As I don't know if the images would come across, here's the link:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/guide_for_the_m.php
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/guide_for_the_m.php
Mexican government on how to sneak across our border
- Thread starter Wallew
- Start date
shootinstudent
New member
Thanks for the link. I don't see much objectionable there. The pamphlet tells readers how not to be swindled by drug dealers, tells them not to commit crimes or face penalty, and emphasizes over and over that they are not to lie to American officials.
It also says that they should apply for a visa, instead of risking their lives by coming illegally, then lists a series of hazards that may kill them in an illegal crossing. Not very encouraging, even if it does tell them to drink some salt water.
It also says that they should apply for a visa, instead of risking their lives by coming illegally, then lists a series of hazards that may kill them in an illegal crossing. Not very encouraging, even if it does tell them to drink some salt water.
PsychoSword
Moderator
Totally.
And there's nothing like responsible illegal immigration.
shootinstudent
New member
You should post the text that goes with those pictures. It warns of death and getting lost in the desert.
Just to be clear, I'm as against illegal immigration as you are. I just don't think this pamphlet has anything offensive or has anything to do with the problem. No one is going to look at these pictures and then survive a week in the Arizona desert just based on what he learned here.
IMO, the real problem with immigration is that we don't penalize the companies that employ immigrant labor enough. If you spend your resources busting the people that employ them, they won't come, because there will be no work for them here. On top of that, though, some immigration by the poor is a good thing; it allows for us to actually fill positions that just plain aren't worth much pay.
Just to be clear, I'm as against illegal immigration as you are. I just don't think this pamphlet has anything offensive or has anything to do with the problem. No one is going to look at these pictures and then survive a week in the Arizona desert just based on what he learned here.
IMO, the real problem with immigration is that we don't penalize the companies that employ immigrant labor enough. If you spend your resources busting the people that employ them, they won't come, because there will be no work for them here. On top of that, though, some immigration by the poor is a good thing; it allows for us to actually fill positions that just plain aren't worth much pay.
PsychoSword
Moderator
Yes, you're right that it doesn't come out and say it, but the pictures certainly seem to suggest it. Like with all of it, I think it's just another piece of the incremental propaganda to get us to accept the invasion.
shootinstudent
New member
Invasion? I'm aware of no strong Mexican political party that wants to invade the U.S. Illegal immigrants are definitely not invading, they mostly want to work. The ones that stay to have children assimilate pretty well too, being as they are usually more conservative than your average big-city American.
The children of illegals born here are as American as you and me. They usually don't even speak spanish by the second generation. I see no invasion, really. And, it's not like Spanish speaking people in the Southwest and California are a new thing. There have been lots of mexicans in these parts for the past 100 years. To be honest, I admire Bush for doing the smart thing and making a move to secure the hispanic (American) vote for the pro-gun party. He's doing something democrats have not been able to do with more mainstream, working hispanics, and it's a good idea.
The children of illegals born here are as American as you and me. They usually don't even speak spanish by the second generation. I see no invasion, really. And, it's not like Spanish speaking people in the Southwest and California are a new thing. There have been lots of mexicans in these parts for the past 100 years. To be honest, I admire Bush for doing the smart thing and making a move to secure the hispanic (American) vote for the pro-gun party. He's doing something democrats have not been able to do with more mainstream, working hispanics, and it's a good idea.
PsychoSword
Moderator
:barf:
If you are looking for an invading country with a flag and a song you will not find one. The Mexican government is not invading, although they are certainly supporting it.
Having said that, look up MeCha and La Raza and you will find the uncontrolled illegal crossings is in fact supported by "political" parties with some very radical notions.
Amen to that brother, although it is only one part of the solution.
Okay, you just did something that the pro-illegal crowd wants you to do: confused the issue. No one is discussing immigration. We are talking about ILLEGAL entry of people...not just Mexicans...into our country at an alarming rate...thousands a day...for a multitude of reasons that include, yes, work, but also drugs and other crime, and quite possibly terrorist related opportunities.
