Illegal Aliens: This just keeps getting more and more militant by the day

[JR47]

I'd like to add a note here. In those days, there were zero sovereign boundaries in the New World. Spain, not Mexico, had determined what was "theirs" in the area. It wasn't until the French got involved that America was even a recognized entity. The Brits and French didn't recognize the Spanish claims, and the Spaniards didn't recognize the other's claims, either. In such a fluid situation, the Mexicans were resorting to Spain's territorial claims, and in the end, were unable to enforce them. After Treaties were signed, the area gained sovereignity under the American umbrella.

What, exactly, this has to do with illegal aliens crossing internationally assured boundaries, is beyond me. History has a way of being used to confuse issues. That's appears to be the case here.

 

[Bob41081]

ccwolfe,
Not all of the people who colonized Texas from the US were illegals.S.F. Austin had a land grant and the legal right to bring in colonists as did others. Jim Bowie was a naturalized Mexican citizen.
Someone metioned MS-13 as a Mexican gang-wrong it is primarily a Salvadoran(sp?) gang and is very violent.
Why shouldn't we close our border. The Southern border of Mexico is highly patrolled by the Mexican army and anyone trying to cross it is treated very harshly and some are killed.
There are areas of Houston that I would not go into in broad daylight without being hassled for being a gringo and because I don't speak Spanish. I live in SW Houston where there is a large Asian population yet I can go into most business run by Asians and not feel too out of place and the staff will be able to speak English to me, this is not true of a lot of Hispanic run businesses. Sorry but I should be able to go into any business in the US and not have to speak anything but English(American version).

Bob

 

[foob]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet since there are so many posts, but that "news" article is fake. WorldNetDaily is famous for being a rabidly right-wing "news"/opinion site. Fox sounds balanced compared to them.

 

[contender6030]

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!! It explains
> >things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.
> >
> > Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country
> >protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of
> >illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its
> >own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once
> >here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the
> >thinking behind these protests.
> >
> > Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me
> >in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds
> >and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done
> >all the things you don't like to do. I'm hardworking and honest (except for
> >when I broke into your house).
> >
> > According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must
> >add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other
> >benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because
> >he too is hardworking and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you
> >try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will
> >picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.
> >
> > It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do,
> >and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hardworking and honest, um,
> >except for well, you know.
> >
> > And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only
> >a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it
> >without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an
> >anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can
> >communicate with me

 

[azurefly]

I love it when people talk sarcastically about Fox News being balanced -- as though they are asserting that by contrast, CNN and MSNBC are balanced and no one can argue otherwise.

Are you holding up Fox to CNN, MSNBC, the Guardian, etc. as though they are objectively objective, and Fox is indisputably biased?


-azurefly

 

[ahenry]

1. Illegal entry into the US isn't even a misdemeanor. It's an infraction. Like speeding. So, if illegal immigrants are "criminals," then so is everyone who's been popped for 70 in a 65. You want to change the definition, fine, but you'll have to change the law first.

Crossing the border illegally is a criminal violation. It is a violation of 8 USC 1325. Any alien in violation of 8 USC 1325 can face up to six months in prison as well as a fine for the first offense (misdemeanor charge). For a subsequent illegal entry the alien can be imprisoned up to two years (felony). The confusion over this is perhaps because there is also an administrative penalty available to an alien that crosses illegally, which is essentially just sending the alien back to their country.

 

[foob]

No I'm saying that Fox is more balanced/moderate than WorldNetDaily.

 

[azurefly]

Fox sounds balanced compared to them.

That comment does not back up what you now claim you meant.

It sounds like you're saying, "Even a network as biased as Fox sounds balanced when compared to [a source as obviously far-right as WorldNetDaily]."

I don't know WND, but I do know what the obvious implication of your comment was.


-azurefly

 

[Doug.38PR]

I'll give you the play by play:
"Illegals" crossed in to Mexico set up shop and home.
Mexico allowed them to stay even made them Mexican citizens.
Mexico had its war and Santa Anna came out on top.
More "illegals" kept crossing the boarder in a attempt to "Americanise" Mexico.
Texas became filled with more and more "illegals" less and less Mexicans.
Santa Anna dissolved the Mexican constitution took complete power over the country.
He attempted to remove these "Illegals" in the country by force.
Some battles ensued.
The Alamo was one of these where "Illegals" and their supporters made their stand and were killed.
Anna let his guard down and was defeated by the "Illegals" and now trator citizens.
Conflict continued in Texas.
The American .gov saw its chance to help current and former citizens AND gain land.
Enter the Mexican-American war.

