Some photos of the Los Angeles illegal alien rally
 

We must have a law to force employers to verify the citizenship of their employees.

If we fail to do this, our Republic will become a 3rd world hellhole similar to Bangladesh!

Source:
Los Angeles Independent Media Center
http://la.indymedia.org/

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006...62a.jpgmid.jpg

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006...038.jpgmid.jpg

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2006...09a.jpgmid.jpg

Photo Page - 1
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/155611.php

Photo Page - 2
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/155628.php

Photo Page - 3
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/155671.php

Photo Page - 4
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/155688.php

Photo Page - 5
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/155694.php

Photo Page - 6
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/155860.php

Photo Page - 7
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/153194.php

'Throw us out and we'll take the heart of California with us?" I don't think so. It would be more like giving California a much needed laxative.

Hasta La Vista, Bebe

Man, traffic was awesome on Monday. I don't care who's protesting. If I can get to work in 42 mins, I say protest every day!

doesn't matter what you're arguing for, calling me a racist is a pretty good way to end the conversation.

In the same vein: "Uno de Mayo"

They're making the right-wingers uncomfortable.Anyone who thinks that they will turn the US into another bangladesh is dreaming. As for 'giving California a laxative', what a great way to rid the west coast of Republicans!

( ditto :P)

Everyone is so afraid to say what they feel because of this kind of social blackmail.
As shown in the photos.

Where's the dignity and grace ....oh and how about a valid point for starters. 'I know it's about race' isn't the point. The point is people want freebees.

There are Republicans in California? I'm pretty sure the only two parties out here are Democrat, and the New Line Cinema Oscar Party.

How much time have you spent in California?

Zero, none, zip.................About as much time as the idiots who whine about illegal immigrants actually spend thinking about it. Not once have I heard a new or original argument for the nasty little line of hate that they love to spew. it's always the same..."they don't pay their taxes, they chew up our welfare....''

The whiners are happy to hide behind their computers, spewing out ignorance in their cosy suburban homes while these 'illegals' are slopping out toilets and picking vegetables all day for minimum wage, so that the whiners can pay a few cents less for items that require menial labour. If you want to do something about the problem,set a decent minimum wage, and prosecute anyone that tries to hire anyone, without paying taxes.

I've yet to see any of the racists complain about the millions of Americans who 'bend the facts' on their taxes every year. A little tweak here, a little cash not declared there, write the cost of the new home computer against the company here, and there we go, saved myself a few bucks and stuck it to the man.

Compare if you will, the hideous crimes of Juan who jumps on the pickup for a few bucks a day to those of someone like Leona Helmsley. Ask yourself how many illegals can defraud the people of that much money. And then ask yourself why there isn't a big crowd of rednecks who want her kicked out.Resolve the problem.Naturalise those who want to stay. Round up the crooked employers and deal harshly to them.

Just one more idea..............let the market decide. Set up a system of accreditation for the 100% legal products. Heck, they can do it for organic produce, why not a '100%American' tag. Obviously, these goods would cost a few cents more than those produced by dodgy companies with cheapskate hiring practices, but nobody who hates Mexicans that much would object to paying, right?..............yeah, riiiiiight.

So...you haven't ever actually been here, but you're perfectly willing to "hide behind your computer, spewing out ignorance" about the US from thousands of miles away.

Sweet.

Yank bashing is a nice comfy self-satisfied occupation for many. Evidently NZ has completely enlightened open-border immigration policies too. :-)

Helmsley makes a nice red herring, but the Queen of Mean is a citizen, so she gets to stay, now that she's paid her fines and gotten out of the slammer.

And I did respond to your "how much would you pay" point by suggesting that the open market resolve what price legal goods should command, but apparently you can't bear the thought of not having another make-work pseudo-socialist NGO certification program.

We don't need it. Just send the illegals home by stopping exploiters from hiring them.

