Mexico Is Gonna Sue Us.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Or, it could be that I don't watch sensationlist 24-hour news programs or listen to AM radio talk shows enough to be as informed as the guy that had "deport these mexican invaders NOW!" lettered on the back of his pickup truck.

Maybe. But who's dealing in stereotypes now? Would that be "racist" if you werent talking about white people? Surely it's as much a caricature as "the Frito Bandito"

Do you beleive you have fairly described the people who care about this issue and have for quite some time? Was it on your radar before it got Congressional attention and the illegals (and the US citizens who have found steady employment by NGOs serving them, themselves a not-inconsiderable political force) began demonstrating? Or were you (and they) content to let it languish until it looked like something might actually happen to jeopardize the status quo?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Maybe. But who's dealing in stereotypes now? Would that be "racist" if you werent talking about white people? Surely it's as much a caricature as "the Frito Bandito"

That's funny -- I don't remember mentioning anything about anyone's race. But, stereotypical thinking is strange that way, isn't it?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Do you beleive you have fairly described the people who care about this issue and have for quite some time?

No, I don't think I've been fair in describing the people who have cared about this issue for sometime because I'm not aware of anyone other than the local produce companies in my area who have held an interest in it beyond the previous two months. This issue hit my radar the moment people here, and elsewhere, began debating it. Prior to that, I had heard very little concern about illegal immigrants and there was certainly no uproar/protests/anger until it hit the mainstream media. This doesn't mean that I find it to be a non-issue -- I do find it something to be concerned about, but I question the timing and genuine purpose behind it. For an crime that has always been illegal, I find it suspect that there is more interest in the immigrants themselves rather than the corrupt law enforcement agencies that have turned a blind eye to it. Does that not "feel" strange to you?

I'm sure glad we don't run the legal system based on politics.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

For an crime that has always been illegal, I find it suspect that there is more interest in the immigrants themselves rather than the corrupt law enforcement agencies that have turned a blind eye to it.

I don't think there's anything suspect about being interested in criminals when the subject is crime. Which law enforcement agencies do you believe to have "turned a blind eye to it" out of corruption?

[Shocker]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't think there's anything suspect about being interested in criminals when the subject is crime. Which law enforcement agencies do you believe to have "turned a blind eye to it" out of corruption?

Exactly. It would really help with the debate if everyone stopped, took a breath, removed thier emotions from it (including any ideas about race), and just look at this issue for what it is. A crime.

We have laws. There is a reason for them, and until the laws either changed or are abolished, then the laws need to be enforced. Obviously, with an estimated half a million people crossing illegally every year, the job of enforcing our immigration laws is very, very difficult, however, they still need to be enforced to the best of our abilities and to the extent provided by our laws.

Now, you may not like those laws, and that is perfectly fine. Its great that in the US you can take whatever point on an issue and exercise your rights to say whatever you want about it. But if you don't like those laws, it doesn't mean that you can just disregard them, or break them, or help people break them. Because at the end of the day, it is still the law and illegals, wherever they are from and whatever race they are, are still breaking our laws and disrespecting our country. So if you don't like the laws, do something about it. If you don't like it, get em changed, or try to at least. Just do it legally. Take some notes of how civil rights leaders used our legal system to get changes that favored them. Do it peacefully, do it legally, and do it respectfully. But until that time comes, you better damn well expect that our law enforcement, our national guard, our immigration service will continue to enforce our existing laws the best they can!

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't think there's anything suspect about being interested in criminals when the subject is crime. Which law enforcement agencies do you believe to have "turned a blind eye to it" out of corruption?

It’s called the Federal government. Even the State of Oklahoma had to start an Enron prosecution before Feds would prosecute. Or AIG - the NY State Attorney General had to prosecute because Feds would not investigate major campaign fund contributors. As a result of that investigation, we later learned AIG management even pilfered a trust fund setup by AIG’s founder just to enrich themselves.

Where are so many that intentionally 'fixed' CA's (West Coast) energy markets only for self serving profits? Not prosecuted and not even investigated. Where is the government following many $billions siphoned off by keeping power plants off line? Where is the prosecution of those people?