No Sir,

Here is what happened then:

1) Mexican government has little more than title to land that we now call Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and California and only about 6000 settlers between Nacogdoches and Los Angeles made up of a few spanish with peon indians. The only others in the region were nomadic Indian tribes, most notably the Commanche who kept the Spaniards and now Mexicans out for centuries and were constantly raiding down into Mexico.
2) Spain, and later Mexico, grants Southern Americans LEGAL rights to come settle this vastly untamed wilderness to serve primarily as a buffer between Mexico and the Commanche (which didn't work out as the early Texas settlers set up house mostly in East Texas prior to Independance from Mexico).
3) Mexico goes through a few revolutions (the first of many to come) and Santa Anna shoots his way into power.
4) LEGAL citizens are denyed their God given as well as Mexican Constitutional protections by Mexican government.
5) In addition to this a clash of cultures occurs between Protestant Anglo-Nordic Americans and Indian-Spanish Catholic Mexicans leading to tensions
6) Legal immigration into Texas is forbidden cutting off Texas's need for more and more population to sustain itself as a territory.
7) Texas having large expanse of desert between it and Mexico also provides communication problems
9) What few racial Mexicans that there are living in Texas, also called Tejanos, (most notably Juan Segin, a hero of San Jacinto and later official in the Republic of Texas) decide with their American neighbors that it is time to secede.

We win!

As the years go by, more and more American settlers enter the largely unsettled Southwest all the way to California and have the same problems.
Basically this leads to the U.S. Mexican-War which Mexico annexes these de facto settled territories to the United States.

NOW we have,
ILLEGAL Mexicans, along with a careless massive legal immigration policy, flooding into our SETTLED country clashing with our people and economy.

Two completely different things.

 

[foob]

That comment does not back up what you now claim you meant.

It sounds like you're saying, "Even a network as biased as Fox sounds balanced when compared to [a source as obviously far-right as WorldNetDaily]."

I don't know WND, but I do know what the obvious implication of your comment was.

Er.. if you think any news network is balanced and fair I have a bridge somewhere to sell you. Doesn't matter if it's WND, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.

This is what I first said:

Fox sounds balanced compared to them.

Then I said this:

No I'm saying that Fox is more balanced/moderate than WorldNetDaily.

Neither quote contradicts one another.

You can claim to obviously understand whatever I was trying to say, more power to you

The main point I was getting at is:
1. Article is fake
2. WND is a extreme right-wing website, and has been known to make fake news

And to put it into perspective, I compared it to Fox, which I believe is moderate right-wing, and CNN, MSNBC is moderate left-wing, and BBC is pretty close to center. Want to claim to know the color of my underwear too?

 

[Doug.38PR]

1. Article is fake

Prove it. I see no evidence to believe that it is fake. Just your say so.

I see plenty of evidence (the videos, the pictures, the quotes) that it did happen. Hence it is not "fake."

2. WND is a extreme right-wing website, and has been known to make fake news

So it is right wing. So what? Everyone has a set of beliefs. "Extreme right-wing" is an label that reflects your beliefs (apparently liberal since you see BBC as balanced, I've always thought of them as even more liberal than CNN). That in and of itself doesn't mean it or you are bad. Nobody is neutral when it comes right down to it. Any reporter that says he is neutral and doesn't care is a liar. Being right or left wing alone, doesn't make what they report "fake" nor does it make it wrong. They WDN openly admits that they are conservative and "right wing." CNN and BBC do not, they claim to be middle of the road.

That being said, you can still have a set of beliefs and be fair and balanced.

You are presenting not a case for their making the article up or even taht they are wrong, only your belief that they are making this up.

 

[tube_ee]

For what it's worth, the BBC goes to extremes that many on the right view as "liberal" not to have any opinion.

For example, the don't use the word "terrorist" because that word carries connotations that they feel would color thier reporting if they used it. They also have a nasty habit of asking questions that high government officials would rather not answer. If that's bias, we need more of it.

