Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From dialogs of Native & Aliba vs. ImmortalE

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

  • From dialogs of Native & Aliba vs. ImmortalE

    Posted July 01, 2005 11:55 PM

    LINK: http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums/a/...1010595521/p/5



    Aliba,
    your last post I will not comment on. Instead I will bring the copy-paste of my responce to Native, where I already addressed those issues.
    Besides, there are my earlier responces to you that you may read some other time.. ))


    Now, as far as statistics go..))
    You see, when statistics support your point of view, you never scrutinize them so thoroughly... but when Washington Post publishes latest polling you suddenly recall all tricks of the business you said you are involved in personally ... you very vividly explain to readers how structuring the question may influence/bring about desired responce.. ))

    Well, in my turn I can tell you that Am very well aware of the very same methods that are used by 'anti-immigrant' pollers who claim that most Americans are against any kind of legal status for people who anyway work there.. ))

    Such poor state of affairs ( so clearly acknowledged by you) leads us to conclude that Opinion Statistics in General are unreliable source of information and do not reflect the reality..))

    If it be so, then HOW can you claim that MOST Americans are against giving any kind of legal status to undocumented workers?? ))

    Can you answer this question?? ))
    How do YOU know what MOST Americans think of this subject? ))
    Have you personally spoken, at length, to 150 million adult Americans lately?? ))


    Next, you question the assumption on part of some people that your argumets in immigration debate are racially motivated.
    It makes you even angry that people can think such things..
    But there are couple of things I would want to bring to your attention in regards to this:

    1.
    If you are too lazy to read books and search internet for information on founder of fair, numbersusa and others, then at least you can turn on your TV and tune to C-Span Ch. and listen to what restrictionists OPENLY SAY TODAY (!!).
    They OPENLY acknowledge that there is a serious threat , that ETHNIC minority (mostly Mexicans) MIGHT become a majority in this country by the year 2050 if no emergency measures are taken.
    And that such demographic change would result in cultural catastrophy of unseen yet magnitute, and that it would mean the destruction of Western Civilization as it is known to all of us. That America will become Niger-ica or El Salva-merica by the year 2075...
    So, they say, to avoid apocalipsis we must urgently deport anyone who hasn't yet got a chance to legalize here , plus we should shut the borders, declare moratorium on ALL kind of immigration (including family members), and maintain such policy for as long as it is nesessary ,in order to bring the numbers of foreign born nationals to certain minimum...
    Plus, we should encourage and give all the incentives to our 'best breed' , so they can multiply.
    Cause it is worrysome to see all those Mexican and other 'uneducated' women bear their children as a street cat, while well educated White woman (the best breed) waits for years to get her first child, and then doesn't want to have a second or third one..

    2. History.
    Historically when waves of immigrants came from Western Europe, no one was unhappy about it.
    There was no worry about criminals, cost to society or anything.
    Instead, Emma Lazarus through Statue of Liberty was ASKING to give her "your poor, desperate" and etc..

    But, things changed drastically when EASTERN EUROPEANS started coming in large numbers ( yes, even WHITE EASTERN EUROPEANS weren't initially welcomed ).
    There were claims that East Europeans ( Pols, Russians) are in general imbeciles when compared to their Western European brethern, and are source of higher crime, crooked life style, diseases and etc.
    Do I have to remind you of thousands of Eastern Europen Jews that were turned back to Hitler's Nazis, during WWII, as NOT QUALIFYING for admission and refuge here???
    And do I have to remind you of the Quota that was set in 20's ( first time in history) in responce to high numbers of Asian ( Indo-Chineese ) immigrant influx here?

    I mean, there are some interesting chapters in history, and you can't just deny facts and things that have taken place in past.
    Do you think it is totally unreasonable and illogical to draw any parallels and patterns from the past??

    If so, why? ))
    What is the purpose of studying the subject called 'History'?? ))


    Finally, as mentioned above, I am copy-pasting my earlier responce to Native that answers to some of your concerns brought in your last post.



    Good luck!

    _________________________


    Native:
    Yes we shall see what happens ImmoralE.


    IE:
    Of course, we shall see.. ))
    "The only thing we know about future developments, is that they will develope".))

    I also notice, unable to argue your case on merits, you resort to name calling? ))

    But let me tell you: I like it when likes of YOU call me "IMMORAL-E" ))
    It means I am saying something factually correct and you simply can't take it, it infuriates you because it goes against your destroy-and-distort-the-facts' method of arguing your points.. ))
    So feel free to call me what you wish, I will take it as a compliment ))

    Native:
    You sure are a strange one.

    IE:
    Just because I expose your "dreams"? ))


    Native:
    Let's pick apart some of your post.


    IE:
    Let's do that ))


    Native:
    1.Neither I nor Aliba for that matter have claimed to speak for all Americans. If we could speak for them we wouldn't be having debates or differences of opinions.

    IE:
    Oh, really? Then why do you always keep saying "Most Americans are MAD, CRAZY" about immigrants and want them all out?
    Then don't say "Americans want this and that...",
    say I, Native or I, Aliba, hate those Mexicans and want to kick their b u t t s out of America.
    And we won't come back to this question again ))

    Native:
    2. I have no insecurity regarding feelings of racism towards Mexicans.

    IE:
    Really? Then why are you so vehemently denying your being racist, and even mention having Latinos in your family? ))


    Native:
    3. I have not repeatedly claimed I have Latino's in my family. I mentioned it ONCE to show that argument is dead in the water.


    IE:
    You didn't, Aliba did. And I was addressing both you and HIM.

