illegal immigration keeps politicians in power. Just like Bush, our politicians could care less about sealing the border. It's all about greed.Makes you want to start your own revolution.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

$30 million could hire perhaps 300 agents; that's one agent per every 20 miles of the border. Think that will do much? Could you protect 20 miles of border with a beat up truck, a gun and a flashlight?

In combination with harsh punishment for those that get caught, yes, I believe it will do good. It's at least 'more good' than handing over millions of dollars to a country that isn't willing to help in return for that money.

Quote

And who would run this prison? Mexico? The immigrants would then be subject to Mexican law.

Mexico would run it. Mexico would be required to pass the law, as part of them earning their federal aid.

Quote

Ah, so torture them to death! Treat a serial rapist-murderer better than a guy who wants to pick tomatoes. Good plan. I'm sure it wouldn't backfire on us.

I said nothing about torture. I'm implying that this prison will not be there for them to educate themselves, work out, and money, and eat better meals than many law abiding people eat. They will not be allowed to play video games and watch tv/movies.

Quote

That's a good theory, but to make it effective we'd have to drastically increase the number of people we allow to immigrate.

Negative. Lowering standards just to meet beaurocratic 'numbers' requirements is a recipe for disaster. As someone mentioned above, if we constantly dilute something, eventually the solution will become the solvent, and our country will no longer be a melting pot, but instead become a cess pool.

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[billvon 2,991]

>If the illegal's continue to come over then eventually, in 100 years or
>so, the mind set and culture that they brought with them will
>overtake the norm that we have . .. .

Which is a good thing. That's what America is based on.

>If you dilute something enough it becomes what you "cut" it with.

Exactly. Which is why we're not Brits. We're Irish/Italian/English/Mexican/Norwegian/African/French/Russians.

>If the problem is the business being hurt without cheap labor then
> the answer is to PUNISH THEM.

Punish the businesses? I'm all for that, but how does punishing them not hurt them?

[billvon 2,991]

>In combination with harsh punishment for those that get caught,
>yes, I believe it will do good. It's at least 'more good' than handing
> over millions of dollars to a country that isn't willing to help in return
>for that money.

Like I said, stop the money, make the problem worse. If you want to feel good and "stick it to em" stop the aid. If you actually want to decrease illegal immigration, it's a bad idea.

>I said nothing about torture. I'm implying that this prison will not be
> there for them to educate themselves, work out, and money, and
> eat better meals than many law abiding people eat. They will not be
> allowed to play video games and watch tv/movies.

Starving someone to death, or letting them catch pneumonia and then just watching them die in their cell, is torturing them. I am sure that if a friend of yours was arrested in Mexico, and died in prison due to starvation, you would not consider it OK.

>Negative. Lowering standards just to meet beaurocratic 'numbers'
> requirements is a recipe for disaster.

No lowering standards; no bureaucratic numbers. Keep the same standards, just process a lot more people. Numbers? The number should be whatever number of law-abiding Mexicans want to come over, instead of some bureaucratically-set limit.

>As someone mentioned above, if we constantly dilute something,
> eventually the solution will become the solvent, and our country will
> no longer be a melting pot, but instead become a cess pool.

People said exactly the same thing about blacks (lazy, shiftless) irish (all alcoholics) italian (all criminals) etc etc. Yet they became you and me.

[billvon 2,991]

We have millions coming in, but at least some are leaving:

--------------------

Singapore Woos Top U.S. Scientists

By PAUL ELIAS AP Biotechnology Writer

CHICAGO Apr 12, 2006 (AP)— Singapore's siren song is growing increasingly more irresistible for scientists, especially stem cell researchers who feel stifled by the U.S. government's restrictions on their field.

Two prominent California scientists are the latest to defect to the Asian city-state, announcing earlier this month that they, too, had fallen for its glittering acres of new laboratories outfitted with the latest gizmos.

They weren't the first defections, and Singapore officials at the Biotechnology Organization's annual convention in Chicago this week promise they won't be the last.

Other Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea and even China, are also here touting their burgeoning biotechnology spending to the 20,000 scientists and biotechnology executives attending the conference.

But what sets Singapore apart is the sheer size of its effort to become the "Boston of the east" along with its promise to limit government meddling.

. . . .