American mass news media is entirely too willing to accomodate the needs and wants of the powerful, regardless of party. That the organizations that own the major media outlets in this country are overwhelmingly aligned to one side of the opinion spectrum (and it's not the one you've been told to think it is) doesn't help. The head on TV is saying what he/she has been told to say. They get paid milions of dollars to say it, and so they do. So would you. The bias exists, but it is a bias towards power and money and wealth, and access to same. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

You were aware that Rush Limbaugh is an employee of CBS News, right?? And that, in an interview he gave to TV Guide in 1991, he said, "When I step into the broadcast booth, I'm playing a character. As long as they keep paying me millions of dollars, I'll keep playing it." He's not unique, and lots of people are making lots of money telling lots of people whatever they want to hear. More of them have been on the right side of the ledger for a while (about 11:1) but that's changing. Not that that helps, really. A bunch of people shouting at the top of their lungs from their own side of the wall, being listened to only by those who agree with them, doesn't help us. If we all ignored them, they'd all go away, and we'd be better for it.

Liberal media, my ass.

--Shannon

 

[ccwolff]

1) Mexican government has little more than title to land that we now call Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and California and only about 6000 settlers between Nacogdoches and Los Angeles made up of a few spanish with peon indians.

So by that logic if Mexicans feel that we are not utalizing America to the fullest then they are welcome to come over regardless of the boarder?

"From 1821 to 1836 the population of Texas increased from about 4,000 to between 35,000 and 50,000 people. Most of the immigrants were from the southern United States. They only pretended to be Catholic, spoke English, did not have much respect for authority, and refused to assimilate."

http://www.thecitiesof.com/texas/escape/texashistory.html

YEAH! A totally different situation my mistake!!! LOL!!!


Sugar coat it or justify it any way you like.
The USA weather on purpose or by accident brutally STOLE the Southwest from Mexico. End of story.

If we do not want them to steal it back then we had better start looking at our history and taking off the rose colored glasses that lead us to believe that Americans (oops,I forgot British-Americans ) where in the right and everyone else was in the wrong. That just was not the case, if fact more often than not just the opposite.

In fact, lets hear some more about the most just war America ever fought FOR LAND from some one who was there.

Grant once said of the Mexican war, "one of the most unjust ever waged on a weaker country by a stronger."

http://library.thinkquest.org/3055/netscape/people/grant.html

Man, that Grant what a liberal.

 

[Al Norris]

Are we talking about illegal immigration or about the run-up to the Treaty of Hildago?

One is on topic the other is off-topic. Off-topic threads get closed.

 

[gdm]

Mexicans arent the only ones that are coming here illegally.Illegal aliens do not just flip burgers, they work in construction,resteraunts,farming industry,grocery stores,manufacturing and other jobs.Some of these jobs have access to govt bases such as maintence. If they are undocumented and nobody knows where they came from and what things they are doing,shouldnt there be a concern to close the border and make an effort to find those that are already here?


Some illegals are given free healthcare and welfare,voting rights and drivers liscences,paid under the table to bypass employment laws set up for the rest of us and even some offer them free or reduced rate college tuition,like that case out in kali that made the news awhile back.


Id theft has gone rampant.Some company is always having their data stolen and its cool beans to start spying on all of us.It is worth mentioning again also, to have a daily colored threat level and almost daily, mention the inevitable attack in the future on the news when talking about terrorists threats. Somebody isnt doing their jobs and it isnt us.I think its jobs they dont want to do because of the wealth it brings to them,not us.

Is it just me that has a grave problem with this?

 

[ahenry]

ccwolf,

Your understanding of Texas history is in error, in particular regarding the settlement of Texas while under Mexican law. Allow me to give you a factual “play by play”:

Mexico obtains it’s independence from Spain in 1821

Mexico established the “Imperial Colonization Law” in 1823 as it’s solution to a variety of problems relating to it’s frontier, of which Texas was part.

This law, in brief: 1) established land agents called empresarios who’s purpose was to to actively find individuals willing to settle in Mexico Texas (as well as other portions of Mexico), and 2) invited people meeting to certain criteria to settle in it’s frontier by establishing a variety of incentives (such as huge amounts of land, tax exempt status, etc).​

Mexico removes Emperor Agustin de Iturbide 1823 and establishes a government similar to the United States.

The new government passed the National Colonization law in 1824, which essentially surrendered all authority for colonization to the states, and agreed not to congressionally make any major change to immigration policy prior to 1840.

The state colonization laws of Texas more or less followed the general outline of the Imperial Colonization law, in that empresarios were still utilized and certain incentives were provided to settlers.

Mexico enacts the Law of April 6, 1830. This forbade settlers from the United States from emigrating and suspended empresario contracts conflicting with this prohibition. Except for Austin and Dewitt’s contracts. This law (and subsequent actions by Mexico) was for Texas what the Stamp act was for the United States. Enforcement of provisions of this law (establishing tariffs, standing Mexican army, etc) led directly to various armed conflicts. The vast majority of United States settlers that had planned on emigrating to Mexico Texas during this time (under other than Austin or DeWitt contracts) returned to the United States or attempted to join Austin or DeWitt settlements.

Mexico reversed the Law of April 6, 1830 in 1834 and automatically restored previously suspended empresario contracts and extended them by four years to compensate for the previous four years. By now, the list of grievances against the government of Mexico was long and fight for independence was inevitable.


So you see ccwolf, the settlement of Texas by Americans while under Mexican rule was not by a bunch of “illegal aliens”. They were actually encouraged and invited to settle Texas. Even during 1830 to 1834, American’s were still allowed to settle in Texas as part of the several empresario contracts that Austin and DeWitt had. And for the most part, those that were not part of a legal empresario contract returned to the United States. If you’re going to opine on Texas or about Texas history particularly in a poor manner, you had best get your facts straight.

I bring this up (Antipitas) because it illustrates the major difference between the immigrants of the early 1800's and the current illegal immigrants of today. Both were seeking a better way of life for themselves and their families. However one (by and large) governed themselves by the rule of law and the other ignores laws they don't like. Traditionally Americans, while being staunchly independent, govern themselves by laws. Do we really want a class of immigrants that flaunts the law and seems to have no desire to abide by the law of the land when it is inconvenient?

 

[foob]

I see plenty of evidence (the videos, the pictures, the quotes) that it did happen. Hence it is not "fake."

I've seen the video, shows some people protesting, no mexican flag flying on any flag pole, or any post office.

I see only 1 picture of a mexican flag on a flag pole. Anybody can say it isn't photoshopped? Anybody know the building is a US post office and not the Mexican embassy? The other pics give no evidence of the incident, just some protest placards...

Quotes? In the same faked article???

Please, if it was real, you would think some other news agency would pick it up? You would think Foxnews would not broadcast it? You actually think illegal immigrants are so powerful that they can steal federal property and not get arrested?

The fact that no major media outlet or wire agency has picked up the story is a very good indication that the article is fake. The only other websites with the story all attribute the story to WND.

And I visit fark.com regularly, they link to WND regularly, and I have seen others post evidence that some of their articles are fake, so they have built a reputation of faking news to support their cause.

I'm not here to convince you it's fake, go ahead and look for evidence yourself, you can convince yourself easily.

 

[Doubletaptap]

The Indians,Slaves,Jews,and now the Mexicans.We screwed them all, so it goes..


The Mexicans have and are infiltrating at an alarming rate.This country has more Mexicans(illegal) than anyone could guess.If they were to arm themselves and rise up we wouldn't have a chance. Same with the people from the east,Iran,Iraq,Pakistan etc.
Who's to say this is not a carefully executed plan and may come to that in the near future.
The "terror" is right here in America,not in another country.

Now it's our turn to lose our rights,possesions and land.

Such as big corps. being able to buy you out and build on your land whether you want to sell or not.

They are going to take away our guns.

They are going to take all of our money.

We are not free to excersise our rights.
We are sheep.
At the mercy of big corps. and government,all led by the almighty dollar.

Sit down,put your head between your legs and kiss your life goodbye. You are now being controlled,you can't resist,they will rule supreme...

IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON"T GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND START WRITING LETTERS<CALLING<TELL THE GOVERNMENT WE WANT CORRECTIVE ACTION!!!

 

[badbob]

foob, is this what you're looking for? It ain't pretty, but it's fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsFuAStnEt8

badbob

 

[ccwolff]

Allow me to give you a factual “play by play”

lol, I put a link to all my sources for information, I did however, notice you did not...
Humm... interesting.

Mexico established the “Imperial Colonization Law” in 1823 as it’s solution to a variety of problems relating to it’s frontier, of which Texas was part.

Again, on the condition that they , change to the Mexican religion, the Mexican language, and Mexican citizenship. And in general become Mexican.

Go ahead prove me wrong, post one creditable link that states that those "illegals" did in fact change their language, religion, citizen ship and in general did their best to become Mexican.

Not holding my breath.

"From 1821 to 1836 the population of Texas increased from about 4,000 to between 35,000 and 50,000 people. Most of the immigrants were from the southern United States. They only pretended to be Catholic, spoke English, did not have much respect for authority, and refused to assimilate."

Relating this back to the point of this thread.
This quote is the whole point to this thread just change the date, religion and language.

The people in that video were vocalizing the exact same thing the "illegals" in texas did. What that video shows is just a warning sign. The danger of it is they also may be successful. Just like the don't mess with texas crowd was.