Back to the word invasion: if twenty people suddenly rushed your house, came through windows, doors, pushed past your loved ones, knocked you down, raided your frig, stole your stuff and shipped it away and then snuggled up next to you on the couch and lit up a joint...would you consider it an invasion even though they didn't carry a flag and a song? Would it matter that at the same time, several were outside bagging your leaves and one even offered to wash your car and take out the trash? Would that make it okay?
Black_Iron
Moderator
Shootinstudent
Are you a Hispanic or a Hispanic apologist? The U.S. is not a welfare state for them to walk all over when they screw up their own countries.
Are you a Hispanic or a Hispanic apologist? The U.S. is not a welfare state for them to walk all over when they screw up their own countries.
shootinstudent
New member
What is a "hispanic apologist"?
What I am is an American who believes in gun rights. I also believe that your citizenship and rights in America should not be based on skin color or ancestry. The hispanic community is mostly pro family values, pro-self sufficiency, and even pro-gun, and so I think other Americans who share those values (especially pro gun!) should make every effort to gather the support of hispanic Americans. That isn't going to happen by implying that "hispanics need apologists", or that "hispanic culture is evil."
There were both Mecha and La Raza groups at every school I've ever attended, so I know a bit about them. They are most certainly racially charged groups, but they aren't pro-Mexican; they call themselves Chicano, and most (if you happen to know any) you will find are offended when people refer to them as Mexican. They do not consider themselves Mexicans, and they're mostly comprised of American college students. The fact that they have darker skin tones and radical politics does not mean they are somehow less American.
On the other hand, your average Jose illegal immigrant does not believe he is racially superior to whites, nor does he believe that American culture is flawed and evil. He is also ashamed to be out of work, as it's a huge disgrace in Mexican culture to not provide for one's family or self. You might want to take account of that stark difference between radical Chicano groups (who are virtually all American), and genuine immigrants from Mexico.
Now, the reason I mentioned immigration in the last part is that the poorest Mexicans, who take the jobs you seem to agree need to be filled, have absolutely no chance of making it through the Visa process. The forms, fees, and travel expenses are too time consuming and difficult for most, which is of course why they end up risking their lives by walking through a desert to get to the USA.
Everyone here I think agrees that illegal immigration has to be prevented, but the problem, Black_Iron, is that you seem to be mistaking hispanics who are Americans (the majority of hispanics in the US) for illegal immigrants, and you're further mistaking worker immigration as some kind of plot to take over the US. As I pointed out before, and you didn't dispute, it's not like Spanish culture in the Southwest and west is a new thing. There is no period since the 1700's when there wasn't Spanish culture in these areas, so that's old news.
What is it exactly that you have against hispanic presence in the Southwest? Do you think that to be hispanic, you cannot be American? If so, what ancestry makes one American?
What I am is an American who believes in gun rights. I also believe that your citizenship and rights in America should not be based on skin color or ancestry. The hispanic community is mostly pro family values, pro-self sufficiency, and even pro-gun, and so I think other Americans who share those values (especially pro gun!) should make every effort to gather the support of hispanic Americans. That isn't going to happen by implying that "hispanics need apologists", or that "hispanic culture is evil."
There were both Mecha and La Raza groups at every school I've ever attended, so I know a bit about them. They are most certainly racially charged groups, but they aren't pro-Mexican; they call themselves Chicano, and most (if you happen to know any) you will find are offended when people refer to them as Mexican. They do not consider themselves Mexicans, and they're mostly comprised of American college students. The fact that they have darker skin tones and radical politics does not mean they are somehow less American.
On the other hand, your average Jose illegal immigrant does not believe he is racially superior to whites, nor does he believe that American culture is flawed and evil. He is also ashamed to be out of work, as it's a huge disgrace in Mexican culture to not provide for one's family or self. You might want to take account of that stark difference between radical Chicano groups (who are virtually all American), and genuine immigrants from Mexico.
Now, the reason I mentioned immigration in the last part is that the poorest Mexicans, who take the jobs you seem to agree need to be filled, have absolutely no chance of making it through the Visa process. The forms, fees, and travel expenses are too time consuming and difficult for most, which is of course why they end up risking their lives by walking through a desert to get to the USA.
