jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (200 posts)

How low can they go?

  1. mio cid profile image66
    mio cidposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9078062.jpg
    How low do you think the percentage of hispanic votes will be for Republicans after the latest scenes of angry mobs harassing children on buses ?

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And that is the point of Obama's invasion, to anger everyone. LEGAL Hispanic voters barely turn out now for Republicans. How long do you think non-Hispanics, especially blacks, will continue to vote Democrat.  Why do you think there is a rush to legalize illegal aliens by Democrat law makers? Why don't Hispanics see Democrats like Nancy Pelosi as hypocrites? "I just wish I could take them all home," says the Democrat politician, while opening her home to NONE! Except her underpaid housekeeper, gardener, handy man, etc....

      How long before communities where the FEDERAL authorities FORCE Obama's will upon an uncooperative community in a clear act of tyranny? The answer to that one appears to be NOW, considering that is what is happening. Do any of the people protesting the forced relocation of illegals into their communities have GOP tattooed on their foreheads? Why do you believe that they are all Republican voters?  Surely Obama has had such massive support, a mandate really, among the American people that some of these RACISTS must be Obama supporters.

      How long before POOR American get the hint, Democrats don't want to end poverty, they just want you votes.
      http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1136 … ion-reform

      1. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Retief. It is always interesting to read your very creative and imaginative posts.

        You pretend to know all about Ms. Pelosi’s domestic staff and then make a brazen claim that they are underpaid. Please tell us how you know these workers even exist. At the very least, reassure us that this is not another false claim like the one calling Chief Justice John Roberts a prescription drug abuser because, as you said, “it is so fun to get a rise out of people.” {1}{2}

        I have no knowledge about Nancy Pelosi’s domestic staff or their wages. I would be surprised to learn anyone in this forum has any actual knowledge that confirms her housekeeper, gardener, handy man, etc are all underpaid. I wonder if there is an emerging pattern here: posts containing false claims that imply knowledge when no knowledge really exists to support the claim. No one is entitled to make up their own facts in order to make themselves look smart or to just “get a rise out of people.” Lies are no substitute for real facts about the wages paid to her alleged staff! Do you have any?

        Keep cool this summer, Retief. Thanks for your contribution.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582387
        {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582611

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Q,

          You are a bright man with a good sense of humor - one should be able to deduce from your frequent conversations in the forums - so I am surprised that this is such a distraction for you.

          Former Speaker Pelosi did say, in quite hypocritical and quotable fashion, "I wish I could take all those children home with me." What is stopping her from offering her homeS and those of other generous, good hearted, welcoming, compassionate, loving, warm slices of liberal humanity from absorbing these poor and huddle masses yearning for the racial expressway to citizenship into their own communities and homes rather than compelling them upon those who have suffered the ravages of the Obameconomy? Power and privilege.

          Nancy Pelosi and other wealthy, powerful elitist liberals do not send their children to public schools, live in working class neighborhoods, drink at the local pub or frequent pool halls, bowling alleys or the homes and churches of the poor because they insulate themselves and their loved ones from the consequences of their rotten policies.

          Liberals wish to compel others to share "the wealth." Pelosi and her ilk are more than ready to force others to "take all those children home" with them.  She is resistant to taking them home with her. It is so refreshing when the Aristocracy pats the hungry dirty child on the head and talks about love and compassion. It is not so refreshing to hear the lies about "taking all those children home." Especially when the first thing she did when she was alone was wash the filth off her hands.

          1. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We live in a soundbite society, where many people hear the soundbite and go no further. People are going to hear Pelosi say what she did, but most aren't, as you have, going to go past that to see the hypocrisy.

            Contrastingly, people are going to see Republicans chasing women and children away and yelling at them to go home, and many people also won't go further than that, to listen to what they consider to be a legitimate grievance.

            I don't think you can argue about which soundbite is going to be better received by the Hispanic community.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I only want lefties to live by the rules they would force on all of us. Pelosi intentionally exempts herself from the generosity she would use Federal troops to compel upon others. It is not her words that are disturbing, it is her lack of action. There is a great deal of talk coming from lefties about social justice issues and precious little personal action. When was the last time Obama did something charitable without the cameras rolling? The same cannot be said of GHWB or GWB or even Jimmy Carter. When presented with a wonderful opportunity to make a child's life better, she pats him on the head and smiles for the camera. I wonder if she used anti-bacterial soap.

              1. junkseller profile image90
                junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I don't really disagree. Keep in mind that I don't think Washington represents me in the slightest. They should set up a tent camp on the Whitehouse lawn, which would also be a great photo-op. Pelosi and Obama playing a little soccer with some immigrant kids during a break...

              2. moneymindit profile image72
                moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                retief2000,

                What a crock of bull swaggle!

          2. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Good evening, Retief.

            No, no, no! This strand is not about Nancy Pelosi’s quote or her alleged hypocrisy. This is about intentionally and repeatedly posting lies. Usually, adults know this is not acceptable behavior in the forums or anywhere.

            The reply post attempts to divert attention away from the lie that Nancy Pelosi “underpaid her housekeeper, gardener, handy man, etc....” {1}

            No surprise, it is the same tactic used with the lie that smeared Chief Justice John Roberts as a prescription drug abuser.
            {2}

            I guess some people feel they do not need to follow any social norms when they are hiding behind an alias and a keyboard. Apparently, some people think it is okay to lie. Not so.

            On more than one occasion, your posts contained malicious statements intended to slandered people’s reputations. Furthermore, the lies were treated as acceptable behavior although you knew when posting that they were untrue. The attitude in your replies made it clear that truthfulness was not regarded as an important trait. The lies in your posts were brushed aside and the only explanations offered were, “I am surprised that this is such a distraction for you,” or worse, “it is so fun to get a rise out of people.” {3}

            The lies, Retief, are not a distraction for me nor is the blatant lack of ethics. Both are repugnant. It is a lame ploy to suggest that both the lies and the unethical behavior do not warrant a comment. In fact, I will continue to comment whenever I come across them.

            Not everyone respects character, personal integrity or credibility as important values. However, everyone knows that a post containing lies about another’s character can also contain lies about other things as well. 

            I just wish it was possible to read one your posts and to trust what you say is true.

            Sleep well, Retief. I hope you continue to grow and to expand your horizons.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2605303
            {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582387
            {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582

          3. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Of course, Retief, they talk the talk but pass on the walk to the taxpayers who are overburdened with taxes as it is.  All these Liberal politicians do is TALK A GOOD GAME.   They don't have to live with the ramifications of illegals in their communities like many Arizonians, Californians, and Texans have to.   The latter remarked how the illegals are destroying, defacing, and depreciating their communities.  They are further asserting that these illegals are bringing crime to their communities.   Let's mandate that Peloonsi and Obumdiot make their communities a haven for the illegals and you bet they WILL change their tune.

      2. moneymindit profile image72
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 "legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before 1982".  Oh, by the way, it was the king of the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who signed this act into law.

        So, please Republicans, stop with your holier than thou assertions.