"I am absolutely amazed at what they have. It's just knock-dead gorgeous," said Dr. Judith Swain, a University of California, San Diego, heart researcher who will decamp to Singapore in September to run the country's new Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences at a state-funded research wonderland called Biopolis.

--------------------------------------

Hopefully all those amoral scientists will leave the US, leaving more room for laborers. Then we can take the money we saved on medical, agricultural and biotech research and spend it on fences and guns! Everybody wins.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

So you consider owning a pound of weed equivalent to minor traffic infractions.

I think that owning any amount of weed (for personal consumption) is less serious than any kind of traffic infractions. When you're driving a vehicle, you are putting other people's lives and property in danger. When you're smoking weed, you're putting only your own life in danger.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think that owning any amount of weed (for personal consumption) is less serious than any kind of traffic infractions. When you're driving a vehicle, you are putting other people's lives and property in danger. When you're smoking weed, you're putting only your own life in danger.

Are you considering the illegal drug trafficing is the cause of quite a bit of violence and murder? Sure, you don't pull the trigger directly, so it's ok?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>Are you considering the illegal drug trafficing is the cause of quite a
>bit of violence and murder?

True, but the cause is not the drug itself; the cause is its illegality. Oxycodone/percocet is a more potent drug than pot, but since it's (usually) legal there isn't as much violence and/or murder associated with it.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I would not own a pound of weed, it is illegal (not right), would you?

Is this a trick question?

. . =(_8^(1)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>True, but the cause is not the drug itself; the cause is its illegality. Oxycodone/percocet is a more potent drug than pot, but since it's (usually) legal there isn't as much violence and/or murder associated with it.

That's right. So? Does that mean it's ok to buy illegal drugs then?

So back to Shotgun's statement, then. Buying illegal drugs is then more similar to knowlingly buying stolen property than committing minor traffic violations. Can we agree on that? (I mean = it doesn't hurt you and you don't directly hurt anyone else, but it is promoting illegal activity which may have some violent parts to to the supply chain. But, I guess that's ok if you don't see it. We could always decriminalize theft too.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>So? Does that mean it's ok to buy illegal drugs then?

Nope. It's not OK to buy illegal drugs. ('Course it's not OK to speed either.)

>So back to Shotgun's statement, then. Buying illegal drugs is then
>more similar to knowlingly buying stolen property than committing
> minor traffic violations. Can we agree on that?

I'd say it's more similar to prostitution. Prostitution can lead to violence against women, but generally does so because it's illegal and thus cannot be policed or regulated. (Not much violence against women where prostitution is legal.)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Are you considering the illegal drug trafficing is the cause of quite a bit of violence and murder? Sure, you don't pull the trigger directly, so it's ok?

Not all marijuana comes from violent drug trafficking rings; in fact, a lot of it doesn't. And any violence that does happen to come from the trafficking of marijuana, I would blame on those who choose to keep it illegal.

And just for the record, I am personally not pulling any triggers directly or indirectly (since you seem to be assuming that I buy illegal drugs myself).

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One word ... ILLEGAL. I would not own a pound of weed, it is illegal (not right), would you? .

Do you ALWAYS drive at or below the speed limit, and come to a full stop at stop signs?

So you consider owning a pound of weed equivalent to minor traffic infractions. That's nice. Let's find that line - which of the below is acceptable to you if you can get away with it?

Minor traffic violations? no big deal
Owning illegal pot? no big deal
Stealing little stuff? __________
Owning other drugs? __________
Selling Pot? __________
Selling other drugs? __________
Stealing someone's wallet ___________
Stealing someon's car ____________
Cutting someone up just a little bit __________
Killing someone, but only if you think they are bad ________
Killing someone just for laughs ____________
torturing children __________
Buying and driving an SUV because it looks nice ________

I'd clearly differentiate with an act of driving (maybe incorrectly) that appears to be a minor nuisance or even a non-issue (slight speeding) to supporting an industry (illegal drugs) that ruins and takes the lives of people all over the world.

Wow - that did feel all warm and fuzzy.

It's binary. Either it's illegal or it's not. It can't be 74.68% illegal. Your examples are all irrelevant.

BTW, speeding kills all over the world too.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

And just for the record, I am personally not pulling any triggers directly or indirectly (since you seem to be assuming that I buy illegal drugs myself).

Just for the record - I'd never assume that you did or didn't use drugs. Can't do that with someone on the internet unless they say it outright - it's not fair to them. "you' was more of a quick type to make the point.