    Second, just because you mentioned it once doesn't mean it is in dead water. Who do you take me for? ))
    I could write here day and night against Afro-Americans and then, at the end of the day could claim that I am Afro-American too ( though I could have green skin like a frog).
    Would that ONE claim send anything to "dead water"?
    This is internet, my friend, so we have to rely on logic and consistency of your statements rather than what claims you made here just "ONCE" or even twice.. ))


    Native:
    It is a stupid claim to say people against illegal immigration are racist.


    IE:
    Nobody made such claim.
    But if you pick certain group of people and target them for certain CIVIL violation, and call them all CRIMINALS ( which is De Jure incorrect) just because you can't tolerate them..
    Then I am not surprised if others call you "racist"..


    Native:
    It is really stupid to say we are against Mexicans!!

    IE:
    Again this racial insecurity..))
    And why do you decide for OTHERS what is stupid or smart for THEM to say? ))


    Native:
    I have enjoyed several trips to Mexico.


    IE:
    You may have enjoyed several 'mamacitas' on your trip to Mexico as well ))
    What does it prove?? ))))


    Native:
    ... I have a problem with them not going back,

    IE:
    I know that.. ))


    Native:
    ..breaking the law, jumping the line and all the many other things I have already stated. It just so happens the main law breakers are from Mexico. You would be hearing the same thing from me if it were the Canadians.


    IE:
    I doubt that statement of yours about Canadians.
    I studied US history a bit.
    Whenever there was high level of Immigration from Western Europe ( or by people of WE origin), nobody called those poor, desperate people "Illegals", "Criminals" and so on..they were all welcomed by statue of liberty, (even called for!) , nobody advocated any restrictions on immigration, other than restrictions based on ones health and criminal background.
    But as soon as waves came from Asia(China) or Mexico, suddenly everyone started talking of "bad immigration" and "bad, law breaking immigrants".
    And in past, unlike now, that anti-immigration movement had openly displayed it's racist motives/sentiments.
    Only in post Civil Rights era "racial" arguments sound politically incorrect, so that new ways of 'arguing' the case are devised, but it doesn't change the essence of it a bit.


    Native:
    Now regarding the rest of your missive..

    IE:
    "missive".. again you have to resort to demagoguery, in absence of facts to support your argument ))
    Go ahead, as I said I take it as compliment from you ))


    Native:
    President Bush has limited power.

    IE:
    I doubt that statement of yours )))


    Native:
    His election had more to do with who middle Americans DIDN'T want in office. They turned out the vote in hopes he would bring back family values and
    return the highest office in the land to the people (not Hollywood or New York types).

    IE:
    Hehehe... The way you try to spin discussion really amuses me.. ))


    Native:
    He can not be re-elected and he is losing a lot of his supporters over his stance on immigration. Yes, I did vote for him but prior to that I always voted Democrat.

    IE:
    So you are a lifelong Democrat who voted for Republican?
    Hehe..))
    I think next you are going to say that you are Mexican illegal immigrant who is against Mexican illegal immigrants.. Hehe..)))


    Native:
    ImmoralE,

    IE:
    ))


    Native:
    ..the intolerance comes from the numbers that are here and how they are touching American lives.

    IE:
    Intolerance comes from bigotry and prejudice.
    There are ways and methods of dealing with any kind of problem (and eliminating it too), without becoming prejudiced, bigoted and intolerant.


    Native:
    Regarding the "criminal" tag on illegal aliens. Maybe we call them criminals because of their enormous COST on our society.

    IE:
    That is little overstretching the term "criminal", isn't it? ))
    So, anything that has "COST on our society" is a CRIME?
    Tomorrow I can say that cleaning of environment or funding of schools is a CRIME because it has COST on our society? ))
    I don't get your logic.. ))


    Native:
    When you have your hand in my pocket that is a crime.

    IE:
    I don't have my hand in your or anyone's pocket, so next time instead of saying "YOU", define precisely whom you refer to.
    Thank you.

    Native:
    When you spread TB in my country, that is a crime.

    IE:
    Again "YOU"...))
    Well.. if you literally pick-up a bag full with TB bacillas and spread those around through pulverizator, then certainly it's a crime.
    But only being physically SICK, being a suffering victim of the disease, doesn't make someone a CRIMINAL. Come on, you can make better woopers, can't you??.. )))
    Second, not ALL illegal mexican immigrants are sick of TB. There are cases of TB among all different groups of people, because TB illness does not discriminate and choose it's target by immigration status or race.
    Again, it's is demagoguery and distorting of facts, to blame ENTIRE group of illegal Mexican immigrants for ailings of few.
    Besides, carrying infectious disease makes one applying for immigration benefit INADMISSIBLE.

    Who argues that those applying for Immigration benefits shouldn't PAY FOR MEDICAL SCREENING, and who argues against deporting/not-admitting those who are SICK WITH INFECTIOUS DISEASE back, based on fact of their IN-ADMISSIBILITY??


    Native:
    When your education comes before my child's, that is crime.

    IE:
    No, I am sorry but you are simply misinforming everyone here! ))
    I assume by "YOU", you refer to illegal children attending public schools.
    Well, there is a Supreme Court desicion that ENTITLED
    ALL CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF STATUS to free education in public schools.
    So, by definition it is NOT A CRIME to obey Supreme Court orders.
    Now, if you don't like the ruling LAW and the ruling of Highest Court in land, that's a different subject.
    But don't call people who OBEY THE LAW CRIMINALS.

    Native:
    When you can get free medical care where some Americans stay sick because they can't afford medical insurance that is a crime.