        1. Superkev profile image86
          Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And he did that with the express promise that from that point on the border would be monitored and immigration laws would be enforced, in other words, he compromised. But guess what? Once the lying lefties got their way, no border enforcement in the way they had promised ever materialized. So chew on that bit of crow.

          1. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Republican control hasn't in any way stymied immigration any more than has Democratic control. The real issue has always been the job magnet, and lo and behold, jobs are sparse and so are border crossings. So what have the Republicans done to implement employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers? Bupkiss. Go ahead and complain about Democrats, but it is silly to suggest that Democrat/Republican control has been a spigot turning the flow on and off. It hasn't. Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995-2006 (except for the Senate for part of the 107th). We added 6 million illegal immigrants during that span.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps Republicans are capable of learning from mistakes made in the past and thus recognize what a stupid thing to do it was?  While the Dems just keep making the same errors over and over.

    2. Ericdierker profile image81
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Is the fact that they are "hispanic" cause to think they are stupid. Republican numbers may go down but Dems go down harder. Here next to the border most "Hispanics" are republican. This whole thing was shipping illegals from one place in the USA to another. Obama lost on this one. Look up the demographics on Murietta --- those protesters were half hispanic.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hello, Eric. Nice to see you add to the dialog in this thread.

        I followed your advice.  I looked at the demographics of Murrietta. Did you?

        There is no way to link large numbers of Hispanics to the Murrietta protest. The claim that half were Hispanic is simply impossible to justify. Only 27% of the population in Murrietta, CA, is Hispanic but registered Republican voters out number Democrats 2 to 1. {1}

        The GOP has recently abandoned its short-lived efforts to attract Latino and minority voters. The result appears to be a political death wish for the party since both groups are trending to join Asians as THE majority of the electorate within the next 45 years. “Minorities, now 37 percent of the U.S. population, are projected to comprise 57 percent of the population in 2060,”  according to a U.S. Census Bureau release. {2}

        Another death knell sounded this week when Rep. Darrell Issa and 32 other House Republicans called for the end of DACA and the resumption of deportations of DREAMers. Hispanic voters have strong attachments to many immigration issues, ties that transcend political ideology. A majority of Latino voters have close relatives and friends who are struggling to comply with residency issues. It is likely that they will remember in November that the GOP represents the same anti-immigrant protesters who forced three buses of detainees to turn around before they reached a Border Patrol station in Murrietta. {3}

        While there are no signs the President has been hurt by this incident, Eric, we may have to wait until November to know more about the damage to the Republican Party.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tab … l?src=bkmk
        {2} https://www.census.gov/newsroom/release … 2-243.html
        {3}http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrants-murrieta-20140701-story.html#page=1

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Q,

          Despite your efforts, your opening comment is the salient one. Though proof may be hard to acquire, it is not impossible and it is equally unlikely that one might prove that the Murietta protester were not half Hispanic without the same effort. Considering the long history of the Legal Hispanic population in Southern California - dating back over a century and a half; the long established tendency of immigrant groups to fully integrate into the American political system and thus populate both Republican and Democrat ranks and the even longer history of disparate racial and culture populations in close proximity to intermingle DNA and political opinions, I would suggest that it is very possible to conclude that half of the protesters were Hispanic and the protesters were half Hispanic.

          R.

          1. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            There were counter-protestors at the confrontation, and we do have some evidence of the event though photos and videos. I looked through a great deal of them and I didn't see any Hispanics holding up signs saying "stop illegal immigration" or "go home," etc.

            And even if you'd like to argue that by commingling they have reached similar levels of Republican/Democrat, even though there isn't any evidence that would suggest anything like that, it doesn't mean that they are going to have equally split views on a topic such as immigration that is incredibly important to them.

            And even if they are in favor of immigration reform, that doesn't mean they will chase away buses or stand there yelling at new immigrants to go home.

            No, I think the notion of half the protestors being Hispanic is vast wishful thinking. The attached image is the face of the protest. Own up to it.

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9080047_f248.jpg

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So, it is your contention that you can identify anyone's ethnic heritage merely by looking at them. We sure have made progress, is the sombrero a give away? Who says lefties are color blind? Remember George Zimmerman? His mom his Hispanic. How about the children of Jeb Bush, their mom is Hispanic?

              Edward Albert
              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9080100_f248.jpg

              The faces of Hispanic Americans don't match preconceptions, nor do their names

              Edward Furlong
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9080105_f248.jpg

              So, if you believe you know who is and isn't Hispanic merely by appearance or name, I believe there is a word for that.


              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9080110_f248.jpg



              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9080116_f248.jpg

              1. junkseller profile image90
                junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sighted is the word you are looking for.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I am pretty sure the word starts with a big and ends in an ot. You can identify someones language, heritage, national origin and genetics just by looking at them? I am certain there is a word for that.

                  1. junkseller profile image90
                    junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Perfectly, no. With some level of accuracy, absolutely. National origins, races, and ethnicities have recognizable characteristics. Fact of life.

                    Bigotry is how you treat people. I'm not out there calling anyone names, or yelling at anyone, or trying to alter the course of their lives, based upon any such features, origins, etc.

                    Like I said, own up to it. Trying to reverse reality is just silly.

                    And really it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It matters what it looks like. Is anyone going to go into video footage, find all of the protestors, and conduct DNA tests on them and give them questionaires? No, and so the image presented is a group of white Republicans yelling at Hispanics to go home. Try to spin that however you want. The image is the image and isn't going to go away with people saying things like, "well, maybe some of them are Hispanic and just don't look like it" nonsense (even if it is true).

      2. mio cid profile image66
        mio cidposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        come on you can not be serious every election cycle the percentage of hispanic voters for republicans go down,that is a fact

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          For now, perhaps they will wise up like other immigrant groups. After all, we are a nation of immigrants a sizable portion of which vote Republican.

          1. mio cid profile image66
            mio cidposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps they will.You hold on to that wish while the right wing nuts with their xenophobic attitude turn the republican party into a party incapable of ever winning the white house again.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You mistake a dedication to the Rule of Law and a belief in racial equality, after all there is no great migration of Africans and Asians - nor any effort to facilitate such by Obama- with xenophobia. It isn't legal immigration with which Americans disagree it is illegal immigration, clearly demonstrated by these protests and no protests at swearing in ceremonies all over the country where LEGAL immigrants become citizens, something illegals want awarded rather than earned.

              Conspicuously absent protesters.
              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9080162_f248.jpg

      3. moneymindit profile image72
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ericdierker,

        Hispanic Republicans are a disgrace to other Hispanics.  Since they have a better life, they have forgotten where they came from.  They forget that the people whom they are protesting against were once their ancestors.  So shameful.  After all, how did they get here?  If they hadn't descended from poor, courageous immigrants looking for a better life, they would never have become who they are today.  Hoarders of the opportunities from which they benefit.  They got in the door.  Now they want to shut it for others. They are sitting at the banquet tables that their ancestors longed for.  Now they want to keep even the crumbs for themselves.  Is their a worst kind of traitor?