Everyone here I think agrees that illegal immigration has to be prevented, but the problem, Black_Iron, is that you seem to be mistaking hispanics who are Americans (the majority of hispanics in the US) for illegal immigrants, and you're further mistaking worker immigration as some kind of plot to take over the US. As I pointed out before, and you didn't dispute, it's not like Spanish culture in the Southwest and west is a new thing. There is no period since the 1700's when there wasn't Spanish culture in these areas, so that's old news.
What is it exactly that you have against hispanic presence in the Southwest? Do you think that to be hispanic, you cannot be American? If so, what ancestry makes one American?
January 24, 2005
Illegal Immigration Is a Moral Issue
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune News Services
As President Bush's guest worker proposals slog through Congress, new reports suggest that there may be not 8 million, but almost 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, a population larger than most entire states. $400 billion in taxes—almost the current annual budget deficit —are not collected due to a growing underground cash economy.
Mexico brazenly issued a survival guide for its intrepid citizens on how to cross illegally into the United States. A 2,000 mile border is porous at a time when stealthy terrorists count on such laxity to enter the United States.
The hallowed assimilationist formula has too few overt defenders these days —even though measured, legal immigration, English emersion, multiracialism instead of multiculturalism, and integration have ensured that past legal immigrants from Mexico are among America's finest citizens.
The laissez-faire right still lectures on open borders as if it were a matter of robust lawful immigration—emphasizing global competitiveness that accrues from cheap labor. The minimum wage, not illegality, supposedly is its only problem: if only the self-correcting market could be set free to adjudicate wages, $2 an hour might not tempt any more from rural Mexico.
The therapeutic left will not even talk of "illegal immigration"—taboo nomenclature that supposedly denotes racism. "Undocumented workers" is the politically correct terminology, even though not all aliens are working or simply misplaced their certification.
If employers count on inexpensive industrious laborers in the shadows, chauvinists envision a revolving, but still permanent unassimilated constituency to enhance their own agendas. In response to the tired rhetoric, perhaps it is better to envision illegal immigration from Mexico not as a question of divisive politics, but of collective morality. Is it ethical for the Mexican government to export annually 1 million to 2 million of its unwanted citizens to avoid long-overdue reform —hoping to free itself of dissidents and earn $12 billion in subsidies from its poorest abroad? No wonder Mexico talks of the problem in terms of U.S. imperialism in lieu of its own cynicism.
Is it moral for employers to count on illegal industrious workers, usually without English or education, to undercut the wages of American citizens—as if a laborer remains youthful and hale in perpetuity with no need of social entitlements when disabled or impoverished years later? No wonder employers claim that they are only providing a service to Mexico's poor.
Is it so liberal that governments must pay for those who ignore the law while citizens go without? In California, the money to incarcerate more than 14,000 felonious illegal aliens from Mexico—well over $400 million—would fund the start-up costs of 20 university campuses like the new University of California at Merced, at a time when Americans (including many first-generation Mexican-American citizens) who are eligible for higher education cannot find access or financial support.
Is it so fair to assume that the unemployed in our midst—over 10 percent of the work force in many counties of the American Southwest that are most affected by illegal immigration—cannot find entry-level work? No wonder we insist that no one can discover a citizen to mow the lawn or cook his food—as if 30 years ago our yards were weedy and we did not eat out, as if states without illegal aliens have poor landscaping and empty restaurants. Picking an illegal worker up at the local lumber yard, paying him in cash for a day of digging, and then dumping him on the curb at twilight — "out of sight, out of mind"—is neither liberal nor humane even if done in Santa Cruz or Carmel.
And is it equitable that laws must be sacred for most, but not for some? Do we really want a bureaucratic system near collapse from fraudulent Social Security numbers, off-the-books wages, false names, cars without registration and insurance, even as millions abroad queue up to enter our shores lawfully? Are we to tell waiting Punjabis or Filipinos to certify their education, skills and method of support—even as we ask far less of those who break the law to cross the border from Mexico?
