Nationwide General Immigrant Strike! May 1, 2006

[Spurminator]

It's to show the hypocricy in what people are saying and our history.

Why does that need to be the message?

I support a reform of the process for gaining citizenship as well. I think the convoluted and needlessly difficult process contributes to the high rate of illegal immigration.

Your message is needlessly belligerent and it implies that you support all forms of immigration, legal or illegal.

[Nbadan]

$215 billion over 5 years to deport Mexicans...

As Congress debates immigration reforms, some experts say the most extreme proposal — deporting millions of illegal immigrants — would be a huge legal and logistical morass, and ruinously expensive, too.

Officials at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which would be responsible for deportations, said they have no projections on what it would take to rid the United States of an estimated 12 million people.

But the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, has put the cost at $215 billion over five years.

The study assumed that a crackdown would prompt a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, leaving 9 million men, women and children to deport.

Yahoo News

[SA210]

Why does that need to be the message?

I support a reform of the process for gaining citizenship as well. I think the convoluted and needlessly difficult process contributes to the high rate of illegal immigration.

Your message is needlessly belligerent and it implies that you support all forms of immigration, legal or illegal.

It is not THE message. That's just one reality in this Huge issue.

I imply that I have compassion for them, All immigrants, and I have an understanding for what they are going through.

[MannyIsGod]

It is not THE message. That's just one reality in this Huge issue.

I imply that I have compassion for them, All immigrants, and I have an understanding for what they are going through.

As do I and other people, but that doesn't eliminate the need for our national security.

[Spurminator]

It is not THE message. That's just one reality in this Huge issue.

You'd be better served to not even bring it up. Plenty of other "realities" to latch onto that are more relevant to current times.

Good luck at the march.

[Extra Stout]

Look, I'm out for a cause that I'm very passionate about. You should be too. You are missing the point as well. It's not to say illegal is legal.

It's to show the hypocricy in what people are saying and our history. It does alot of good for You to come in here and claim that I am Not making sense on This board. That is EXACTLY why "La Raza" is so stagnant and why it has been for years, because We can never stand TOGETHER on Anything as Martin Luther King Jr. did with the African American community, to peacefully protest that we be EQUALLY treated.

This is a START for it, NOW, and You come in here and continue the reasons why our race is where it is? There's some sense for you.

Good job brother. Good job.

I'll be at the march.

The Latino saga in this country is not the same as the saga of blacks. Blacks were brought over as slaves, and kept as a legally oppressed underclass even after being liberated.

Latinos are immigrants. Their story is quite similar to the story of other immigrant groups, except the scale is much larger. Some of the details even match up. The slur "wop" used for Italian-Americans is an acronym that means "With-Out Papers." And immigrant groupa after group suffered discrimination. The Irish were called "white n*ggers." Then it was the Italians, then the Slavs. Eventually intermarriage blurred the ethnic lines so much that nobody cared anymore.

See, even when Texas belonged to Mexico, the Mexican population in Texas was miniscule. Settlement initiatives were unsuccessful because Mexicans didn't want to deal with the hostile Indian tribes. That's why they invited the American Anglos. The predominance of Anglo culture in Texas is why Santa Anna freaked out and foolishly thought he had to crack down, which ultimately cost him the northern territories over which he never had more than cursory control anyway, except in isolated settlementd like Santa Fe.

This idea that "the border crossed us" is BS. There are a small number of Mexican landowners who were dispossessed when Texas became independent. The vast majority of Latino Texans' ancestors crossed well after 1845. Certainly I hope you are not aggrieved on behalf of the government of Mexico for what happened in 1848. That would make about as much sense as my being aggrieved at the UK for its treatment of the Irish, or at Russia for its domination of Lithuania in the 20th century.

The distinction of Latinos as a separate "race" is arbitrary to begin with. The lines we draw between races are just a social construct anyway (they all blur together at the margins), but in the case of Latinos, whose ancestors arrived in this country with a lineage that on average is half Southern European, with a Southern European language, and a majority religion that sprouted from Southern Europe, it's especially arbitrary.