    IE:
    Again, misinfo!
    Any HUMAN BEING can get EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE, and later billed for it IF THEY HAVE NO INSURANCE COVERAGE.
    Now, if Mexican and American have NO INSURANCE COVERAGE, they both will get treated in Emergency room ( and ONLY in EMERGENCY room, in Emergency cases).
    Later, they will get the bill.
    Of course, the one who has NOTHING to pay for it will end up not being able to pay for it, and as far as I know there is no law that allows to put someone in jail and be labeled criminal for not having means to pay for Emergency Medical Services..
    Your arguments are full of woopers, Native )))


    Native:
    When you manipulate fellow Americans into marrying you (for a GC),

    IE:
    "You...YOU...YOU !!" )))

    Yes, that's a CRIME. And SO IT MUST BE PROSECUTED!
    Just like when you go to rob the bank or murder someone. You must be prosecuted and punished for your CRIMES.
    But what is the point of saying this in the context of Mexican illegal immigration issue?

    Aren't there native murderers and thieves here?
    Can someone say "you are CRIMINAL, because 1. you are a NATIVE and 2. there are robbers and murderers among NATIVES?"
    Your statements are laughable.. ))


    Native:
    ..that is a crime (especially so for those who have spouses back in Mexico).

    IE:
    Sure it's a CRIME, who argues against it?
    See above!


    Native:
    When you take American jobs, that is a crime.

    IE:
    No, as far as I know, when you take a JOB it is neither CRIME nor FELONY (Or do you have a US Title, Section and Subsection to refer to and enlighten me?))

    To falsefully claim to be a Citizen in job application or using false documets for the same IS a crime, but most Mexican Illegals are working under the table without claiming anything.
    So, again you use your wide brush and paint them ALL in one color.
    Very typical of you ))


    Native:
    When you acquire false documents and pass them as real American papers, that is a crime.

    IE:
    Yes, and as CRIMINAL you should be then prosecuted!
    Without distinction of race, color and origin.


    Native:
    ..When you get foodstamps, medicaid and benefit from social programs meant for poor Americans, that is a crime.

    IE:
    See above.


    Native:
    ..When you fraudently vote in our elections, that is a crime.

    IE:
    Yes, if you do that you are a felon. And felons, as I said above, should be prosecuted without distinction of race, color and origin.


    Native:
    ........ I could go on for hours but I don't have time right now. Just let me know if you want some more.


    IE:
    Yes, I too can open CRIME BOOKS and cite every CRIME on books, saying "Murder is Crime", "Stealing is Crime", "Rape is Crime" and so on for days and weeks..
    But what is your point?
    Or do you mean to say that all CRIMES are committed by illegal Mexicans only?
    If not, then what is the point of citing all the conceivable crimes here?
    CRIME is CRIME and as SUCH it should be prosecuted, without any distinction of RACE, COLOR and ORIGIN, whether you are Native or Mexican doesn't matter.
    Do I have to repead it? ))

    Native:
    Oh, and the reason we are not discussing laws still on the books regarding mouth to gentalia affections between American spouses may have something to do with the fact that is not the nature of this forum.

    IE:
    Hehehe... So, you would discuss those laws and go after people engaging in o r a l s e x if this was a proper site for it?? )))
    Hehehe...
    You surely amuse me ))


    Native:
    If there was a way to deport them all with diginity and respect I would be all for it.


    IE:
    And what stands on your way of advocating deportation with dignity and respect ??


    Native:
    It is the ones who have been here the longest that I hold responsible.

    IE:
    What is the point of inserting this sentence which seems to be out of context here??

    Native:
    Around 20% of Mexico's population is wealthy. The rest are poor. They have no middle class.
    Most of the in between groups made their homes here in the USA and never looked back.

    IE:
    There you explain why it happens )))

    Native:
    Those who had originally planned to just make enough money to go back and buy a house or start a business..and make Mexico prosper. They never did it. They need to made to go home. Yes, even ahead of the migrants because after living in America, they would not settle for Mexico in the state it is now.

    IE:
    So, if you are consistent in your logic, then we should locate all descendants of "Mayflower" and deport them ahead of everyone else )))
    Do you support that idea?
    If not, please explain WHY?? )))


    Native:
    Regarding the rest of your post. I would like to see you give a link when you make a claim.
    Please start with this one:

    {In FACT latest nationall polls demonstrate that Americans are NOT as mad about immigrants as Tancredo claims, and more than 50% of AMERICANS support Immigration Reform proposed by Bush.}

    LET'S SEE WHO IS DISTORTING FACTS!


    IE:
    No problem!
    I see you don't read press, not even the front page of ILW )))
    Very typical of someone who always makes biased, factually incorrect claims))

    Here is the first link:

    http://www.ilw.com/search/documentFrame.asp?
    Request=poll&nPage=1&sort=Date&MaxFiles=25&
    Fuzzy=&Phonic=&Stemming=Yes&NaturalLanguage=
    No&HitNum=9&cmd=getdoc&DocId=6177&Index=
    %5c%5cilw%5cwwwroot%5cdtSearch%5cILW%20Web%
    20site&HitCount=1&hits=c0+&hc=448&req=poll


    Article

    A National Survey Of Voter Attitudes On Immigration
    National Immigration Forum and American Immigration Lawyers Association commissioned a poll which concludes there is strong and intense support among likely voters for an immigration reform proposal that is comprehensive and bipartisan.



    Good luck!

  • #2
    Posted July 01, 2005 11:55 PM

    LINK: http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums/a/...1010595521/p/5



    Aliba,
    your last post I will not comment on. Instead I will bring the copy-paste of my responce to Native, where I already addressed those issues.
    Besides, there are my earlier responces to you that you may read some other time.. ))


    Now, as far as statistics go..))
    You see, when statistics support your point of view, you never scrutinize them so thoroughly... but when Washington Post publishes latest polling you suddenly recall all tricks of the business you said you are involved in personally ... you very vividly explain to readers how structuring the question may influence/bring about desired responce.. ))

    Well, in my turn I can tell you that Am very well aware of the very same methods that are used by 'anti-immigrant' pollers who claim that most Americans are against any kind of legal status for people who anyway work there.. ))

    Such poor state of affairs ( so clearly acknowledged by you) leads us to conclude that Opinion Statistics in General are unreliable source of information and do not reflect the reality..))