Who, then, is the real moralist? Is it the police officer who stops an illegal alien but cannot call immigration authorities? The contractor who knowingly accepts falsified identification and pays untaxed cash wages? The La Raza ("The Race") activist who promotes ethnic chauvinism for those to whom it will prove most deleterious? Perhaps the grandstanding Mexican consul who faults the United States for his own country's callousness?
Or is it the rest of us, who in fear of being slurred as "racists" or "nativists" often keep silent—just when candor and honesty on all sides are needed now if we are to avoid becoming an amoral apartheid society with a permanent underclass in the shadows?
©2004 Victor Davis Hanson
Illegal Immigration Is a Moral Issue
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune News Services
As President Bush's guest worker proposals slog through Congress, new reports suggest that there may be not 8 million, but almost 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, a population larger than most entire states. $400 billion in taxes—almost the current annual budget deficit —are not collected due to a growing underground cash economy.
Mexico brazenly issued a survival guide for its intrepid citizens on how to cross illegally into the United States. A 2,000 mile border is porous at a time when stealthy terrorists count on such laxity to enter the United States.
The hallowed assimilationist formula has too few overt defenders these days —even though measured, legal immigration, English emersion, multiracialism instead of multiculturalism, and integration have ensured that past legal immigrants from Mexico are among America's finest citizens.
The laissez-faire right still lectures on open borders as if it were a matter of robust lawful immigration—emphasizing global competitiveness that accrues from cheap labor. The minimum wage, not illegality, supposedly is its only problem: if only the self-correcting market could be set free to adjudicate wages, $2 an hour might not tempt any more from rural Mexico.
The therapeutic left will not even talk of "illegal immigration"—taboo nomenclature that supposedly denotes racism. "Undocumented workers" is the politically correct terminology, even though not all aliens are working or simply misplaced their certification.
If employers count on inexpensive industrious laborers in the shadows, chauvinists envision a revolving, but still permanent unassimilated constituency to enhance their own agendas. In response to the tired rhetoric, perhaps it is better to envision illegal immigration from Mexico not as a question of divisive politics, but of collective morality. Is it ethical for the Mexican government to export annually 1 million to 2 million of its unwanted citizens to avoid long-overdue reform —hoping to free itself of dissidents and earn $12 billion in subsidies from its poorest abroad? No wonder Mexico talks of the problem in terms of U.S. imperialism in lieu of its own cynicism.
Is it moral for employers to count on illegal industrious workers, usually without English or education, to undercut the wages of American citizens—as if a laborer remains youthful and hale in perpetuity with no need of social entitlements when disabled or impoverished years later? No wonder employers claim that they are only providing a service to Mexico's poor.
Is it so liberal that governments must pay for those who ignore the law while citizens go without? In California, the money to incarcerate more than 14,000 felonious illegal aliens from Mexico—well over $400 million—would fund the start-up costs of 20 university campuses like the new University of California at Merced, at a time when Americans (including many first-generation Mexican-American citizens) who are eligible for higher education cannot find access or financial support.
Is it so fair to assume that the unemployed in our midst—over 10 percent of the work force in many counties of the American Southwest that are most affected by illegal immigration—cannot find entry-level work? No wonder we insist that no one can discover a citizen to mow the lawn or cook his food—as if 30 years ago our yards were weedy and we did not eat out, as if states without illegal aliens have poor landscaping and empty restaurants. Picking an illegal worker up at the local lumber yard, paying him in cash for a day of digging, and then dumping him on the curb at twilight — "out of sight, out of mind"—is neither liberal nor humane even if done in Santa Cruz or Carmel.
And is it equitable that laws must be sacred for most, but not for some? Do we really want a bureaucratic system near collapse from fraudulent Social Security numbers, off-the-books wages, false names, cars without registration and insurance, even as millions abroad queue up to enter our shores lawfully? Are we to tell waiting Punjabis or Filipinos to certify their education, skills and method of support—even as we ask far less of those who break the law to cross the border from Mexico?