[Nbadan]

Very nice history lesson, except you left out the part where those Indian tribes that were scaring away Mexican settlers from settling in the Northern hemisphere didn't just vanish. Many of those nomadic tribes merged with Mexico, because they weren't hunted down by the U.S. Cavalry. This is why border Mexican's resemble Native American Indians and Southern Mexicans resemble Spanish Europeans. So, the people we are really fighting to keep out, if truth be told, are the real decendents or our original ancestors.

[Nbadan]

Ya know, this battle over the American and Spanish flags isn't about national sovereignity to most Latinos, at least, not as much as it appears to be for most non-hispanic Americans who don't understand the images of the demonstrators waving Mexican flags. No one is expecting Mexico to annex Southern California or Texas, if the illegals wanted that, they would have stayed in Mexico. It's about showing pride in one's culture and respecting their heritage. That in itself is a concept most Americans struggle to understand because they have become so 'Americanized'.

Most American of Mexican desent favor stronger border policies, but at the same time they don't wanna see mass trials and deportation of hispanic people that the Congress currently seems to be favoring. That could put the hispanic population, which could swing Southern states in future elections, at direct odds with Conservative policies involving illegal immigration unless there is some sort of blanket amnesty for the majority of illegal aliens already in the U.S., which is very, very unlikely considering this is why the Senate compromise bill (McCain/Kennedy) got struck down.

[Nbadan]

Group wants illegal immigrants' `anchor' citizenship removed
KELLI HEWETT TAYLOR
News staff writer

The Alabama Federation of Republican Women wants to take away the citizenship of babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States, and the group is using baby dolls to make the point.

The members have dressed the dolls with handmade oil-cloth bibs proclaiming "$118 Billion Anchor Baby." The figure illustrates an estimate of the annual cost to provide government services, such as food, education and health care, to these families, according to the group's research.

Any child born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment of the Cons ution. To change that, a bill to amend the Cons ution would have to pass by a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate, and then be presented to the states for approval.

Those U.S.-born babies are sometimes called "anchors" for their role in securing an illegal immigrant family's stay in the country. However, the babies don't mean automatic citizenship for the parents.

Al.com

Could Southern states become the future care-takers of millions of abandoned anchor-babies?

[Juice]

Have you guys seen these video?


Costa Mesa City Council

and

Illegal Immigrants

[xrayzebra]

Harry Reid has done his regular, same old dimm thing. My way or the highway, no
amendments to our plan (dimm-0-craps). Same tune, different day. Nothing is
going to get done. SA210 you can stay home, no bill is going to get out of
Congress and no enforcement will be forthcoming from INS because of Congressional
pressure. The ILLEGALS will continue to come, wages will continue to be depressed,
the dimms will be happy for the votes in South Texas and elsewhere and all I can
say, watch yourself in the malls, because others are coming with them that want
to do harm to our country. People like SA210 can feel relieved, because they
will feel a victory, but not help those left in Mexico or bring any pressure to bear
on the government that causes people to flee their own country for a better
life. But they feel their pain and that is sufficient to ease their tortured souls.
And will be able to beat their chest and say: "I stood with them, the poor from
Mexico that were just looking for a better life." Viva Mexico!

[xrayzebra]

E pluribus unum?

By Mark M. Alexander

Apr 7, 2006

"[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people." --George Washington

Out of many, one.

That was the national motto proposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Both simple and elegant, it embodied the notion that all who had come to America's shores, andall who would come, must be united -- must all form one front -- in defense of freedom and liberty. For 200 years, we were, largely, one people united behind cons utional republicanism. But soon after the social turbulence of the '60s and the economic woes of the '70s, that unity began to crumble. This was the era in which multiculturalism emerged -- the era in which ethnocentricity became chic.

