F
- Status
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
Please respond to posts only in the threads in which they are posted. The threads get impossible to follow when cross quoting is done. Thank you for your cooperation.
Walt
Walt
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Wow, you heard a story in which 2 “Hispanics” are alleged to have committed a crime -so you condemned millions of what -native North Americans which speak Spanish? Thank goodness your actions were not baseless! I have to assume you believe no “Anglos” have committed any crimes - talk about selective reading
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Wow, you heard a story in which 2 “Hispanics” are alleged to have committed a crime -so you condemned millions of what -native North Americans which speak Spanish? Thank goodness your actions were not baseless! I have to assume you believe no “Anglos” have committed any crimes - talk about selective reading
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I hope you consider finding new colleagues which are not racist
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Agreed 100%. :clapping:
J
Jeffrey
Guest
H
HollyDolly
Guest
Atta Girl, Juliana.I understand exactly what you are saying.My great grandparents came here from Bavaria in 1882,their sponsors were my great great aunt ,Tanta Tina and her husband Fred koehler.My great grandparents had to learn english as well.great grandpa had a store at Westbury,Long Island.later they moved to Milwaukee,and then in 1911 to Hot Springs,Ark.I don’t know if great grandpa learned italian,but both could speak Russian and great grandma knew French.
My grandfather didn’t speak german at home to my dad and Uncle Tom.He thought that one was an American and should speak only english at home.He too was multi lingual,being fluent in German,Italian,Spanish,Polish and he also spoke Russian and Yiddish.My dad learned German from grandma. you were expected to learn english in those days as you say.
Another thing you do have these illegal;s coming here and having their babies in the border states like Texas because if the kid’s born here it becomes a US citizen so they figure they won’t get deported if caught.meanwhile you and I pay for this and bilingual education.
businesses hire illegals because they figure they don’t have to pay them union wages,health benefits,etc.meanwhile my insurance keeps going up to cover the cost of services,part of which I am sure is due to providing care to these people and passed along to you and me.
They should do as you say,have a sponsor or so mething.
Why doesn’t the US get tough on mexico letting them us us as a dumping grounds so they don’t have to do anything about their own social issues.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Whoa Juliana! Whew! You sure put a lot of issues on the table! Some items are related and some items are a part of another issue. There are some statements that are true and I can agree with but not really applicable to the issue of “illegal” immigration.
I was not aware that not owning the land makes one a foreigner. A “foreigner” comes from somewhere else. The “indigenous” were already here, it’s there homeland. It’s where they live and have always lived.
con’t
Yes, I am aware of that. It happens be something that both sides on this issue have in common.
. Who the land belongs to was decided way before this debate…move forward to the here and now.
I was not aware that not owning the land makes one a foreigner. A “foreigner” comes from somewhere else. The “indigenous” were already here, it’s there homeland. It’s where they live and have always lived.
We have a history of Immigration Acts that single people out because of their ethnic origin. Our experience has been that Immigration comes in waves. This current wave of immigrants is unique because they come from indigenous peoples and because this is the first wave of immigrants where the laws are actively enforced and budgeted. They’re the first wave of immigrants branded with the term “illegal”. Those from Western Europe benefit from lotteries that essentially give green cards away. Yet they’re actions are no different than those of previous immigrants… So there is no question that these laws are specifically directed at them. What makes this whole “illegal” question particularly suspect is that historically we’ve had backlashes against immigrants when times were bad but we’re in a growing economy and much of that is directly attributable to those coming over our southern border.
con’t
I
Ituyu
Guest
I have to agree that just punishment is what should be sought. However, only fines should be imposed for those seeking a legal remedy because generally speaking border crossing is a violation of a Civil Code and has not yet been “Criminalized”. I hear the refrain that “illegals” are CRIMINALS all the time but it’s really not a legal truism when applied to the vast majority of the “illegal” who have become a part of our communities. If it were, we would call persons who have violated our traffic codes criminals but we don’t generally speaking because they’ve violated Civil Codes not criminal ones.
The issues concerning, taxes, Driver’s Licenses are a function of their “illegal” status and are good arguments for legalization because I think we can both agree that we want people to pay their fair share of taxes (many do; http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml) and we would all be safer if they would be familiar with our traffic rules and demonstrate the ability to drive safely.