    3. junkseller profile image90
      junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't even know what to think of the Republican party anymore. It is like watching a cyclops wrestle with itself to poke out its one good eye.

      Getting rid of Cantor is a good example. He was perhaps their only hope of passing immigration reform, and immigration reform was probably their best chance of even having a slight chance in 2016, yet they sent him packing.

      Murrieta is another perfect example. That is a lot of damage they did, and it isn't for being opposed to illegal immigration. It is for chasing off women and kids, calling them names, and shouting in their faces to go home.

      They just don't seem to get it. The message and how you share that message both matter.

      They keep saying they need to engage women and minorities and day after day they keep doing the opposite.

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think you have highlighted one of our worst political problems...
        ..."Getting rid of Cantor is a good example. He was perhaps their only hope of passing immigration reform, and immigration reform was probably their best chance of even having a slight chance in 2016, yet they sent him packing. "

        ... political pandering is the only way to win. Is this what you see as ideal politics?

        "...They just don't seem to get it. The message and how you share that message both matter."

        I agree, and will certainly give you witness on this one. Even if if does illustrate the shallowness of the American voter.

        GA

        1. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't really think there is any such thing as political pandering. There is just politics or not politics. In a Democratic system anyway, one is always trying to craft policy in a contested environment full of people who disagree. Like I said, that is just politics. Ideological purity over all else isn't really politics in my mind. That is just being a political bollard.

          That is not the same thing as not having strong ideas. I'm all for vigorous opinions. I have no issue with outliers. I'm one in most cases, but to some extent there has to be faith in, and acknowledgment, of the grander system.

          Unless you have some wisdom about how a tree stump in the middle of the yard is useful, I just don't understand the point.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I have to admit to being perplexed that you can say there is no such thing as political pandering. I can only assume I am misunderstanding you.

            The grander system needs a little clarification.

            Ah, now about that stump. No great wisdom needed, just make it 28 inches tall and you have a strong base for a picnic table. More or less than that and you have either a foundation for more yard decorations, or base material for a carving sculpture.  But, like you, I don't understand this point. About the stump I mean.

            GA

            1. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I suspect we are thinking of pandering in very different ways. I simply meant a willingness to negotiate and compromise with the opposition. To get things done in other words. And the grander system is the system in which opposing sides negotiate and compromise and actually accomplish something of use.

              You've got me with the picnic table. Very good. But in a political sense, it is just in the way. Unless of course we have solved all the problems of the universe and have nothing better to do than BBQ and play chess.

              1. moneymindit profile image72
                moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The biggest problem here in the US is finding a middle ground.  Both Republicans and Democrats, if left to their own devices, would ruin this country.  We need balance.  For example, if Republicans were allowed to run freely, then we would probably still have child labor and an 80 hour work week with no lunch breaks.  If Democrats were allowed to run freely, then every job would be unionized, and people would have unsustainable pensions.  These are extreme statements, of course.  The problem is finding balance.

      2. moneymindit profile image72
        moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Preach junkseller! Preach!  Very well said!

    4. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The protesters are RIGHTFULLY protesting that these children WILL drain American resources.  American tax dollars are stretched as is.  Enough is ENOUGH, send those children back to their respective countries.   Let's us take care of Americans first and foremost!  These children AREN'T our problem.

      In fact, SEND every illegal immigrant back to his/her respective country.  What is needed is MORE STRINGENT border controls!  America has enough socioeconomic problems without add MORE to them!  These children and other illegal immigrants are DRAINING American resources which will be should to going to Americans! who desperately NEED them!

      It is about time that Americans start to protest the inane social policies of this administration.  Much applause to these brave souls who realize that illegals AREN'T good for this country.  In fact, illegals have been provem to be extremely problematic to this country.

      1. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hard to take fiscal concerns seriously from a party which happily burnt a trillion dollars or so on a pointless war and still happily burns billions and billions of dollars on war projects that are vastly over-budget and under-performing.

        If a child shows up on your doorstep, they are your problem as a human being. Internationally they are also our problem, since many are being designated as refugees (although technically, I think that is another one of those treaties we haven't signed). And legally they are our problem, because of the law (signed by Bush) which doesn't allow us to just send them back. And if that weren't enough, they are DIRECTLY our problem, since the violence they are escaping is directly tied to our drug habit. In fact, I'd say they are our problem ENTIRELY.

        Even so, I don't really know why everyone is complaining so much about Obama and the administration. Republicans do still own the body which produces laws, right? Show up to work and pass a damn law. Oh, that's right, they won't do that because it messes with their political future. Oh well, back to Obama bashing.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Geez, It is the evil American's fault again.

          To your point about the children, I agree. They are at our doorstep, and we can't just turn our back on them.  But I do not think that means that we can not send them back - if we know whom to return them to. If not, then we just have to accept it as our human responsibility to help them. Treaties and politics have nothing to do with it - it is just the right thing to do.

          But, regarding the Republicans owning the body that makes the laws - you are wrong. It takes two to tango, and in this case the Democrat Senate is not a cooperating partner. So the Republicans can try to pass all the "damn laws" they want - they still need to Senate to say, "OK dear."

          GA

          1. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No need to be dramatic. I said nothing about evil, simply drew a causal relationship between drug habit, drug crime, violence, and refugees.

            I'm glad to see you consider it a simple issue of human responsibility. If everyone felt that way, we wouldn't be talking about it, and, you are right, treaties and laws and such would be irrelevant.

            Being that not everyone feels the human responsibility that you do, and would be perfectly willing to send them back into the wild, laws and treaties actually are important. Legally, I believe, we do have some obligation to take these kids (and parents) in and if they have an asylum claim give them due consideration. As far as I can tell we are a party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees originally drafted in 1951 with an expanded protocol in 1967, We signed the 1967 agreement which I think binds us to the original, but I am not entirely sure. It doesn't seem to be a clear for some reason. At any rate, we have duties to that treaty.

            We also by law (as far as I can tell) can not simply turn these kids around and send them back unless they are from a border country (Mexico or Canada), though, I don't know exactly where that is codified. This document goes through the history of the process/legality: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files … system.pdf

            The Republicans could at least pass an immigration bill. It would at least let them pretend they are trying and would put the ball in the Democrat's court, but they haven't even done that. And the Senate bill that was passed had some Republican support, and the Boehner principles were something Democrats could have worked with, so the notion that nothing could pass doesn't seem very believable.

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think a little clarification is needed. I am perfectly willing to send them back - if we know who to send them to. Especially if a parent is with them.

              Given the details that I have found, these people/kids are not refugees. They are merely fleeing from terrible conditions. That is a tragedy in itself, and I sincerely wish those type of conditions did not exist in the world - but they do. It is not our responsibility, morally or legally to accept them with open arms - counter to our laws. I think you might be wrong trying to turn this into a legal refugee issue.

              I think accepting this flood of illegal immigrants is harmful to our country in many ways; the coldest being the cost and hardship to our legal citizens. the most dangerous being that it sends a message to the rest of the world, "Come on in, we will ignore our laws for you." and the most detrimental - that it divides out nation unfairly.  An honest and caring American is not an ogre because they oppose unrealistic" humanitarian reactions.

