Mexico threatens MinuteMan Project....

Where is the OUTCRY of the Seirra club for all the damage to all those 'delicate dry climate plants' that thousands of feet are trampling into the dirt? I guess it's only a problem if private property owners do the damage, not illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

Good point Wallew. I spent a little time at the Sierra Club's web site. According to their own site, they have a "take no position" position on the issue of immigration, legal and/or illegal. All references to it seem to be in the context of the world's over population problem. Within that context, they choose better "birth control than better border control". (Well, okay. I don't see why we can't push both...but within the scope of world population control, sure, okay. It's a position.)
But they are the Sierra Club for grubb's sake...and they are totally ignoring the effect illegal traffic has on desert environments. Funny, if it was an American logging company or land surveyer or teenagers on 4-wheelers who were trambling that delicate plant...they'd be all over it. But illegal aliens get a free pass.

http://www.sierraclub.org/population/faq.asp
 
Why would the Mexican government stop Mexicans from crossing into the US? Here is my idea and I've said it here before:

When the Mexicans come, feed, clothe, medicate and school them. Treat them as honored guests! Give each one an immigrant card that clearly identifies them and where they are from. Then simply bill Mexico for all of that. Mexico and Mexican citizens have billions in US assets. Stocks, bonds, cars, ranches, mansions, bank accounts, and other assets can be confiscated. You might be shocked at how much property is owned by Mexicans and sits on US runways, and other property. Once you confiscate those assets to pay for our hospitality- once the billionaires in Mexico start feeling pinched in the pocketbook- they will ensure the repositioning of the Mexican Army along their Northern border and they will keep the Mexicans out of the US.

As long as Mexico faces no real penalty, and they reap billions in benefits, why would they bother? When you make the problem a Mexican one where the rich hurt for the present policies, Mexico will change faster than you can eat a taco. I personally don't care to pay yet more to fix a mexican problem.

As an aside, by making immigration legal, and billing host countries for the care of their citizens, we also obtain information on each person coming here. When there is no problem getting a workers visa- then we have legitimate reasons to worry about the folks still sneaking across the border and in my opinion, those people have no good planned for us- otherwise they'd get the easy card.
 
screw mexico. we should send them the bill for the billions we spend on educations and healthcare for their criminal immigrants.
 
Charley:

Quote:
Where is the OUTCRY of the Seirra club for all the damage to all those 'delicate dry climate plants' that thousands of feet are trampling into the dirt? I guess it's only a problem if private property owners do the damage, not illegal aliens.



Good point Wallew. I spent a little time at the Sierra Club's web site. According to their own site, they have a "take no position" position on the issue of immigration, legal and/or illegal. All references to it seem to be in the context of the world's over population problem. Within that context, they choose better "birth control than better border control". (Well, okay. I don't see why we can't push both...but within the scope of world population control, sure, okay. It's a position.)
But they are the Sierra Club for grubb's sake...and they are totally ignoring the effect illegal traffic has on desert environments. Funny, if it was an American logging company or land surveyer or teenagers on 4-wheelers who were trambling that delicate plant...they'd be all over it. But illegal aliens get a free pass.

********

Re the population aspect of this illegal immigration business, most Mexicans are Catholic, not all, but most. The position of The Catholic Church regarding conception and birth control needs no discussion. It is the poorest Mexicans that have the really large families, which they simply cannot feed, given economic conditions in their country. By the way, The Catholic Church, as a corporate entity, is about the oldest floating crap game still in operation. No I'n not anti Catholic, I simply recognize things for what they are, and the following question comes to mind. Does the Catholic Church in Mexico do anything much to help these people?

As for the rest of it, all this immigration of people from Mexico is a safety valve for the government there, whomever it might be that heads it at any given time. Mexico will never act to close off illegal immigration, for that would likely cause serious problems for the government of Mexico, in Mexico.

It's sort of like when Reagfan was president asnd whomever was persidend of Mexico at the time, I do not recall, and Reagan chastized this gentleman for allowing his country to act as a shipping point for illegal drugs. The Mexican president allowed that this was true. He also noted to Reagan that "the customers are in your country, which was also true, and still is, sad to note.
 
