Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The future of the hispanic civil right movement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The future of the hispanic civil right movement

    In Houston, where thousands of immigrants chanted "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" as they rallied, Staff Sgt. Jose Soto of the Marines marched in his blue uniform. He said he had fought in Iraq and was in Houston to visit his parents, who came to this country as illegal immigrants.

    "I've fought for freedom overseas," said Sergeant Soto, 30, who plans to return to Iraq in July. "Now I'm fighting for freedom here."

  • #2
    In Houston, where thousands of immigrants chanted "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" as they rallied, Staff Sgt. Jose Soto of the Marines marched in his blue uniform. He said he had fought in Iraq and was in Houston to visit his parents, who came to this country as illegal immigrants.

    "I've fought for freedom overseas," said Sergeant Soto, 30, who plans to return to Iraq in July. "Now I'm fighting for freedom here."

    Comment


    • #3
      Story like this will push the amnesty..You hve at least 90,000 green card holder that are in iraq who has undocumented mother or father and their priority is to make sure the public knows that their parents deserve a chance at citizenship.

      like ive said to the paddy,jeff and others, this immigration stuff have become a civil right movement that killed an enforcement-only ideology which led the debate untill the sleepin giant got up.
      Now, i just dont see how you can move in blocking the border without making sure you treat those 11 million people in a human way.

      You can scream about sealing the border first, all you want, the problem with this is,if you are going to do any type of enforcement, then you should only stick to blocking the border, BUT no inside enforcement should be enacted untill you have something in place that will protect the 11 millions immigrants from the inside enforcement.Meaning you can not flush workers out of their job if you are going to, laer on, introduce a guest worker which will permit those workers to retain those jobs.

      Comment


      • #4
        In Washington, demonstrators carried children on their shoulders, ate popcorn and draped themselves in the banners of their homelands as they cheered Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who told them that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had spoken here in 1963, and a host of other speakers, including John J. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington.

        Comment


        • #5
          To have civil rights, you have to be a citizen or legal resident. Illegal aliens are not entitled to CIVIL rights. There is no right to come to this country illegally.

          It was a beautiful spring day in DC yesterday, and the atmosphere on the mall looked more like a picnic or one of the fairs that are held on the mall. Also a great political opportunity for pols like Kennedy. Guess he knows he's never lived up to his family legacy, and is still trying to make up for the disgrace he brought to it.

          Comment


          • #6
            you are a M O R O N if you think the people that went to get the license to demonstrate, are undocumented..

            yOU ARE AN EVEN BIGGER M O R O N , just like your mom, if you think that those immigrants that are rallying are all illegals....you have legal immigrants that have family members tha are illegal, demonstrating on their behalf...you really think those legal immigrants will tell tancredo and sensenbrenner " here's my mother, here's my father, here's my brother, here's my sister,here's my uncle etc etc, now you can deport them all, i dont care because im legal"??

            you really think thats what the legal immigrants are saying? you really think the legal immigrants wont support their family member fight to gain citizenship?? you are a M O R O N for thinking that way..

            there was a poll last month that says that 90% of all legal immigrants have a family member or a close friends that is illegal.

            Comment


            • #7
              And you are the bigger M O R O N, for believing that most of those demonstrating weren't illegal aliens, or people who were now legal because they were amnestied previously. In fact, some of the organizers admitted that most of those attending were illegal.

              But hey, what matters is what AMERICANS think, and groups marching for illegal alien "rights" aren't going to go down well, no matter who's marching. That those who are now "Legal" or even US citizens believe that breaking our immigration laws (and by extension, other laws) is acceptable is all the more reason to oppose any "legalization". There's a saying, "The leopard doesn't change his stripes", and it applies to illegal aliens. Once a law breaker, always a law breaker. It'd be far more impressive if any of the interviews they were doing were with immigrants who'd come here and been legal from the start, but funny, the only ones I saw were with people who had broken our laws and gotten amnesty, and were now abusing that by aiding family members. Not a very good rationale for why we should give yet another amnesty--so we get yet more "legalized" aliens, who will in turn help more illegal ones. More proof that amnesty doesn't stop illegal immigration, but adds to it.

              Comment


              • #8
                LOL i laught when i see you write those stupid ideology...you are like a minte-men running around with no head on his shoulder...You're saying you dont want to give them any type of status because they came here illegaly but you cant tell the american public what you are for...so let me ask you again? if you dont want to handle those 11 million people and ignore them by proceeding with enforcement-then you are for deporting them..

                MASS DEPORTATION IS AS MUCH OF A BAD WORD IN WASHINGTON AS AMNESTY...MATTERFACT, IF THOSE 2 OPTION WERE GIVEN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, THEY WOULD RATHER TAKE AMNESTY BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY IS A GENEROUS COUNTRY, AND MASS DEPORTATION IS A EVIL WORD....SO AGAIN, PEOPLE LOVE TO SAY AMNESTY IS A DIRTY WORD...BU MASS DEPORTATION IS EVEN WORSE...TANCREDO HAS TO DEFEND HIMSELF FROM THE MASS DEPORTATION CLAIM.

                you cant be for enforcement-only and not be for mass deportatioN.those 2 goes hands in hands...ive heard tancredo trying to defend himself whenever they ask him whether his for mass deportation...he knows well that public opinion will sharply shift if they see kids being separated from their families, so this is why tancredo gives us this Dumb ideology of drying up the jobs...this drying up the jobs ideology will not be tolerated unless the guest worker is enacted along with it because you will flush out all the agjob workers and you will bankrupt them.