              How many of these illegal immigrant children are in this current flood? 90,000? 140,000? It depends on who you listen to. But what if the parents of children in every poor nation did the same thing as these South American parents have done. What if the number of kids flooding our border illegally in the same short period were in the millions - would you still feel that they were legal refugees and we must  accept them?

              As for blaming the Republicans for not passing an immigration reform bill, I think you are wrong there too. It is more than just a matter of politics, it is also a matter of perspectives. In very simplistic terms, it amounts to one side wanting a bill that allows open borders and amnesty for law breakers, and the other side that wants our laws obeyed and our borders secure.

              GA

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in AGREEMENT!

              2. junkseller profile image90
                junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I very well could be wrong, but then I haven't claimed to be right. I've merely provided what the UN has said. There are plenty of other organizations who are also saying the same thing. Additionally, it isn't like they just started to come. We have already granted refugee status to some people from these countries, so obviously there is a possibility of them being refugees as determined by international law.The wrong message is to shout at women and children in need of help to "go home." The wrong message is not following international treaties we have signed. The wrong message is that the most powerful and wealthy nation on Earth can't handle a trickle of refugees, and it is a trickle. Look at the relative flows in places surrounding Syria, for example, to see a legitimate burden.

                It is also important to understand that we take refugees in all the time. 438,704 between 2011-2013: http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ … r_2013.pdf

                It is important to keep this in some perspective. That doesn't mean don't solve a problem, but this is a minor (relatively) emergency situation. It isn't the cataclysm.

                Unless someone has a magic crystal ball that can divine their purpose (do you have one) and in the absence of a change in the law, then yes.

                I'm not blaming them for not passing an immigration bill. It is simply a statement of fact. Boehner's principles that he put forth in April (or around there) weren't anything that made Democrats happy, but it would have had a chance. It had a very difficult pathway to citizenship and was heavy on border security, but it went nowhere.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Have you considered the ramifications of accepting those thousands of children into our society?  Will their countrymen hear of it?  Will it open the floodgates to transporters of children, taking money to either bring them here or simply murder them along the way?  Or sell them into slavery?  Or is that all outlandish imagination that will never occur even as we see it happening right now?

            What might be the results of such an action?  Nasty, nasty thought, because I agree with what you say.  If we can't send them home, keep them and support them.  It will badly overload our foster care system in southern states; so be it.  They are human beings and deserve our care, but will we, as we so often do, make it far worse by trying to help?

          3. moneymindit profile image72
            moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            GA Anderson,

            If Republicans were to put something forth that makes sense, then there is no reason the Senate wouldn't say, "Ok Dear".

    5. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are right - it is a PR nightmare for the Republicans. How can anyone protests anything to do with "the children.?"  The facts, are irrelevant to the perceptions.

      Those buses could have been filled with alien-parasite infected young children look-a-likes and the protesters would still look like uncaring monsters.

      The democrats, and many Americans don't want us to be the world's policeman, but it appears they don't have a problem with us being the world's nanny.

      If those buses were full of adult illegal immigrants, would the uproar be as loudly condemning of the Republicans? I think not.

      Does the appearance that this seems to be a direct consequence of our current border and immigration actions and policies  have any bearing on appropriate responses? I think it does.

      Does the apparently true accusations that the administration knew this was coming as early as January 2014 have any bearing on the protester's reactions? I think it should.

      Should the Republicans just shake their heads and go along with the process because they know any opposition to "the children" will destroy them in the public's eye? No, if there is any validity to the value of integrity and principles I think the protesters - Republican or not - should be guided by their conscience.

      Just sayin'

      GA

    6. moneymindit profile image72
      moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Republicans do not like Hispanics, they do not like women, they do not like the working class and they do not like gays or lesbians.  Yet, most Republicans are religious, Christians to be specific.  How is it that Democrats, who are reputedly not religious, are more compassionate than Christians?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        To claim that Democrats are reputedly more compassionate than Republicans is as foolish as to claim that the majority of Republicans do not like gays, women or lesbians.  Party affiliation does not impart compassion and compassion does not decide party affiliation.

        1. moneymindit profile image72
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Fact = A group of Republican judges just took away contraceptives. (Do not like women)
          Fact = Republicans oppose equal marriage rights. (Do not like the LGBT community)
          Fact = Republicans oppose healthcare for all. (Do not like the working class)
          Fact = Republicans oppose humanely treating the illegals currently in our borders. (Do not like Hispanics)

          If A = B and B = C, then A = C. 

          You said, "Party affiliation does not impart compassion and compassion does not decide party affiliation."  I could not agree more.  It just so happens that Democrats are more compassionate than Republicans.  Whether less compassionate (mean hypocrites) people lean towards the Republican party is up for debate.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Fact: Contraceptives, if desired, should be purchased by the one wanting them, not some stranger across the country.  Liking women has nothing to do with charity.

            Fact:  Opposing equal marriage rights does not indicate a dislike of LGBT people.  There are other reasons, no matter how much I disagree with them.

            Fact:  Republicans understand something the socialistic Democrats do not: this country cannot afford the level of care the people want and have been promised.  That does not mean they don't like the working class; it means they are smart enough not to spend what we can't afford.

            Fact:  Republicans, unlike the bleeding heart Democrats, are smart enough to understand we cannot afford to support the world.  That has nothing to do with disliking Hispanics, even though they are by far the biggest single race feeding at the American trough but instead has to do with cold hard facts.

            So it isn't a matter of disliking someone else, it is a matter of being intelligent enough to know what we can afford as a country and spend it wisely.  The Democrats are great at spending our children's future, but that doesn't make them compassionate - it makes them stupid.

            1. moneymindit profile image72
              moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Fact: Contraceptives, if desired, should be purchased by the one wanting them, not some stranger across the country.  Liking women has nothing to do with charity.  (This decision by the SCOTUS has more to do with religion than anything else. There should be a separation of church and state in this country, but there isn't.  Nevertheless, why is it that medications for impotence are covered by insurance and contraceptives are not?  BECAUSE Republicans do not like women.)

              Fact:  Opposing equal marriage rights does not indicate a dislike of LGBT people.  There are other reasons, no matter how much I disagree with them.  (What are the reasons?  There are none.  They all boil down to dislike.)

              Fact:  Republicans understand something the socialistic Democrats do not: this country cannot afford the level of care the people want and have been promised.  That does not mean they don't like the working class; it means they are smart enough not to spend what we can't afford. (Suuuuuure.  Yet how much have Republicans spent on war?  Republicans do not like the working class.)

              Fact:  Republicans, unlike the bleeding heart Democrats, are smart enough to understand we cannot afford to support the world.  That has nothing to do with disliking Hispanics, even though they are by far the biggest single race feeding at the American trough but instead has to do with cold hard facts. (First of all, why did Texas, a Republican run state send these illegals to California?  This is not a matter of supporting the world.  Yes, let's stop the flow of illegal immigrants.  And at the same time, let's be humane to those who are already here.  Republicans don't do that.  They stand in front of buses and say, "Get the F outta here!"  Republicans do not like Hispanics.)