Mexico will never act to close off illegal immigration, for that would likely cause serious problems for the government of Mexico, in Mexico.
Click to expand...
Alan, I agree completely. No, we can not count on Mexico to solve the problem. We need to handle it from this side, and on many different levels.
The border has to become just that, through a combination of physical fencing and a border control presence. I like the idea of the National Guard, but there are other ideas out there too.
In addition, we need to enact harsh penalties against American companies that continue to hire illegally. You know, if my boss grabs me on the ass he gets fired. I say if he knowingly hires an illegal, he also gets fired. If the company has a policy of hiring illegals, the top management or owners go to jail.
In addition, illegal aliens should not be allowed driver's licenses, university tuiton grants, welfare, etc. The one exception I would make is hospital emergency care. Everyone should be allowed that. However, once they are aided, then they should be deported.
Keep in mind none of the above is intended to cut into Legal Immigration. We can continue to invite in millions...those millions who are willing to come in the correct front-door fashion.
In answer to the arguement that we somehow need the Illegal aliens here...I'm not so sure. While it allows some businesses to hire workers at a sub-par wage, I do not see this as a good long term thing for any of us. But there are those who disagree. So, once these other things are enacted, I would not be against a discussion of some type of limited and closely controlled worker program. But any discussion is premature until we have effectually closed our open border.
 
In answer to the arguement that we somehow need the Illegal aliens here...I'm not so sure
Click to expand...

No Charley we don't, however government spin/media will tell you that we do, basically it's a slave labor force for the wealthy here and provides money for the wealthy in Mexico.

While small amounts of legal immigration (skilled/educated) is good large
amounts on the level we now see will not be good for this country, I'm
speaking of joe average not large companies, etc. We export manufacturing
jobs and import more people from third world countries, many
I see are perhaps 35 years of age with 4 to 5th grade education. I cannot
see this as a plus for this country. Texas now cannot provide enough schools,
property taxes at the max. and looking for new funding through gambling
or increased sales tax. Texas will become the next calif. our saving grace
is a large land mass giving us more time.

Everything has a breaking point even this great country, right now we talk
of saving social security at the same time the administration wont control
borders and talk of paying social security to illegals who worked here.

America now takes in more people then all countries combined, I guess my
question is how many can we afford, can we feed the world, be a police force
for the world, bring freedom to other countries and still maintain our quality
of life. In my opinion we cannot.
 
Charley:

We see eye to eye here. You sum it up pretty well. Basically, they should be deported immediately. If in need of emergency medical care, then we give it, bill the respective government, and then promptly deport them. Driver's Licenses? Schooling? Huh? Why are we doing that? We should be deporting them!

On second thought, I take that back. We should be building jails, jailing them for an appropriate time, and then deporting them. They are criminals, after all.

I have no problem with using military forces (Federal or National Guard) to secure our borders. That's part of what the military is for, after all. The governmental powers that be don't seem to be willing to do it, so the local people are doing it for them -- I have no problem with that, either. That is actually what is meant by the term "militia" in the 2nd Amendment: the local armed citizenry responding to a threat. Good for them. It's about time.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned . When they have one child in this country the child is an American citizen . Our kind Gubmint cannot bear is to split up a family . I would think that we could deport the illegal ones and put the kid in foster care . It would be cheaper .
 
Im telling you,we need guard towers manned 24/7 by people armed with M60's and .50 bmg's.This c*** has got to stop.I think the US should go to war over Mexico and its never ending corrupt,loser system.
 
Charley, I agree this is not always about racism, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Here's my follow up question: Alan Greenspan clearly seems to think that more, not less, immigration is necessary. I've seen several comments to the effect that this is just bought and paid for advice.

If you doubt Greenspan's picture of the facts, I'd like to know why. What makes Alan Greenspan totally out of the loop on what's good for the economy, as compared to wingman, for example?

I personally agree with the Bush plan. It's much cheaper to just recognize people who are already working, and who are not running around committing crimes, than it is to start a new program that will cost money to administer on top of the money it costs to keep a wall of guards on the border. I'm with Greenspan and the Bush team on this point.
 
It's much cheaper to just recognize people who are already working, and who are not running around committing crimes, .

uh.. we ARE talking about people running around committing crimes.
 
Greenspan is a follower.

Here's a thought: What's good for the "economy" isn't necessarily good for the American Worker. Greenspan is looking out for American interests, just not yours or mine.
 
I misread "attack by legal means" as "attack by any means"....I was about to stock up on my script meds, dig out my rifle, and head down to the border...but I guess I was just overly optimistic...would've been quite an outing, tho.
 
Uh- I believe that Shootinstudent is refering to specifically Malum In Se type crimes i.e.: Murder, assault, rape, theft etc...