Arthur Schlesinger, a former Harvard professor and senior advisor to JFK, published a retrospective on this era in 1991 called "The Disuniting of America." Schlesinger wrote [b]primarily about the orthodoxy of self-interested hyphenated-American citizen groups -- who, rather than unifying to become one, were diversifying to become many.[/] He warned that the cult of ethnicity would result in "the fragmentation and tribalization of America,"the natural consequence being that these special-interest groups would be co-opted by the political parties.

"Instead of a transformative nation with an iden y all its own," Schlesinger wrote, "America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien iden ies -- groups ineradicable in their ethnic character." He asserts, by way of inquiry, "Will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the current security, economic and social debate (both rational and irrational) about immigration. This is the concern that a nation, which is already ethnically fragmented internally, risks complete disunity of its national integrity in the absence of borders.

It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans are rightfully adamant about many immigration issues: strict border security and enforcement; automatic detention and deportation of illegals; no extension of amnesty or fast-track citizenship for illegals; preservation of our tax-subsidized medical, educational and social services for American citizens and do ented immigrants; strong penalties against employers who hire undo ented migrant workers; and "Americanization" of new legal immigrants -- rather than the ill-conceived provisions of bilingual schools and government services which, in effect, dissuade immigrant integration.

We are also resolute in our rejection of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, though this right is assured by our Cons ution's 14th Amendment. However, at the time of this Amendment, there was no provision distinguishing legal and illegal immigration. In other words, legislation outlawing this birthright for illegal aliens might well pass the Cons utional test.

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to pay $15 for a head of lettuce, wash our own restaurant dishes or launder our own sheets and towels when traveling. In addition, we would much rather somebody else take on laborious low-skilled and low-paying occupations like landscaping and construction. Currently, there are 10 to 15 million illegal aliens in the United States. Only one president in four decades, George W. Bush, has dared make reconciling this issue a central administration objective. This is because the issue has no clear political consensus.

The only contemporary comparison to the cross-party divisiveness of immigration is the recent debate over Dubai Ports World management of U.S. port terminals. You'll recall that this issue pitted the President and his national-security team against disingenuous Democrats eager to appear tough on national security, weak-kneed Republicans unwilling to stand on principle in an election year and an American public fully caught up in the moment.

However, while the Dubai Ports debacle was clearly manufactured by opportunists in both parties, the immigration debate is all too real -- this isn't just another flash in the political pan.

President Bush has charged Congress with taking up this complex issue.

The House has already approved the Sensenbrenner immigration legislation, which essentially proposes to round up all illegals and drop them at the border, and criminalize anyone who had anything to do with them in the interim. This plan leaves one to ponder whether such tough-minded reform was spun out of xenophobic angst, or was merely a byproduct of everyday American nativism. The Sensenbrenner plan does not have a critical provision for guest workers, and is largely unenforceable -- or, if enforced, largely unaffordable. But it plays well with the same cons uency that believed the Dubai Ports folks were really interested in smuggling nuclear bombs into the U.S.

Worse, the Senate compromise bill would provide illegals amnesty [read: fast-track citizenship] rather than guest-worker status if they have been in the country for five years and do not have a criminal record -- other than the misdemeanor crime of crossing the border illegally. This proposal should be a deal-breaker for any legislation. If here for less than five years, they would have to apply at one of 16 designated ports of entry for a new temporary "guest worker" visa for low and unskilled workers.

The House Bill makes no provision for amnesty, which is good, but it also makes no provision for guest-worker permits, which is, well, asinine. Of course, the assumption is that when the House and Senate bills are reconciled in conference, the House wants to start the negotiation on guest workers at zero. Unfortunately, there is some public confusion between "amnesty" and "guest worker" -- the latter being both desirable and essential to the U.S. economy.

Of course, every member of the House and Senate is mindful of the fact that there are millions of American voters of Hispanic origin -- eight percent of the electorate -- which is a significant factor in how this legislation will be framed.

To debate this issue meaningfully, however, one must first survey the facts regarding the security, economic and social implications of immigration.

Security Concerns...