Where is prosecution of 1st Energy who intentionally - by repeated negligence - created a NE electric blackout?

Or who outted a CIA agent? So they throw in a fall guy - deja vue Watergate?

Or torture and international kidnapping approved of that the highest levels of government. Even Gen Miller, who is central to outright torture, is trying to retire early - probably to save any pension - before the criminals of one political party get removed from power.

Do you think Ambramoff is the whole K street corruption? Are you that naive to believe only Ambramoff and his closest friends were doing it all?

Funny. Same people who demand blind and total prosecution of immigration laws don't want those big criminal prosecuted. Show me where MaggieL strongly demands those above criminal actions be prosecuted. Why does she, instead, want to punish little people? Nazi - sorry - Republican/Democratic party member?

Is it criminal when a president goes off on a campaign fund raising trip to CA and to a birthday party in AZ for John McCain as New Orleans is attacked (as predicted) by Katrina?

It’s rather silly to blame immigrants for doing what is necessary when those who are criminally negligent at the highest levels of government and industry are not prosecuted (unless public outrage causes change). Laws currently written make illegal immigration necessary. Ameircan efforts even to undermine the Doha round of GATT also make illegal immigration necessary. Why do so many here ignore reasons why - and instead demand a Nazi like attitude only to blind law enforcement?

Those who have a political agenda and must avoid all underlying reasons, then blindly demand all laws be enforced. Fine. Laws say mandatory 5 years for marijuana possession. Another law we also should be prosecuting as if America was under terrorist attack. Oh. More Americans are in jail (by percentage) than any other nation in the world - mostly for drug possession. Therefore there are no jail space left for illegal immigrants. Just another little fact completely avoided by those who advocate blind Nazi justice. The purpose of American laws that make illegal immigration necessary and that make immigration laws so difficult to enforce are the problem. Therefore we must even blindly enforce immigration laws with jack booted agendas, but ignore one of the biggest cash crops from many states? Why a double standard? Thinking with a head hanging between the legs rather than use the one between shoulders?

A law is not just enforced because one has a 'big dic' and self serving political agenda. A law is enforced because it has a purpose. Even in this discussion are people blinded by propaganda so as to forget why we are more concerned with ‘purpose of the law’. Illegal immigration does not hurt America. And illegal immigration is due to other laws and political leaders who get rich from such laws that violate American principles.

Notice not once does MaggieL, et al discuss massive and anti-free trade laws that subsidize sugar, corn, cotton, etc. She, et al is not honest if she does not include WHY illegal immigration exists.

Most posters here have become so myopic as to not even discuss why America created its own illegal immigration problem. Blame others. Myopia and decisions based only in emotion is easier.

Previously, we even enrich lawyers at the expense of legal immigrants. Thousands of dollars to lawyers just to fill out forms intentionally written to require lawyers. Illegal immigrants are only a symptom. Why do what a scam auto mechanic does – fix symptoms – not fix the problem? A problem is demonstrated right here where MaggieL, et al did not start and finish by defining reasons for illegal immigration.

American leadership even advocates torture and kiddnapping - and denies they are even doing it. Therein lies the same reasons for illegal immigration - and corruption of CA energy markets, and pension fraud in GM, and K Street, ...

Well at least PA voters finally got balls. In a primary, they did something that PA voters never do. Never.voted out two most powerful They voted out incumbants. IOW they finally voted for America rather than a ‘nazi like’ allegiance to party power brokers. Those same party power brokers (and their mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh) even have many here avoiding why illegal immigration exists.

Are you a loyal communist (,et al) party member. Zieg Heil. You demand blind enforcement of laws rather than first learn why laws are broken and defective? This thread is full of posters who refuse to deal with the problem – a classic example of “85% of all problems are …”

Let's see. Anyone working a minimum wage (or less) job will end up in those Norristown welfare and hospital doles. But since most who do those jobs are illegals, then clearly the illegal immigrants are the problem. Kick out the illegals, and those same doles are going to other legal or illegal low wage employees. So why do we cover them? Illegal or legal - they are all the same future of America. Just another little fact ignored when citing who gets public assistance in Norristown - or how political agenda brokers spin the truth. All that money in Norristown for the working poor is what America always did. Why? That poor are some of the greatest future Americans. Notice how spin forgot to mention that important fact - who are some of America's most productive future citizens? Not long time legal Americans - who do the most complaining about immigrants.

Where do so many complaints about illegal immigration come from? From those who are America's least productive - those who are well beyond third generation immigrant. They don't look like us, don't sound like us; therefore must be evil. Deport them. Which head is being used to promote a political agenda?

Originally Posted by shocker

It would really help with the debate if everyone stopped, took a breath, removed thier emotions from it

That cannot happen. Emotions are the only reason why this illegal immigration 'debate' exists. Logics, such as president who perverts international trade - making illegal immigration more necessary - just never gets discussed by those who avoid logic - the reasons why.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

It’s called the Federal government.

Ah, those guys. Should have known. Thanks for clearing that up.

We can always count on tw for a clear, succinct, dispassionate summary of...whatever it is he's always on about.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Ah, those guys. Should have known. Thanks for clearing that up.

We can always count on tw for a clear, succinct, dispassionate summary of...whatever it is he's always on about.

Your numbers from Norristown tell us anything logical? Those numbers demonstrate how dependant all low wage workers are on social services. Those numbers demonstrate how much government invests in the future of America. Those numbers tell us nothing about illegal immigrants getting a free ride. And yet you tried to make that claim.

Facts - dispationate and without emotion - repeatedly go right back to the source - the problem. Like it or not, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. But those who love a scumbag president instead say there is plenty of blame to go around. Are you one of the latter?

You have the option of defending reasons for massive illegal immigration - laws that make such immigration necessary. Instead you post:

... whatever it is he's always on about

Is that suppose to be logic - or emotion charged insult? You have posted diatrbes based in emotion. Now is time to be logical.

Cited are repeated examples of how government creates a need for illegal immigrants. Should I infer from your response that you cannot be logical - cannot dispute reasons for illegal immigration? Or that you simply don't want to address the problem - because it imlies Rush Limbaugh lies?

Numerous logical interpretations of your posts exist. Which one should we be using? Clearly you are diverting criticism of a president with long history of undermining America. Should we assume you are defending a scum bag president? Or do you have no defense of those who created this illegal immigration problem? All logical questions begging a "clear, succinct, dispassionate" reply. Why does this illegal immigration exist? Do we blame the symptoms - too many illegal immigrants?

Where do you once define a reason for problems? I did. So I am to be insulted? Or can you post a logical reply. Where is this reason(s) for illegal immigrants? So they can live off the citizens of Norristown?

Maggiel - you have long posted emotionally charged accusations of illegal immigrants. I have provided reasons why the problem exists and now challenge you to do same. Why does this problem exists- which should be easy if opinions were based in logical, dispassionate facts.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

You have posted diatrbes based in emotion. Now is time to be logical...Should we assume you are defending a scum bag president?

Is your idea of "being logical" demonstrated by your last two posts? Because they sure look like "diatribes based in emotion" to me. Or is this just a demonstration of your "Read? I only know how to write" tag line?

In fact, I think Bush's position on this issue sucks rocks. But then, if you'd read what I've already written extensively on the subject (instead of whipping yourself into a blind raging froth about Bush...again), you'd know that.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Are you a loyal communist (,et al) party member. Zieg Heil.

Congratulations...surely that is the most mixed metaphor of the year.

Another thing is that the Rep party has brought up this debate at a most interesting nexus in our history. Someone (Kit?) has already made allusion to this. Lets deflect criticism from the war in Iraq; lets give the Rep's an issue to disassociate their affiliation with a president who is taking a nose dive in the polls. I know! Illegals! But God, forbid, lets not involve any Rep party contributors to war chests. As usual, we'll go after the group of law breakers least able to defend themselves; not the group of law breakers who sponsor all those expensive election year ads on TV and radio.

Hello?