    If it be so, then HOW can you claim that MOST Americans are against giving any kind of legal status to undocumented workers?? ))

    Can you answer this question?? ))
    How do YOU know what MOST Americans think of this subject? ))
    Have you personally spoken, at length, to 150 million adult Americans lately?? ))


    Next, you question the assumption on part of some people that your argumets in immigration debate are racially motivated.
    It makes you even angry that people can think such things..
    But there are couple of things I would want to bring to your attention in regards to this:

    1.
    If you are too lazy to read books and search internet for information on founder of fair, numbersusa and others, then at least you can turn on your TV and tune to C-Span Ch. and listen to what restrictionists OPENLY SAY TODAY (!!).
    They OPENLY acknowledge that there is a serious threat , that ETHNIC minority (mostly Mexicans) MIGHT become a majority in this country by the year 2050 if no emergency measures are taken.
    And that such demographic change would result in cultural catastrophy of unseen yet magnitute, and that it would mean the destruction of Western Civilization as it is known to all of us. That America will become Niger-ica or El Salva-merica by the year 2075...
    So, they say, to avoid apocalipsis we must urgently deport anyone who hasn't yet got a chance to legalize here , plus we should shut the borders, declare moratorium on ALL kind of immigration (including family members), and maintain such policy for as long as it is nesessary ,in order to bring the numbers of foreign born nationals to certain minimum...
    Plus, we should encourage and give all the incentives to our 'best breed' , so they can multiply.
    Cause it is worrysome to see all those Mexican and other 'uneducated' women bear their children as a street cat, while well educated White woman (the best breed) waits for years to get her first child, and then doesn't want to have a second or third one..

    2. History.
    Historically when waves of immigrants came from Western Europe, no one was unhappy about it.
    There was no worry about criminals, cost to society or anything.
    Instead, Emma Lazarus through Statue of Liberty was ASKING to give her "your poor, desperate" and etc..

    But, things changed drastically when EASTERN EUROPEANS started coming in large numbers ( yes, even WHITE EASTERN EUROPEANS weren't initially welcomed ).
    There were claims that East Europeans ( Pols, Russians) are in general imbeciles when compared to their Western European brethern, and are source of higher crime, crooked life style, diseases and etc.
    Do I have to remind you of thousands of Eastern Europen Jews that were turned back to Hitler's Nazis, during WWII, as NOT QUALIFYING for admission and refuge here???
    And do I have to remind you of the Quota that was set in 20's ( first time in history) in responce to high numbers of Asian ( Indo-Chineese ) immigrant influx here?

    I mean, there are some interesting chapters in history, and you can't just deny facts and things that have taken place in past.
    Do you think it is totally unreasonable and illogical to draw any parallels and patterns from the past??

    If so, why? ))
    What is the purpose of studying the subject called 'History'?? ))


    Finally, as mentioned above, I am copy-pasting my earlier responce to Native that answers to some of your concerns brought in your last post.



    Good luck!

    _________________________


    Native:
    Yes we shall see what happens ImmoralE.


    IE:
    Of course, we shall see.. ))
    "The only thing we know about future developments, is that they will develope".))

    I also notice, unable to argue your case on merits, you resort to name calling? ))

    But let me tell you: I like it when likes of YOU call me "IMMORAL-E" ))
    It means I am saying something factually correct and you simply can't take it, it infuriates you because it goes against your destroy-and-distort-the-facts' method of arguing your points.. ))
    So feel free to call me what you wish, I will take it as a compliment ))

    Native:
    You sure are a strange one.

    IE:
    Just because I expose your "dreams"? ))


    Native:
    Let's pick apart some of your post.


    IE:
    Let's do that ))


    Native:
    1.Neither I nor Aliba for that matter have claimed to speak for all Americans. If we could speak for them we wouldn't be having debates or differences of opinions.

    IE:
    Oh, really? Then why do you always keep saying "Most Americans are MAD, CRAZY" about immigrants and want them all out?
    Then don't say "Americans want this and that...",
    say I, Native or I, Aliba, hate those Mexicans and want to kick their b u t t s out of America.
    And we won't come back to this question again ))

    Native:
    2. I have no insecurity regarding feelings of racism towards Mexicans.

    IE:
    Really? Then why are you so vehemently denying your being racist, and even mention having Latinos in your family? ))


    Native:
    3. I have not repeatedly claimed I have Latino's in my family. I mentioned it ONCE to show that argument is dead in the water.


    IE:
    You didn't, Aliba did. And I was addressing both you and HIM.

    Second, just because you mentioned it once doesn't mean it is in dead water. Who do you take me for? ))
    I could write here day and night against Afro-Americans and then, at the end of the day could claim that I am Afro-American too ( though I could have green skin like a frog).
    Would that ONE claim send anything to "dead water"?
    This is internet, my friend, so we have to rely on logic and consistency of your statements rather than what claims you made here just "ONCE" or even twice.. ))


    Native:
    It is a stupid claim to say people against illegal immigration are racist.


    IE:
    Nobody made such claim.
    But if you pick certain group of people and target them for certain CIVIL violation, and call them all CRIMINALS ( which is De Jure incorrect) just because you can't tolerate them..
    Then I am not surprised if others call you "racist"..


    Native:
    It is really stupid to say we are against Mexicans!!

    IE:
    Again this racial insecurity..))
    And why do you decide for OTHERS what is stupid or smart for THEM to say? ))


    Native:
    I have enjoyed several trips to Mexico.