You asked how many times I'd been to [i]California[/].I answered honestly. Apparently, because I haven't been to that particular stae, I've never been to the States.Pay attention, sweetie, or you end up looking silly.
[/quote]
Yank bashing is a nice comfy self-satisfied occupation for many. Evidently NZ has completely enlightened open-border immigration policies too. :-)

.[/quote]
I try to avoid bashing Americans in general, but that doesn't stop those who disagree with me from gratuitously including every other American by proxy on their side of the argument.You need remedial lessons in how to cope with criticism, the 'yank bashing' defence is getting jaded.This is not about America, this is about your opinion.Deal with it.

Incidentally,New Zealand has fairly stringent immigration requirements, backed by a competent customs and immigration service, and protected by an enormous body of water on all sides. As a result, most of the immigrants can speak English and have skills and qualifications that allow them to compete on an equal footing with any other resident.

Despite this, there are still those shameful people who believe that we have 'too many immigrants' and that we 'should send them all home'. I'm sure that if there was an issue with illegal immigrants here, the racists here would be screaming for them to go first.

It's one thing to ignore the breaking of a law; it's quite another to reward it. California would suffer in the short term from giving das boot to illegals but it would quickly be fixed with LEGAL immigration.

Which is at the core of the hypocrisy of your preaching from a safe spot on your cozy little islands. Pretty much as nice as those "suburban houses" you like to sneer at...but not in any danger of needing to cope with actual illegal aliens as we do here every day.

Obviously it was the sheer competance of the NZ immigration service to site your country behind such a natural barrier to...erm...undesirables. How nice that it makes it so much easier for you to be smugly critical of the "racists"...and painless for you to be generous with their country.

well, if you ever intended to debate, you sure abandoned it faster than a cheap whore abandons her underwear. Accusing me of being a hypocrite for having an opinion on a problem that doesn't exist in my current country of residence is gratuitously insulting. Yes I'm an immigrant, but I'll not tell you from where, because doubtless your bigotted attitude would have a snappy little dismissal for that too.
You won't argue the debate points as they arise, preferring to attack your opponent on the few fragments that you know of him. The term 'red herring' has been used as an out-clause to avoid the concept that it's not just illegals who evade taxes.The real red herring is trying to discount a participant's views by virtue of geography. If you want to debate some issues, I'd happily debate you, but looking through your post history, I don't think you are capable. Stay happy in your own twisted version of reality, and troll away as much as you like. I'll be reserving my further debate for the 3000 or so cellar members who are smarter than you. For someone who likes to wail about 'yank-bashing' you do nothing to enhance the world's view of your compatriots.Fortunately,I have spent enough time with Americans to know that you are the exception,rather than the norm.

It's not a failure to debate to point out somebody claiming moral superiority is in fact just a hypocrite. I debated any point you rased that wasn't name-calling.

Helmsley *is* a red herring because the issue isn't tax evasion; illegals aren't illegal because they may break tax law but because they by definition break immigration law. Helmsley is a citizen and her parents were legal immigrants; I've got no problem with legal immigrants whatsoever...so your "racist" namecalling is exactly that; trying to dignify it as debate is disingenous.

You do look pretty silly criticising me for "preferring to attack your opponent on the few fragments that you know of him" and following it immediately with "looking through your post history, I don't think you are capable"...especially considering that what I called you on was criticising my country on how it handles an issue that yours doesn't have, and for slamming me from a comfortable distance for my "suburban isolation" from issues I encounter personally every day.

So, you're not a native Kiwi, eh? I do hope you're legal and not just a good swimmer.

And again, she continues in the same vein. Clearly I have found the site's attention-seeker.There's always one. As I said, preferring to attack on a few fragments.......You on the other hand, have almost 2000 posts on this board from which I can distill your character.And it's not that pretty.

As for slamming you from a distance, I debated the issues. You on the other hand, were not interested, preferring to attempt to discredit the debater.No doubt you have a following on this board for your tedious style of trolling, but I'd much rather talk to people who know what they are talking about and have the basic intelligence to realise that other people can too.You're stuck in a rut with the notion that because I live in New Zealand,I have no experience with matters of immigration. As I have already indicated, I've lived in places with similar issues.So please, stop trying to portray yourself as the only person who has any experience in the subject, and just get over yourself. You live in Pennsylvania.According to the statistics, you have less than one quarter the national average of Latinos in your community.