I'm glad you aren't shooting anyone either .

But the point is whether it's right to use that as an excuse to participate in an industry that does pull triggers to deliver the product (like gasoline, medical drugs, cars, and smooties for example).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's binary. Either it's illegal or it's not. It can't be 74.68% illegal. Your examples are all irrelevant.

Since you state it's binary, then the examples are irrelevant to you.

But I asked what is personally 'acceptable', not is it 'illegal'. So that's the question. I suspect you've speeded at some time in your life (provided you drive)? Did you turn yourself in, then?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

It's binary. Either it's illegal or it's not. It can't be 74.68% illegal. Your examples are all irrelevant.

Since you state it's binary, then the examples are irrelevant to you.

But I asked what is personally 'acceptable', not is it 'illegal'. So that's the question. I suspect you've speeded at some time in your life (provided you drive)? Did you turn yourself in, then?

logic. It's what's for dinner. That and a chimichanga.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

logic. It's what's for dinner. That and a chimichanga.

I had a chimchanga for lunch today. El Loro is a great restaurant. "el loro" means "the parrot" I believe. That or "Douglas Adams and Dr Seuss are the same person. C'mon, you never see them in the same place at the same time do ya?"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[txhoss 0]

Quote

Quote

One word ... ILLEGAL. I would not own a pound of weed, it is illegal (not right), would you? .

Do you ALWAYS drive at or below the speed limit, and come to a full stop at stop signs?

Lets put it this way, I do not pull out of my driveway with the intention of driving 20MPH over the limit and rolling all the stop signs I can.

Have Rig will travel ...

[txhoss 0]

Quote

>If the illegal's continue to come over then eventually, in 100 years or
>so, the mind set and culture that they brought with them will
>overtake the norm that we have . .. .

Which is a good thing. That's what America is based on.

---- It is indeed. However It was a melting pot of various groups, not just one. (I do not see government forms written in every other language)


>If the problem is the business being hurt without cheap labor then
> the answer is to PUNISH THEM.

Punish the businesses? I'm all for that, but how does punishing them not hurt them?

--- It hurts them plenty. That is the point, if you dry up the money to them the rest will work itself out.

Have Rig will travel ...

[billvon 2,991]

>However It was a melting pot of various groups, not just one.

Right, but specific groups came over en masse (like the irish during/after the potato famine.) All worked out.

> (I do not see government forms written in every other language)

Around here they are written in english, spanish, vietnamese and korean. No problems.

>It hurts them plenty. That is the point, if you dry up the money to
>them the rest will work itself out.

If you mean "make it less attractive to hire illegals" then I'd go along with that. Better enforcement of labor laws could make a significant difference.

[masterrig 1]

Around here they are written in english, spanish, vietnamese and korean. No problems.
_________________________________

Isn't that rather costly?


I saw a news story a little while back where, Mexican Nationals are growing 'pot' in parts of California's Natl. Parks. Whaddya think?
(I mentioned that, since this thread took a turn in that direction earlier.)


Chuck

[Gravitymaster 0]

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

-Senator Ted Kennedy on the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Bill.

Wrong then, wrong now.

[billvon 2,991]

>Isn't that rather costly?

I don't think it adds very much cost. From a dean at the University of Alaska, where there was a recent battle over the "official language is English" thing:

------------------
Kassier disagrees with the proponents’ claim the law will save money. "The cost of printing ballots or rules and regulations in languages other than English does not substantially exceed the cost of printing those items in English itself. You’ve got some initial translation costs that are kind of a one-time cost that are really immaterial in the context of a state budget," he says.
---------------------

>I saw a news story a little while back where, Mexican Nationals are growing
> 'pot' in parts of California's Natl. Parks. Whaddya think?

Wouldn't suprise me much. It's a popular way to make money. A skydiver I jumped with for quite a while just got arrested for growing pot underground.

[billvon 2,991]

>Wrong then, wrong now.

Sorry, those pesky facts again:

1920: foreign-born people made up 15% of the population.
2003: foreign-born made up 11.7% of the population.

We have considerably lower immigration rates now than we did during the earlier part of the 20th century, even counting illegal immigrants. We survived then; we will survive now with a lower immigration rate. (It's a good thing we _did_ have such high rates back then; the families of many of us, me included, came over then.)