              So it isn't a matter of disliking someone else, it is a matter of being intelligent enough to know what we can afford as a country and spend it wisely.  The Democrats are great at spending our children's future, but that doesn't make them compassionate - it makes them stupid. (Oh please. There is not one Republican who doesn't love going to war, at great cost. When Bill Clinton was in power we had a surplus.  George Bush squandered the surplus and put us in a deficit.  What was smarter?)

        2. moneymindit profile image72
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say that Democrats are reputedly more compassionate.  I said that Democrats are reputedly not religious, yet they are more compassionate than Republicans, who are reputedly religious.

          What would Jesus do with these people?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "I didn't say that Democrats are reputedly more compassionate."

            Oh?  Allow me to quote from your previous post:

            "How is it that Democrats... are more compassionate than Christians?

            1. moneymindit profile image72
              moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Republicans, though mostly Christian, believe in survival of the fittest (a Darwinian theory) and to hell with everyone else.  Democrats also believe in survival of the fittest, but they know that not everybody can be the fittest.  This is a clear demonstration of compassion.

    7. cathylynn99 profile image77
      cathylynn99posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  2. Sed-me profile image82
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    You sure stay up late... or are you from a land other than the US?

  3. 61
    blightblissposted 2 years ago

    There will always be a turf war (the turf being America) for the Republicans and Democrats. Like passing a ball back and forth; the House, Senate, and Congress are always tipping from one side of the scale to the other. Once flaws are found the scale tips once more.

    The true colors of a party are shown in how they handle the transition back to the opposing side. Democrats are not transitioning very well.
    Currently Democrats are attempting to grasp at what little integrity is left by attempting to freeze the Democratic party into office.

    1. moneymindit profile image72
      moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So, Republicans agree that Hobby Lobby does not have to provide contraceptives to women, because Jesus wouldn't want that. 

      I wonder, what would Jesus do with all of these illegals.  Would he be standing out there in front of those buses with a sign that reads "Return to Sender"?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And Democrats want sterile women, men and the elderly to pay for the entertainment of younger women.  Can I get some money from you for the movies, please?  I'd like some free entertainment, too!

        Not that it has much to do with the farce of religious exemption for Hobby Lobby.  Just that the Dem's are as unreasonable as the R's.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, you are SPOT ON regarding the Democratic Party which now should be known as the LEFTIST SOCIALIST PARTY!  The Democratic Party wants to save the world and is putting it on American shoulders.  That's UNFAIR.   These illegals are draining American resources and are more detrimental than beneficial to American socioeconomics and the sociocultural factors.  People are right to protest this inanity and they are right to state, RETURN TO SENDER!   

          America is not here to take care of the world's problems, we have ENOUGH of our own.  These illegals will eventually BANKRUPT America but Obama and his COMRADES don't really care about that.  Obama HATES America and he intends to flood America with these illegals with the purpose of eventually dismantling the fabric of America.   

          Obama in his mindset wants to exact revenge on America for its past "wrongs" by flooding America with these illegals.    Americans DON'T want these illegals and for good reasons which include disease and criminal elements among them.  SEND them back, SEND them BACK!   Americans need to stand up, take back this country, and PROTEST this by any means necessary!
          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9083880_f248.jpg
          This  country is for those who have contributable and demonstrative skills and only those immigrants with such skills SHOULD be allowed in this country. Illegals have NO such skills and they are now problematic.

          We don't need any more problems, we have enough Americans who are problematic!  Illegals are a drain socioeconomically and otherwise.  They are noisime unneeded nuisances.   Why anyone is for them coming to this country is beyond reason and logic.

          America is not a charity, we are a country!  There should be more stringent, even more extreme measures taken to return illegals and to PREVENT them from wanting to come to America in the first place. WE DON'T WANT THEM!

          To those who WANT these illegals.  See what will happen when these illegals go into communities causing crime and all sorts of illegal activities.  See what will happen when these illegals drain our hospitals and our welfare system.  Our tax dollars is going to support these people.  NO THANK YOU!    When America has worsened, I will simply state that I TOLD YOU SO BUT YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN.   

          There's going to be more of a crime wave which some smart Americans see already.   This is not going to be pretty.  Obumler and his minions SHOULDN'T have granted amnesty to these illegals.  America is going....going...... SOON to be GONE!

          1. moneymindit profile image72
            moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            gmwilliams,

            The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 "legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before 1982".  Oh, by the way, it was the king of the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who signed this act into law.

            So, please, stop with your holier than thou assertions.

        2. moneymindit profile image72
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness,

          Your statements are vague.  Please make them clearer.  I have no idea what you mean by your "entertainment of young women" statement.

          If Democrats want sterile women, it is to curb the population.  Less children = less poor people.  This is what the Republicans do not understand, as they are too busy believing in fair tales and applying Religious dogma to social issues. 

          Republicans do not want to help the needy in any way shape or form.  You insist that Republicans are fiscally smarter than Democrats.  What is cheaper?  A contraceptive or a child?

  4. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    Return To Sender? Really? So Let The Pot Call the Kettle Black!

    History has never been a very popular subject among the diminishing racist majority here in the United States.

    The stolen wealth of the United States has created an economic disparity that naturally attracts the populations south of the border. It appears that the "Return To Sender " crowd has no clue that such poverty did not exist on this continent prior to the invasion that began in 1492. The Taino who greeted Columbus were happy and well fed. They had no desire to invade Europe and steal what belonged to someone else. Their desire was to become trading partners with the Europeans, but instead, the European elite enslaved the Taino people because of their greed. For anyone who would like to learn of the horrors that were brought here by the "illegal aliens" from Europe, please read ""A Short Account Of The Destruction Of the Indies" , by Bartolomede Las Casas.

    If we are to use racist logic to solve the problem of illegal immigration, then every American of European descent will necessarily need to be shipped back to Europe, since Columbus and all those who followed were not invited ; neither did they have Green Cards. Once this happens, among other things, the Five Civilized Tribes can reclaim the 25 million acres that were stolen by Andrew Jackson, as a result of the "Indian Removal Act of 1830". This theft constitutes a large part of the southern United States.Perhaps these so-called illegals from south of the border may cause a drain on the economy, but until they start killing millions of United States citizens, raping their mothers and daughters,stealing their land, and forcing them on to reservations, as the European did my ancestors, I see no great cause for concern.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Finally, a voice of balance and reason.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Typically a voice that is hundreds of years out of date.

        Here is a newsflash: It is the 21st century. On my father's side, I am Lakota. On my mother's side, I am Irish. Yep an immigrant. Arrived in Baltimore in 1855. Guess what? LEGALLY!

        These children are here because of Obama's love of his pen. They were told of his Dream Initiative and believed these children would be allowed to stay and granted citizenship. This is Obama's nightmare and his alone.