    IE:
    You may have enjoyed several 'mamacitas' on your trip to Mexico as well ))
    What does it prove?? ))))


    Native:
    ... I have a problem with them not going back,

    IE:
    I know that.. ))


    Native:
    ..breaking the law, jumping the line and all the many other things I have already stated. It just so happens the main law breakers are from Mexico. You would be hearing the same thing from me if it were the Canadians.


    IE:
    I doubt that statement of yours about Canadians.
    I studied US history a bit.
    Whenever there was high level of Immigration from Western Europe ( or by people of WE origin), nobody called those poor, desperate people "Illegals", "Criminals" and so on..they were all welcomed by statue of liberty, (even called for!) , nobody advocated any restrictions on immigration, other than restrictions based on ones health and criminal background.
    But as soon as waves came from Asia(China) or Mexico, suddenly everyone started talking of "bad immigration" and "bad, law breaking immigrants".
    And in past, unlike now, that anti-immigration movement had openly displayed it's racist motives/sentiments.
    Only in post Civil Rights era "racial" arguments sound politically incorrect, so that new ways of 'arguing' the case are devised, but it doesn't change the essence of it a bit.


    Native:
    Now regarding the rest of your missive..

    IE:
    "missive".. again you have to resort to demagoguery, in absence of facts to support your argument ))
    Go ahead, as I said I take it as compliment from you ))


    Native:
    President Bush has limited power.

    IE:
    I doubt that statement of yours )))


    Native:
    His election had more to do with who middle Americans DIDN'T want in office. They turned out the vote in hopes he would bring back family values and
    return the highest office in the land to the people (not Hollywood or New York types).

    IE:
    Hehehe... The way you try to spin discussion really amuses me.. ))


    Native:
    He can not be re-elected and he is losing a lot of his supporters over his stance on immigration. Yes, I did vote for him but prior to that I always voted Democrat.

    IE:
    So you are a lifelong Democrat who voted for Republican?
    Hehe..))
    I think next you are going to say that you are Mexican illegal immigrant who is against Mexican illegal immigrants.. Hehe..)))


    Native:
    ImmoralE,

    IE:
    ))


    Native:
    ..the intolerance comes from the numbers that are here and how they are touching American lives.

    IE:
    Intolerance comes from bigotry and prejudice.
    There are ways and methods of dealing with any kind of problem (and eliminating it too), without becoming prejudiced, bigoted and intolerant.


    Native:
    Regarding the "criminal" tag on illegal aliens. Maybe we call them criminals because of their enormous COST on our society.

    IE:
    That is little overstretching the term "criminal", isn't it? ))
    So, anything that has "COST on our society" is a CRIME?
    Tomorrow I can say that cleaning of environment or funding of schools is a CRIME because it has COST on our society? ))
    I don't get your logic.. ))


    Native:
    When you have your hand in my pocket that is a crime.

    IE:
    I don't have my hand in your or anyone's pocket, so next time instead of saying "YOU", define precisely whom you refer to.
    Thank you.

    Native:
    When you spread TB in my country, that is a crime.

    IE:
    Again "YOU"...))
    Well.. if you literally pick-up a bag full with TB bacillas and spread those around through pulverizator, then certainly it's a crime.
    But only being physically SICK, being a suffering victim of the disease, doesn't make someone a CRIMINAL. Come on, you can make better woopers, can't you??.. )))
    Second, not ALL illegal mexican immigrants are sick of TB. There are cases of TB among all different groups of people, because TB illness does not discriminate and choose it's target by immigration status or race.
    Again, it's is demagoguery and distorting of facts, to blame ENTIRE group of illegal Mexican immigrants for ailings of few.
    Besides, carrying infectious disease makes one applying for immigration benefit INADMISSIBLE.

    Who argues that those applying for Immigration benefits shouldn't PAY FOR MEDICAL SCREENING, and who argues against deporting/not-admitting those who are SICK WITH INFECTIOUS DISEASE back, based on fact of their IN-ADMISSIBILITY??


    Native:
    When your education comes before my child's, that is crime.

    IE:
    No, I am sorry but you are simply misinforming everyone here! ))
    I assume by "YOU", you refer to illegal children attending public schools.
    Well, there is a Supreme Court desicion that ENTITLED
    ALL CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF STATUS to free education in public schools.
    So, by definition it is NOT A CRIME to obey Supreme Court orders.
    Now, if you don't like the ruling LAW and the ruling of Highest Court in land, that's a different subject.
    But don't call people who OBEY THE LAW CRIMINALS.

    Native:
    When you can get free medical care where some Americans stay sick because they can't afford medical insurance that is a crime.


    IE:
    Again, misinfo!
    Any HUMAN BEING can get EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE, and later billed for it IF THEY HAVE NO INSURANCE COVERAGE.
    Now, if Mexican and American have NO INSURANCE COVERAGE, they both will get treated in Emergency room ( and ONLY in EMERGENCY room, in Emergency cases).
    Later, they will get the bill.
    Of course, the one who has NOTHING to pay for it will end up not being able to pay for it, and as far as I know there is no law that allows to put someone in jail and be labeled criminal for not having means to pay for Emergency Medical Services..
    Your arguments are full of woopers, Native )))


    Native:
    When you manipulate fellow Americans into marrying you (for a GC),

    IE:
    "You...YOU...YOU !!" )))

    Yes, that's a CRIME. And SO IT MUST BE PROSECUTED!
    Just like when you go to rob the bank or murder someone. You must be prosecuted and punished for your CRIMES.
    But what is the point of saying this in the context of Mexican illegal immigration issue?