In any discussion about immigration, border security must come first. Even if Mr. Sensenbrenner can find a way to round up all undo ented Hispanic immigrants and deport them, they'll all be back in a few days unless we can establish some real border security. Clearly, this would entail both a physical barrier and enough security personnel to enforce both border and internal immigration regulations.

A formidable security wall along our border with Mexico would also provide a measure of safety against terrorist incursions, but there are already serious security problems brewing within our borders.

In our current state of ethnocentric disunity, we tolerate cadres of radical Hispanic iden y groups composed of both naturalized immigrants and illegal aliens. These groups provided the ethnic incitement behind last month's half-million-strong protests in Los Angeles and other cities from coast to coast. These were protests not just on behalf of immigrant "rights"; for many, they were a means of promoting the reunification of the southwestern United States with Mexico. This "reconquista" movement is marked by the flying of the Mexican flag over the American flag.

The Hispanic reconquest movement is on the verge of violent nationalism -- if it hasn't already become just that -- with all its terrorist implications. If they do in fact resort to violence, all bets are off in regards to the status, guest worker or otherwise, of any illegal alien in this country from south of the border.

Economic Concerns...

The essential protectionist argument against the provision of guest-worker permits is that these workers take jobs away from Americans and reduce wages for everyone. There is, however, little factual basis for those arguments. As Former House Majority Leader Armey was fond of noting, "Demagoguery beats data." In other words, an emotional rant tends to be louder than a reasoned analysis.

With U.S. unemployment now at 4.8 percent (with most of these being the chronically unemployable), we need immigrant workers regardless of the ruckus that protectionists might raise. Indeed, most of the jobs performed by immigrant labor are low wage -- but few U.S. citizens are lining up for those jobs. Low wages reduce the cost of products and services provided, thus reducing the cost of living for consumers. The alternative is plain to see: a lower stander of living and higher inflation.

David Card, professor of economics at UC Berkeley, compared wages nationally and found that high-school dropouts in cities with an abundance of immigrants performing low-wage jobs are no worse off.

Further, immigrant labor isn't just a policy, as some have suggested, of creating poverty in America while alleviating it in Mexico and elsewhere. Greater prosperity in Mexico means greater security in the United States. NAFTA has helped, but that's just the start. North America's transportation infrastructure must be improved and extended farther south in Mexico, bringing the prosperity enjoyed under NAFTA in the north to more of the country's citizens. Similar principles apply to our CAFTA partners.

The overall economic prosperity resulting from free-trade agreements, including job in-sourcing and outsourcing, creates hardships for some Americans while creating opportunity for others. This provides little solace to those whose financial security is threatened by free trade, but the fact is that most Americans benefit from free trade.

Once again, the economic protectionists are wrong -- and European economies are proving it. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized Western European economies for their unwillingness to compete on a global level: "What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy -- skills, R&D, patents, information technology -- is going down, not up."

Of course, there are other economic concerns, particularly the cost of social services for illegal aliens -- which are enormous. The most costly of these social services are education, healthcare, housing and criminal incarceration. In 1994, California passed Proposition 187 to stop the hemorrhage of tax dollars for services to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, the federal courts struck down the law.

Social Concerns...

How does a nation that has ins utionalized ethnic disunity integrate millions of immigrants?

In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Unfortunately, the Left has spent four decades hyphenating and disenfranchising every ethnic group it can in order to create special-interest cons uencies. Challenging this disunity exposes one to substantial ridicule -- claims of intolerance, bigotry and jingoism. Yet these subcultures, including immigrants, fail to become properly integrated into civil society.

We are now beginning to bear the social consequences of multicultural politicization in both American and immigrant minority populations. "Progressive" policies -- bilingual education being the worst offender -- have the effect of insulating and ultimately ghettoizing otherwise hardworking and well-intentioned immigrants. For fear of appearing "culturally imperialistic" by forcing newcomers to learn our language, history and laws, we've condemned them to permanent impoverishment. But then, such policies have always bred Democrat votes.

Conclusion...