                I dont know whether youve noticed lately, but tancredo has softened his rhetoric a bit because of racism claims being thrown his way and now he's saying he's for guest worker, but we have to do enforcement first...remember he was for just enforcement and no guest worker ever! plus he wanted immigration to be scaled back...so not only was he against guest worker, but he wanted legal immigration halted..so this guy is on the defensive now and he knows that the guest worker legalization will happen whether you like it or not...you need to understand that the world will not tolerate those 11 millions of people being handled in a inhuman way..this really means that deportating them is off the table unles they have criminal records.what tancredo is hoping is for the enforcement-only part to be enacted, then once the guest worker part is up for enactment, he wants to fight to ban it..its obvious...people that say they dont have a problem with guest worker but enforcement has to come first, are all lying..this is a hoax to get the enforcement part enacted, then turn around and fight off the guest worker untill the end.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What enforcement means is NO MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS, buddy boy. A guest worker program will be phased in AFTER enforcement is in place, and enforcement will be extremely tough. Which means that if you can't bring your family legally, you don't bring them at all. Unlike the crop of lawbreakers who were marching yesterday. So, like it or not, they'll have to follow the laws if they're amnestied, or risk severe penalties. Which prevent precisely what I was objecting to--the culture that illegal aliens bring that obeying the law is an "optional extra" that doesn't apply to them.

                  As I've pointed out before, Jean, we already KNOW from the 1986 amnesty and the past 20 years that the law will not be enforced if amnesty or guest worker programs get enacted. So, if there is no enforcement preceding a guest worker program or amnesty, there will be no program. And business, one of the strongest supporters of illegal aliens, won't mind that one bit. They'd rather illegal aliens remain illegal than have to face severe penalties for hiring them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Heh, notice there're penalties/fine for the illegals to get legalized, but there isn't a single penalty for the businesses that employed them? I think its pretty clear who's getting what in this country.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Exactly, Marmaduk. Even then, though, companies which pay off the books will probably be unwilling to provide evidence they hired the illegal alien because they'd presumably still be subject to tax penalties for not reporting and paying withholding. And of course certain groups such as day laborers probably won't be able to legalize at all without regular full-time jobs.

                      Also, maybe you know--do they plan to exempt legalizing illegal aliens from the "support" provisions, i.e. income above the 125% poverty level?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        lol..i was listening to kyl or maybe it was session, and they asked him if enforcement was to be enacted first before any type of guest worker program,would he be for the guest worker then and he couldnt respond to this and he finally say that maybe later on...so the guys that says they are for enforcement first CAN NOT GUARANTY YOU THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT FULL AMNESTY EVEN WHEN THEY ARE ASK WHETHER THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE GUEST WORKER IF THE PRESIDENT MOVED THE ARMY TO BLOCK THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN BORDER.

                        This is all a hoax, and the moderate lawmakers should NOT compromise on such talk that would see enforcement being done first because, like ive said, this is an excuse to delay the guest worker program and give them more time to fight it off...right now, is the best of time to enact the guest worker program becausse of the 4% unemplyoment rate so this country is in need of workers badly with jobs being created every months..about 20,000 jobs are being created every month, so you have to enact this guest worker now or risk those jobs going unfilled.

                        ALSO, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROMISE THOSE 11 MILLIONS THAT YOU WILL ENACT THE GUEST WORKER PROGRAM LATER, THEN IT HAS TO BE SIGN INTO LAW THAT THE GUEST WORKER PROGRAM CAN NOT BE HALTED FROM BEING ENACTED ONCE ENFORCEMENT HAS STARTED. MEANING THAT TANdCREDO CAN NOT STOP ITS ENACTMENT NOR ANYONE ELSE .

                        so i could accEPTt enforcement-first, but it would have to get a written guaranty that the guest worker will follow next.

                        also, enforcement at the border should be the only enforcement, inside enforcement should not be enacted unless the guest worker starts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Nothing that I've read so far in Hagel-Martinez's seemed to indicate bypassing the minimum income provision, Aliba. I've only read the summary though, I'll let you know if it does indicates that once I'm done reading the full amendment.

                          As for enacting the guest worker program Jean, I wouldn't have problem with it as long as the illegals have to exit the country first and then processed legally to re-enter. Akin to the mid-term phase of Hagel-Martinez bill. Would you have a problem with that?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "I've fought for freedom overseas," said Sergeant Soto, 30, who plans to return to Iraq in July. "Now I'm fighting for freedom here."

                            Those are a big words, but reality is different and not based on emotions, but on many other criteria.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No, i wouldnt accept making `11 millions people exit..its just un-do-able to make 11 millione exit to re enter..if its for a short time, then maybe, no less then 2 3 months, but if it would take more then that to process them in, then id definatly vetoe it...leave it the way it is currently written on the martinez bill with the 3 groups..make the less then 5 year immigrants leave to re enter whyle the ones that may have strong ties, would be able to stay.

                              and like ive said, for such a compromise to be agreed upon, the extremist will have to give up on "inside-enforcement" and put it on the side along with the guest worker program..the reason for that is because jobs needs to be filled and you cant kick workers out, illegals or not...i wouldnt mind shutting up the country entirely, but you cant deportt 11 millions hat are already here.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X