Short of ethnic cleansing,there is no way to solve this issue permanently and decisively.There are many opinions on what could be done to alleviate the problem, but if they are not yours, you'd rather ignore them and insult the person who challenges your simplistic position. Your final comment - a throw-away line intended to taunt the opponent and amuse your audience,was too weak.

Perhaps you could advise me of how many latinos your local branch of the INS has detained and repatriated this year? Or are you just picking up a debate from the other side of the continent because your personal prejudices dictate that you must support it, rather than admit that it's a non-event in your town?
As I recall, Pennsylvania is just about as far from the Mexican border as you can get without jumping into the sea. Your argument holds less and less water by the minute.

I can't offer a solution to the problem of racial diversity, because I don't see it as a problem. I can't offer a solution to the problem of historic failure to enforce immigration laws and the institutionalised acceptance of casual labor as a cheap alternative. I can however offer MaggieL a couple of pointers on how better to debate the issue.

1. It is silly to take the position that you know more than I do on the subject simply because you live on the same continent.

2. It is not smart to crap on newbies, particularly if you pick on those who are smarter than you.

3.It's not smart to generalise that the whole of America is on your side and I am simply 'yank bashing'.I like Americans, but I think you are a loudmouthed airhead. Get over it.

Pennsylvania is a community? Quaint thought....in fact it's got about half the land area of all of New Zealand. Philadelphia and Potter counties will be amazed to discover they're in the same community. So will their legislators.

Maybe you should try your numbers by postal code: in my case 19403. Then tell the mayor of Norristown that he doesn't really need to issue identity documents to the illegals in his city, because he thinks he does; he says it's making it difficult to provide them with services. (But then, being expert in US politics, you know what whiners the Democrats are.) It may come as quite a shock to him that he doesn't have a problem with illegals, or with the slumlords that are renting them hovels to live in...until they burn down, at least.

While you're at it, tell the local school district that they couldn't possibly have a lot of children of illegals to teach. After all, Mexico is such a long distance away, it might actuallly take almost two days to drive here. Nobody who did a desert crossing at night could have the motivation to spend two days on an interstate highway...the horror.

The crew looking for work at the Home Depot or other day laborer hiring spots every morning will be comforted by your assurance that they can't possibly be illegals, and will thus immediately petition for union membership. The ER staff (I have family members on that staff) at the local hospital will be relieved to hear that the hospital won't be closing as announced and that their waiting room isn't actually filled with illegals who have no other health care and no way to pay for the care they do get.

It's so comforting to have your expert advice on problems happening right here from...what was it you said? "A continent away"? Surely NZ's a bit further than that. But it seems that you think illegal immigrants are only a problem near the southern border...and that's flat out not true. How much time *did* you spend *anywhere* in the US? And when? Whereabouts?

Which is true of most issues. I'd settle for allieviating it...and throtlling the source of illegal employment would be an extremely good start. We can't make 8,000 miles of border as impervious as the shoreline of NZ, but we can certainly reduce the financial payback for breaking the law, withougt building even one more mile of fence.
Oooooh....struck a nerve. But wasn't a taunt...it was a question, one I notice you still haven't answered. Maybe you were lying when you said you were lying when you said you started in Mexico. I guess we'll never know which was a lie.
I can put some limits on it, though: somewhere between not as many as they could have and many more than I want to pay for. These days deporatation is usually reserved for illegal aliens who are also violent felons, because putting them on a plane is cheaper than putting them in jail.

As I said before, deportation is futile and pointless, the illegals will just turn around and come back as long as there's such a strong financial incentive for them to be here. Deportation may have been a winning strategy for Europeans in the era of steamship travel...it's a joke within North America today.

"Detained and repatrirated" sounds so much nicer than "arrested and deported"...it's a euphemism worthy of saying "undocumented worker" when you really mean "illegal alien".
I don't either.

If you recall, the issue is illegal immigration. It just makes you feel so morally superior to try to paint it as racism, but it isn't.

I'm perfectly OK with my good friend who's a legal Mexican immigrant: a very successful software engineer in San Francisco...and I'd have as big a problem with lilly white illegals, be they from Canada, Europe, Russia, or elsewhere.