Who, then, is the real moralist? Is it the police officer who stops an illegal alien but cannot call immigration authorities? The contractor who knowingly accepts falsified identification and pays untaxed cash wages? The La Raza ("The Race") activist who promotes ethnic chauvinism for those to whom it will prove most deleterious? Perhaps the grandstanding Mexican consul who faults the United States for his own country's callousness?
Or is it the rest of us, who in fear of being slurred as "racists" or "nativists" often keep silent—just when candor and honesty on all sides are needed now if we are to avoid becoming an amoral apartheid society with a permanent underclass in the shadows?
©2004 Victor Davis Hanson
Let's see.
REAGAN granted AMNESTY to three million illegal aliens, most from Mexico.
Clinton granted AMNESTY to five million illegal aliens, most from Mexico.
Bush WANTS to grant AMNESTY to ten million illegal aliens, most from Mexico.
Uh, nah, there's NO PATTERN HERE.
Except we now have eight million MORE mexicans that are legal and are about to add TEN MILLION MORE (That totals eighteen million for those of you who need help with the math).
What's next? Amnesty for TWENTY MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS, most from mexico?
Sheesh, we might as WELL just give them the SOUTHWEST. Currently there are about 27 million people living in Kali and a tad less in Texas. Where do those who suggest those people go? Or should they just 'accept' another TEN, TWENTY, FIFTY (?) million illegals?
NOT ME. Not now. NOT EVER!
GO read "The Turner Diaries". It starts out basically describing EXACTLY what's happening now. Uncontrolled illegal aliens flooding our largest cities. Eventually the cities try and FORCE the rest of the US to support all their problems that they create by ALLOWING illegal immigration. Then the civil war starts.
REAGAN granted AMNESTY to three million illegal aliens, most from Mexico.
Clinton granted AMNESTY to five million illegal aliens, most from Mexico.
Bush WANTS to grant AMNESTY to ten million illegal aliens, most from Mexico.
Uh, nah, there's NO PATTERN HERE.
Except we now have eight million MORE mexicans that are legal and are about to add TEN MILLION MORE (That totals eighteen million for those of you who need help with the math).
What's next? Amnesty for TWENTY MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS, most from mexico?
Sheesh, we might as WELL just give them the SOUTHWEST. Currently there are about 27 million people living in Kali and a tad less in Texas. Where do those who suggest those people go? Or should they just 'accept' another TEN, TWENTY, FIFTY (?) million illegals?
NOT ME. Not now. NOT EVER!
GO read "The Turner Diaries". It starts out basically describing EXACTLY what's happening now. Uncontrolled illegal aliens flooding our largest cities. Eventually the cities try and FORCE the rest of the US to support all their problems that they create by ALLOWING illegal immigration. Then the civil war starts.
shootinstudent
New member
No one's forcing the US to grant amnesty. It happens because that's what the people the majority elect want to do, which in the first place should tell you something about your position: Not everyone accepts it.
Furthermore, I have read the Turner Diaries, and that is the single most racist piece of literature I've encountered from recent times. It's not just about illegals, it's about "the blacks" ruining everything for the "Americans" too.
We're all free to choose who we elect here in America, and so that means politics has to include all races. If you really do believe the things that are in the Turner Diaries, I suggest you prepare for disappointment, because that's a road that won't be taken. Myself, I'm happy to know it.
PsychoSword
Moderator
The Turner Diaries have nothing to do with the current public opinion against illegal immigration. That book is a joke and is perfect reading material for anyone who wants a peek inside of a delusional mind.
While I have no doubt another civil war could happen in this country for many reasons, not just immigration, I don't think anyone who is against illegal immigration helps the cause by quoting from The Turner Diaries. It just gives the John McCain types an excuse, a cop-out to make the patriots into a bunch of loons.
While I have no doubt another civil war could happen in this country for many reasons, not just immigration, I don't think anyone who is against illegal immigration helps the cause by quoting from The Turner Diaries. It just gives the John McCain types an excuse, a cop-out to make the patriots into a bunch of loons.
I do not mean to speak for Black Iron, but your statement is interesting because what I am seeing is a tendency for the exact opposite: people who are mistaking illegal immigrants for hispanics who are Americans.