The Patriot has always endorsed the measures we mentioned earlier: strict border security and enforcement; automatic detention and deportation; no extension of amnesty or fast-track citizenship; preservation of our tax-subsidized medical, educational and social services for American citizens and do ented immigrants; strong penalties against employers who hire illegals; and Americanization of new legal immigrants. We are also resolute in our rejection of birthright citizenship for children of undo ented immigrants, and we support legislation to that end.

Additionally, we strongly endorse free enterprise and free trade, including the regulated in-sourcing of low-skill labor through time-limited guest-worker visas.

As a nation, our biggest hurdles will be creating a guest worker program with functional status verification to register between five and ten million guest workers; providing the personnel for do ent authentication and enforcement for those workers; and establishing a secure border with Mexico.

However, will Congress demand enforcement at the border and in the workplace? The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill enacted a ten-thousand dollar fine and up to a year in prison for hiring an illegal alien, but after three arrests, Congress directed the Justice Department not to prosecute infractions of this law.

As always, The Patriot advocates for the restoration of American principles and the adoption of those principles by all who seek to be called "American."

Will we ever again be a nation committed to the principle of E pluribus unum? Perhaps. In 1956, the 84th Congress declared our official national motto to be "In God we trust." This motto is especially instructive amid all the current political pandemonium, for only through God can we all truly become one.

Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal of Record." You may contact him here.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...07/193038.html

[Extra Stout]

Very nice history lesson, except you left out the part where those Indian tribes that were scaring away Mexican settlers from settling in the Northern hemisphere didn't just vanish. Many of those nomadic tribes merged with Mexico, because they weren't hunted down by the U.S. Cavalry. This is why border Mexican's resemble Native American Indians and Southern Mexicans resemble Spanish Europeans. So, the people we are really fighting to keep out, if truth be told, are the real decendents or our original ancestors.

What you state is false.

The aggressive tribes were Comanche and Apache. The tribe that has yielded most of the mestizos along Mexico's impoverished, desertic border with Texas was the Coahuiltecans, from which the Mexican state of Coahuila gets its name.

The Coahuiltecans somehwat willingly submitted to Spanish domination for protection from the raiding Plains tribes. Their culture and way of life pretty much has vanished.

And the last time I was in southern Mexico, there were a lot of mestizos there, too.

But, nice try.

[Guru of Nothing]

Note to self: Learn to speak Chinese.

[billboardbill]

WE NEED TO VOTE SOME PEOPLE INTO OUR GOVERNMENT THAT CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
( Whether you agree or not , this is something to think about )



Mexico's Declaration of War on America
By Frosty Wooldridge
March 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

In 1836, legends Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and William Travis, along with
180 fearless men, fought Santa Anna’s two thousand Mexican troops at the
Alamo in San Antonio, Texas. No contest! Santa Anna killed every last
one of those brave men. Six weeks later, with a cry of “Remember the
Alamo”, Texans beat back the Mexican army and established Texas as part
of the United States of America.

Today, Mexico’s declaration of war on America moves with quickening
speed. Their modern day general known as President Vicente Fox is not
content with retaking Texas. He invades all American states.

As a premier, many of you watch the History Channel with WWII footage
showing Germans and their tanks charging into Poland. You watched their
tanks crush the French.

Did any of you watch the 100,000 illegal Mexicans and others storm
Chicago, Illinois March 10, 2006? How many Mexica insurgents stand on
American soil? At last count, in excess of 9,000,000 illegal Mexicans!
It’s the largest invasion force without firing a shot EVER on American
soil.

This invasion is encouraged, abetted and organized by the Mexican state
and supported by all citizens in Mexican society. Fox provides his
‘troops’ with maps, water, provisions and aid to invade America’s border.