        They are not refugees. That is the left trying to make them fall under a law so they cannot be deported or turned back. They are illegal aliens/immigrants (whichever term you prefer) they are still here because they broke the law.

        It is not about race, the color of their skin, the language they speak, or the culture they belong to. It is about fairness (what about all those waiting to come here legally? those who came here legally before them?) economics (we have our own citizens in need. We cannot take on 50,000 non-citizens without serious fiscal consequences) and just basic right and wrong. When are we going to stop rewarding people for breaking into our country? It is like me chasing after those who've  broken into my home because they missed some valuables and fixing them a five course dinner.

        Not to mention precedent. We've played the amnesty game before. What happened? Oh that's right - they just kept on coming and now we've got 12 million more.

        A quote from Ben Stein: Think about it. Hard.

        "fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen. Many of those who refuse or are unable to prove they are a citizen will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

        It's time the madness and complete idiocy ended.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Totally concur, illegal immigrants only create problems.  They have no transferrable skills.  They drain our social systems and resources thus depriving Americans in need.  These illegals are exacerbating our worsening socioeconomic systems.  Many of these illegals are criminals and part of gangs; we don't need SUCH people in America.  Enough is clearly ENOUGH!   To reiterate, let's ship all illegals back to their respective countries.   Obama is creating one disaster after another.  He is clearly the WORST president in the postmodern era; even Bush II was not THIS horrendous!

        2. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The UN completely disagrees with you, but what do they know being experts on refugees, studying the situation, and interviewing children?

          http://www.unhcrwashington.org/sites/de … Regardless of refugee status, current law prevents many of them from being tuned back or immediately deported.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So let's recap just a second:

            In all that I said - in all the reasons given - the only word you understood was "refugee". You have no response to anything else?

            Furthermore, the UN does not set US Immigration Policy, despite the fact that they believe they are a governing body - they are not. If the UN wants to "provide for them, and offer protections" as your link claims - then let them do it. Feed them, clothe them, vaccinate them and turn them over.
            In their own report - they state that "the migration of unaccompanied children is not a large percentage". I tend to disagree when it is estimated the number will reach 50,000.
            In that same report - that you claim states they are "refugees" the majority reason for leaving was "family and opportunity". That does not qualify for refugee status, but illegal immigration status. Sorry. You'll find the chart with that information on page 9 of your link. Yes I realize they throw around a 58% number - but once you look at the actual chart and numbers of reasons, that number is either pulled from thin air, a bald faced lie or someone doesn't understand math.

            The US is not even a party to the Convention, which means it has little to no validity within our own borders, unless we so choose.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You might also add that the United Nations is replete with scoundrels, butchers, rapists, terrorist and all manner of corrupt, worthless, officious politicians. The UN is so forgiving of the monstrous acts in places like Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia but when the opportunity arises to attack Americans no television crew is safe. The UN is made up of nations with immigration laws that are much tougher, burdensome, onerous or odious than are American immigration laws. Let the UN compel upon all of its members the immigration rules Mexico seeks to impose on the US. I wonder how Iran would do with absolute open borders?

              I think we need to adopt the exact same laws governing illegal immigration into Mexico. "Immigration Equality" - since that word shuts down liberal brains - should be the catch phrase. American liberals only pay attention when mommy and daddy are being mean and saying no, so let Republicans say YES! to IMMIGRATION EQUALITY! and pass the exact same laws Mexico has for illegal immigration. That should solve the problem.

              "What?!?! How can any good person be against Immigration Equality?"

              Will Canada be ready for the flood of Americans seeking a new life in a First World country as our continues its slide into the ignorance, privation and pestilence which infects the 3rd world countries in Latin America? Mexico has shared a border with the United States since its inception as an independent nation. It has been, ostensibly, a democratic state most of its history. It is blessed with a population the obviously knows how to work. It has natural resources and landscape that is as widely varied as any other country. YET, it is a basket case and has been for a long time.

              Canada isn't, why? Is it national character? Is it language(s)? Or is it culture? When the United States finally becomes El Norte and abandons its Anglo cultural roots will it resemble Mexico?

              What will be left to safe when Democrats are finished with America?

            2. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing else you said was of interest to me. If it were up to me, I'd grant immediate amnesty to all and rip down the border, so I obviously don't agree with any of your other position. The Refugee part was the only point of factual contention and so I addressed it.

              If we sign a treaty it is law, and as far as I can tell we are in fact a party to that treaty.

              Last year's apprehensions were Around 414k people, which would make 50k about 12%. I don't know if that counts as "not a large percentage" to you or not.

              There is an entire section about international protection concerns. The report mentions several possible reasons that might qualify, including escaping violence, home abuse, and deprivation. Those are the numbers which have to be added up. It isn't something pulled out of the air.

              You might be right, but that someone isn't the UN.

              We definitely signed the 1967 protocol, which I am somewhat certain binds us to the original. If you look in the document of treaties we are currently bound to you will find the 1967 protocol on page 466: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf

              The footnote states the following: "Protocol incorporates articles 2 through 34 of the convention relating to the status of refugees of July 28, 1951."

            3. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I think you have earned your stripes. I think it is time to welcome a new and thoughtful contributor  to the Politics and Social Issues forum.

              Welcome aboard SassySue, I hope you stick around.

              GA

        3. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          First of all, thanks for the memories!

          You claim to have Lakota heritage, but I have never met a Jew who defended the Third Reich, or their immigration laws. I am sure your Lakota relatives must be very proud of you. "Roll Over Tatanka Iyotanka, And Tell  Tchaikovsky The News!"  As far as your Irish ancestor is concerned, anyone who came to this continent after 1492 from Europe came here illegally. I say this not by my standard, but by the standard that has been set by people like you, and the U.S. government. That standard is as follows: "We have an established government and laws, you must abide by our laws in order to legally enter our country".

          Well, guess what? There were developed, civilized nations on this continent, many thousands of years before Columbus. This was not a vast wilderness just waiting to be developed by a superior European culture, which is what  the racist historical revisionists would have us believe. The Europeans ignored the laws and the sovereignty of these nations by invading and stealing  their lands. But might does not make right. Consequently, all who came after were trading in stolen property, and benefiting from the murder, and enslavement of innocents. If any  United States citizen of European descent believes that the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of so-called illegal immigrants from south of the border have no right to be here, then they cannot justify being here themselves. Their own words and actions have made them out to be selfish,greedy, uneducated fools!

          No nation has the right to steal wealth, to hoard wealth, and to create a third world of poverty and despair, upon which to build their super highways, shopping malls, swimming pools, and bank accounts. Yes, colonialism, and capitalism, created much of the poverty that exists in the world today. The illusion of ownership is the cancer that will soon destroy the entire world. Many see no shame in  benefiting from the evil acts of previous generations. "It wasn't me!" "That's ancient history!" .. and so the mantra goes. They have, but still they want more, and they will stand at the gate to deny anyone who might take a piece of their delicious apple pie. But one man , or one nation, cannot rightfully  own what God has created for us all. Only a thief can make such a claim. Furthermore, God did not create a world with borders. These are the handiwork of talking monkeys. (see Planet of the Apes)

          Many U.S. citizens think that they are following their own agenda, but they are only parroting a prepared script that has been spoon fed to the masses by a ruling elite. They are simply pawns who will happily maintain the status quo for a few extra scraps from the Massa's table. Illegal immigration is simply another diversionary tactic to keep the populace off balance, and under control.