There has been quite a bit on mass media in the last several days, and in every interview, pro-illegal advocates used the term "immigrant" in their discussion of ILLEGALS, in an intentional attempt to blend the definition of illegal immigrants with hispanics who are Americans. Furthermore, the term "undocumented worker" is a deliberate and calculated attempt to soften, even disguise reality.
I have not read The Turner Diaries but I have read 1984 and I know doublespeak when I see it.
The border needs to be controlled. Anything short of that is not enough.
shootinstudent
New member
I agree completely that the border needs to be controlled, but for me it's more in line with the economic consequences. What I disagree with is portraying hispanic cultural influence in the southwest as an "invasion" or "takeover." I think this is especially important since there are many more hispanic Americans than there are illegal immigrants.
I do not agree, however, that undocumented worker is the same thing as illegal immigrant. There are lots of people who come legally but without permission to work, and then stay to work anyway.
I do not agree, however, that undocumented worker is the same thing as illegal immigrant. There are lots of people who come legally but without permission to work, and then stay to work anyway.
Numerous polls have shown that upwards of two-thirds, to as many as 80 per cent, of Americans (that means citizens, presumably) oppose illegal immigration and want tighter border controls. Every nation has the right to control its sovereignty and who qualifies for citizenship. It is NOT only about economics; you cannot separate economics from social and political values.
Is there a "takeover?" Ask groups like La Raza and MeCHA what they would like to see for a big chunk of present-day America. When you have people who are here illegally being allowed to vote and being told that they qualify for social services you have de facto present and future expropriation of the work and treasure of American citizens. In that regard the illegal alien influx is working in concert with the redistributionist and confiscatory morality of the Left.
Read newspapers such as the L.A. Times and you will search in vain for any terms that would place illegal immigration in a negative light. The first step is to control the language. "Undocument worker" is an obvious euphemism for illegal alien--and, by the way, a lot of illegals aren't working, contrary to myth.
Is there a "takeover?" Ask groups like La Raza and MeCHA what they would like to see for a big chunk of present-day America. When you have people who are here illegally being allowed to vote and being told that they qualify for social services you have de facto present and future expropriation of the work and treasure of American citizens. In that regard the illegal alien influx is working in concert with the redistributionist and confiscatory morality of the Left.
Read newspapers such as the L.A. Times and you will search in vain for any terms that would place illegal immigration in a negative light. The first step is to control the language. "Undocument worker" is an obvious euphemism for illegal alien--and, by the way, a lot of illegals aren't working, contrary to myth.
Illegal immigration is a growing problem we must do something in the near future if we wish to maintain our quality of life. This is not about race, color,
it is however about numbers. Controlled, legal immigration, why is that
hard to understand.
INVASION USA
Mexico threatens Arizona over anti-illegals measure
Official says challenge in international courts possible to block voter-passed Proposition 200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A Mexican government official has threatened to use international courts to block an Arizona law meant to limit public benefits and voting rights to legal residents of the U.S.
Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in a radio interview Wednesday that an international strategy would be used if other attempts to reverse Proposition 200 fail, the Associated Press reported.
"We are seeking all the legal opportunities that exist, first using the legal capacities of the United States itself and ... if that does not work, bringing it to international tribunals," AP quotes Derbez as saying.
Mexican officials have repeatedly complained about Proposition 200, which went into effect Tuesday. The statewide measure denies most taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens and requires state workers to report applicants for such benefits who may not be eligible. It also requires anyone registering to vote in the state to show proof of citizenship and bring a government-issued ID to the polling place.
AP reported Derbez expressed regret that, according to polls, about 40 percent of Mexican-Americans in Arizona supported Prop. 200. The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote.
"It's sad, and it gives an idea of how we have to work to educate even our own Mexican-Americans about why it is important that these proposals are not accepted," Derbez said.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has challenged Prop. 200, saying it is "an illegal, impermissible, unconstitutional state attempt to regulate immigration policy, which is a fundamental function and responsibility of our federal government. Proposition 200 is mean-spirited and un-American."
Related story:
it is however about numbers. Controlled, legal immigration, why is that
hard to understand.
INVASION USA
Mexico threatens Arizona over anti-illegals measure
Official says challenge in international courts possible to block voter-passed Proposition 200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 28, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A Mexican government official has threatened to use international courts to block an Arizona law meant to limit public benefits and voting rights to legal residents of the U.S.
Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in a radio interview Wednesday that an international strategy would be used if other attempts to reverse Proposition 200 fail, the Associated Press reported.
"We are seeking all the legal opportunities that exist, first using the legal capacities of the United States itself and ... if that does not work, bringing it to international tribunals," AP quotes Derbez as saying.
Mexican officials have repeatedly complained about Proposition 200, which went into effect Tuesday. The statewide measure denies most taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens and requires state workers to report applicants for such benefits who may not be eligible. It also requires anyone registering to vote in the state to show proof of citizenship and bring a government-issued ID to the polling place.
AP reported Derbez expressed regret that, according to polls, about 40 percent of Mexican-Americans in Arizona supported Prop. 200. The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote.
"It's sad, and it gives an idea of how we have to work to educate even our own Mexican-Americans about why it is important that these proposals are not accepted," Derbez said.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has challenged Prop. 200, saying it is "an illegal, impermissible, unconstitutional state attempt to regulate immigration policy, which is a fundamental function and responsibility of our federal government. Proposition 200 is mean-spirited and un-American."
Related story:
SIS & PS,
You MAY have read the book but apparently DID NOT READ what I wrote.
GO read "The Turner Diaries". It starts out basically describing EXACTLY what's happening now. Uncontrolled illegal aliens flooding our largest cities.
SIS, you said:
If you really do believe the things that are in the Turner Diaries
THAT IS NOT what I said. All I said was what he described WAS happening now. WHY did the 'blacks' try and run AMERICA? Because they were becoming the SECOND minority. Due to the illegal aliens flooding cities. Note proximity of MEXICO to US. Now note proximity of AFRICA to US. Which group has it easier for illegal immigration? Uh, Mexico? Because you can just cross the Rio Grande? Or Africans, crossing the Atlantic?
PS, you said:
The Turner Diaries have nothing to do with the current public opinion against illegal immigration
I didn't say that either. All I said was that he described what was happening now. Uncontrolled mass illegal immigration that was flooding large cities.
You also said:
I don't think anyone who is against illegal immigration helps the cause by quoting from The Turner Diaries
AGAIN, I didn't QUOTE passage, just gave the beginings of the book which was his set and equated it to whats currently happening NOW.
SO BOTH of you think we don't have UNCONTROLLED illegal immigrants FLOODING our largest cities?
NEVER MIND. If you can't even repeat what I actually wrote ...
You MAY have read the book but apparently DID NOT READ what I wrote.
GO read "The Turner Diaries". It starts out basically describing EXACTLY what's happening now. Uncontrolled illegal aliens flooding our largest cities.
SIS, you said:
If you really do believe the things that are in the Turner Diaries
THAT IS NOT what I said. All I said was what he described WAS happening now. WHY did the 'blacks' try and run AMERICA? Because they were becoming the SECOND minority. Due to the illegal aliens flooding cities. Note proximity of MEXICO to US. Now note proximity of AFRICA to US. Which group has it easier for illegal immigration? Uh, Mexico? Because you can just cross the Rio Grande? Or Africans, crossing the Atlantic?
PS, you said:
The Turner Diaries have nothing to do with the current public opinion against illegal immigration
I didn't say that either. All I said was that he described what was happening now. Uncontrolled mass illegal immigration that was flooding large cities.
You also said:
I don't think anyone who is against illegal immigration helps the cause by quoting from The Turner Diaries
AGAIN, I didn't QUOTE passage, just gave the beginings of the book which was his set and equated it to whats currently happening NOW.
SO BOTH of you think we don't have UNCONTROLLED illegal immigrants FLOODING our largest cities?
NEVER MIND. If you can't even repeat what I actually wrote ...