I would not support any type of killing of human beings for coming here under any circumstances except to save life and in certain situations to save private property and only when the shooter is the owner of said property. There are adult ways of handling these things. Unfortunately the Government hasn't yet to figure out the most cost-effective, least coercive methods. I thank God that a lot of you haven't run out and taken the Foreign service Officer exam and passed!

As for Malum In Se, I think 99% of those laws are pure crap as are minimum wage laws that go against the laws of economics in nearly every possible way. This country spends about 60K per student to teach them to do something other than onion picking, hay stacking, and rough carpentry. If the money spent only taught you how to do something an illiterate Mexican Illegal alien can do well, then I think you should give us our money back and start picking the onions for a dollar an hour.

Happy Picking! :D
 
If you doubt Greenspan's picture of the facts, I'd like to know why. What makes Alan Greenspan totally out of the loop on what's good for the economy, as compared to wingman, for example?
Click to expand...

Perhaps Mr. Greenspan is more in "the loop" than Wingman, myself, or most of us when it comes to issues of economy. Yet I would question the assumption that he is the quintessential economic guru that sometimes he is portrayed to be. Since he has been in his position for a lengthy time, people often equate him as such. But it works both ways. If he has his finger on the pulse of America's economy, and has so much influence and power to influence it with his decisions...then the gentleman has some real explaining to do.
But really, I consider this a side topic. Nowhere in Greenspan's comments did I read anything showing support for an open door policy and uncontrolled illegal alien traffic into this country. Once again, we quietly slipped from the issue of securing our borders to issues of legal immigration and population control. While a discussion can be held on either issue, I refuse to merge the two. I realize that, on occassion, both sides in the debate have digressed toward this confusion of topic, but it is the advocates of the open-door-policy that have the most to gain by such an blurring of distinctions. Portraying supporters of a secure border as "anti-immigrant" is a key part of their strategy in my opinion. I saw it once again on the Lou Dobbs show last night, when a representative of the Puerta Rican Defence Fund implied that ole Lou was projecting anti-immigrant notions. Mr Dobbs called him on it, of course. He is in fact Pro-immigrant, nothing he had said had anything to do with legal immigration...but yet, once again the lines were intentionally blurred. I am not implying that is what you do. Like I said, we see it happen on both sides, but I do firmly believe the strategists for the open-door-policy are doing it intentionally.
So when Greenspan publically announces that he supports uncontrolled illegal alien entry into the country, then we can discuss it in context. And he might. But until then, it is not relevant.
 
If you doubt Greenspan's picture of the facts, I'd like to know why. What makes Alan Greenspan totally out of the loop on what's good for the economy, as compared to wingman, for example?
Click to expand...

I personnaly never said Greenspan was out of the "loop" on what was good for our economy, however I do doubt Greenspan's reasons at this point and time when the administration is lobbying for social security reform and work
prgrams for illegals. In my opinion in Washington it seems they wish to tie
both illegal and legal immigration under one heading.

Controlling our borders is not about race it is about numbers and safety.

After 60+ years of watching politics I tend to doubt our government when
they tell me something will be good for me. It's simply about money and
power and if something good rolls down hill good.
 
Using Greenscam's "logic" we should outsource the entire Federal Reserve Banking system to a country like Mexico - because it would be much cheaper to run that way. In fact, we could outsource the Federal government and Congress for the same reasons. That would be "good for the economy" right?

How long will it be before enough people in this country are able to see what is staring them in the face.
 
Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said Monday that the Mexican government will take legal action against any vigilante militia groups at the U.S.-Mexico border who harm or violate the rights of undocumented migrants crossing into the United States.
Click to expand...

Why don't you instead focus your time/energy/money/effort into making your country a less corrupt, economically forsaken $hithole, so that people wouldn't want to leave? Ridiculous.
 
Kjm,
Also if illegals are breaking into homes, then just like a regular US born home invader, I think society is well served by shooting them (armed or not)- although I would hate to be tried in South Texas for that!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure, but it sounds like you are saying that if somebody shot an illegal alien that was in the process of burglary or the like in south Texas, they would be “tarred and feathered” by the local population (implying the local Hispanic population?). I’m not sure that I agree, but it is certainly a very real possibility, and as a matter of fact, I can think of a couple of actual examples that support that view. Assuming that what you say is true, what exactly does that say about the attitudes, beliefs, and view of the law, among the majority population along the border? Just a thought...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top