The failure of hospitals, is really an issue having to do more with the poor, legal/illegal immigrants as well as natives among still other issues. In the vast majority of cases had they paid for services the hospitals would still have still failed financially. There are some border hospitals that have taken a hit because the Federal government did not reimburse the hospitals. http://www.hasc.org/lott.cfm?ID=77948
The English Only issue is also more complex than just the “illegal” issue. You say that you would never go to another country without learning the language. Well isn’t that exactly what our ancestors did? Do you know how many languages were spoken prior to our arrival? You complain about your friend’s predicament but you do know that Spanish predates English by about two hundred in this country? Our country has never been a one-language nation and probably never will.
Lastly Enforcement Only, the Fence and Criminalization all have one thing in common, they don’t work.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ct01,1,6518275.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
W
wabrams
Guest
I
Ituyu
Guest
Wabrams,
Foreigners don’t come from some place else?
Foreigners don’t come from some place else?
G
geezerbob
Guest
Ituyu, I have followed your posts since you started posting here and am really having trouble with some of your arguments regarding “indigenous” people and their right to the land.
To use that argument, you must establish a cutoff date for what constitutes indigenous. There’s absolutely no point in discussing prehistoric migrations and the like because they have absolutely no relevance today. Where do we start? 100 years ago? 200? Two or three generations ago? Pick a time frame, then argue within it.
As to the Mexicans having a “right” to the southwestern lands, I also have a problem with that. When California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and part of Colorado were acquired by the U.S. following the war, what do you think happened to all the “Mexicans” who were living in those areas? Did they move south of the Rio Grande and claim the right of return and possession 150 years later or did they stay put where their descendents still reside today? To answer my own question, they are indigenous to that area and those who haven’t moved are still there. Those who lived south of the new border were and are indigenous to the southern area and have no magical right to the lands which are now part of the U.S. because neither they nor their ancestors (obviously with some exceptions) ever lived north of the Rio Grande. Therefore, your arguments about the rights of indigenous peoples to freely migrate and ignore the border fail.
It is my opinion that the discussions here could be much more reasoned and charitable if we define our words and limit our arguments about the natives to a time frame that has some relevance to the current time. Going back 500, 1,000, or 10,000 years just doesn’t do that.
To use that argument, you must establish a cutoff date for what constitutes indigenous. There’s absolutely no point in discussing prehistoric migrations and the like because they have absolutely no relevance today. Where do we start? 100 years ago? 200? Two or three generations ago? Pick a time frame, then argue within it.
As to the Mexicans having a “right” to the southwestern lands, I also have a problem with that. When California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and part of Colorado were acquired by the U.S. following the war, what do you think happened to all the “Mexicans” who were living in those areas? Did they move south of the Rio Grande and claim the right of return and possession 150 years later or did they stay put where their descendents still reside today? To answer my own question, they are indigenous to that area and those who haven’t moved are still there. Those who lived south of the new border were and are indigenous to the southern area and have no magical right to the lands which are now part of the U.S. because neither they nor their ancestors (obviously with some exceptions) ever lived north of the Rio Grande. Therefore, your arguments about the rights of indigenous peoples to freely migrate and ignore the border fail.
It is my opinion that the discussions here could be much more reasoned and charitable if we define our words and limit our arguments about the natives to a time frame that has some relevance to the current time. Going back 500, 1,000, or 10,000 years just doesn’t do that.
F
Fremont
Guest
“2 Hispanics”? Where did that come from? I guess your reading comprehension is quite superior to mine.
I am curious though. I wonder where the Hispanics involved in the health insurance fraud and Medicaid scam got the idea?
Could it be cultural? Maybe it is commonplace in their native countries for many individuals to all claim to be a single person so they can gain benefits they would not otherwise be entitled too?
Maybe some third party group gives them the idea and then trains and instructs them on how to implement it? If so, I wonder what the third party group gains? Maybe they charge the Hispanic workers a fee?