What are the desires of Mexico? Lawrence Auster, in his “The Second
Mexican War” February 17, 2006, wrote, “In orchestrating this war on
America, the Mexican state represents the desires of the Mexican people
as a whole:

Political revanchism*to regain control of the territories lost to the
U.S. in 1848, thus avenging themselves for the humiliation they feel
they suffered at our hands for the last century and a half; In effect,
Mexico is colonizing the United States. Cultural imperialism*to expand
the Mexican culture and Spanish language into North America. They
destroy English as America’s language. Economic parasitism*to maintain
and increase the flow of $20 billion dollars that Mexicans in the U.S.
send back to their relatives at home every year, a major factor keeping
the chronically troubled Mexican economy afloat and the corrupt Mexican
system cocooned in its status quo.” They use us against ourselves to
benefit themselves.

Americans watch a peaceful invasion and the most profound colonization
in modern history. Carlos de Mola for Mexico’s Excelsior Newspaper said,
“You cannot give me a similar example of such a large migratory wave of
an ant-like mul ude, stubborn, unarmed and carried on in the face of
the most powerful and best-armed nation on earth…it is slowly returning
the southwestern U.S. to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a
single shot nor requiring the least diplomatic action, by means of a
steady, spontaneous and uninterrupted occupation.”

What you’re watching*and most Americans only keep watching without a
whimper*the takeover of America by a foreign country by colonization.

One of Fox’s cabinet officers, Juan Hernandez said, “The Mexican
population is 100 million and 23 million who live in the United States.”

Heather MacDonald, in the City Journal, Fall 2005, wrote, “Mexico’s
five-year development plan in 1995 announced that the ‘Mexican nation
extends its border into the United States. The government would
strengthen solidarity programs with the Mexican communities abroad by
emphasizing their Mexican roots, and supporting literacy programs in
Spanish and teaching of the history, values and traditions of Mexico to
those Mexicans living in the United States. We are betting the Mexican
population in the U.S. will think Mexico first.’”

Not only are they invading America in numbers and language, they
financially bleed Americans of jobs, depress wages and send money to
Mexico. In time, they will be able to deny authority of American law
because they will vote against American laws and/or change them to fit
their purposes.

A simple look at what happened in Chicago a week ago portends violent
confrontations in the future. We allow the complete surrender of U.S.
sovereignty over our immigration policy. Fox loves it as his
‘insurgents’ grow by three million annually on U.S. soil. (source: Time
Magazine, September 20, 2004! , America’s Broken Borders)

Auster wrote, “Hitler pursed ‘Anschluss’, the joining together of the
Germans in Austria with the Germans in Germany leading the official
annexation of Austria to Germany. Mexico’s equivalent is ‘acercamiento’
which means ‘warmer relations’ to act as a unified block to advance
Mexico’s interests inside the U.S. and…weakening of U.S. immigration
law. Thus, the Mexican government is using the Mexican U.S. population
as a fifth column.”

As you can see, we allow 56 Mexican consulates in major cities
throughout America to foster this invasion with help and guidance inside
the belly of America. Those consulates distribute ‘Guia del Migrante
Mexicano’ which is a guide for illegals to further imbed themselves into
America without getting caught.

Auster wrote, “It has been proposed that Mexicans in the U.S. vote in
Mexican elections. California Mexicans would have seats in the Mexican
Congress, specifically representing Mexicans residing in that state. One
of Mexico’s three major parties, the PRD, urges the designation of the entire
United States as the sixth Mexican electoral district.”

Winston Churchill wrote in his “Follies of the Victors,” that the
Germans were given a ‘motive’ for revenge; later, an opportunity to
strike back. By the same stroke of history, the U.S. gave Mexico a
‘motive’ in 1848, and today, an ‘opportunity’ by allowing mass
migration. In other words, we gave Fox this opportunity; he took it and
now General Fox dictates terms to us. Who are his generals?
Specifically--U.S. Congressman Joe Baca in California works for
‘Reconquista de Aztlan’ along with Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles,
U.S. Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah and dozens of others on U.S. soil.
Not only that, he can count on an American foot soldier George Bush and
most of the U.S. Congress. Fox counts on the silence of U.S. governors
in all 50 states. Who are his foot soldiers? Nine million Mexicans
spread across 49 states and growing!

