What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[classicman]

Oh please elaborate...

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Cloud

"secure the borders." what an absolutely nonsensical phrase.

Do you say this because you think it would be too hard, or because you disagree with the concept?

A sovereign nation would not remain as such for very long without defined and defended borders, don't you think?

Wiki

The current notion of state sovereignty was laid down in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles of territorial integrity, border inviolability, and supremacy of the state (rather than the Church). A sovereign is a supreme lawmaking authority.

I'll readily admit I don't know how to get it done, but I don't understand why wanting secure borders is nonsensical.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Pie

Mom's leaving the damn state, and taking her small business and not-inconsiderable retirement dollars with her. She's writing letters to that effect to all her duly elected representatives.

She got a postcard in her mailbox addressed to "resident" that said:
Arizona is for White Christians! GOD AND GUNS!

She can't wait to leave that backwards shithole.

Good for her, Pie.

It's amazing to me that your posts here about your mother's experiences have gone virtually ignored. I guess real life instances, events happening to someone (the mother of someone) we know are not admissible as evidence of how fucked up the whole thing is.

Maybe you're just racist in your unsettled and disgusted feeling that all of this is the wrong way to go. Maybe you're being reactionary, without knowing the facts? Facts, as we must define them here, do not include actual events. Or something.

[skysidhe]

People want their land back....2 hundred 50 some odd years later. It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST.

Lame lame lame..... "Hey I'm illegal but hey umm this country was ours first...so .......we are going to stand up for principles" [is truly weird logic]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

People want their land back....2 hundred 50 some odd years later. It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST.

Lame lame lame..... "Hey I'm illegal but hey umm this country was ours first...so .......we are going to stand up for principles" [is truly weird logic]

Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?

It seems to me to be tarring the larger movement based on the actions of a few....much like the criticism of tarring the Tea Party based on the few extremists signs at their rallies.

[Cloud]

Remember, guys, I live on the border, so my viewpoint may be different than yours.

First, it's nonsensical because the border between Mexico and the US has been "secured" in the ordinary understanding of the term. Fences, a river, ports of entry, checkpoints, guards on both sides--the whole nine yards. BUT -- there's really no way to physically cut off the entire border. It's just not practical--The Fence notwithstanding. There's too much of it, it's too isolated, fences can be dug under, guards avoided. It's nonsensical to imagine that we can totally "secure" it.

Second, the glib phrase "secure the border" is pissing me off, because it demonstrates absolutely no understanding of the reality here, or compassion for the people involved. The border is a fictional construct that neither reflects the past or the present. Just because Texas fought with Mexico and established a line in the sand, does not mean that the people who live here, and have always lived here, should have no rights. The region is a geographical and cultural whole. The reality is the people in question, the Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Americans of Mexican, Spanish, and Native American descent, were here first. They live a bi-national life, and have done so for centuries. Families and jobs are bi-national here. They are hurting, big time, because of the violence which we have, in part contributed to, and they need help, not a door slammed in their faces.

So, to me, that phrase is just a sound bite for the white people to rally about. To me, it's rude, naive, and self-righteous, not to mention impractical and lacking in compassion.

Having said all that, I agree that immigration reform is needed. I am not trying to make excuses for illegals or support them. I agree that people here illegally should not be using our services, or taking advantage of the rights of citizens. I agree that drug fueled violence is partly our problem (but not all). I agree that better border security is needed. But believing that "securing" the borders is an answer to all the current problems is, well . . . nonsensical. It's just a pat phrase that lends nothing to any solution.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

... It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST...

Assume away. Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage, with no employer-provided benefits or employer-withheld taxes. They're the people who work long hours, since it's at low wages, mowing your lawn, washing dishes at your restaurant, emptying your septic tank, cleaning your hotel room, etc.

[classicman]

I have said "secure the border" repeatedly, so I'll respond in kind.

I do not know how to do it - no idea. well maybe one - There is this great wall I've heard about in China. Only problem is it would take a lot of people and resources and with the economy doing so well and unemployment so low - oh wait, never mind.

To this little tidbit

rude, naive, and self-righteous, not to mention impractical and lacking in compassion.

rude - Why/how?
self-righteous - You are smarter than that.
impractical - see below.
lacking in compassion - for whom? The criminals who have been coming here illegally? Perhaps. For Americans - not in the least.

Now regarding your - Reality rant. That was settled a long time ago.

Perhaps its the phraseology you don't like. Instead of secure - I'll try it this way; "Control our Borders" and by that I mean to control the influx of illegal immigrants, which are by definition criminals, from coming here. I know you see it differently, but coming here illegally makes one a criminal - period. That part of this IS that simple.
Has the problem gotten completely out of hand due to the lack of inaction over the last half dozen administration - YES.
But doing nothing now doesn't change that trend. We simply CAN NOT afford the status quo.
I wholeheartedly welcome and respect all those who chose to uproot their families and their lives to come here LEGALLY. Please do not mistake the two - at least from me.

[Shawnee123]

Cloud, that was a damn fine post.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage,

You mean the legally mandated wage?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?

It seems to me to be tarring the larger movement based on the actions of a few....much like the criticism of tarring the Tea Party based on the few extremists signs at their rallies.

I gotta bookmark this post.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Redux

Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?

Obviously not. Why would anyone see THAT as the whole of the problem? I don't know anyone that dumb. Now if the people protesting had put the wording of spexxies quote ( shown below )on that poster board maybe it would have seemed less than a fringe protest. It might get a little more empathy.

by spex modified.Bold mine. We're the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage, with no employer-provided benefits or employer-withheld taxes. We're the people who work long hours, since it's at low wages, mowing your lawn, washing dishes at your restaurant, emptying your septic tank, cleaning your hotel room, etc.

I changed the wording from 'they're to we're'. A great post for ? what? Empathy? What are comments like that suppose to do for the issue?
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=652299&postcount=97

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

...I do not know how to do it - no idea. well maybe one - There is this great wall I've heard about in China.

Don't forget the ones that fly in.

Originally Posted by classicman

...Only problem is it would take a lot of people and resources and with the economy doing so well and unemployment so low - oh wait, never mind.
....

[conspiracy]Those unemployed folks might like to make some cash building a wall between Mexico and the US of A. And I'll bet they'll do it for cheap! Wasn't that the plan when they wire terminated from their employment?[/theory]

Originally Posted by classicman

You mean the legally mandated wage?

Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Don't forget the ones that fly in.

I'm glad you find it humorous - Whats the percentage that fly in versus every other means?

Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).

I'm all for prosecuting and penalizing both parties.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Cloud, that was a damn fine post.

Agreed