          Last but not least, the United States has always claimed to be a Christian nation, so let us look at the words of Jesus. In John  8:11, rather than being zealous about upholding the "Law", Jesus told the woman who committed adultery to " go and sin no more". If Jesus would treat the woman who committed adultery in such a compassionate manner , in spite of the "Law", then how can we imagine that Jesus would treat a busload of  so-called "illegal" children?  In Matthew 25:40  we get a clue when Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. But I suppose you may think that Jesus is simply a clever work of fiction, or at the very least , outdated and obsolete ...  especially after over  2,000 years!

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Actually - despite the fact that much of what you say has historic validity (you'll note the word historic) much of the land was "purchased". It was a miscommunication and misunderstanding between cultures, that is a fact, but purchased it was.

            Sorry you think I'm not doing my heritage proud - my Grandfather would disagree with you. . Of course, he is a wise man who understands that one must live in the now and look to the future. Not get cemented in past wrongs. It doesn't mean they did not happen - it doesn't mean they were not horrendous wrongs - it just means to dwell there gains you nothing and steals your future.

            You know, I take it back too. Actually I'm not sorry, you should be sorry. How egocentric of you to even think you have any right to make criticisms of my heritage or how I honor it  You don't know me - or my everyday life - or what my Grandfather has taught me, who might just know more about my heritage than you do. I realize you might find that difficult to swallow given your attitude in your post - that you know all about how everyone should act and if they don't then they're just wrong - but it's just fact. You're out of line and beyond the pale.

            But as to legality, you're also incorrect. There were no laws - even in the various Tribal Nations of the time - about immigration or land ownership even. I mean if you want to split hairs - you can't have illegal when there aren't laws about it to break.

            But to take your point even further - since you think you're such an expert on Native culture and all that - let's just say you're correct in your assumptions about all the Tribal Nations' here in America just walking around reliving 1492 - would they want MORE people coming in illegally to what is rightfully their Nation? I'd think not.

            So in the future, refrain from using MY people as a crutch you lean on to justify illegal aliens. It doesn't wash.

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
              wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              SassySue1963,

              You speak in soundbytes based on your emotions. There is no factual evidence to back up your claim that most of the Indigenous land was "legally" purchased by the United States government. In fact, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You also accuse me of making false assumptions about your character, but it is your own words that have revealed your true character. You have indicated that you are in agreement with selfishness, greed,and "Manifest Destiny"; that your own people were savages who had no legitimate Christian governments, and as such had no "legal" right to dispute the European invasion of this continent. In other words, the Euro-American cannot possibly be descended from illegal immigrants, because the hundreds of millions of people who populated this continent prior to Columbus simply don't matter!

              You claim to be of Lakota heritage yet you appear to know nothing of a famous land claim that has been ongoing for over 100 years! Let me enlighten you and your merry band of patriots:

              The Black Hills were officially stolen by the U.S. government as the result of February Act of 1877. The government claimed to have purchased the land from the Sioux,  but there is to this day no valid record of such a transaction. The Sioux Nation has "legally" disputed this theft since 1920.

              In 1877, without the consent of “three-fourths of all adult males” stipulated by the treaty, the greedy U.S. government seized the Black Hills, along with the gold found there, and began profiting from the protected land. The Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged the theft in 1980 by agreeing to settle with the Sioux for $102 million. The Sioux refused to accept the offer and the money was placed in a trust that has grown to over $1 billion.

              The Sioux Nation has felt that the payment is invalid because the land was never for sale. Many believe that accepting the funds would be tantamount to a sales transaction. The fight over the Black Hills has continued for over one hundred years,and to my knowledge, as of July 2014, a unanimous agreement has yet to be reached.But according to your logic, your own people have been living in the past since 1877. According to you, they should have given in to a bully many years ago; certainly when the Supreme Court offered them money in 1980!

              Of course, this is just one of many examples of the land theft perpetrated by the purveyors of "freedom and democracy".  When we read the accounts of Bartolome de las Casas, we understand that in the early years of colonization, the Europeans did not even pretend to make treaties, they simply tortured and massacred men, women, and children and took what they wanted. It is upon this foundation, not the blood of patriots, but the blood of innocents, that the United States were constructed.

              It is not my opinion, but the historical record which proves that Euro-Americans have no moral right to deny anyone access to the ill gotten gains of their ancestors. It is quite disgusting to witness the greedy spawn of kidnappers, rapists, and thieves, commiserating in online forums about how their rights are being violated. Am I suggesting that all Euro-Americans are evil spawn? Of course not, my natural mother was Dutch, and my adoptive father was white, of English descent. As a matter of fact, he was the first to teach me about my natural fathers people, the Tsalagi, and the treachery of the Colonialist governments. There are bigots who have considered my white father to be a race traitor, but I understand that he was truly a man of God. The evil spawn  that I speak of are those who follow in the footsteps of Manifest Destiny, and who continue to desecrate the image of God by taunting innocent little kids on buses.

              Concerning your comment about using a "crutch": The truth is not a crutch. The truth is my weapon of choice. It is the truth that will ultimately bring and end to over 500 years of tyranny and evil. You are at a distinct disadvantage here, because there is no defense against such a formidable weapon.

              Concerning your comment," I mean if you want to split hairs - you can't have illegal when there aren't laws about it to break."

              For the sake of argument, even if your false assertion were true , such a line of reasoning suggests that in a society which has no written laws against theft,kidnapping, and rape, such violations are of no consequence, since in the absence of a written law there can be no illegality! Such insipid, immoral, rationalization is a marvel to modern man, and science. We must all answer to a higher law that is not written on pieces of paper, or archived in digital records, but a law that is written upon the hearts of men. Some have called it the "Golden Rule", and like music, it is universal.

              Concerning your comment, " would they want MORE people coming in illegally to what is rightfully their Nation? I'd think not."

              The European has never held a monopoly on selfishness and evil. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. As far as I am concerned, ownership is an illusion; borders are an illusion, and Capitalism is inherently evil. We only have the right to possess what is necessary to sustain ourselves. We do not have the right of luxury, at the expense of others, especially these little children. We do not own them either, since they were all created by God.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No that is all on you. I said nothing of the kind that they did not have governments. I mentioned only land ownership and immigration, specifically.

                Never said "most" at all - said much. Too different terms.  Certainly the Tribal Nations of the time with any transaction felt these were more trades than sales - since they did not themselves believe they owned the land. There is plenty of evidence of such trades.

                I know all about the land claim. It is not just the Lakota involved in it either. There were others settled and paid out - and there are others still pending as well. Currently the people are divided about taking the monetary settlement - because it would help in so many areas and realistically - they are aware the land is never going to be awarded. On the other side, is the argument you put forth.

                None of it has anything to do with these illegals. Which is why it wasn't mentioned - how does that mean I know nothing of it? You presume much and know little.

                You've run around a circle that has no bearing on anything in the here and now. By the current laws of the land - my Irish ancestor arrived here legally. By the current laws of the land, these children are here illegally. Period. That is just fact whether you like it or not. Your spin and need to continue living in the past doesn't change that.

                You were so concerned about Native Americans and it really being their country until I pointed out that would actually fall on the side of not wanting more illegals here. Now - yeah their greedy too.

                Get a grip, stop trolling and keep on topic.

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  This is your downfall. You are hiding behind sand castles. I am right on topic. The beneficiary of a thief has no right to complain about someone invading their space. Whether someone votes Republican ,or Democrat, as a result of the moral outrage over threatening children on a bus, should be the least of your worries. More importantly, such an act is offensive to God. The laws manufactured by criminals and thieves have no bearing in a world beholding to a higher law. You have no intelligent response, and so , as is often the case, you have resorted to name calling. But I am no stranger to such juvenile tactics. The truth has never been popular with those who have found comfort in a lie. Rave On Sassy! It's been real.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You've brought nothing to the actual topic at hand. You spin webs, type a lot and contribute little.

                    I ignored the God part because if you want to get into a scripture battle - there are plenty of scriptures about following the laws of the land and many who would disagree with you that the there even is a higher power. You hold that belief, that's fine, but you don't get to transfer that belief onto other people.

                    Every land on the globe was stolen from someone. You understand that right? Lands were conquered - lost, conquered by someone else. Nothing is held by people who have always held it. That is just fact.

                    This is the 21st century - like it or not, those are the laws that govern. The laws that govern make them illegal immigrants. Period. They are not citizens.

                    Since no one can be the beneficiary of a thief btw, I expect that you will be renouncing your citizenship and, I don't know - where will you live? Since there is nowhere that has not been stolen from someone at some point. Sucks for you.

                2. junkseller profile image90
                  junksellerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  By the current laws of the land, a refugee is not here illegally. Period. That is just fact whether you like it or not.

                  "Every person has the right to seek and be granted asylum..." (American Convention on Human Rights).

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    This is WRONG, these illegals are posing a severe risk to the American fabric.   These people are right to protest them.  The militia should be stronger than they already are.   I applaud the militia at the borders; they are attempting and often successfully stopping these illegals.   The illegals are doing nothing but ruining the country.   They have NO skills whatsoever and NOTHING to add to America-SEND THEM BACK!

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    ref·u·gee
                    ˌrefyo͝oˈjē,ˈrefyo͝oˌjē/Submit
                    noun
                    a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

                    Nowhere in there will you see anything indicating that someone just wanting a better/easier life is termed "refugee" for purposes of immigration.

                  3. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Once again, with many already stating they were sent here or came here because they were told of coming amnesty and they'd be allowed to stay and/or to join family - that does not qualify them for refugee status.
                    Also, the US is not even a party to the Convention, as I already previously pointed out.

            2. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Holy cow! That was so bluntly put, and correctly done. I know I am just a small fish in a big pond, but for what it's worth, you have my respect for that response.

              But even more valuable for all of us was this quote;
              " Of course, he is a wise man who understands that one must live in the now and look to the future. Not get cemented in past wrongs. It doesn't mean they did not happen - it doesn't mean they were not horrendous wrongs - it just means to dwell there gains you nothing and steals your future."

              That is a message all of us should realize is essential to our growth - both personal and as a nation.

              Well done.

              ps. I really hate "love fest" replies, so I will have to attack you on some other point when you slip up - even the tiniest bit smile

              GA

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "Well, guess what? There were developed, civilized nations on this continent, many thousands of years before Columbus."

            The comical thing is that you are right.  North America was colonized around 10,000 years ago and some of those civilizations were quite developed and civilized. 

            Of course, there were none of those original "colonists" were left by the time Columbus came around - they were all destroyed and taken over, probably several times, ending with the indigenous peoples Columbus and his compatriots found.

        4. moneymindit profile image72
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How many billions of dollars in tax payer money does the United States send to other countries in the form of aid, to those who are less fortunate?

        5. moneymindit profile image72
          moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          SassySue1963,

          Wow!  Easy for you to say since you are already sitting at the banquet of opportunity.  I doubt that if your Irish ancestors were actually living a good life in Ireland, they would have come to this country, legally or not.

  5. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    Having made my position clear, I see no advantage for so-called Hispanic's to vote one way or the other. Because of the school bus outrage, I see a movement away from Republican, but the only hope for the working class, regardless of race, is to abolish the two-party system in the United States, which is nothing but a farce, and always has been.

  6. joeyallen profile image84
    joeyallenposted 2 years ago

    You are what I call "The Fox misguided".
    It's a shame that lost people like you are so into biased Republican politics they can't see what is wrong with the pathetic scene of adults screaming at innocent children. There are so many lost Americans.
    You, g m Williams are not Christian.
    Let me ask you a question. If Jesus were there, would he be screaming at the meek? Would he be carrying a machine gun?
    Look at yourself and tell me you have a heart. These are the meek Jesus spoke of.
    I can see why you are hiding behind a mask.

    1. moneymindit profile image72
      moneyminditposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      joey,

      Don't waste your time asking hypocrites about Jesus and God.  They will ignore the questions, because they know they cannot justify, through their Christian beliefs, the asinine ways that those morons were behaving in Murrieta.  I already asked, "What would Jesus do with these illegals?  Would he hold up a sign saying return to sender?  Not one person has responded.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image89
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Then I'm the one person. The answer is "No!". Jesus would not be facing toward the south, holding up a sign saying , "Return To Sender",. He would be facing toward the North, holding up a sign that said," He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone."

        Translated: Anyone whose forefathers came here from Europe uninvited by the Indigenous nations, without a passport, without a green card, seeking a better life, please step to the right!

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The ONLY solution to the illegal situation is to SEND THEM BACK to their respective countries and to establish strong militias to deter illegals from ever crossing the country.   America has ENOUGH problems of its own without adding illegals to the equation.  These illegals have NO contributable skills and many of them are criminals.    These illegals are problematic to say the least.   It is the ILLEGALS that are causing some of the problems in this country including crime.     I am for immigration but only those immigrants with skills and education that can ADD to this country, not SUBTRACT!   America is in bad shape right now-high unemployment rate and other socioeconomic malaise.  Permitting those illegals to this country will eventually BANKRUPT this country.  I SEE THIS; it is a shame that others refuse to see this!  America and AMERICANS first and FOREMOST!

  7. Sed-me profile image82
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    +1 and thank you.

  8. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Quilligrapher, I admire your stoicism and determination to cut through to the truth.
    It's a determination that I lack knowing  that any such effort will be totally ignored especially by those whose prejudices you challenge.

    But do keep up the good work.

  9. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago
    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But they aren't facts, they are just more opinions

 
working