With links this time!
- Thread starter DasBoot
- Start date
- Status
JuanCarlos
New member
No, you didn't. The person I was replying to did. He was complaining that his tax money was being used for bilingual ballots. Ballots that, presumably, are being used predominantly by citizens and not illegal aliens to vote. But whatever. My point was that there are plenty of government programs that people don't agree with yet still have to pay tax money to support. The Iraq War was my chosen example.
No, the actual war in Iraq has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The fact that I have to spend money on said war even though I don't agree with it does, since somebody (who was not you) presented a "my tax dollars" argument. I could just as easily have used high school sports or faith-based initiatives.
Or, in other words:
So I.....didn't answer your question?
Perhaps this is where you got confused:
Bad use of "you" I'll admit. If I were to change that to "one has" would this suddenly make more sense to you?
Rangefinder
New member
This kinda seems to indicate otherwise.
http://www.policemag.com/t_cipick.cfm?rank=90876
Estimates of the nation-wide numbers of MS-13 members are in the scope of hundreds-of-thousands. That is a pretty formitable number to have become organized under central leadership. And while most of what they do is confined within smaller areas under control (infultrated by) individual groups, it is no stretch of the imagination to view much of what they do as terrorist activities. Look up terrorism and see what kind of parallels might jump out at you. Seems to me they're not too far off the mark of declairing outright war on American citizens on American soil. Bin Ladin's organization managed to kill several thousand people in one day. This group kills and terrorizes every day. Just because it happens on a longer timeframe and over a larger region doesn't lessen the acts themselves.
Yes, there is a fine line between what is a domestic, police matter and what can or should be taken to a higher level. Gang activity is and has always been a police matter. But when that gang activity reaches such a scope as this, I think we need to start looking as other possibilities.
What does this have to do with illegal imigration? I'd call that reinforcements.
JuanCarlos
New member
MS-13 is not the only gang that operates nationally. And while a loose definition of terrorism might apply, it seems to me their primary goal is that of any other common gang; to make money, not to influence foreign policy or bend our society to their will. Their tactics may be a bit more gruesome, and more of their members might not speak English so well, but I still fail to see how this is a military matter and not a law enforcement one.
Also, nobody has answered my other question...what exactly is the military supposed to do that a better-funded-and-equipped Border Patrol could not? Is there some reason we can't simply expand the BP, buy them more NVG's, and maybe a few more helicopters? Is there some reason we need tanks and heavy machine guns to stop illegal immigrants?
MS13 is a vicious gang but it still doesn't qualify as an invading army. Their country of origin is trying to stop it, the Mexican government is trying to stop them as well.
It's like suggesting that the Italian mafia is an attempt by Italy to invade America. It's simply not; these people are acting independantly of their home country.
It's like suggesting that the Italian mafia is an attempt by Italy to invade America. It's simply not; these people are acting independantly of their home country.
Rangefinder
New member
I'm in agreement with you the a better funded BP could be highly effective in place of a military presence on the border. However, a large portion of the difficulty is cutting through all the red tape to make such funding available, and then implimenting it effectively. Part of our battle on this issue is putting enough pressure on those responsible for making that happen for them to act, and then follow through. The major part of that is to show undeniably how and where problems exist that illegal imigration is influencing. I'm not about to even make the imaginative assumption that every individual crossing the border has ties to MS-13 or other groups. But when a substantial portion of MS-13 members are here illegally, and until reciently entirely of hispanic origin, illegal imigration and international gang activities can be connected pretty reliably.
So then, wouldn't that qualify them as insurgents? That seems to fit pretty well with what they do in their own countries.
insurgent
noun
1. a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority
2. a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
As for here, actively targeting LEO to be killed kind of fits in my book as rebelling against the constituted authority, among other things.
I'm done!
Our 2 enablers, Redworm andf Juan Carlos(with that name, I can't imagine why he'd be sticking up for Hispanic ILLEGALS!).
In every post dealing with the immigration subject, you guys are always, in some form or another, doing/saying whatever you can to support the slow invasion of ILLEGALS into our country.
Two teens were just killed by an ILLEGAL drunk? driver in Virginia Bch.
If I say" If that ILLEGAL wasn't here, those girls would be alive today."
I have no doubt you're responce would be "Well, they probably would have been killed some other way." or something to that effect.
Apparently, to you guys, America doesn't have any culture worth retaining.
If 20 million Hispanics move in, change the culture to a Spanish one.
If Chinese, change to CHinese, etc, etc.
Personally, I consider you guys the type of spineless, pandering liberals that enable the wrong people to accomplish the wrong things in this country.
Oh Jeez! I've stooped to name calling!
But you 2, and those like you, will sit back and watch as our cities are overrun with ILLEGALS and our social services taxed beyond the limit.