If the guest worker program passes this month, you're looking at adding
60 million Mexicans to America within 10 years. Over 18 million will be
Spanish speaking children flooding our schools. Yes, if even half those
12 million illegal Mexicans bring in six million wives under Specter’s
or Kennedy’s guest worker programs, those wives will bring at least
three children each. Thus, you're looking at 18 million more kids within a
heartbeat in time*hitting our schools. If even half the single
Mexicans have one child each in ten years, we’re talking six million
more kids. This is war and colonization under the name of immigration.

Americans, what are you going to do about it? All I can say is,
“Remember the Alamo!”

© 2006 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved

Frosty Wooldridge -- Mexico's War on America
< http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty137.htm>

[Spurminator]

Is that a joke?

[ChumpDumper]

Frosty?

[MannyIsGod]

Man, there should be an IQ requirement for procreation. liberties, I'm tired of stupid ass people.

[Extra Stout]

WE NEED TO VOTE SOME PEOPLE INTO OUR GOVERNMENT THAT CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
( Whether you agree or not , this is something to think about )

I mean, seriously.

I repeat my earlier proposal. For every Mexican immigrant coming north, we should send Mexico a redneck and thereby double our gain.

[xrayzebra]

Man, there should be an IQ requirement for procreation. liberties, I'm tired of stupid ass people.

Be happy there isn't Manny, you wouldn't be here.

[xrayzebra]

I mean, seriously.

I repeat my earlier proposal. For every Mexican immigrant coming north, we should send Mexico a redneck and thereby double our gain.

You are a sorry excuse of a person ES, just because you don't
agree with someone you start putting them down.

What is wrong with People of the United States wanting
Congress to do their job? This is wrong? We do need
people up there that consider the country not some damn
group that says they want vote for them if they do
something they don't like. You think it is nothing that
we have 12 million Illegal people in this country and
Congress wants to just say, we cant do anything about it.

Tell you what, if the "rednecks" of which some of you speak
sending to Mexico started waving the U.S. Flag, speaking
English and demanding rights, how long before the
Federal Police would put a bullet in their head?

Illegal is illegal, whether you like it or not. And I don't like the fact we have that many here and Congress will not even enforce the laws on the books.

I have said it before, those that come to this country
legally and want to be part of the American society and
not bring their own, they are welcome, all the rest can
go back from where they came.

Now, you can continue your little childish game of name
calling.

[Extra Stout]

You are a sorry excuse of a person ES, just because you don't
agree with someone you start putting them down.

What is wrong with People of the United States wanting
Congress to do their job? This is wrong? We do need
people up there that consider the country not some damn
group that says they want vote for them if they do
something they don't like. You think it is nothing that
we have 12 million Illegal people in this country and
Congress wants to just say, we cant do anything about it.

Tell you what, if the "rednecks" of which some of you speak
sending to Mexico started waving the U.S. Flag, speaking
English and demanding rights, how long before the
Federal Police would put a bullet in their head?

Illegal is illegal, whether you like it or not. And I don't like the fact we have that many here and Congress will not even enforce the laws on the books.

I have said it before, those that come to this country
legally and want to be part of the American society and
not bring their own, they are welcome, all the rest can
go back from where they came.

Now, you can continue your little childish game of name
calling.

You like to "tell it like it is," huh? Well, sorry, but you're the most full of old codger there is. You'd think you'd have lived long enough to understand our immigration "policy" over the past however many decades.

In this country, we need a whole bunch of labor from Mexico for various purposes. Always have. We've had "guest worker" programs dating back to the 1930's and maybe even earlier. It makes business happy. But racists won't tolerate increasing immigration quotas. So we have this song and dance where we have a meager number of "legal" immigrants, officials look the other way at the border, and every so often offer "amnesty" when theose folks who have been here for a certain time.

The only time is becomes an issue is in an a election year. Next year, it will go back to the same as it ever was. Speeding is enforced more heavily than immigration from Mexico.

You've got your mind made up that Congress is sitting on its hands because people are afraid of the Hispanic lobby or something. WRONG. ONLY the nativist wing of the Republican Party, maybe 1/3 of the party, is hard-line on immigration. It's the 1/3 of the party that was Democrat 50 years ago.