    Aren't there native murderers and thieves here?
    Can someone say "you are CRIMINAL, because 1. you are a NATIVE and 2. there are robbers and murderers among NATIVES?"
    Your statements are laughable.. ))


    Native:
    ..that is a crime (especially so for those who have spouses back in Mexico).

    IE:
    Sure it's a CRIME, who argues against it?
    See above!


    Native:
    When you take American jobs, that is a crime.

    IE:
    No, as far as I know, when you take a JOB it is neither CRIME nor FELONY (Or do you have a US Title, Section and Subsection to refer to and enlighten me?))

    To falsefully claim to be a Citizen in job application or using false documets for the same IS a crime, but most Mexican Illegals are working under the table without claiming anything.
    So, again you use your wide brush and paint them ALL in one color.
    Very typical of you ))


    Native:
    When you acquire false documents and pass them as real American papers, that is a crime.

    IE:
    Yes, and as CRIMINAL you should be then prosecuted!
    Without distinction of race, color and origin.


    Native:
    ..When you get foodstamps, medicaid and benefit from social programs meant for poor Americans, that is a crime.

    IE:
    See above.


    Native:
    ..When you fraudently vote in our elections, that is a crime.

    IE:
    Yes, if you do that you are a felon. And felons, as I said above, should be prosecuted without distinction of race, color and origin.


    Native:
    ........ I could go on for hours but I don't have time right now. Just let me know if you want some more.


    IE:
    Yes, I too can open CRIME BOOKS and cite every CRIME on books, saying "Murder is Crime", "Stealing is Crime", "Rape is Crime" and so on for days and weeks..
    But what is your point?
    Or do you mean to say that all CRIMES are committed by illegal Mexicans only?
    If not, then what is the point of citing all the conceivable crimes here?
    CRIME is CRIME and as SUCH it should be prosecuted, without any distinction of RACE, COLOR and ORIGIN, whether you are Native or Mexican doesn't matter.
    Do I have to repead it? ))

    Native:
    Oh, and the reason we are not discussing laws still on the books regarding mouth to gentalia affections between American spouses may have something to do with the fact that is not the nature of this forum.

    IE:
    Hehehe... So, you would discuss those laws and go after people engaging in o r a l s e x if this was a proper site for it?? )))
    Hehehe...
    You surely amuse me ))


    Native:
    If there was a way to deport them all with diginity and respect I would be all for it.


    IE:
    And what stands on your way of advocating deportation with dignity and respect ??


    Native:
    It is the ones who have been here the longest that I hold responsible.

    IE:
    What is the point of inserting this sentence which seems to be out of context here??

    Native:
    Around 20% of Mexico's population is wealthy. The rest are poor. They have no middle class.
    Most of the in between groups made their homes here in the USA and never looked back.

    IE:
    There you explain why it happens )))

    Native:
    Those who had originally planned to just make enough money to go back and buy a house or start a business..and make Mexico prosper. They never did it. They need to made to go home. Yes, even ahead of the migrants because after living in America, they would not settle for Mexico in the state it is now.

    IE:
    So, if you are consistent in your logic, then we should locate all descendants of "Mayflower" and deport them ahead of everyone else )))
    Do you support that idea?
    If not, please explain WHY?? )))


    Native:
    Regarding the rest of your post. I would like to see you give a link when you make a claim.
    Please start with this one:

    {In FACT latest nationall polls demonstrate that Americans are NOT as mad about immigrants as Tancredo claims, and more than 50% of AMERICANS support Immigration Reform proposed by Bush.}

    LET'S SEE WHO IS DISTORTING FACTS!


    IE:
    No problem!
    I see you don't read press, not even the front page of ILW )))
    Very typical of someone who always makes biased, factually incorrect claims))

    Here is the first link:

    http://www.ilw.com/search/documentFrame.asp?
    Request=poll&nPage=1&sort=Date&MaxFiles=25&
    Fuzzy=&Phonic=&Stemming=Yes&NaturalLanguage=
    No&HitNum=9&cmd=getdoc&DocId=6177&Index=
    %5c%5cilw%5cwwwroot%5cdtSearch%5cILW%20Web%
    20site&HitCount=1&hits=c0+&hc=448&req=poll


    Article

    A National Survey Of Voter Attitudes On Immigration
    National Immigration Forum and American Immigration Lawyers Association commissioned a poll which concludes there is strong and intense support among likely voters for an immigration reform proposal that is comprehensive and bipartisan.



    Good luck!

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't blindly believe in statistics, which is why I told you all about what to look for. In many instances, I've given you the references for you to check yourself. Go back and look at the poll questions for yourselves, and make up your mind how much faith to put in them. Look at who's sponsoring the poll, and who's doing it. National pollsters such as Gallup, which does independent polls (not backed by a particular group to prove a particular point of view), or even the Pew Hispanic Center, which produces a number of polls on Hispanics in the U.S. and Mexico, and which doesn't always publish work that's particularly favorable to proponents of illegal immigration. I choose the polls I quote based on my opinion as to the quality of work they produce following the guidelines I gave you. It's up to YOU to look at the originals and make up your minds--or aren't you open minded enough to do that? This, by the way, is precisely the thing I teach my students about evaluating information, particularly information you find on the internet.

      As for the comments you posted from CNN, I have no idea who these people were, but then, did you happen to catch the marches with Mexican flags? Or, the comments I've posted on another site from Reconquistas? Why not discuss THEIR racist agendas?

      Regarding assimilation of immigrants, you forget that we had IMMIGRATION TIME-OUTS following previous waves of LEGAL immigration, which allowed immigrants to assimilate. Conditions are not the same as in previous waves. Back then, all you needed was a strong back and willingness to work to succeed--even high school wasn't necessary. Today, you'd better have at least high school and preferably college to get a living salary--and even then the job might get shipped to India. We did not have ONE country and one language dominating our immigrants to such an extent. Nor did we have said ethnic group claiming past ownership and the future intent to retake parts of the U.S. Nor did we have the ease of communication and transportation which makes it extremely easy for immigrants from anywhere to maintain their home ties and national identities. Nor did we have a multicultural movement in this country which values ethnic identity over American identity.