I have yet, in any post on this subjexct, hear either of you voice any concern, or take a stand, on the vastly negative impact ILLEGAL immigration is having on our country.
You'll hide behind some BS that "There aren't enough stats to show that now" yet there are reams of info pointing to the negatives.
Of course you are free to your opinions, as am I.
Redworms swishy 'Oh, I'll just go in whatever direction things go" helps nothing.
As for Juan Carlos...he explained himself in an earlier thread...
Behold... the enemy within!(Term coined by Michael Savage)
I guess I've gotten this closed.
Our 2 enablers, Redworm andf Juan Carlos(with that name, I can't imagine why he'd be sticking up for Hispanic ILLEGALS!).
In every post dealing with the immigration subject, you guys are always, in some form or another, doing/saying whatever you can to support the slow invasion of ILLEGALS into our country.
Two teens were just killed by an ILLEGAL drunk? driver in Virginia Bch.
If I say" If that ILLEGAL wasn't here, those girls would be alive today."
I have no doubt you're responce would be "Well, they probably would have been killed some other way." or something to that effect.
Apparently, to you guys, America doesn't have any culture worth retaining.
If 20 million Hispanics move in, change the culture to a Spanish one.
If Chinese, change to CHinese, etc, etc.
Personally, I consider you guys the type of spineless, pandering liberals that enable the wrong people to accomplish the wrong things in this country.
Oh Jeez! I've stooped to name calling!
But you 2, and those like you, will sit back and watch as our cities are overrun with ILLEGALS and our social services taxed beyond the limit.
I have yet, in any post on this subjexct, hear either of you voice any concern, or take a stand, on the vastly negative impact ILLEGAL immigration is having on our country.
You'll hide behind some BS that "There aren't enough stats to show that now" yet there are reams of info pointing to the negatives.
Of course you are free to your opinions, as am I.
Redworms swishy 'Oh, I'll just go in whatever direction things go" helps nothing.
As for Juan Carlos...he explained himself in an earlier thread...
Thank God most Americans don't hold your vapid views.
Behold... the enemy within!(Term coined by Michael Savage)
I guess I've gotten this closed.
Hm...I thought insurgent referred specifically to those fighting against their own government like the founding fathers. I don't know if MS13 qualifies as such...but insurgent and terrorist are two different things. Insurgent and invading soldier are also two different things.
Absolutely not. I don't support illegals entering the country at all, I support fixing the system so that those that do enter do so legally and thus it's easier to keep the ones we don't want out.
Not necessarily. Perhaps those girls would have lived long, healthy lives. Perhaps they would have died the next day anyways. No one knows. We do know, however, that alcohol was a cause. Perhaps if alcohol was banned they wouldn't have been killed.
But then how would you react if they were killed by a natural born citizen? I hope with an equal amount of anger because a homicide by a citizen is no less heinous than a homicide by an illegal immigrant.
America's culture is one that has combined many other cultures. A quarter of our language comes from French. The majority of the music industry comes from blacks. The majority of our technology comes from asians, the majority of our food comes from italians, germans, french and hispanics.
We do have a culture worth preserving. That culture is one that has always accepted other cultures in order to enrich itself.
Twenty million wouldn't do it. However if 200 million hispanics move here then the American culture would evolve to reflect the larger percentage of its population. Since it already has a strong history of its own this new culture would be very distinct from traditional hispanic cultures and would strongly reflect its american influence. Same goes for the chinese cultures.
I don't see what the problem is unless you think that the american culture should for some reason stop evolving as it has been doing since its birth.
Well I'm sorry to hear that. Doesn't change my views and it doesn't make me think any less of you to believe that you're mistaken.
Not at all. I've already suggested viable solutions. I want immigrants to come here, I just want them to do so legally. That won't happen as long as the system is broken. I push for fixing the system, not swimming against the current by trying to deport people that are just going to come back ilegally because it's easier than getting line. I'll fight against illegal immigration but at the same time I'll fight against that police state that some people want to have where cops can randomly demand proof of legal status without probable cause.
Then you haven't read very closely.
No, I have a pretty clear direction that I want to go. I just think you and others are going in the wrong direction. Difference of opinions.
Yeesh. That man is an utter fool. I listen to the savage nation a few times a week and the only thing he ever gets right is that children need better diets. On everything else he's a rambling dingbat. Absolutely hilarious, though.
JuanCarlos
New member
By the way, I believe I have suggested my idea to improve/fix the issue before: increased legal immigration, as well as expanded funding of the Border Patrol. Decrease the flow by allowing more in legally, and give the BP what they need to deal with whatever is left.
Rangefinder
New member
OK, we're on page 11 now, with a very sensitive and explosive topic--that's pretty good. How about instead of taking this down the road to getting closed, lets just take a breath, cool down a bit, and then get back to a more productive flow.