So tell me, if Congress were to say "OK, let's increase the number of Mexican immigrants we let in by millions, to give a more realistic tally of the demand for labor," you'd be OK with it? It would be "legal" then? Or would you go ballistic, screaming "I want my country back!!!" Yeah, I thought so.

No, sorry, Congress **CAN'T** do anything about 12 million illegal aliens, even if they cared about it. Do you think the American people want to spend the tax money to sift out the illegals from the illegals and rent all the busses in the world to deport them, only to have them back in three days? Do you realize how absurdly expensive that would be, only to make some arcane "point" about laws that are only there as a joke played on people like you?

And for whatever your point is about rednecks, actually there's a bustling community of white polygamists in Mexico. They've retained all their American customs, and the government pretty much leaves them alone.

And, please, just shut your trap about name-calling, Mister "dimm-o-crap." It's all fun and games except when it gets turned on you, right ?

[Brodels]

Illegal is illegal, whether you like it or not. And I don't like the fact we have that many here and Congress will not even enforce the laws on the books.

If it's now the responsibility of congress to enforce laws, I, for one, won't worry about speeding any longer.

[xrayzebra]

You like to "tell it like it is," huh? Well, sorry, but you're the most full of old codger there is. You'd think you'd have lived long enough to understand our immigration "policy" over the past however many decades.

In this country, we need a whole bunch of labor from Mexico for various purposes. Always have. We've had "guest worker" programs dating back to the 1930's and maybe even earlier. It makes business happy. But racists won't tolerate increasing immigration quotas. So we have this song and dance where we have a meager number of "legal" immigrants, officials look the other way at the border, and every so often offer "amnesty" when those folks who have been here for a certain time.

The only time is becomes an issue is in an a election year. Next year, it will go back to the same as it ever was. Speeding is enforced more heavily than immigration from Mexico.

You've got your mind made up that Congress is sitting on its hands because people are afraid of the Hispanic lobby or something. WRONG. ONLY the nativist wing of the Republican Party, maybe 1/3 of the party, is hard-line on immigration. It's the 1/3 of the party that was Democrat 50 years ago.

So tell me, if Congress were to say "OK, let's increase the number of Mexican immigrants we let in by millions, to give a more realistic tally of the demand for labor," you'd be OK with it? It would be "legal" then? Or would you go ballistic, screaming "I want my country back!!!" Yeah, I thought so.

No, sorry, Congress **CAN'T** do anything about 12 million illegal aliens, even if they cared about it. Do you think the American people want to spend the tax money to sift out the illegals from the illegals and rent all the busses in the world to deport them, only to have them back in three days? Do you realize how absurdly expensive that would be, only to make some arcane "point" about laws that are only there as a joke played on people like you?

And for whatever your point is about rednecks, actually there's a bustling community of white polygamists in Mexico. They've retained all their American customs, and the government pretty much leaves them alone.

And, please, just shut your trap about name-calling, Mister "dimm-o-crap." It's all fun and games except when it gets turned on you, right ?

Have a good day, you have no idea of what the real world is like. I love
the point you make: "arcane "point" about laws that are only there as a joke
played on people you?" You really believe that, except, laws are laws and
without them we are no better than animals.

And yes I would accept "orderly" immigration from any land. But
Illegal is not orderly or legal and very expensive on the American taxpayer.
Waving anyone's flag, other than our own, is stupid and intimidating to
many. But you will not agree with that. The only thing we can agree on
is to disagree and that you love to attempt to put me down, first by
referring to my age, while you on the other hand call me a redneck, when
I have called no one names, unless you think illegal is name calling.
Enjoy your little childish game, you are not the first, nor last, to attempt
to silence those who oppose your views. Dimm-o-crap is a descriptive
word describing those who pose as Democrats.

[mookie2001]

Waving anyone's flag, other than our own, is stupid and intimidating

there should be some law against it actually, you know...to show how american we are