It makes me laugh when hear European and French Canadian kids complain of "racism" when they have trouble getting help with their programming homework online. But that's how tired that line has gotten; anything an American does you don't like obviously must be due to racism.

What a load of hooey.
I live in the same neighborhood, within less than five miles of every situation I cited above...and I've been "across the continent" (by which I assume you mean California) for extended periods. You admitted you haven't set foot there ever.
Well, I'll keep my own counsel on who's smarter. Especially when they're a loudmouth about how smart they are; that's usually a deep counterindication.
II'll keep my own counsel on what's "yank bashing" too; I certainly see enough of it to recognise it. As for how widely my opinons are shared amongst the citizens here, you must not be reading the same polls I am.

Fell free to keep you counsel on all and evry subject The correct way to do so does not involve puting a rider immediately after your announcement to do so.

It's good to see you trying to get back onto topic,but too late to convince me. Xenophobic simpletons make poor debating partners. Again you have ducked the opportunity togather simple statististics in favour of rhetoric.

In this whole 'we hate Mexicans' routine I have yet to see anyone who can offer any substative and quantifiable figure as to exactly how much money they have lost because of the issue.

IN DOLLARS AND CENTS, MAGGIEL, what harm have you suffered?
Now's your chance to shine for the rest of the racists.

I have to turn in a ledger accounting of my personal damages to the penny to insist that a law be enforced? Nonsense.

"Stop thief!"
"Not until you tell me the exact value of what I'm making off with."

What twaddle.

And you're still dodging the other questions, and doing nothing but namecalling.

If you want the numbers, Google it, there are reams of numbers from multiple sources. You infer that we deal with these illegals in the abstract which is not true. They are a reality here. The last one cost me $3k in a heartbeat. :eyebrow:

Hilarious. MaggieL has a documented history of insulting other posters when she finds herself outwitted, and yet she still bleats when people apply labels to her. She persists in accusing me of dodging the issue, but has done so multiple times in this thread alone.

Add 'hypocritical' to xenophobic airhead. If you lack the skills to debate the issues, MaggieL, I shall depart this thread until somebody more competent takes up the argument.Life is to short to try and argue with blondes.

You're missing his strategy: unless you do the work of digging up precice numbers for him to argue against, he claims you have no standing. Pure red herring. Again.

I've seen another collectivist here use exactly the same tactic; active Dwellars may know to whom I refer. It's also reminiscent of the strategy of SCO in SCO v. IBM...see Groklaw.

It's totally lame.

This is more like it.A poster who can show just cause for his opinion. I'd love to know how an illegal has cost you $3k.

So much for "racist". :-)

Adios, Vincente.

All you have to do is answer the questions as honestly as you can, instead of clinging to your bias and making personal attacks in the hope that you can deflect attention from the questions. How much have the illegals cost you personally, MaggieL?

Wrong track. The $3k is an aside. My opinion is based on the respect for the laws and the social evils these people have brought with them.

They're only part of the inner city problems here, but they've made it unsafe to walk the streets in some rural areas all by themselves.

I want illegal immigration stopped, not Mexicans, not South Americans, all of it. I don't care if he's a white, British, PhD/MD, if he's illegal, throw him out. :mad:

You should catch up on your own unanswered questions. When and where were you in the US, that so well informs you of conditions here?

And again, I'm not required to present a quantitative cash accounting of my personal losses to insist that our law be enforced with something not even vaguely close to the strictness of--for example--the NZ law that has apparently treated you so well. (Can you imagine the howl that would go up if the US insisted all immigrants spoke English from day one? How "racist"!)

That's not a serious debating point. You might as well say that I have no standing to insist that people not cut down trees in the park unless I sit down and prove how much of my taxes went into each tree.

I don't have to prove damages...it's illegal. A criminal matter, not a tort case.

Nice duck, bruce. I'll let it slide though. Do tell more about the social evils these Mexicans/British/PhD/MD types have brought.Hope you're better at this than the last one.

Still on the "prove you were personally harmed before your laws matter" track. Even better: "prove real harm from your hypothetical illegals". (Funny thing, I don't know of any white Brit PhD illegals. How racist.)

Nobody insists that Billy prove the social harm prevented by the NZ immigration law requiring English proficiency...although I do think that would be easier; it's not really a bad idea...but we'd be "racists" to implement it, of course.

Chasing ghosts...

Anybody read Tancredo's NRO piece?

Here is an excerpt (I snipped some, cuz that's how I roll):

:driving: readysetFLAME

What's it to you? I was talking to Bruce. You're not up to it.

Gee, I guess forgot you owned the thread. The only ones who are allowed to speak are the ones who buy into your bogus propositions and straw men.

So, if we removed all natural and naturalized citizens, child molestation cases would drop by 66% and auto theft by 60%!

And imagine the benefits of removing children and cars.
Of course, the children and cars are here legallly.

So are the citizens...who represent a bit more than 66% of the total population.

At this time, anyway...

Nope, not a duck. I'm sure you didn't get the answer you hoped for because you feel anyone that's against these illegals is basing it on personal animosity.
That's the way I feel. My position is NOT about personal animosity I handle personal afronts,....personally. It's about enforcing the fucking law. Simple as that.:cool:

Ok, well I am going to copy a post i did somewhere else for the benefit of those reading this thread that haven't seen it before, and maybe this will help people from New Zealand or who are lacking an understanding on illegal immigration...





Actually I would tend to think that letting people cross our borders unchecked, not knowing what their intentions are or what their purpose for being her is, would qualify as a security issue. So it should not be just a mild concern for you.

I'm in no way trying to say that every person who is here illegally are bad people. I understand that many work for next to nothing, doing jobs that even I wouldn't want to do. I know that many just want to work and be left alone. So understand that before anyone tries to make it seem like I am anti-immigrant, because I am not.

All you need to do to understand this is just break it down to its simplest, factual components. Take out the emotional arguments about how you think they deserve equal treatment as legal citizens because they are people too, that they just want to work or whatever. Just know that:

1) The law very explicitly lays out a process which one must follow in order to immigrate and become a U.S. citizen.
2) Forget that idea that, "Oh, well this law isn't as serious as laws against violent crimes and crimes against property." The law is the law, and it must be enforced equally and absolutely. Understandably, the complexity and cost of doing this completely is beyond our capabilities, but it must be done to the full extent possible under the law.
3) If you are not happy with the law as it currently is, understand that there is indeed a process in which laws may be changed. Until which time the law is changed, it should be enforced as is. Remember the civil rights era? Black leaders during that time believed that it was counterproductive to break the law to attain their goals, so instead, they used existing laws to bring about change. In principal, this is no different with immigration.
4) For those of you who think that everyone, no matter who they are, where they are from, or how they got here, that they get the same treatment afforded to a U.S. citizen, or that it is the duty of the U.S. to welcome them here, know that the U.S. Constitution is our supreme law, affording protections and powers and responsibilities of the government, and that above all else, the Constitution must be followed. I quote, from the Constitution:


Quote:

This was written for citizens of the United States, and it governs citizens of the United States and protects first and foremost, citizens of the United States, and it is the duty of the government to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity", not citizens of other countries. If they want the same benefits as a U.S. citizen, all they have to do is follow the law to come here legally.

The facts are simple and straightforward. To argue the facts is just ignorance. Now even though the facts are simple, the solution is not. Emotions get involved, rhetoric gets thrown around, and people just become confused. Also the problem with illegal immigrants isn't just at the border, but people overstaying their visas. These things make it even more complicated to find a suitable solution, which is why we must remain vigilant and continue to enforce our laws while reforming the system to make it work better.


______________________________________________________

Ok so now I know someone will probably come back on it and say, well that whole arguement lacks any numbers to back anything that I say up. Well before someone tries to say something like that, I'm saying that this was not a numbers arguement where I'm trying to show someone the cost of illegal immigration, or what would happen to the economy without illegals. I think that mrnoodle has already covered that nicely. All my arguement was, was one of logic, and when taken as such, only someone who fails to listen to reason would try and come back and say they are wrong, like if I were to say that you are actually supposed to go when the stop light is red. It is simple, concise, and it is what it is, nothing more.

Thank you, shocker. An excellent and very readable response. A nice change from buffoons who just want to 'send'em back'. I don't recall arguing the numbers anywhere,because the people who I asked to deliver them in support of their position clearly felt threatened by the question. but it would they are harder to quantify than the simplistic would have us believe.

Shocker, do you believe that there comes a point when someone who arrived illegally has earned the right to stay? Or should every person who arrived here illegally be forced out? If you committed a speeding offence in 1986, would you be happy to receive a fine 20 years later because someone decided that speeding was becoming a major issue that needed radical action?

A single offense is not comparable to an ongoing crime...you should expect a pretty amazing fine if you've been over the speed limit continuously for twenty years. And the "statute of limitations" clock doesn't start running until the crime is over.

And you certainly don't get to argue with the judge insisting he prove exactly how dangerous speeding is.

How on Earth does how long you've been a criminal "earn" you the right to continue your crime? "Getting away with it" is not an extenuating circumstance, nor does it convey an easement.

Speaking of "feeling threatened by questions", we still haven't heard of the extent and timeframe of Billybob's Excellent American Adventure. Or why he left, come to think of it, since he claims to love Americans so much.

I think that any person who is here illegally no matter how long should have to "go". If you want to be here in America, do it the right way, and don't expect everyone else to conform to your beliefs just because you are here. I don't expect to move to Mexico or some other foreign country by hopping the border and moving there illegally and expect them to accept me and my beliefs. If you wanna be here, do it the right way. Contribute to society in the same way and adhere to the same rules and government regulations that we have to abide by.

Much better.You've been told, I'm not remotely interested in your opinion.

Ok, I think the best way for us to discuss this is to try and build some common ground. I am sure we can all agree that, obviously, illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Now, I'm not a legal expert by any measure, however, I do know that regardless of a persons intentions in breaking a law, when someone breaks a law then they are held accountable to it.

Now, as MaggieL pointed out, and whether you agree with her or not, every law, every crime committed, has a statute of limitations. That means that after you commit a crime, there is a time frame that charges or action must be brought against you, and if they aren't, once that period of time is up, then it would basically fall of. Crimes like homocide have no statute of limitations, while others, like speeding have a very short statute of limitations. So your example could never happen. However, for the sake of argument, if I was caught speeding in 1986 and then summoned to court in 2006 to pay past due fines and penalties, I would obviously be royally pissed off, of course I wouldn't be happy with that. But, I was raised to know when I do something wrong, and that I am responsible for my actions. So while I know that I would be pissed to pay up, I would accept responsiblity for breaking the law and pay up.

That said, illegal immigrants here today are still in the process of breaking the law. They are breaking the law by being here. Many have stolen social security numbers as well in order to obtain work. For a moment, just forget that we are talking about immigration, forget all the emotional arguments about them needing work or they are doing no harm. In as simple as black and white, when a law is broken, the penalties must be paid. Whether it is robbery, speeding, murder, rape, and even illegal immigration. The laws of our country have been structured as to not discriminate between groups of people. This has nothing to do with Mexico, Canada, Central America or anywhere else. This is a law which has been broken. And by being here for 20 years illegally rather than a week doesn't make it any better, it makes it worse! That would have been 20 years they were breaking the law, 20 years they could have tried of become legal immigrants. Instead they continued to disrespect our laws and our society.

So, Billybob, yes I do feel that any illegal immigrants aprehended on U.S. soil should be deported back to the countries they came from. If they really wanted to become Americans they would follow the processes that have been put in place in order for them to do so. In this I like to quote Teddy Roosevelt, what I would say was a darn good president, back in 1917:

As my last point, however, I just want to stress that all I have argued has been the logical arguement when you take the issue down to its simplest, concrete parts. Understandabley, there are emotions involved as well as differing belief systems which make the solutions for this simple problem, not so simple. The solution will take money, resources, and time. It will not be easy, but until a solution is found, we must stay the course, respect laws in place, and continue to enforce them as well as we possibly can.

Thank you and that is all.

You're breaking my heart.

Obviously you're only interested in handwaving until you find some plausible excuse for the position you're pursuing, and sell it to the gang here. But that doesn't exempt your handwaving from further criticism by anybody else here who cares to.

Despite Shocker's well-intentioned call for a search for common ground, I must conclude at this point that there isn't any common ground between your position and mine...nor I suspect between yours and the positions of most of the people posting into this thread.

You're operating from the axioms that illegal aliens must be allowed to stay the US (and more allowed in) and their sources of illegal income here protected, then moving forward in search of plausible rationales to support it.

Anyone who objects to your thesis must be shouted down as a racist, a xenophobe, or a blonde, or innundated with demands that they prove in detail from first principles that our laws are justified with reference to your personal value system, or criticised that their views are invalid because they obviously don't know what's happening in their own hometown as well as you do from your lofty South Pacific perch.

Perhaps you're driven by some indefinable collectivist primal urge to feel generous and moral by giving away things that belong to other people. Or maybe you're just bored and out to troll the people who really do have some skin in this game. It doesn't matter.

The short of it is that our laws--like yours--are what we made them to be. The fact that their enforcement has been ineffective indicates to many of us that they are in need of revision. But that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to repeal them, waiver them, or hand out amnesty to those who have shown contempt for both us and our laws; that has already been tried, and failed miserably leading to the current situation.

Fortunately we do have other options. One of those options it to improve the enforcement of those laws...and that's exactly why the bill in question passed the House of Representatives.

Your logrolling on behalf of both the criminals who are illegal aliens and the other criminals who profit from and exploit the illegal's status (including ,as I recall, Leona Helmsley, whom you mentioned earlier) just doesn't seem to be working out very well. People seem to understand that accepting your argument that "laws whose enforcement has been ineffective can be ignored" is not in their best personal interest, nor that of their country.

You may not be interested in my opinion...but you're not actually the only person who matters.

If one makes the claim that the United States stole half of Mexico in 1848 (funny the protesters didn't get the date correctly), you may as well say Spain took all of it in 1521. So go take your bitch to Madrid.

I'm beginning to think Billy's afraid the Maoris are going to take over NZ and send him home. :-)

Excellent. Rather than taking the blindingly simplistic approach offered by the sit's resident fuckwit, you have set your case out in a reasoned and measured manner. The argument, as you put it, boils down to the fact that your laws are being ignored by the incoming immigrants.


Talking to my American buddy, she confirms that the American indigenous had their own tribal justice systems and territorial concepts long before the white man arrived. The white man simply chose to ignore them, and on the rare occasion that they were driven out, the settlers simply returned and helped themseelves to whatever they felt they needed to remain on that patch of land.

Where neccesary, the settlers would trade with the indigenous in order to get what they wanted.The settlers brought with them many habits that would harm the indigenous culture - Tobacco, firearms, alcohol, and disease being the most common.

The settlers chose not to assimilate into the existing culture, preferring to retain their own language and habits. Of course, they weren't above fornicating with the indigenous women if the opportunity arose.

When attempts to secure land and resources by mass occupation or by trading failed, the settlers were quick to use violence to steal what they wanted...........

Now according to the anti - Mexican lobby, there is no statute of limitations on such behaviour. So presumably, the lands and resources stolen still belong to the indigenous. If I don't hear from you guys again Iwill assume that you are busy packing your computer away and preparing for the exodus East. Cattle ships will be made available to send you all back to your country of ancestry, the Green Card is not issued by American Indians, nor should they be obliged to recognise the offspring of illegals as citizens.

The Mexicans are following the example of the founding fathers of the USA. You should all be very proud.

I'm glad you think that I matter, dear, because I don't think you do. Now....theres a debate going on this thread that is well above the level of your intelligence, so can you please go do the ironing or clean the toilet or something until we're done talking? I'm sure you'de find it less stressful and more satisfying.

Dunno...where I live was bought from the people who were living here at the time by Penn...since he chose not to rely on his charter from the English Crown.

In fact attempts by Mexican illegals to claim territorial sovereignty within US borders--a concept called "Aztlan"--is one aspect of the recent demonstrations that generated the most negative reactions in the US public...go figure. Damn racists, won't play along.

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.” -- Mexican President Zedillo, 1997

All the more reason to make sure they leave, I'd say.

I assume Billy will be giving NZ back to the Maoris. But I'd also guess we won't go as quietly.

Well, I was trying to frame in a way you might understand.

Please remeber that "You aren't the only person in set X" does not validly imply that "You are in set X". It's that pesky "logic" thing again...

Have you switched from your former tactical mix of red herrings, straw men and slippery slope to a strict focus on misogynistic ad hominem? It may be easier to write, but it's less convincing as argumentation.

They had alcohol, they just hadn't figured out how to make the good shit. Tobacco was something they gave us, there was none in Europe until Columbus brought it back from the "New World".
Every nation in the world is occupied by people that won and held, or just held, it, and there's damn few of the latter. Either way, the residents of every nation must protect their borders from interlopers or them will be over run by aliens.

Rome wasn't brought down by armies of soldiers but armies of vagrants they couldn't support.

Every other nation strictly limits aliens and there's no reason we shouldn't too.....not one. :headshake

If I don't hear back from you, I'll assume you're packing your computer and leaving your digs to the natives.

Oh yeah...this morning's news from "the state that's too far from Mexico to worry about illegals".

The Treaty of Waitangi was an inspired settlement for its day, and its principles remain at the heart of the New Zealand legal and political system to this day. I have no claim on this land, other than that of legal immigration, and my being here does not deprive any Maori of the right to anything. In fact, there was a shortage of skills in my chosen profession when I applied for residence, so the way in was streamlined and subsidised for me. Any time they want me to move on, I would have no problem with it, but we exist in a mutually-beneficial way....Much like the US and its mexican underclass.

Except for the "legal immigration" part.

No mention of 'illegal immigrants' anywhere in that article. The fact that you assume that they are speaks more about you than about them.

Also, as long as the girls weren't being held against their will (which seems somewhat unlikely, as two of them are being charged), I don't see why that article should be worrying in any way.

One problem with that....current Mexicans are by and large descended from their Spanish invaders. Shall we make room for them on the boat to The Continent?

I'll save you a spot, as well -- some Maori will be knocking on your door shortly, I'll wager. Unless he's already been sent back to some Polynesian island chain where his ancestors came from 3,500 years ago.

Exodus is fun.


edit: damn, I should've read the whole thread. Oh well. At any rate, even peaceful, lawful immigration takes potential resources away from "the natives", whoever they may be. Instead of dwelling on who is native to what, why don't we all just...I dunno...FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAWS OF THE COUNTRY WE ARE CURRENTLY WALKING AROUND IN and let our ancestors pay whatever eternal price they must for their own sins.

Like most newspaper articles about crime, that article was generated from a police report, and the police here are forbidden from asking if people they encounter during an investigation are illegals.

Are "hooker" and "pimp" on the list of scarce skills for which NZ will subsidize immigration? They won't get you an H1B visa here...yet.

I'm not opposed to legalized prostitution, but it doesn't currently exist in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Once you create an illegal enterprise, the pressure to branch out into sideline businesses is substantial.

Right, which is a major reason it should be legal, but still - the article wasn't about any sideline businesses, so I don't see what point the article was supposed to make wrt immigration. Hispanic prostitutes are taking away the jobs of our homegrown prostitutes?

billybob had been lecturing me earlier that since I live in Pennsylvania I couldn't possible encountered, have legitimate issues about or in fact know anything about illegals, since PA is so far from the Mexican border.

Maybe he's right...these folks apparently came down from Queens, which as we know is much closer to Mexico.

I'll keep an eye out for reporting on any court cases that arise from this, but I suspect there will be a plea bargain, so we may never have an authoritative word on the perps' immigration status. All I can say is: this is the same town where the mayor insisted that he needed to issue identity documents to the illegals so he could do a better job of delivering municipal services to them.

Usually only when something like this gets to court do immigration statuses get investigated...if then.

Good thing there aren't any illegals here.