JuanCarlos
New member
Fair enough, and I don't remember hearing any real arguments for allowing illegal immigrants (or anybody, for that matter) to continue drawing things like welfare.
So, assuming we cut off public assistance to illegal immigrants, then I don't see why there should be an issue.
Speaking of self-reliance...since when does the government have an obligation to protect you from competition from immigrants? To protect you from having to learn a second language? I'd think somebody who's a fan of self-reliance would have no problem with an extremely open immigration policy. If self-reliance was such a virtue, we'd have no illegal immigration problem, because we'd be letting anybody who could pass a medical screening and a criminal background check in legally.
.
I have no problem with immigration. I like many others who live in America have a problem with those who would come here and expect us to adapt to their ways.One example I keep hearing is that Muslims are offended by this and that. I say to dam bad. Thats the way it is here. I always say if you don't like it here no one is forcing you to stay and you are free to leave any time you want to. Thats what I would be told if I went to their country and you know it. When in Rome if you will. And the argument that this is a melting pot doesn't cut with most anymore. Not with me anyhow. If you want to live hear then at least show a little patriotism and learn the ways of the land and the language.America we have many customs that have long been established to the degree of this is the way of the land. Where I live we have many from refuges from Bosnia. Most all I have met are very happy to be here and are hard working and productive CITIZENS that have learned the language and the ways. Thats just one example. I'm sure that there are more. These people are self reliant. They all have jobs and the same opportunity as do the rest of us. If I go to a foreign land and expect to live there and be productive and get along then I must do the same. It's not rocket science. I hope this doesn't get you upset as that wasn't my intention. Due to all the flames in hear I say this as a courtesy. But in this country your free to read it or not.
JuanCarlos
New member
First, I've said it before and I guess I need to say it again: since when do we judge our actions and policies against those of other nations? Is there some reason we shouldn't hold ourselves to a higher standard? The "how would they react in their country" argument doesn't cut it for me.
This is not Rome. This is not Syria. This is not Mexico. This is the United States of America.
So assimilating into "American culture" and learning English are some kind of benchmark for patriotism? I served alongside several Puerto Rican soldiers who didn't really do either one (they were required to learn at least a functional level of English...but just barely, and they only did so out of requirement, not some sort of "patriotism"). Is their service less meaningful or are they somehow less patriotic?
If a legal Hispanic immigrant chooses to continue doing a majority of their business in Spanish because it's a language they're more familiar with, how does that make them less patriotic?
There are plenty of Mexican immigrants, illegal ones specifically, who are equally self-reliant. You do realize that they're not all on welfare, right?
Also, are you sure that all the Bosnian immigrants/refugees in your area have jobs and that none of them are receiving any kind of public assistance? Most people don't exactly put stickers on their door advertising such things.
Last edited:
Yes.
I thank you for your service to America and your friends as well.
Turn the other cheek so to speak ? i don't think so.
Yes I realize this. But they still need to get legal. Welfare should be a hand up not a handout.
Yes I also realize this. I don't have a problem helping someone. But there have to be limits. I can't believe that even you want them on assistance for ever.
JuanCarlos
New member
The two have nothing to do with each other. Your last two sentences don't even follow each other. There are legal immigrants (and natural citizens) on welfare, and illegals that are not. I fail to see why you keep automatically connecting the two.
Out of curiosity, do you also agree with the idea of greatly (like, order of magnitude) increased immigration quotas? Because otherwise there are simply more people who want to immigrate here than we're willing to allow, making it impossible for all those who want to "get legal" to do so. So what did you think of my idea of opening our immigration up such that we allow pretty much anybody without serious infectious diseases or a criminal record?
No, I don't. Especially not public assistance in its current form. I'm just pointing out that dependance on public assistance often has little to do with immigration status, and that plenty of native born families (mine included) depend on it from time to time. And I think when people are "forced" to work illegally (obviously they're not forced to come here, hence the quotes) then they're more likely to end up on some form of it. Also, when they're working illegally they're not necessarily going to be able to pay back their full share of taxes to help offset that, even if they wanted to.
No, not "turn the other cheek." Hold ourselves to higher standards. One implies harm done personally to you, the other simply implies a self-imposed standard of behavior.
Simply put, the actions that others might take in a given situation should not be used to justify taking those same actions yourself. You can argue that we should require people to learn English or abandon their beliefs in favor of assimilation all day long, and all I can do is disagree. As soon as you use an example of what another country would/does do, then you've fallen into a serious trap; because this can be used to justify all kinds of fun things (say, for an extreme example, executing rape victims for adultery). Our actions should stand on their own, not in comparisons to others.
You thank them for their service by...questioning their patriotism? After all, you just claimed that adopting "American" culture and learning English are benchmarks for patriotism; some of those guys still clung to their Puerto Rican culture (which certainly doesn't mirror this "American" culture people are used to) and barely learned the language.
- Status