      What's all that nonsense about foreign women birthing babies in the street? If so, then why do Latinas and others cross the border illegally to give birth, and are promptly taken to AMERICAN hospitals, where AMERICAN taxpayers pay not only for the birth but the upbringing of the child through programs such as WIC, which is open even to illegal aliens? Don't their own countries care enough about them to make sure they get good care?

      Comment


      • #4
        Here is quote from recent USA TODAY/Gallup poll:

        "Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?"

        .

        Deport All ______________ 18%

        Remain for
        Limited
        Time ____________________ 17%

        Remain if
        Meet Certain
        Requirements ____________ 63%

        Unsure __________________ 2%

        [end quote]


        SOURCE LINK :
        http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm


        Now let's see who is closed minded.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, and just what are those "certain requirements"? And just what does "remain" mean? For how long? Does it mean, "if the border is first closed and enforcement is in place"?

          These are hardly the kinds of responses one can take as unequivocal support for amnesty. In fact, the word "amnesty" isn't used.

          You also didn't post the questions and responses which show that Americans believe illegal immigration is out of control (81%) and that they favor the following methods of dealing with it:

          "How effective do you think each of the following would be as a way to reduce illegal immigration to the United States: very effective, somewhat effective, not too effective, or not at all effective? How about . . . ?"

          .

          Very
          Effective

          Somewhat
          Effective

          Not Too
          Effective

          Not at All
          Effective

          Unsure
          % % % % %
          "Instituting tough penalties for businesses that employ illegal immigrants"

          4/7-9/06 52 32 9 5 3
          .

          "Significantly increasing the number of officers patrolling U.S. borders"

          4/7-9/06 37 44 13 5 1
          .

          "Not allowing illegal immigrants to use American schools and hospitals"

          4/7-9/06 30 30 20 17 3
          .

          "Taking action to raise the standard of living in countries where large numbers of immigrants come from"

          4/7-9/06 28 39 16 15 3
          .

          "Building a wall along the border with Mexico"

          4/7-9/06 18 30 19 30 2

          Comment


          • #6
            Aliba wrote (before re-editing his post]:

            "Yes, and just what are those "certain requirements"? And just what does "remain" mean? For how long?These are hardly the kinds of responses one can take as unequivocal support for amnesty. In fact, the word "amnesty" isn't used".

            Here is the question asked by USA TODAY/Gallup poll:

            Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become
            Did you read the question, Aliba ?

            These are hardly the kinds of responses one can take as unequivocal support for amnesty. In fact, the word "amnesty" isn't used.

            BTW, it's people from FAIR and Numbers USA that call anything conceivable "AN AMNESTY".
            Senators Cornyn and Kyl are attacked on FAIR website and accused of supporting a "Trojan Horse" , a "TEMPORARY GUEST WORKER PROGRAM WHICH IS AN AMNESTY IN DISGUISE".

            This is what folks at FAIR say (and you constantly follow their rhetoric in almost all of your arguments).

            For the record: I am NOT supporting Amnesty.
            I support what President Bush suggests ( which includes instituting tough penalties for businesses that employ illegal immigrants, significantly increasing the number of officers patrolling U.S. borders, not allowing illegal immigrants to use American social services and etc.)

            Comment


            • #7
              "..or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?"

              Yes, Antifascist, I read the question. Just what are "certain requirements"? You obviously have "certain requirements" in YOUR head that amount to amnesty, but is that what every single one of those people answering had in mind? I doubt it, but you'd need more questions to know. Where does it say that Americans favor a blanket amnesty? Where does it say that any and all illegal aliens will be able to legalize? Where does it say what will happen to those illegal aliens who don't qualify for citizenship? Where does it say that Americans don't want control of their borders and enforcement actions BEFORE this legalization is put in place. The OTHER questions that you don't present show that Americans want control over their borders, too.
              That's the point, Antifascist. I read the question, and it doesn't ask any of that.

              Just what does Pres. Bush support these days? Following the conference with Senators a couple of days ago, he seems to be supporting Hagel-Martinez, but H-M provides a clear path to citizenship (i.e. amnesty), which Bush previously and very publicly said he didn't want. Bush said he wanted a guest worker program in which illegal aliens could initially get a three-year work visa, and which could be renewed for one year, after which time the worker would have to return to his home country.

              In other words, Bush has said quite a lot as the wind blows, and you can bet he's gearing it all to whatever he thinks will help his popularity numbers.

              Comment


              • #8
                As usual you resort to demagoguery and I have no time for that.

                Question in poll is asked plainly and no rocket scientist is needed to understand and interpret it's implications and meaning.

                The point is:

                You suggested that I should look at Gallop poll (among other polls), because it is "independent" (per YOUR opinion in your post).
                And you asked if I am open minded enough to do that.

                So, I found the Gallop poll, I looked at it and quoted the part dealing with estimated 12 million people illegally present here , and what polled people think the Government policy (towards undocumented people present here) should be.

                Obviously , having read it, you found no other remedy than to resort to spinning & demagoguery.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Funny thing: you read my responces to your posts, then afterwards you go back and edit them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, the poll is plainly worded. It's YOUR interpretation that's at issue. You're reading more into it than is there. You say you support "Bush's program", whatever it may be. Then, find an indpendent poll that presents the specifics of the program (not that nonsense from the Manhattan Institute done for the Republican party), asks specifically about it, and asks about priorities such as should amnesty be given before, with, or after border and interior enforcement.