[Elisha 1]

Even though I mainly read her weekly column for entertainment, this is definitely one of her better columns in a while. Most are just petty political cheerleading.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


BROWN IS THE NEW BLACK
April 12, 2006


This is the only country on Earth that thinks it's not sporting to consider our own interests in choosing immigrants. Try showing up in any other country on the planet, illiterate and penniless, and announcing: "I've seen pictures of your country and it looks great. I think I'd like to live here! Oh, and by the way, would you mind changing all your government and business phone messages, street signs and ballots into my native language? Thanks!" They would laugh you out of the country.

What seems not to have occurred to the "NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL" crowd is that this is a country, not a public park.

There are more than 6 billion people in the world, many of whom apparently like the idea of living in the wealthiest democracy on Earth. But if the billions of people of the world did live here, it wouldn't be "here" anymore. America is special for a reason that must transcend the right to vote — or everyone would be trying to immigrate to Iraq right now.

America has a seller's market in immigration, but thanks to Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law, we no longer favor skilled workers from developed nations, but instead favor unskilled immigrants from the Third World. Kennedy's bill promptly cut the number of European immigrants in half and increased Third World immigrants to 85 percent of the total.

Not surprisingly, post-1965 immigrants have sharply higher levels of poverty and welfare dependence. Europeans may not seem like ideal new immigrants, but the truth is, if what they want is welfare, they'll stay in France.

It's as if we've got the last Xbox 360s available on Christmas Eve and instead of doubling the price, we're entertaining low-ball offers. Or more accurately, we're paying our customers to take the darn things off our hands — and the customers are still indignant with us.

On CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Monday, Dobbs was interviewing Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican-American Political Association about his demand for "full immediate, unconditional legalization for all persons currently in the United States."

Dobbs posed this innocuous question about Lopez's planned boycott, "You're talking about a boycott of all illegal aliens in this country?"

Lopez exploded: "Well, first off, I refute your terminology. You don't say 'kike,' 'patty,' 'WOP,' OK. You don't say "nigger"! ... You're using language that's offensive to me and offensive to my people! ... You pollute the air every day, Dobbs. ... That language is offensive, it's derogatory, it's denigrating, and don't use that terminology to me again, referring to my people!"

Dobbs eventually ended Lopez's Tourette's episode by calmly asking him what he expected the impact of the boycott to be.

An hour later on MSNBC's "Hardball," Dave Rodriguez, of the League of United Latin American Citizens, leapt in to denounce Rep. Tom Tancredo for using the word "amnesty." He said: "There isn't any such thing as amnesty in this law. I don't understand what this debate is. That's your own terminology on it ..."

Bank robbers and drug dealers ought to start claiming that the words "bank robber" and "drug dealer" are akin to the N-word. They could accuse lawmakers of "criminalizing felonies" and claim they don't understand what the word "jailbreak" means.

At the same time on CNN's "The Situation Room," Maria Elena Salinas, an anchor at Univision, was informing Wolf Blitzer that "all Hispanics feel offended by what has been going on, by the rhetoric, the level of the negativity that you hear coming out of Capitol Hill and also on some television stations and by some journalists."

So it's really more like we've got the last Xbox 360s available on Christmas Eve and the customers are not only demanding money to take the hottest sales item off our hands, but are verbally abusing us and acting petulant. I'm offended that you would even think about asking me to pay for the Xbox 360! You say it has a "20 GB detachable hard drive"? Well, would you use the word "kike"?

As hardworking as illegal immigrants are when they come here, they are immediately demagogued by liberals into adopting the victimhood pose so popular on college campuses. Everybody wants to act like his ancestors were brought here on slave ships.

Consider this e-mail from Michele Waslin, La Raza's director of Immigration Policy Research, to her members denouncing Sen. Lamar Alexander's proposal to provide government grants to immigrants who want to learn English and American history and to organizations offering those courses. (I'd be happy with a law that simply trained new immigrants not to be "offended" all the time.)

Even though this potentially meant free money for La Raza, Waslin — of the Guadalajara Waslins — ominously warned that while the amendment "doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional American values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities."

Meanwhile, Americans aren't allowed to consider whether millions of immigrants refusing to learn English and American history is "potentially dangerous to our communities." Here, please — we'll pay you, just take the whole Xbox 360 factory.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER