How low can they go?
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 ?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-reformHi 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.
{1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582387
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582611Q,
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.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.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.
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...
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.
{1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2605303
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582387
{3} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121275#post2582Of 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
{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=1Q,
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.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.
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
The faces of Hispanic Americans don't match preconceptions, nor do their names
Edward Furlong
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.
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.
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).Will we even be permitted to see the images of children with scabies, pneumonia, "Bird" flu who are now in federal custody and posing a public health risk? A member of Congress was denied entrance to where these children have been stored, not housed, stored by Obama. When tuberculosis re-emerges as a major illness in America will we be allowed to know? The images are being controlled by one side of the issue and our liberty eroded in the name of immigration reform.
It isn't reform, it is an abrogation of a constitutionally charged responsibility on the part of the President that can easily be construed as a "high crime or misdemeanor." What is next, welcoming the Republican Guard Corps to a White House photo op? Obama wants America undone and this is one convenient crisis, since the "war on women" hasn't quite panned out.So, if they were completely healthy children, the opposition wouldn't be quite so valid?
A border agency overwhelmed by the flood, (like New Orleans was overwhelmed by Katrina), and you want to attribute it to "Obama storage?"
I applaud your passion on subjects concerning our nation, and respect your conservative perspectives - but sometimes a little original thought can be a lot more productive than even the most heated passion.
GAYour Katrina comparison is apt. Katrina created such havoc in New Orleans, a city under constant threat of catastrophic flooding, because of decades of neglect and contemporary fecklessness by corrupt Democrat politicians. There had been numerous projects to control flooding and evacuate citizens planned and even funded for years prior to Katrina. They were just never fully realized as the moneys were channeled into more convenient pockets.
The flood of humanity across our Southern border is a direct consequence of decades of stupidity and neglect. It is also a product of policies encouraging illegal immigration both actively
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room … al-aliens/
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-ob … rk-permits
and tacitly,
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … mariel.htm
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … ts-Amnesty
Much like his other foreign policy "triumphs" his narcissism, arrogance and presumed brilliance have created a disaster. He has had help from people like Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and McCain but, as he is wont to remind us daily, he "has a pen and if he has to go it alone he will."
I wonder how long before Obama blames this ample demonstration of his terrible leadership on GWB.Now that is a more reasonable response. While I do agree with you that most of the blame for this current illegal immigrant problem lies squarely on Pres. Obama and the Democrat's shoulders. I am glad to see you acknowledge that it is not theirs alone.
"...The flood of humanity across our Southern border is a direct consequence of decades of stupidity and neglect. ..."
I am a huge Reagan admirer, but on this issue - even he failed to meet the challenge, as has every president since then.
GAYou are wrong about Reagan, in return for the strict amnesty program passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by him, the Democrats promised more strict immigration controls. If Reagan is to blame for anything it is for trusting that party of liars.
hi. scabies is a nuisance infection and will never be a public health issue. my sister had it and none of the other five people in our house ever got it. she had an itchy foot - no crisis.
bird flu is from the far east, not central america.
it's obvious you just make this stuff up.Scabies is a very serious disease and CAN be a public health issue. Concentration camp prisoners had scabies because of lack of sanitary conditions. Yes, it is documented that these illegals do have scabies and other sort of dangerous diseases. The issue of bringing these illegals is a serious one. Obama has really go amok. There should be some controls as to who come to this country. In the early 20th century, when there was an influx of legal immigrants, those who had communicable diseases were not allowed entrance in this country! Obama isn't thinking but then THAT'S not new, isn't it!
no one ever died or was even hospitalized over scabies. it's an infestation of the skin by mites. it's already here, so a couple more cases won't make much difference. when you get your MD, you can argue with me about this.
You know who else has diseases, sometimes serious ones? All of humanity.
the first two (of five) parts of immigrant evaluation involve health assessment, treatment , and vaccination. scabies is easily treated. now, why don't you go yell, "fire," in a crowded theater.
Yes, we need those images, and finally we will have definitive proof that human beings sometimes get sick. Egads! Run for your lives!!!!
It seems like you guys would get exhausted by making up all these nonsense conspiracy theories, but I guess not. At any rate, the boy who cried stupid isn't worth my time anymore.
come on you can not be serious every election cycle the percentage of hispanic voters for republicans go down,that is a fact
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
GAI 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.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.
GAI 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.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.
Preach junkseller! Preach! Very well said!
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.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.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."
GANo 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.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+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in AGREEMENT!
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.
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?GA Anderson,
If Republicans were to put something forth that makes sense, then there is no reason the Senate wouldn't say, "Ok Dear".
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'
GARepublicans 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?
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.
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.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.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?)
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?"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?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.
You sure stay up late... or are you from a land other than the US?
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.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"?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.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!
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!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.
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?
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.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.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!
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.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.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?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."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
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!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.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.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.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.
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.It does not matter how many lands have been stolen, and for how many years. If two wrongs cannot make a right, then neither can a million. Throughout human history precedents have been set, and unique events seem to have occurred that have changed the course of human history, for better or for worse. What happened in 1492 set the human race on a collision course with oblivion. My goal, and the goal of many others, transcends racist, and nationalist ideology. As you can tell from the news, we are doing more than just talking about change in forums.
The issue of illegal immigration has created an opportunity for positive change.The United States, and the other Colonialist governments on this continent have an opportunity to set a moral precedent. By opening the borders, and by returning all stolen lands to the First Nations. This would send a powerful message to the world that the United States has at last become a Christian Nation. Just as Colonialism, and Capitalism, changed the entire world for the worse, such a move would usher in an era of peace, and prosperity for all men.
Of course many will balk at my suggestion because it may threaten their never ending quest for material gain.Were it possible to return the land to it's original owners, I might agree. Unfortunately, cultures such as the Fremont, Anasazi and Numic peoples were wiped out thousands of years ago by the usurpers that came to be lumped together as "Indians". It certainly doesn't make sense to give the land to people that stole it by conquest and murder in the first place, now does it?
There are many nations that still exist, and they are easy to find. Your suggestion that Indigenous nations have also warred against each other in the past, has nothing to do with the point I am making. The degree of killing and dispossession that existed after 1492 was unprecedented in the New World. The Taino people that Columbus met were , according to Columbus himself, not warlike, friendly, happy, and well fed. Columbus in the space of a few years, nearly wiped out the entire population. There is simply no comparison when we look at the degree, and the scope of brutality that began in 1492, and which continued for 500 years, culminating in the massacre at Wounded Knee.
There are many Indigenous nations throughout the United States. You do not have to go through any government channels. Find out who they are and explore their background. Find out whether the land was stolen, treaty's broken etc.. If you own land that appears to have belonged to any of these nations simply work out a fair agreement for all parties and return the land. This is a much worthier pursuit than standing on a border and frightening little kids with hateful words. Such actions will set an example, and can only have a positive effect on the world around us.
LOL @ opening the borders. How many of these group of illegals are you taking home to support? How about it Mr. Christianity dictates such and such. Or are you just another loud mouthed hypocrite like Nancy Pelosi?
Go google the EU and all the issues free migration of workers across borders is causing there. And that is workers already with jobs waiting for them.
Here's a newsflash - no matter where you go you will be the beneficiary of a thief by your definition. You've condemned the entire world, yourself included. I guess you could get a boat and sit in the middle of the ocean somewhere outside any territorial claim. Of course, your Christian values would also demand that you forgive right? Guess that's one of those commandments you're still working on.All the issues of free migration in the EU are caused by narrow mined bigots.
You should really take a reading comprehension class. I also can see that you, like some of the other "happy hour intellectuals" on this thread, appear to have never participated in any serious debates while in high school, or college. Your statements make no sense whatsoever. The issue here is that people who live in glass houses have no right to be throwing stones. That's what I've been talking about.
The fact that I may also be a "beneficiary of thieves" (a phrase that you seem to be stuck on) is beside the point. I'm not the one throwing stones at so-called illegals. I'm not the one standing at the border saying, "You can't come in here!". I'm not the one posting derogatory comments about poor, hungry, people who are desperate and in need of help. I don't need to get in a boat and hide somewhere, because I have not placed myself above those less fortunate . I have nothing to be ashamed of. I have, in the past, taken people into my home who were homeless and down on their luck, but once again , whether or not I take an immigrant into my home has nothing to do with anything.
Regardless of what I may, or may not do in this respect, the fact remains that I won't be standing between someone and their opportunity for a better life. As far as my taxes being raised to subsidize "illegal aliens", I would gladly do so. I'd rather be helping those people than some fat greedy politician from Arizona.
And what does "forgiveness" have to do with any of this? I challenge you or anyone else to follow my posts in this thread. Not once have I indicated anything about forgiveness; one way or the other. Is this the best that you can do? It is a common tactic of racists, and people who generally don't know what they are talking about , to accuse the person who is exposing a particular evil , of being racist, of being evil themselves, or lacking in forgiveness.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Forgiveness is not synonymous with forgetfulness. Simply telling the truth does not necessarily indicate a lack of forgiveness. Who told you that lie? Was it the same person who said you were living in a free democratic state? Like I said, you seem to have difficulty in framing a valid argument. Your goal is simply to attack someone who disagrees with you, but it appears that you are shooting blanks.
The fact that I have labored this long on this particular thread is proof that I have a great capacity for forgiveness. Otherwise, I would not type one word. I would simply let the blind continue leading the blind. But that would be a very cruel thing to do. If my words help to awaken even one person who has been mesmerized by the hatefulness, and the mindlessness, that I have seen in this thread, and others , I will consider my time well spent.The very fact that you want to live in the past speaks to a lack of forgiveness of any sort. And your entire rant (you might want to go back and check it, it's a rant) about thieves etc. shows a lack of any forgiveness. Your statement that somehow because I don't hold some 500 year old grudge shows a disrespect to my Lakota heritage says you don't believe in forgiveness at all.
We are not just a nation of laws, we are a planet of laws. There are reasons for laws. There are reasons for immigration quotas. Resources are not unlimited. So, since you think we should just hold open the door and let everyone in - and you had your little tirade about the Christian thing to do, and Jesus said - and these are the meek - how many are you taking in to raise? It is a valid question given all you've had to say to everyone here who understands the economics of it and that the sheer number is unsustainable without draining the country's resources, which in turn, harms every CITIZEN of the country.
We're all too evil. You've told us so and you're so much better and more compassionate and Christ-like. So, how many?
Edit: Oh and talking about your tax dollars isn't going to cut it. That only says that you want to take everyone down with you and what is it? 15 to 20 percent of your income? Yeah no. How many are you taking in to raise that will drain your personal resources directly? As the saying goes "put your money where your mouth is" or "put up or shut up".Thank you SS, America is NOT the world's savior. We have problems such as unemployment, poverty, and other related ills that should be addressed. Yes, there are Americans under such conditions and THEY should be taken care of instead of worrying about illegals from other countries that AREN'T our concern. You are correct again that there is a problem of undocumented people in the EU which is becoming more increasing problematic.
There need to be more stringent controls as to whom come to this country. There need to be a severe reformation regarding the immigration laws. No undocumented and/or illegal "immigrants" should be allowed in. They ought to be turned away, even forcibly. We can't support the whole world. Let the other countries deal with its problems, we have MORE THAN ENOUGH of our own. The illegals are nothing but TROUBLE! Smart Americans know this and are forming militias in order to prevent them from coming in and in some cases, are turning them away.Like I said forgiveness is not synonymous with forgetfulness. You, like millions of other "good, law-abiding Americans", are looking at this problem in the wrong way. A hateful way of thinking will never solve this problem. The illegal immigration problem is much like the drug problem. It is not the supply, but the demand that has created a drug problem in this country. When we remove the "demand" from the equation, the supply will naturally dry up without an audience. It is the same with illegal immigration.
Capitalism has created a great economic disparity; in this country, and throughout the world. Capitalism , by it's very nature, cannot exist without a slave class, or working class. But a working class alone cannot support the Capitalist pyramid. There must necessarily be a poor, or underclass beneath the working class, and their must be an upper class above it. These three classes: The under class, the working class, and the upper class, support the ruling elite that sits atop the pyramid. If you remove any one of these classes from the structure, the pyramid will fall down. We can exist very well on our own, but the ruling elite cannot exist without us. This is a weakness in their system that we have yet to exploit; we have been too busy fighting among ourselves.
There is only one way to effectively solve the problem of illegal immigration, short of a blood bath:
Destroy the pyramid, and the curse of Capitalism, and the world will realize a classless society. In a classless society without borders, every man will be able to support himself and his family anywhere on this Earth. Of course, I have condensed and simplified the solution here, simply because I have other things that must be attended to at the moment. When I get around to it, I will write "The Hub That Changed The World", and most likely become famous, but until then, suffice it to say that as long as the disparity exists, and as long as immigration laws remain as they are, illegal immigration will continue in the United States.Not if there is a very strong and vigilant militia. Such militias are increasing and keeping a watchful eye on those who cross their borders. More and more people are protesting the increasing numbers of illegals coming to America and are protesting. The illegals are the WORST; they have no skills nor education. What good are they to America? NONE! Americans are not a silent bunch and will protest this injustice. What is needed is MORE militias. Americans FIRST and FOREMOST.
It appears you were born too late. Bull Connor tried the strong arm "beat 'em back to Africa" approach in Birmingham back in the early 60's. Even back then it didn't work out to well for him. Actually made him look like the despicable bigot he really was. First of all, the approach that you are suggesting will never happen because a majority of U.S. citizens simply don't care. There will be those groups that will flex their muscles along the border , but if they do it will be short lived. As soon as some innocent children are killed by trigger happy racists along the border it will all come to a screeching halt. One way or another. I missed the Alamo,and Custer's last stand. Hopefully I'll be around for the next one.
People are going to rebel against these illegals. Americans are smart people and they are going to sick and tired of their tax dollars going to support illegals who contribute NOTHING to this country but ill. Oh yes, the American people are going to rise up and some will form militias to stop this insane madness.
I DON'T want them here nor do most thinking Americans! These illegals will EVENTUALLY destroy the American fabric! Mark my words, these illegals will increase crime and exhaust what is left of American socioeconomic resources. Let's take care of Americans FIRST, forget about these illegals who have NOTHING whatsoever to contribute!• U.S. citizens have been giving their tax dollars to fat, greedy politicians for over 200 years. They have complained but done nothing.
• Woodrow Wilson admitted that the United States was lost in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. U.S. citizens complained but did nothing.
• George Bush and Dick Cheney lied about weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for Bush and Tony Blair to be tried at The Hague for war crimes. U.S. citizens complained very little, and did nothing.
• The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to exceed $4.4 trillion. Nearly 7,000 U.S military personnel have been killed. U.S. citizens complained, but have done nothing for over 10 years.
• The Patriot Act was passed on October 26, 2001. One of the most invasive and unconstitutional acts of legislation ever passed. U.S. citizens complained a lot, but did nothing.
Why do you think they will rise up now? Good Ol' American bigotry is like the Old Grey Mare: After a few Neil Young songs, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, it simply ain't what it used to be! Here's what's really gonna happen. You're gonna hear a lot of complaining, and then everybody's going to the Superbowl; after that they're going to the shopping mall. Then they'll go home and watch American Idol. End of story. Perhaps next summer you can revive this thread for a bit of nostalgia.
God Bless America!So your solution to alleged illegality is to completely ignore national and international law and have bands of vigilante militias rise up to solve the problem? That is literally insane.
I really hope you're just having a few bad days, because your attitude is an actual and far graver danger to America than anything you clamor about.I AM SERIOUS regarding the problem with illegals. I won't back down. I meant what I said!
Can racist conservatives read , add, and subtract ?
gmwilliams has spoken of the rising crime rates that will be thrust upon us by the "illegals' from south of the border. Perhaps she/he (not sure which) should read a book.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice: .. imprisoned violent sex offenders were more likely to have been male and white ( translation: American citizens) than other violent offenders.In the category of sexual assault, whites made up nearly 75% of all offenders imprisoned for sexual assault vs. 23% for blacks and 3% for other races.
These numbers are fascinating! There are, and have been for sometime, over 11 million so-called illegal aliens living in the United States. Apparently they have been figured into the 3% " other races". Gee! I definitely see a crime wave created by evil Hispanics on the horizon!
Furthermore, there has been a lot of moaning and groaning among the fat, the greedy, and the restless, about the economic burden of "illegals". After all is said and done, the U.S. taxpayer will have spent $4.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; along with the greater cost of nearly 7,000 dead U.S. soldiers.
A racist coward will rail against poor people, and little kids on buses coming across the border, but they don't have the pluck to stand up and challenge their Uncle Sam; the uncle who has been screwing them over since before they were born. They're so used to being violated it feels natural to them. They even sing songs about it, " Oh beautiful for spacious skies....etc"
A message to uneducated, racist, American conservatives: Learn how to read and count numbers, then you will better understand who your real enemies are. Here is a good place to start:
A wrenchBiscuit Primer For Challenged Racist Conservatives
1+1 = 2 2/1= .05 (*helpful hint: the slash mark means "divided by")There are CRIMINAL elements among the illegals.
Ask the Arizonians, Californians, and Texans about illegals and the rising crime rate? Ask the Arizonians, Californians, and Texans as to how the illegals are damaging their property?
The attitude of many illegals is that America OWES them and gimme. They DON'T contribute anything to America; in fact, they are going to tax our social systems and networks FURTHER. It's TIME that America CLEAN HOUSE and DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS. They are more of a DETRIMENT than a BENEFIT to the American economy and social fabric!
As a Liberal feminist, I DON'T agree with Ann Coultier; however, in THIS instance, she is SPOT ON on the situation regarding illegals and jobs!
Let's take care of and heal Americans FIRST!
Nothing more SUCCINCT than this! Enough is ENOUGH!!!!O.K., GM, I'll call the Department of Justice A.S.A.P. and tell them to adjust their figures; according to the Arizonians, Californians, and Texans. Thanks for the heads up! Maybe you can convince the state of Texas to just start executing illegals, since Texas has always been big on capital punishment. You can thank me later.
In the UK we give nothing to illegal aliens. The moment that they are detected they are taken to a detention centre and then at the earliest opportunity deported.
Now, that IS the way it should be. Oh no, America under this "administration" elected to grant them amnesty. How intelligent! The UK has the RIGHT idea!
Well that is very disingenuous of you really - choosing one type of crime.
Let's look at the real facts shall we:
Arrests by crime and race
Crime White Black Indian/Eskimo Pacific Isl.
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 4,000 4,149 105 87
By percentage 48.0% 49.7% 1.3% 1.0%
That is from the FBI statistics of 2011.
Now, for getting any type of crime rate specifically for Hispanics, you have a problem. They stopped tracking that back in 1987 on a National Level.
Here are the crime statistics for 2008 from NYC however:
-83% of all gun assailants were black, while making up 24% of the population
-Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98% of all gun assailants
-49 of every 50 muggings and murders were carried out by blacks or Hispanics
-Blacks and Hispanics commit 96% of the crimes in New York, but include only 85% of those stopped during ‘stop and frisk’ incidents.
Here are the 2012 figures:
Crime White Black Hispanic Indian/Eskimo Pacific Isl.
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 11.2% 55.3% 29.4% 0.0% 4.1%
Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief 23.3% 34.9% 37.7% 0.3% 3.8%
So while I would not say immigrants contribute nothing to the country, we all know differently, you cherry picked one type of crime to suggest something that you know to be an outright falsehood or you would have included all crime in general.
LOL Yes evil capitalism. I suppose you don't want to get into the classless system of the USSR do you? Or how well all those socialist programs are working out for other countries, whose GDP to debt ratio is worse than our own huh? Who are now trying to cut those very programs because they are simply not sustainable long term.
I suppose that, all those people who rose from nothing in this country don't count either. After all, in a class society - you don't rise above you know. You can't leave your class. It simply isn't allowed.
In other words, become a poor nation that offers nothing and then the immigrants won't want to come here. Great plan.
How about we just enforce the laws on the books, get a President who doesn't ignore the Constitution, let the international community that says they are so concerned take care of these children, secure our borders and THEN talk about an amnesty plan for those who have been here for years and have broken no laws outside of entering the country illegally.
Now, I'm not saying we throw them on a boat as is and send them across the ocean, but we can make arrangements for them to reenter their country of origin or make a plea for legal immigrant status in other nations who are out there claiming such concern. Sure in the meantime, we need to house them, feed them and all that but that is a short term drain on our resources and not the long term economic consequences of letting that many illegal immigrants remain.Upward mobility is worse in the USA than most of western Europe.
I would expect such a trend as we can fit all of Western Europe inside the Continental US and still have plenty of room. The numbers differ greatly depending on the area of the country one resides. There are areas of our country where we exceed both Canada and Western Europe in mobility. Other areas where we do not.
Though Canada's land mass is expansive, it is not populated coast to coast as we are and the majority of its citizens reside in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia, 33 million of their 35 million in fact. For that reason, I would expect us to fall below Canada as well.
Western Europe and Canada, for the reasons I've described, are going to have less fluctuation in mobility rates. Spread out as we are coast to coast, more factors play into those rates based on location.What has the size of a country got to do with it?
Anyway, you would expect more opportunity than less in a large country.It isn't about opportunity solely, and size has a lot to do with opportunity. If you've traveled throughout the country - it is plain to see there are more opportunities within a metropolitan area than a suburb, even less in a rural area. We have more people per capita in rural areas than either Western Europe or Canada because our population is spread out coast to coast and, in the case of Western Europe, is much more vast.
Furthermore, people not separated by vast distances, are also sharing the same community, local government, resources, etc. Again - that leaves less room for variability and fluctuation, so the mobility rate will be more consistent. There are less farmers and ranchers to figure into the mix for example.My point was in response to your statement "I suppose that, all those people who rose from nothing in this country don't count either. After all, in a class society - you don't rise above you know. You can't leave your class. It simply isn't allowed"
I pointed out that in class ridden Britain there is more social mobility than in the USA.
Try as hard as you like to justify lack of mobility in the USA you can't dodge the fact that your statement was plain wrong.And I explained how that works - Britain is the point of a needle compared to the size of the US. If you think that does not affect the availability of opportunity you're wrong. It is really a pretty basic and easy concept to grasp.
Besides - everything I've read speaks of the horrible decline in social mobility in the UK right now. Of course, just like with news here - without actually researching - I take with a grain of salt.Doesn't alter the fact that your statement that there was less social mobility in class ridden countries was wrong.
You are probably correct to say that social mobility in the UK is declining at the moment, like you I would have to research further. I would also have to compare that with the perceived drop in social mobility in the USA.I never said that though. I was responding to a comment about the cemented class structure of the US and said about all those who'd risen out of their class in the past. That's all. I never said it was higher than anywhere else. The point I was making was that his comment about cemented class structure was wrong. Doesn't really matter if it was in the US or elsewhere.
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).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!
It is pretty amazing how unhinged some people are on this issue. Get a grip. It is a perfectly solvable problem if people would just sit down and have a reasonable, rational conversation.
It is also Interesting that people so evidently concerned about law-breaking are so ignorant, and willing to ignore, laws which don't suit their agenda. Walking across an imaginary line in the sand is a terrible evil but violating human rights and international law (and national law) not a problem? Odd priorities.
As for severe risk, again, I'd say get a grip. We've had a huge number of Hispanics here for awhile, both legal and illegal, and the world has hardly ended. Saying they have no skills and bring nothing to the country is just pure hatred.
The only risk they pose is the rising power of their voting block which is strongly not in favor of the Republicans, but that is a problem of the Republicans own making. If conservatives weren't so busy denigrating immigrants and attacking them with hostile policies, they might find they have a lot in common.
No group of people in this country shouting "SEND THEM BACK!" is going to have any meaningful political power in 20 years time, maybe much less. To not understand one's own obsolescence is a major failing. Half of this countries births are now to 'minorities'. People can either deal with that or retreat to their bunkers. The Tea Party has seemingly decided for the bunker where they sit around watching reruns of Leave it to Beaver while mom bakes an apple pie, then go to bed after saying their prayers and say "gee golly, this America sure is the best..."Sorry, laws against trespassing do not violate people's rights. Those ignoring those laws do, though.
Try reading better. I did not say they brought no skills or didn't work. I said their contribution was less that what it costs the country to support them, and it is.
Illegal aliens (in theory) have no "voting block". Or do you wish to refute that and claim that they ARE voting?
Leave the borders open to all, or try to support the world off our work, and there won't be a country to survive anyway. At least not with a tenth of the living standard we now have...Of course, their contribution is less; THEY have no transferrable or contributable skills or education. They will crowd our social systems, exhausting them. In essence, these illegals will be nothing but burdens to Americans. These illegals are the ones that are causing crime and other forms of illegal activities in many communities. The writing is on the wall. However, Obama and his inept administration wanted amnesty for these people. America is going downhill bit by bit. Commonsense decrees that if people desiring to immigrate have no skills, it is BEST to turn them away and send them back to where they come from. These illegals have no skills and are a THREAT to this country in myriad ways. Not everyone is suited to come to this country pure and simple!
I've really liked all of the immigrants I have been around. Good people, hard working, and generally more educated than you seem to be, and a heck of a lot nicer too. I'd take the whole lot of them over you in a heartbeat.
We have recognized the human right to seek asylum. Obviously they are unlikely to show up with proper papers. And legally, those seeking asylum are not deemed illegal and are not conisdered to have done anything illegal and for purposes such as seeking benefits are considered LAWFULLY present.
This was in response to gmwilliams, not you, and there is evidence which disagrees with your claim.
I was referring to the immigrant voting block. I would suggest your advice you wrongly gave to me: "Try reading better."
I think this is an attitude with an astonishing lack of creativity.Indeed we hold out the right to seek asylum. For specific matters and reasons, not because the person can't find a job. Asylum does not include that, and it doesn't include because there are dirty cops on the beat, either. Find another reason to supply the needs of the world off our backs.
Hmm. The "Immigrant voting block". No, you were speaking of the "Hispanic" block, of which some 10 million are illegal aliens, citizens of another country without legal right to be here. Go back and read your post.
The astonishing lack of creativity is to simply declare that we need open borders and to feed, house and clothe anyone that can walk that far. There are better solutions, solutions that do not require reducing the US to third world status.If you accept the notion of asylum, then what exactly is your way of making a determination? Should we interrogate them in the field? Shake it out of them? How about Dirty Harry: "Do you feel lucky punk?"
Seriously, what is your proposal for making this determination that is actually fair and actually grants asylum to legitimate claims and is different from what we are doing? I'd love to hear it.
I know what I said. There is a very large voting block of legal Hispanics here and it is growing, and even those who can't vote can still contribute to the community and impact how others vote.I think I'm open to finding a way to determine if someone is escaping poverty to feed at the free trough or actually being persecuted. As long, anyway, as it does not involve automatically making a citizen of anyone that can get here. As long as it looks for truth as opposed to simply screaming out that anyone fighting unlimited immigration just wants people to die.
Suggestions? A court hearing, taking a decade or more considering the numbers we allow to cross our borders, and supporting them all the while? Unacceptable. An assumption that an uneducated 13 year old from Guatemala doesn't know what "asylum" means and automatic deportation? Probably closer to truth, but still unacceptable. So, suggestions?
Voting - certainly the millions of illegal Mexican citizens contribute to our society. Less than they cost us, but they DO contribute. And the point? Beyond that we can't afford to support the world?
They also affect the vote - does that mean we should be nice to them and provide lifetime support because they can bribe our politicians to force us to support them? And I would go so far as to say that any person, Hispanic or other, that casts votes based on race without regard to citizenship shouldn't be voting at all.That's fine by me as well, and sounds like exactly what is supposed to happen. Does it? Who knows, I am sure it takes too long, but improving the clearance of these cases would most likely require more funding, which is almost impossible for anything these days. A report from an organization called Vera, states that "40 percent of children admitted into ORR custody are identified as eligible for a form of legal relief from removal (such as asylum, special immigrant juvenile status, or visas for victims of crime or trafficking)." http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files … system.pdf
While, people might argue that is too high, it doesn't sound at all automatic.
For the moment, I think we are stuck. We need some money to deal with the influx while working on a long term solution.
My only point in bringing up voting was in response to gmwilliams. Hispanics/immigrants are a large group of people and rapidly growing larger and aren't going away. To me it is just a simple reality. The group of people who wants to take a hard line (like gmwilliams) have two choices: coexistence or obsolescence. It won't be very long before they are the smaller group and I'm not sure they really get that. They still seem to think it is some sort of barnacle they can chip off the side. And I don't care in the sense of wanting to restrict what they do. Be nice/don't be nice, just don't be surprised by what happens.
And coexistence also doesn't mean doing whatever they want, it just means a willingness to at least have a conversation. You, for instance, have presented a strong opinion, you haven't in anyway been unhinged in the way gmwilliams was. Being constructive seems like a useful thing to me.I hope I haven't been unhinged. I live in an area where I've seen firsthand the damage that illegal aliens do to a society and to the country, and I hate that we continue to allow and even encourage it. The politicians, the businesses hiring the aliens and the citizens with open arms inviting them in are despicable, for there IS immense damage being done.
Nevertheless, the answer isn't to shoot them all. I even wrote a hub on it with a proposal of my own, part of which is to close the border as much as possible. I did NOT, however, address children, particularly unaccompanied children, because I have no real suggestions. We cannot, IMHO, continue to accept them all and welcome them, but neither can we send most of them "home". What's left? Shoot them to send a message? I don't believe it.
But I do firmly believe that if we accept them all, we will be overrun with kids to care for. And even more kids (in large numbers) will die in the desert or at the hands of those paid to transport them. The influx of children has to be stopped somehow, and pretending that they all (or even most) deserve asylum or to be considered refugees isn't going to help the problem or the country. Other countries do not manage themselves as well as the US, that's a fact of life, and we can't change that. Children will die, will starve, and will be abused and we can't stop that either. We do not have the power or ability to change the world; it is all we can do to maintain our small corner of it.Wilderness, it is pointless to present clear logic. I know how problematic these illegals will be to America. Remember when Castro let the undesirables out of Cuban jails and America opened its doors to them; there was a raise in crime in Florida as many of these elements were criminals. There is going to be MORE crime in America as a result of the influx of these illegals.
Not only you Wilderness but another hubber reported how destructive these illegals are to his community. The people who are protesting aren't racists but concerned citizens. America, WAKE UP before it's TOO LATE. I am not a Conservative but a Liberal. I see something amiss with Obama and his social policies. Methinks that he is seeking revenge for the past wrongs that America has committed against people of color and he wants to right these wrongs in anyway possible. I believe that MORE Americans have to form a militia to STOP the influx of illegals. It's TIME for Americans to be PROACTIVE and TAKE BACK the country! ENOUGH is ENOUGH!You're right - logic alone isn't the answer. Too many people look ONLY at the ethics of the situation, assuming we can afford whatever ethical stance we want to. We can't, but those people don't care and refuse to really LOOK at what is happening. They live in a dream world, where nirvana, or utopia is possible right here on earth.
So a compromise must be made, but a compromise that will last. Next year, ten years or fifty, the problem must not be allowed to return. Irregardless of what we do with the millions of aliens within our borders, we HAVE to secure those borders, as the constitution requires of our President.
As has been pointed out, though, Obama isn't the problem - those borders have been nearly wide open for decades. Business and politicians are the culprits, now coupled with millions of people wanting their loved ones to join them in the land of milk and honey, where all needs will be provided for free if they just ask for it. We either learn we cannot provide for the world or we join them in abject poverty and suffering.No, we cannot save the world; the world must learn to be responsible for each individual part therein. This is analogous to a parent giving a child EVERYTHING he/she wants and PROTECTING the child against each frustration and disaster. This is only enabling the child, making him/her expect EVEN MORE while paralyzing the parent. If such behavior continues into adulthood, the "child" will be infantilized and the parent will be economically bankrupt or near it. If America continues to save and rescue the world, she will SUFFER for it in the long run. It is time to say NO like the prudent parent, even though he/she can afford to, refuse to give his/her child EVERYTHING the latter wants as a means of buidling character and creating a source of responsiblity within that child.
I don't know who is the ethics only people. I'm sure there are some. For my own part, I'm perfectly willing to concede that a long term problem exists and needs resolution. I would solve it completely opposite from you, but realize that is an impossibility, therefore, I'll be begrudgingly fine with a solution close to the principles Boehner laid out which seems like it should have a majority support in this country. That seems like a reasonable position to me.
But being a long ways from logic and reason isn't exclusive to the ethics only crowd. Gmwilliams types with their "the end is nigh" rantings, Sassysue types who want to completely ignore the factual laws on the books, and retief2000s who can't see past their Obama punching bags get us nowhere either.
I appreciate your reasonable position even if I don't fully agree with it and am curious if you are familiar with the principles Boehner laid out and would support something near that: http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/boehner-r … rinciples/ (principles are towards the bottom).Really? What factual laws am I ignoring? The ones that exist only in your imagination? You've already been given examples, links etc. that prove there is no International law we are bound by at all in this matter. It is YOU ignoring our national laws.
I already said we can't send them back immediately- but send them back is what, by law, should happen and not what this Administration is attempting to do.
Sorry if I feel my money is better spent feeding my neighbors down the street than what amounts to people breaking and entering into our country illegally.
I always find people like you so amusing as well - you don't want us to police the world, want us to stay out of other countries, but then you think we should care for the world at the expense of our own citizens. Illogical and ridiculous.
edit: perhaps this will help.
States Parties to the 1951 Convention only:
Madagascar, Saint Kitts and Nevis
States Parties to the Protocol ONLY:
Cape Verde, United States, Venezuela
In the source, which is included below, you'll see we NEVER ratified this Convention.
The Protocol, which we are a party to, merely removed the date limitations to refugee status and added some definitions.
source: http://www.unhcr.org/3b73b0d63.htmlWow! you actually looked something up. I am pleasantly astounded. Now, if you actually read these documents we might get somewhere.
"...the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention)... (bolding by me)
"The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to apply articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the Convention to refugees as hereinafter defined."
Meaning? Signing the 1967 protocol is agreeing to articles 2 to 34 in the original Convention.
Prior to 1980, refugee laws were a bit ad hoc, but in 1980 the Refugee Act of 1980 was signed, in part to bring our laws in-line with our obligations to the UN treaty.
"In 1980, Congress enacted legislation to bring U.S. law into compliance with obligations it assumed when it signed the Protocol on November 1, 1968." http://www.ailc.com/services/asylum/history.htm
Since then there has been The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which added some legal code to the refugee issue, we signed the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (27 June 1987), and adopted regulations to honor those obligations which have a connection to asylum, the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which has some asylum components, Child Status Protection Act of 2002, the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, etc. I am sure I missed some stuff.
I mean, we have been granting asylum for decades. Do you really think that all happens completely outside of a legal framework. The notion is frankly asinine.
The children being processed are immediately put into removal proceedings. It just doesn't happen over night. Where is your evidence contradicting that that is what the administration is doing?
Where did I say I didn't want us policing the world, or involving ourselves in other countries, or that I wanted to care for others at the expense of ourselves? you are totally just making crap up. Stop wasting my time. If you want a pop-up-book it is in the children's section.I tried to find the actual Protocol, which I did know we were a party to - and could not find the part you mention here. It is still principle, not law. The UN is not a governing body of any kind. It is still our decision whether or not they classify as refugees. Even further, still our decision to grant or deny asylum. The rest are our own laws, which I never disputed. All assuming they are refugees, which we've already discussed earlier. They are not currently, nor is there evidence to suggest they meet the criteria. Simply fleeing gang activity in your country does not qualify you as a refugee nor for asylum.
As for the Administration's intent:
"Johnson said everybody who crossed the border faces a “pending” deportation proceeding but also repeated recent administration talking points about looking at ways to “create additional options.”
"On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked by a reporter whether he could say “without ambiguity” if the children will be deported.
“What I can say without ambiguity is that the law will be applied and there is going to be a due process that they’ll all be subjected to,” Earnest replied. “So I wouldn’t stand here and say how those claims will be processed; it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to do so. But the law will be rigorously applied.”
The President has requested additional authority and $3 billion in funds to deal with the issue. Republicans have requested faster deportations as a caveat to meeting that request. Democrats have balked at this plan.
They're already laying the ground work. You'll forgive me if I've lost any amount of trust in the current Administration to adhere to the law.
I admit I might have jumped the gun on the policing the world statement but I thought it was you on another thread about Iraq and how we are not the policemen of the world and we need to stay out of other countries' affairs. If I was mistaken there, I do apologize. Even if I'm not, I shouldn't have mixed forum comments together.Obama has asked for 3,700,000,000 to take care of these kids. Projections are that we will see 70,000 of them this year.
That's $53,000 per child!!! What's he going to do - clad them in gold threads??Told you, this "president" intends to bankrupt this country. America is going to be beyond bankrupt. This is insanity taken to a new level. America is already trillions of dollars in debt and this is going to place her in a deeper socioeconomic quagmire. Get this man out of office-America is becoming worse........worst!
The thing is $1.8 billion goes to HHS. HHS places them with a guardian or family member. They are then told to come back later for court. 90% never show up. HHS says it isn't their job to keep track of where they sent them, only to get them placed. Convenient huh?
I wonder, can I get $53,000 to give to each one of my kids? They could use the money.Sassy, with Obama as president, Americans do not need any enemies. Obama is putting illegals before Americans. Do this makes sense? No. No other country puts illegals before its citizens. In many countries, illegals are deported. Oh no, Obama is going to give them the most preferential of treatment. Obama=idiot deluxe. America's economy is going to be ruined. Sassy, say goodbye to first world, wealthy America and say hello to third world America, thanks to the Obumbler in the White House.
What is your solution exactly? You want to get rid of them but not spend any money. Let's say Gmwilliams is president for a day. What do you do? Let's hear it, oh wise one, because frankly, your bellyaching without offering anything constructive is tiresome.
The solution is simple, MASS DEPORTATION. We Americans have more than enough problems with Americans such as high unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and other social ills without adding more people who have NO contributable skills. Americans FIRST. Let's us heal and help Americans. We don't need illegal immigrants to add to the problem. They are nothing but extra baggage- SEND them HOME, pure and simple. To prevent illegals from entering America, strong vigilante groups and militias need to be established. People have established militias to keep illegals from entering the country. Simple, isn't it!
GM,
Why don't you start your own group with some of your fellow patriots here? I'm sure they would be glad to join. You could lynch people and spray them with fire hoses too! Just like the good ol' days! But if you don't have the start up capital, I'm sure there are plenty of white supremacist organizations that would be glad to have you. I would recommend the Minutemen. The fact that their former leader Chris Simcox was charged with molesting children should be no reflection on the rest of the organization. Maybe you could even get a uniform like the one in the picture below. Bonus!
Sieg Heil! I am with you my American brothers!Mass deportation with what money? Here are some estimates of the cost for your proposal. They range from $137 billion to $285 billion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01605.html http://www.businessinsider.com/deportin … ion-2012-1 http://blog.chron.com/immigration/2011/ … immigrant/
Not to mention the consequences of pulling millions of workers out of the system.
Citizen border militias are a huge mistake. We've already had several examples of them who are lunatics. Throwing them out there with guns in a dangerous and hostile situation is just asking for problems. Even fairly strong conservatives on the border haven't condoned militias. Heck, even Sheriff Arpaio seems to have an issue with them.
No, I think your proposal is antithetical to a civilized society and the rule of law and I would not support it.
It is at least a half-proposal, though. I'll give you credit for that.
I don't know about your kids, but for $53,000 I'll take a bus to Mexico and walk back through the Rio Grande. I'm a child of my parents, after all!
My point in being on this thread is mostly to just advocate for the law. I think it matters a great deal, and I think it is relatively clear as to what are obligations are in this case. And if the law fails us, then we should use the democratic tools available to us (voting/legislation/public discourse) to develop a solution. I don't really see much need to be Republican or Democratic on this issue. It is a perfectly solvable real world problem. The immediate need I consider to be an emergency need. It just has to be dealt with. The long term need probably requires a legislative solution. Make it happen. If it happens to be the Boehner principles than so be it.
Don't know about that. The Constitution, of course, denotes treaties as being the "law of the land" but there is some distinction between those that can automatically be enforced in US courts and those which need to first be acted on through an act of Congress. I don't fully understand the issue. Regardless, it probably doesn't matter since we have in fact enacted laws that in part, or entirely, are meant to fulfill the treaty (or the function of the treaty).
There seems to be some leeway in our exact definition, and whether we grant them asylum, but there doesn't seem to be much leeway in whether we give them the opportunity to make the claim and give them a fair hearing.
Over the past few years, there have been people from these countries granted asylum. I don't know their exact situations, but it seems clear that there is some precedent for granting asylum to conditions people from these countries have left. I'm not qualified to say, so it really isn't worth belaboring.
It is also worth pointing out, that with the multitude of possible relevant laws, it may not be what is considered a traditional reason for refugee status. The trafficking law, for instance, might reach further for some situations than the 'typical' refugee categories.
A report by VERA shows that for the kids they served, 2,830 were eligible for relief from removal (these were kids in ORR custody). Of those, 1,173 were granted asylum, and 1,604 were granted "special immigrant juvenile status," which according to the report is for "Undocumented children
who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both parents..." There was also 387 eligible for T-Visas or U-Visas, which are related to trafficking. So, it would seem that what might be considered a 'standard' refugee is only a subset of the consideration they are given.
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files … system.pdf
Well, a couple things for the record. I didn't vote for Obama either time, nor is there a single Democrat in Washington with one of my votes. I don't really consider myself a Democrat. Of course that means I'm much further to the left, which I suppose makes me more of an abomination, but, point being, I am not an Obama or Democrat cheerleader. I am absolutely fine holding their feet to the fire, but it has to be for something substantiated. So far, I've seen nothing worth really getting animated about. So far, there only seems to be an attempt to comply with the law and acquire extra funding to manage an emergency influx.
In this particular case, I'm not entirely sure where the trust matters. I do generally trust the regular Americans out there doing the work: nurses, border patrol agents, judges, etc. So, I guess you have lost me with the "laying the groundwork" comment. For what?
I abhor war, especially pointless ones, but I am not an isolationist, so that doesn't sound like something I'd say. I actually tend to think that the policing activities of the US Navy over the past decades has been a net good for freedom of the seas and the free movement of goods and people.
In the spirit of congeniality I would also like to extend an apology for my last comment's snarkiness and for the pop-up comment. It was unnecessary and unacceptable and I will try to do better.Groundwork for letting them stay, which actually is very simple since HHS simply finds them a suitable guardian or family if they have some here and turns them over with a piece of paper saying they have to be in court. They do not (and say it is not their job) have any record keeping of where they send them nor whom they turn them over to. At least, that is the claim from the HHS. 90% never return to court.
Yes we have to spend money and alleviate the situation in the right now. But $53,000 per child is rather high. In laying out some of where the money would be going - only $50,000 is allocated to expedite the judiciary side of it. That is all. Do you really think they're even trying to go through any actual deportation proceedings with that little piece of the pie?
I don't have all the answers, but if you do not return the majority of these illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, you only exasperate the issue. They will be considered success stories and more will just keep coming.
We are not talking a thousand here and there spread out over time. We are talking an amount that we cannot absorb without harm to our own citizens in terms of available resources and economics and harm to the stability of the country as a whole. It just can't be done.
The GOP wants the law changed so that deportations can happen sooner and they want that before they will approve funding. I can't fault them for that given the history of this Administration. The Democrats are already digging in their heels on that one request. In the meantime, they'll all disappear into the population and the next wave will begin.I have no idea where you got that information, but the sniff test alone makes it seem suspect. Do you really imagine they are that incompetent and ineffective? Actually, nevermind, I think I know that answer.
The report from VERA I have linked to several times lays out a fairly detailed process for evaluating the needs of the kids and evaluating placement options. According to them, of the children admitted between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2010, only 196 (1% of the total) absconded from custody. http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files … system.pdf
Money for the judicial component is $64 million. That's a big chunk of change even if it is a smallish piece of the pie. There is likely only so many judges available to even do the job. There is also $879 million for "detention and removal of undocumented adults traveling with children, expansion of alternatives to detention, and added prosecution capacity for adults with children." http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/p … lion/1154/
Saying whether those numbers are high/low would just be a pure guess on my part, and honestly, I think it is a pure guess from anyone who isn't an expert on the situation and the process.
I might partially agree with that. I agree that if nothing changes about the push/pull factors than migration will in fact continue. I don't, however, think we are limited to single solutions.
In the previous three years I think we have granted asylum to a half million people, not to mention the influx of legal immigrants. Our system absorbs a lot. It is a huge system with extensive resources and wealth. Not saying we shouldn't be concerned about sustainable flows, or large short-term fluctuations, but some perspective is useful. A million kids wouldn't break our country in terms of resources. It might break us in terms of solidarity, but that is a self-manufactured problem.
I am in favor of doing it as fast as possible and still follow the law and give the kids a fair deal. You can't really fault Decmorats for being concerned that the GOP wants them out at a speed which doesn't properly consider the human concerns."Human" concerns, oh BOY! There is NO benefit in bringing illegals to America. They have NO skills nor education. They cannot contribute to the American economy. Why would Obama invite them to America? What is he and his administration "thinking". The illegals are not the smartest of immigrants but the most unqualified. These illegals are only going to DRAIN the America socioeconomic system and will put us in the socioeconomic quagmire. What about the veterans being put under the bus by Obama. The veterans are having a hard time getting the benefits THEY deserve but the illegals are slated to receive benefits. The illegals AREN'T Americans and they DON'T deserve anything but a push back to their countries. Why impoverish America further with this excess baggage! The protesters ARE right, keepng PROTESTING until THEY listen. Then protesters should become more militant and take to the streets protesting the influx of this baggage!
How do you get through life with so much hate inside you?
Change a few words around and you just wrote the introduction to Mein Kampf. Congratulations.
to say that these people are capable of writing Mein Kampf is a compliment for them,not a single original idea is generated in their brain ,they just repeat like parakeets the wordds of the right wing nut talking heads like the Limbaughs and the Hannitties.
WRONG, these illegals are from the bottom of the barrel. In fact, they are below the bottom of the barrel. They have NOTHING positive to contribute to America. They are diseased and there are criminals among them. They have no relevant nor contributable skills. Our social systems are going to be overburdened because of these people. The middle class are the ones who are going to foot the bill for these people.
Yes, we NEED militias to turn away these illegals. Militias are increasing, especially in Texas. Hopefully, the militias will stem this problem. The illegals need to be STOPPED, send them back to their countries.
Our country has enough problems without adding illegals to the mix. Americans DON'T want these human parasites who will eventually drain our socioeconomic system. By the way, I am a Liberal. Obama has done nothing positive for the country and the influx of illegals is what going to break the camel's back! The illegals are going to make the country worse. :Let's take care of Americans and especially our blessed veterans first. Forget the illegals and they are the bottom of the barrel, send the human flotsam back!
There is a word for you but it ain't liberal. you might be able to make a case for yourself if you RATIONALLY argued against immigration, but calling them "human flotsam" and "human parasites" (among other things) just isn't going to work. It is just plain hatred, and I don't know any liberal group that would accept that.
Not sure why I am bothering. You just keep ranting the same nonsense over and over. Perhaps you will listen to yourself: "Them, in the human mind, consciousness, and mentality are those who threaten and/or unnerve us in one way or another. Prejudice in humans is based upon mistrust and fear of those who are different from they." http://eligrey.hubpages.com/question/58 … swer745852Well, when crime rises to an extreme degree because many of these illegals are criminals, our social systems are socioeconomically exhausted, and America, in fact, becomes poorer, DON'T come crying to me because I will tell you that I TOLD YOU SO. You refuse to see the detrimental effect that these illegals will have on America. Guess who is going to pay for their upkeep, YOU and I. Well, Americans are taxed enough without having to foot these people. America has ITS own INTERNAL problems without exporting illegals who AREN'T going to contribute anything but in essence, will SUBTRACT. Not wanting these human parasites have something to do with socioeconomic realism.
Americans shouldn't have to support illegal parasites; let us build our country for socioeconomic betterment, not for for the worse socioeconomically. These illegals are going to lead to the devolvement of America from being a socioeconomic viable country to one giant WELFARE state. Do you want this, junkseller; I know that I don't. I am for immigration if the immigrant has relevant education and skills that will enhance the country; these illegals are NO skilled, uneducated parasites who will only DRAIN this country! What are these illegals good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, SEND THEM BACK BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Good Americans are sick of these people! SAY GOODBYE to the GREAT AMERICA and HELLO to the BEREFT, WELFARE STATE AMERICA!
The issue against illegals AIN'T ethnic/racial but SOCIOECONOMIC! They are EXHAUSTING and DRAINING our schools, hospitals, and other social services. The American TAXPAYER is footing the bill for these people.
Yes John just like war. So let's stop wars as well, the next time someone attacks this country we will just let them take it over. Stand back and let radical Islam take hold. It's a good job our grandfathers didn't have the same ideas as some of you appeasers otherwise we would all be speaking German now ( except the Jews of course) or Japanese.
No more wars would be lovely though but would at this moment in time be unobtainable, however no more immigration is something that is obtainableWe didn't seek to have a war with Germany. They overstepped the line and we reacted.
To compare that with American interventionism is absurd. The USA is making its own enemies by influencing the policies of countries that aren't American and have no desire to be American.
Remember Blair's weapons of mass destruction which in the end were proved never to have existed. We went to war and killed innocent folk on the strength of a lie.
Good day, Grace. I hope you are carefully monitoring your blood pressure.
I have noticed the large number of posts filled with bombastic upper case shouting, extraordinary hatred and irrational animosity toward Hispanics. Blended in with these tirades is an illegal call to arms reminiscent of the vigilante mentality of the old west. I respect that they are your emotions and I endorse your right to vent. However, it seems incongruous for posts to speak so passionately and so negatively on a subject about which you seem to know so little.
Upon analysis, these emotionally charged out bursts are totally without truth and devoid of any supporting facts. They are filled with despicable scare tactics about nonexistent diseases plus the old myths about moochers debunked years ago. The claims are meaningless, baseless, false, and slanderous. While you are free to express your own insecurities and fears, the many lies and false statements need to be exposed now.
Therefore, I will line up real facts with your false statements all of which you have failed to support with any data.
This often repeated comment is blatantly untrue:
“They cannot contribute to the American economy.”
American economists have written extensively on this very topic and they provide facts that say otherwise. When you scratch the surface of available data, you learn immigration has a sizable positive affect on our economy. The 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the US pay nearly $11 billion in federal, state or local taxes each year.
“Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes.” {1}
Further, allowing undocumented immigrants to legally work in the United States would “increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year.” This would raise their effective state and local tax rate to 7 percent on average, close to the tax contributions of documented taxpayers with similar incomes. {2}
It seems grossly insincere to claim undocumented foreign workers do not contribute to American society. The federal government reports illegal workers have “contributed up to $300 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of the $2.7 trillion Social Security Trust Fund” against which very few claims will ever be filed. {3}
It would appear from your comments that you believe immigrants are not too smart and not very qualified: "The illegals are not the smartest of immigrants but the most unqualified." This statement ignores the fact that workers do not need much education to qualify for jobs shunned by American high school drop outs.
“There are 93 occupations in which 20 percent or more of workers are immigrants. These high-immigrant occupations are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education."{4}
When Alabama passed HB56 cracking down on immigrants and their employers, foreign workers, both legal and illegal, fled the state in droves. Thousand of jobs remained vacant because Alabamians would not work 11 hours in the fields for $60. {5}
It takes an extraordinary lack of knowledge to arrive at the following questions: "Why would Obama invite them to America? What is he and his administration ‘thinking?’”A minimal amount of reading on this topic will quickly reveal that the estimated 11.7M undocumented workers today are less than the nearly 12.2M in this country during the Bush administration. Furthermore, the rate of growth in the undocumented population was close to 700,000 every year until 2009 and then declined after President Obama took office. Removals and returns have since been about 400,000 per year under the current administration. There is an enormous gap between the false perceptions stated in your posts and the real world in which the rest of us live. {6}
A grossly distorted world view is apparent in the following false statements: "There is NO benefit in bringing illegals to America… They have NO skills nor education…The illegals are going to make the country worse.”
Rather than peddling fear and distrust, so much would be learned from reading a few reputable, nonpartisan sources such as the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and other leading economists and researchers. They all reveal one inescapable truth. Illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy and vital to certain industries like agriculture.
A report issued by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent.” In addition, your posts fail to acknowledge that certain segments of the U.S. economy, particularly agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.
The US Department of Agriculture has warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” In 2009, the National Milk Producers Federation announced retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated. {7}
Meanwhile, posts like yours cause immeasurable damage to this country. Damage that appears to be aimed solely at destroying one man’s reputation. How pathetic is that?
Nevertheless, the lies continue! "These illegals are only going to DRAIN the America socioeconomic system and will put us in the socioeconomic quagmire…Why impoverish America further with this excess baggage!” Again, a little self-education trumps ignorance every time. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has already examined both your DRAIN and your quagmire claims and issued the following conclusion. “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” {8}
Immigration does NOT AFFECT veteran’s benefits. Remarks like this on are another sign of serious disconnects from reality: "What about the veterans being put under the bus by Obama? The veterans are having a hard time getting the benefits THEY deserve but the illegals are slated to receive benefits."
Let us examine this “veterans being put under the bus by Obama” claim for a moment to discover why US veterans are not receiving their benefits. Shall we?
Feb 27, 2014 ~ (Reuters) - "U.S. Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans." {9} Oops! You can not blame this one on the President either!
It is indeed interesting to read how your call to arms encourages a mob mentality. "Then protesters should become more militant and take to the streets protesting the influx of this baggage!
The protesters ARE right, keepng PROTESTING until THEY listen.
Americans DON'T want these human parasites who will eventually drain our socioeconomic system."
A majority of Americans know that Latinos are not parasites and not baggage. Americans were asked in February 2014 if undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US and an overwhelming majority answered YES! Nearly three-quarters (73%) were in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the US to pursue citizenship or permanent residency. This poll proves uppercase rants do not reflect the thinking of the rest of the nation and, further, they are a poor substitute for true knowledge. {10}
Grace, there is a glaring need to elevate the quality of the immigration debate. Within the dialog, innuendo needs to be replaced by reality. Valid facts need to be substituted for anecdotes. Blame for taking jobs away from Americans needs to recognize the prevailing conditions. The ranks of unemployed workers today are not filled with farm workers, food processors, landscapers or low skilled workers but with factory workers, autoworkers, secretaries and sales people. Widespread hostility must give way to the truth. Immigrant workers, whether they are documented or not, produce a positive affect for the economy and they deliver a large measure of benefits to retail and service consumers. This conversation needs to include a hint of gratitude.
{1} http://www.itep.org/immigration/
{2} http://www.itep.org/immigration/
{3} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magaz … l&_r=0
{4} http://cis.org/illegalImmigration-employment
{5} http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/wh … 92011.html
{6} http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/p … ants-1-01/
{7}
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ … us-economy
{8} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ration.pdf p.9
{9} http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ … 6O20140227
{10} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … ortations/Respect you Quill. However, illegals will prove to be EXTREMELY problematic to the American economy, social services, and to communities. Let those from Texas, Arizona, and California tell you about the destruction of their property and the rise in crime because of these illegals.
Again, this is not a racial/ethnic thing but a socioeconomic thing. Read the polls; however, statistics reflect only a controlled number of the people polled. Many Americans are AGAINST illegals coming to this country and for good reasons. The American economy is precarious as it is; these illegals are going to exhaust and drain our social services.
When they work, wages will be driven down. There will be FIERCE competition between illegals and the poorest/least educated segment of Caucasians and Blacks. It isn't going to be pretty. Already in some communities, there is a growing rift between Blacks and Latinos, particularly for jobs. No, we DON'T need these illegals, SEND them back, take care and heal Americans FIRST and FOREMOST.The way you speak of them... as if they're sub-par... sub-human. You say they're lazy leeches... it's shocking. I lived in AZ for many years. I can tell you that Hispanic ppl have one of the best work ethics I have ever seen. I think one of the most common errors of ppl who hold your opinion, is that they have forgotten what it is to have empathy. To put yourself in someone elses shoes. Most who come here, come b/c life is deplorable where they are from. Their government offers no opportunities and they are left to eek out enough food to keep their children alive. Would you cross a border to keep your child alive? I would! My father in law retired from the border patrol. He is a Vietnam vet. Don't think for a minute that I don't appreciate the position these lawful men and women are put in. But to support one's own country does not mean tossing compassion out the window. We all might find ourselves in need of compassion one day. God help us if we refused it to the least of these.
Thank you, Grace. I am grateful for your respect.
The immigration issue in the US is in a phase that calls for level heads and not hysterics. No one denies your right to express your own opinions. However, posters in this thread are trying to point out a simple fact. If you want rational thinking people to take you seriously, you will have to tone down your rhetoric and replace your uppercase shouting with convincing and verifiable facts.
Surely, you must be aware that you have not justified one claim nor have you given one valid reason to believe undocumented immigrants “will prove to be EXTREMELY problematic to the American economy.” If that is really your personal theory then you should be prepared to produce your proofs.
Stop telling us. Show us. Stop SHOUTING at us. State facts that prove your points. Point us to the polls you say exist. Document the claims of property damage and the rise in crime. Post the statistics you claim reflect widespread public opinion.
Produce the data that reveals “these illegals are going to exhaust and drain our social services.” You must have seen a spread sheet or an official audit before making such a claim. Feel free to contradict all of the data presented in this thread showing, in fact, they contribute billions in state and local taxes; save consumers billions for food, houses, clothing, and services; help keep the Social Security Trust Fund afloat with $15 billion net unclaimed contributions every year. In contrast, you have yet to produce one fact!
The influx of unaccompanied juveniles is indeed a major crisis. The President has requested crisis funding and the country knows that the GOP controlled House has refused to comply, even partially. Consequently, they have made themselves a part of the problem.
Thank you so much for sharing with us, Grace. I think it would be appropriate for your credibility to substantiate all of your reprehensible “parasite” and “human flotsam” remarks.
You really present a conundrum in this response. So much to agree with, yet so many salient points to disagree with,
"...it is a perfectly solvable problem if people would just sit down and have a reasonable, rational conversation."
Amen. I will give you witness. Discuss the realities and not the hyperbole.
"Walking across an imaginary line in the sand is a terrible evil but violating human rights and international law (and national law) not a problem? "
Junkseller, "International law" is a very nebulous concept. Is it a universal "given" that all should abide by, or what is a constructed concept that is contrary to national "common sense?" Yes, "lines in the sand" are important! To the "human rights' slant," a little clarification would be helpful. Are you talking about what "seems right," or about is defined as a humanitarian obligation?
"...Saying they have no skills and bring nothing to the country is just pure hatred.
Another "Amen brother!" I believe we are a nation of immigrants, and have benefited tremendously because of it. But... we are also a nation of laws, and I believe the latter is as important as the former.
"...The only risk they pose is the rising power of their voting block which is strongly not in favor of the Republicans"]/i]
Oops... I think you have missed the point and fallen for the political perspective that is the "Republican" line. I whole-heartedly agree that I think it is a Democrat priority to bring illegal immigrants into the fold for their vote (oops, is that a voter ID discussion?). But I also think that there is, or should be, a middle ground that is above/'beyond politics. We must be both a nation of laws AND compassion. I agree with your disagreement with GNWilliams extremist positions. But I am not with you on the violation of "international laws" perspective. Come on, do you really beive the U.N. is a credible agency?
.
[i]"...No group of people in this country shouting "SEND THEM BACK!" is going to have any meaningful political power in 20 years time, maybe much less...."
Really? Do you really think that emotional responses are/will be the determining factor in future elections? Paradoxically I agree, but tom a different perspective, I think these issues will be a defining moments in upcoming elections.
Here, I think you miss the point;
"...No group of people in this country shouting "SEND THEM BACK!" is going to have any meaningful political power in 20 years time, maybe much less. To not understand one's own obsolescence is a major failing..,..."
Yes, the "send them back" crowd gettings a lot of negative PR, but, they are also exactly on point when it comes to the "rule of law. .Are you willing to abandon that?
GAWell, there's nothing terribly wrong with a thing that just "seems right," or with what we might just consider humanitarian obligation, but I am talking about the very real words on the treaty which contains our signature. I have seen nothing which refutes that we are in fact a party to that treaty. Additionally, we have crafted a number of national laws which in part are intended to meet, or match, the obligations of that treaty.
I'm very happy to hear you say that and am glad that on that point we can be in solidarity.
The UN is a big thing and it wouldn't be helpful to get into a conversation about its totality. Do I think they care about refugee kids? Yes. Do I think their report provides useful perspective on the issue? Yes. Do I think the treaty, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is a good treaty? Yes, and most of the world has signed it. Even if I didn't, we signed it, and have essentially followed it for a long time. There are also agencies/organizations, other than the UN, with perspective on this situation and I haven't seen anything to contradict the UN report.
Heck, I don't know. Partly it is just fun to make such predictions. And the overall point of the prediction is simply that the group of people shouting these things will be, if they aren't already, smaller than the group of people they are shouting at. There is only one real logical outcome of such a situation: obsolescence.
And as I have noted, they are completely wrong about the law. The law seems pretty clear. Children from countries other than Mexico can't simply be sent home. They have to be taken in and processed and given the opportunity, if they desire, to seek asylum.
And even were they correct about the law, it is the completely wrong way to handle it. This goes beyond a simple PR nightmare. This is something that that community will remember for a long time and it is something that will color their view of the Republican party for a long time as well. Which goes back to the point of obsolescence. You can't keep doing harm like that and expect to remain relevant.
So, yes, in a way, their emotionality is a factor, because it blinds them to the truth (in this case the law), prevents them from engaging the issue in a constructive way, and causes a significant, perhaps irreparable, rift with a group of people who will be necessary for any political future.
It doesn't have to be that way. A lot of legal immigrants want reform as well. If the Republicans could get a handle on themselves they would reinforce their commitment to the rule of law and take care of these children, they would engage the Hispanic community, and they would create immigration reform. That is the way forward.
Instead we have "go home" shouters, requests for vigilante gangs to hunt them down, terrified Republicans unwilling to act, and attacks on the one person trying to do something (Obama). It is a complete failure for them.
gmwilliams,
Maybe you're on to something here. The last time a wave of illegals started coming in 1492 they didn't stop until they had stolen everything, and nearly killed off all of the local talent. Perhaps we should nip this one in the bud.Are you a native American? In other words, were your ancestors here before Columbus "discovered America"? Just curious. Not trying to pick a fight.
gmwilliams,
When was the last time you applied for a job picking vegetables out of the ground?
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.Just so. Page 25 of your link gives the primary reasons for leaving home, by a huge margin, as "Family or Opportunity" and "Violence in Society". Neither one is something that produces the title of refugee. Better/easier life fits (as I already indicated and the study reaffirms) but not refugee.
It is cited as A reason, that doesn't make it the main reason, or most important reason. The report also clearly states that a large number of children (58%) are citing reasons which would possibly qualify as worthy of international protections. That doesn't mean all of them will qualify, but the law still requires that that determination is actually made, which means bringing them in and giving their case a proper assessment.
The reasons they consider as being worthy of international protection are violence, abuse, and deprivation. You are welcome, of course, to argue with those reasons, and those reasons probably don't line up exactly with reasons the United States would grant asylum, but that sort of a debate would take some pretty serious legal chops that I certainly don't have.
And this isn't somehow a new thing. We grant asylum to a lot of people every year (up in the 10s of thousands).
Even without the refugee/asylum status, we still can't turn them back at the border if they aren't from a bordering nation (i.e. Mexico or Canada), so that still means bringing them in and processing them.Between those two reasons, if you look at the pretty picture, you will find something like 80+% of the total (I didn't bother to add all the smaller numbers). Look again, then come back and say it is a minority that give those as a reason.
I didn't say anything about minority/majority. I said most important. Big difference. With the data given, you can't make quantitative claims like you made. They didn't group things into equal buckets. Negative reasons were separated, while positive reasons were dumped into one. They just as easily could have lumped all negative reasons as one and separated out family and opportunity as separate categories, in which case negative reasons would appear to be a majority reason, but as I said, that isn't the way their organization of the data was intended to be used.
Additionally, and more importantly, there is no weight assigned to the reasons given. If the importance for leaving violence, abuse, etc. was rated on average up at an 8-9 (out of 10), while the family/opportunity was only rated an importance on average of 3, then the negative reasons would obviously become the far more IMPORTANT reason for leaving.
Of course all of this is irrelevant. The only point the report is making, and I am making, is that the potential for international protection exists, and the kids need to be properly processed and considered, and deserve adequate conditions/protections until that happens. I don't think it matters if it is only 5%.I see. So we've gone from refugees needing immigration status to the US taking care of the world. How about the international community taking care of them instead? Let those first world countries that do not share a border with a third world country shoving their unwanted adults and kids onto their neighbors take them in. Won't that work?
I don't know, I get confused by these questions. Are we an Awesome country or not? Seems like if we are, we would just deal with the problem and move on rather than whining about it like wussies, but here we are. Lot's of complaining and few solutions.
Lot's of things might work, but that would require an actual democratic choice to make something happen, such as the Republicans in the House showing up to work at some point. Absent that, what we have are currently existing laws.
Those may or may not be worth of protection, but whether I or you agree with it or not, those reasons are NOT used to apply the term "refugee". Which is what I said in the first place.
The relevant definition of refugee is "any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion..."
This is the definition used by the United States and is similar to what is in the UN treaty. Are you qualified to make that determination for these children? I know I am not, and so I defer to experts on that matter who say that some of them MAY in fact qualify for such designation. I haven't seen anyone with expertise refute that, which to me, makes our legal obligation pretty clear.You believe those masses of children are being persecuted for their race in their home country? Or for their religion?
I'm sorry, but no one is persecuting them. Conditions in their country border on starvation, but that is not persecution and we all understand that. Your stance is nothing but an excuse to tax US citizens billions of dollars to supply the needs of others; something the UN has been doing for decades. I'm sorry, but it's time to stop the free ride; we cannot support the world no matter how badly you wish to.Sorry, Wilderness, but you are not qualified to determine if they are, or are not, being persecuted. Nor are you qualified to determine their refugee status. Nor am I, nor have I claimed to be.
My contention has been about out legal obligations, which include international treaties, and national laws, which you have provided no refutation to. In support of the refugee possibility I have provided a detailed report form an expert international organization who focuses on the topic (not just my personal beliefs), and you...crickets.
I'm really sorry if you don't like it, but I'm sure as heck not going to abandon law at the behest of people with seemingly nothing but their emotional distress.
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.Outside of the imaginations of the right-wing, where is there any evidence at all of people coming here because of our immigration policy? The UN report, for example, found a single kid out of 404 who said anything about our immigration policy.
Plus that doesn't really mean anything. If you had to leave somewhere because you were going to be killed, where would you go? Another craphole? Obviously not. Even with some pull factors, that doesn't diminish any push factors which led them to leave their home countries in the first place. Read the report. Read other news about the region. Are you really going to deny the conditions in these countries, the reports from the lips of theses kids themselves?
At any rate this is a matter for the law. Refugee/Asylum status is a complicated affair. It isn't determined by people on the internet's personal feelings (thankfully).
You mentioned this but without any evidence to support your claim. I have provided a list of treaties we are bound to from the State department. To be honest, I consider them a tad more credible of a source.Sassysue,
Why did your Irish ancestors come to this country?
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
GA
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.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!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!
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.But they aren't facts, they are just more opinions
Related Discussions
- 188
is the gop in love with bashing hispanics?
by the new left 13 years ago
Everyone now on the conservative side keeps bashing hispanics are they nuts. They should be trying to persuade us since we are the major minority and in 20 years will be the majority in many states like texas and arizona which would be up for grabs with the growing hispanic population which have...
- 172
Never Have I Seen A President Seek So To Dived And Spread Hate
by Sharlee 13 days ago
Here once again Biden stands at a podium swings around his hands, and rants, seeking and appoint blame on American citizens, ultimately Republican citizens. Without cause, without proof of the motive of why or what possessed this nut job that attacked Paul Pelosi. Although in front of only a...
- 16
Obama discusses immigration policy with actresses and TV personalities
by OLYHOOCH 12 years ago
What the HECK kind of a game is Obama playing now. Could one of you tell me what part of this picture, I don't get.I see that, WE, still do not have a voice in the issues that are ruining our country.OLYThe White House sent out a press release this morning promoting President Obama's meeting with...
- 45
Pelosi waves off impeachment. She says it would divide country
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
- 54
Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform Speech
by ga anderson 9 years ago
I think Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform speech was one of the best he has given. He touched on all the right points. And I like the content of his proposed action.Here is the speech:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeT_vu31eawBut... I also think it was a pure political move. I do not believe he was...
- 9
Remind me again why we should vote Republican in 2016 ?
by mio cid 8 years ago
Remind me again why we should vote Republican in 2016 ?Hispanics have been called murderers, rapists, and moochers by the front runner in the Republican primary,with the acquiescence of most other candidates which all together add up to about 80 percent of the voter support at this point . Given...