                    THEN you might have something to prove your point, that Americans favor Bush's program. But we don't know that they do, because we don't even know what it is these days, so how can we be sure that the Amerian people know, much less agree with it, whatever it may be. And that isn't what was asked, anyway. "Certain requirements" does not a program make.

                    As for "editing"--it literally is editing. I dislike grammatical and spelling errors, even on a board such as this. I sometimes think of something I want to add.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What specific polls do YOU have to prove your point?

                      I just quoted Gallup because you asked me to look into it "because it's independent" per YOUR opinion.
                      You also conditioned my "openmindedness" on it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        it literally is editing. I dislike grammatical and spelling errors, even on a board such as this. I sometimes think of something I want to add.

                        No, it's somewhat more than that: while "editing" you change the whole context of your posts and make significant additions - which in effect are direct responces to my responces.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          See how "open minded" you are about this.


                          http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1100

                          Released: April 11, 2006
                          Zogby Poll: Pols Probably Won't Fix U.S. Immigration Problems

                          Americans skeptical Washington will find right solution


                          Americans are mostly doubtful that President Bush and Congress will find a fair and effective solution to the burgeoning immigration problem, and a majority of them oppose amnesty for those who have entered the U.S. illegally, a new Zogby Interactive survey finds. The details of the poll are included in the April edition of Zogby's Real America newsletter, available here.

                          The issue has boiled to the surface across America as Congress considers legislation, protestors take to the streets in cities across the nation, and as political campaigns get underway for the 2006 midterm congressional elections.

                          An overwhelming majority - 79% - said they are skeptical the President and Congress will find a good solution to the immigration problem. Democrats and political independents were somewhat more skeptical than Republicans, the survey shows. While 88% of Democrats and 85% of independents said it is unlikely a solution will be found, 66% of Republicans agreed.

                          Doubt about the prospect of Washington's success on the issue spreads across all geographic and racial demographics, the survey shows.

                          Asked specifically whether President Bush or Congress is trusted more to properly handle the immigration issue, 50% said they don't think it is likely that either branch of government will get the job done right. Another 22% said they trust Congress more, while 17% said they think Mr. Bush is more likely to come up with the right answer. There was some difference depending on the age of the respondents – those over age 65 said they trusted President Bush more, while those under age 30 said they put more trust in Congress. Still, pluralities in all age groups doubt that either branch of government will handle the issue correctly.

                          Likely voters nationwide said their biggest concern about illegal immigration is the burden it places on social services provided by governments at all levels. While 27% said the increased burden was their top concern, another 22% said they hold a companion worry – that illegal immigrants will trigger an increase in the cost of government services.

                          One in four – 26% - said they were concerned that the U.S. southern border may be the entry point for terrorists intent on attacking America, the Zogby Interactive survey showed.

                          Americans oppose amnesty

                          A majority of Americans said they oppose amnesty for undocumented workers from other nations who are already residing in this nation, the survey shows. While 52% said there should be no amnesty, 32% said they would favor amnesty for such people.

                          Congress has estimated that there are 11 million illegal immigrants now living in America. Amnesty was offered to people in this category during the Reagan administration.

                          As Congress now works on immigration reform legislation in Washington, the survey shows there is a significant partisan divide on this question. Among Democrats nationwide, 51% favor amnesty, while 29% oppose it and another 20% said they are unsure. Among Republicans, just 13% said they favor amnesty, while 76% said they oppose such an offer.

                          A majority of political independents are opposed to offering amnesty – 50% said they are against it, while 33% said they are in favor of it.

                          This question also divides the nation based on age of the respondents. While younger respondents favor amnesty in greater numbers, older likely voters do not.

                          Do you support or oppose amnesty for undocumented workers who are already in the U.S.?


                          Age 18-24
                          Age 25-34
                          Age 35-54
                          Age 55-69
                          Age 70+

                          Support
                          46%
                          41%
                          33%
                          25%
                          19%

                          Oppose
                          37%
                          39%
                          51%
                          61%
                          68%




                          Protesters Not Winning Support

                          The Zogby survey shows that recent protests across the nation against immigration proposals in Congress – particularly to make it a federal felony to be an undocumented worker in America – have not persuaded a majority of U.S. likely voters across the country. More said they are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction.

                          Asked whether the protests have made likely voters more or less sympathetic towards undocumented workers, 32% said they are now more sympathetic to their plight, while 61% said they are less likely to be sympathetic as a result of the protests. Younger respondents to the poll were more likely to be sympathetic than were older participants in the survey. And while 56% of Democrats said the protests made them feel more sympathy for undocumented workers, just 6% of Republicans felt that way.

                          A wide majority of those participating in the survey (65%) said they would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for some goods and services should that be the result of tighter control of the southern U.S. border and a resulting lower number of undocumented workers.

                          Some have warned that if undocumented workers are deported, the cost of goods in many U.S. industries would increase markedly. The poll shows that 30% of respondents would be willing to pay up to 10% more if undocumented workers were deported, while another 36% said they would willingly swallow a price increase of between 10% and 25% for certain goods. Just 6% said they would be willing to pay more than 50% more for goods from industries largely dependent on the labor of undocumented workers.

                          The Zogby Interactive survey included 7,967 respondents nationwide between March 31 and April 3, 2006, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.6 percentage points.

                          (4/11/2006)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just what is the definition of "Amnesty" per Zogby polling?
                            Who supports AMNESTY?

                            President Bush is opposed AMNESTY as well, just as majority of Senators and number of House Representatives who at the same time support the Guest Worker program for undocumented residents.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You're learning, Antifascist See what a little difference in wording can make in the numbers you get?

                              Which is probably what Congress well knows, and why they aren't going to do a darn thing.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X