Certainly I am aware that many “Anglos” do unlawful acts and commit crimes, also many Blacks, also many Asians, etc. But I do not believe that bad acts done by one person or group of people justify anyone else to do unlawful acts or commit crimes.
For example, just a couple of years ago it was revealed that the bishop of Santa Rosa, CA had raped at least one priest. I believe it is wrong for a bishop to use his status and his supervisory authority to impose his sexual passions on a priest. Further I do not believe the fact that a bishop did such things justifies other supervisors to demand sexual favors from their subordinates.
I believe it is wrong, and sad, that illegal immigrants, as a group, have adopted a lifestyle that includes so many unlawful activities. Certainly there is a degree associated with the various unlawful acts.
It is my view that some of the most serious violations involve the I-9 form required from all people seeking employment. Attesting, under the penalty of perjury, to something the applicant or worker knows to be a lie is analogous to lying under oath. This is very serious. Also use of false credentials or any false statements in connections with the I-9 form is a serious violation of federal law that provides for imprisonment and/or fines.
I also believe the Church teaching is correct as it says it is wrong to use immoral means to achieve an end – even if that end is perceived to be good, or is indeed good. Serious lies would certainly be considered immoral means.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
.
Okay, I’ll bite what color is this immoral group?
I
Ituyu
Guest
Hello Geezerbob! Yes, I am fully aware that there is disagreement on the issue. I think the problem is mainly one of semantics and one of perspective. Indigenous is used to describe the peoples of America who settled North America something like 10 thousand years prior to our arrival, most from Siberia some from other places. While it is true that they separated into any number of tribes they were and still are the same people who preceded us through the millennia. They created different tribes and adapted their lifestyle to their environment but they were still one people. Those that came from other places also adapted to the land mostly coastal areas and had customs and lifestyles that were fundamentally the same as the rest. The term “indigenous” describes those people and their descendents. Regardless of the time line used, 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago, they remain the “indigenous”. We can never use the term “indigenous” to describe ourselves in the same context because the distinction of being the first to settle the land will always belong to them. Were there differences, disagreements and wars between them? Yes of course. Did that change who they were? I don’t think so. No more than our own Civil War changed who we were.
Rights? When I speak of “Rights” I speak in terms of Human Rights. There is no question that we have established Power over them that is evidenced by our laws and borders. Europeans bought and sold this land and essentially the people on it from each other not from the “Indigenous”. They didn’t have the luxury of a choice. Everything was “imposed” on them. Yes it was the way things were done “back then” but today it is still having consequences. We can’t change the past but we can change how we deal with them and the issues today. When our numbers are in decline, we need more people in order for our economy to grow. When we set our quotas at demonstratively unrealistic low levels to meet our needs, we helped to create the problem today. Historically their migration here has always been related to our demand for their labor. They came just like they always have and we looked the other way because it served our purpose. Well today we need more of that labor, we continue to underestimate our labor needs, they provide us with the needed population and economic growth but now we want to enforce our laws without adjusting our figures. Instead of recognizing their contributions and the problems they have as the “illegal”, we choose to punish them? Why? Because they broak da law? And, now we’re willing to waste our valuable resources when we could easily have these people “underwrite” the legalization process through fees and additional tax revenues? The process would make them legal. It will allow us to weed out undesirables. It will hasten the assimilation process. They are already more like us than even they care to admit. It will bring them out of the shadows and give them a vested interest as members of our communities. We know that without them, we stand to lose more than we can hope to gain. Why can’t we offer them the possibility of becoming fully participating members of our country? As people who have always been part of the land and part of our history, who is more deserving of that opportunity? They may have come “illegally” but it is a good thing for us that they did.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
No race baiting please. That was uncalled for.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Strange timing you have
in post #6 White crimes are referred to as " bumps in the road "
in post # 18 we are told - “Anglo” buy insurance, but Hispanics steal insurance
in post #19 we are told Indian can not “leave the reservation and seek education and jobs.” because of their culture
in post # 32 it is implied Hispanic’s operate as organized crime
but none of that seamed to bother you, interesting
J
Jeffrey
Guest
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
concerning
auh, but those posts were written by others. So you hold me responsible for their posts? a little bait and switch, otherwise known as political spin
- Status