"usual suspect" > wrote in message >
> First, I wrote:
> Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
> people south of our border.
Let me repeat myself or at least let me make it clear that US citizens call
themselves "Americans", as you mentioned none of those other nations do. We
make an assumption that we ARE AMERICA.

BTW, the US has no claim on Central
> or South America, and most of North America is comprised of
> Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Then you replied:
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly
> that. It has the right to do what ever it wants in the
> Americas.
>
> The Monroe Doctrine is not license or right for the US "to do what ever
> [sic] it wants in the Americas." It is very specific in its scope.

Don't make me laugh as it was used in Cuba to invade that country. That
half ass invasion brought back cuban refugees.
The Monroe Doctrine has been supersided now by the Bush Doctrine. We will
invade any country if they have WMD and if we don't find any WMD then it was
justified because "they were thinking" of getting them.
>
> > Let me rephrase what you said "European
> > colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere
>
> Wrong. The US doesn't lay claim to the western hemisphere. It had four
> elements. First, Monroe proposed that the American continents were
> "henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by
> any European powers."

Because the US layed claim to that. You can not have two colonizing powers.
Second, he proposed that nations in the western
> hemisphere were to remain (by distinction) republics by nature rather
> than monarchies (this followed on the heels of attempts of installing an
> emperor in Mexico and elsewhere).
When did the US go to war over an emperor in Mexico?
The US Mexican war was a drumed up war to gain land for the Manifest
Destiny. The US was really conconcerned about Mexico so it liberated that
land from them so I guess that worked and saved that portion of land from
falling to an emperor.
Third, Monroe stated that the United
> States would regard as a threat to its own peace and safety any attempt
> by European powers to impose their system on any independent state in
> the western hemisphere.
Not state but Republics. More importantly what were the consequences it
those other countries if they didn't listen to the US? It would go to war
to protect it's colonies.

Finally, Monroe reaffirmed that the United
> States would not interfere in European affairs.
>
> Don't take my word for it. Go read it for yourself, dimwit:

European countries established every country known in the present day
Americas.
> http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html
>
> > I was a
> > clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.
>
> No, Monroe did not lay claim to the entire freaking hemisphere. The US
> was, in a sense, protector of the hemisphere, but we did not lay claim
> to it.

Protector? what a naive idiotic you are. Slavery existed under direct US
soil. No slavery in Mexico are any of the Americas. The US brought in the
slaves. I suppose they were being protected.
>
> The jobs are here, but their families aren't. Illegal immigrants siphon
> over $9 billion a year and send it home to Mexico. Labor is Mexico's
> biggest export. It benefits the Mexican economy more than ours,
> especially when you consider the impact illegals have on our education,
> welfare, and healthcare systems.
So all the Presidents who grant amnesty are idiots. They know the numbers
and all the aguments and they have all come up with the same conclusion,
both Republican and Democrat.

>
> > Your argument doesn't make sense.
>
> Ipse dixit. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.
>
> > Why do US presidents time after time
> > grant amnesty to illegals and render them "legal". It does two things.
1.
> > it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal"
>
> Irrelevant. That in itself isn't an argument for amnesty, and it only
> explains that an action has taken place -- but not WHY it has taken
> place. Try again.

It means they are no longer illegal but legal so those terms are
interchangable.
>
> > and 2. It pomotes and
> > encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border until the
> > next president makes them legal.
>
> That may (and does) happen, but that isn't WHY it happens. Try again.
>
> > That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at
all.
>
> You're a ****ing joke. I encourage you to review the following list of
> logical fallacies. See if you can figure out the ones that apply to your
> statement of "reality."

Calling me an idiot? I am not able to employ illegals nor am I able to
grant amnesty like the president so what are their reasons?

>
> >
> > A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of
workers
> > the less money that government has to spend.

> But, again, you're just plain wrong. Revenue has nothing to do with the
> number of workers.

Ok, smart guy so why then do we need illegals here?
>
> > Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart.
>
> Neither does Walmart. Some of their contractors did. It's only a
> question if Walmart actually knew about it, or approved of it.
they knew about it because of bids to do the work they undercut with low
wages and go with that like any business would. They turn the other way.
area find work for
> sub-contractors in the building trades, landscaping, and other such
> labor. They do a good day's work for much less than what many others
> require, especially if union workers demanding scale. You say they don't
> hurt anyone. Tell that to someone who doesn't get as much work, if any,
> for $15 an hour because someone working off the books and here illegally
> will do the same job (and just as well) for less than minimum wage.

Socialized work. I am all for free enterprize. You want to subsidize
workers then go to Cuba.
>
> > This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an illegal act
to
> > enter this country without documentation and any illegals should be
> > deported. What part don't you understand in that simple concept.
>
> I *do* understand that concept. Go ask the ****ing Supreme Court why
> *they* don't get the concept.
>
> > You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals because they are
needed
> > here.
>
> That's *not* why the SC mandates that states apply programs to them.
>
> > Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they could
> > have ruled any way they wanted.
>
> Actually, I'd say that they're supposed to rule on the basis of the
> Constitution, but it's clear that they don't do that very often.
>
> > Did they ever rule slavery as
> > unconstitutional? No.
>
> Irrelevant issue.
>
> > They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals
> > are needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their children had a
right
> > to go to school. There is no other way to see that.
>
> Yes there is: the right way. The Supreme Court has based their decisions
> about illegal immigrants (children and adults) on case law, not on
> economic necessity. See PLYER V DOE, 1982. The Court's decision was
> based on equal protection of individuals.

Yes, equal protection of mexican citizens. It's hard to give a person US
rights if they are deported and not even in the states. Lets see what if we
place them in Guantanamo base do they still have rights? No, the courts
ruled so you deport them. Are deportations illegal?
You are full of it.
>
> >>>Medical care, we don't want
> >>>infectious diseases spread
> >>
> >>That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
> >>could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
> >>come here legally.
> >
> > That's true so why do we provide it then?
>
> Hospitals used to deny medical care to illegal aliens. One of them sued
> a hospital. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that
> aliens were ENTITLED to the same treatment as legal citizens. I don't
> recall any of the relevant cases, but I believe most of them use PLYER
> as precedent and use the same equal protection finding.

No distinction between legal and illegal my point exactly.

> We used to deport pregnant women. Border officials still try to herd
> pregnant women back across the border. Once they're here, and once they
> give birth, their child is a ticket to welfare and other benefits, as
> well as citizenship for the entire family.

I thought they were taking jobs. Which is it? Are they all on Welfare or
are they taking jobs away from citizens?
You want to have it both ways just as long as it is ethnocentric in origin
for you.

> > That is my
> > whole point as there is no difference in the courts or out in the
streets as
> > to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
> > illegals but by the US.
>
> Bullshit, ipse dixit.
Yea, I meant to say the BS you say mainly "equal protection". What a bunch
of legal double talk.
>
> >>>Most
> >>>of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
> > that
> >>>they never see again.
> >>
> >>They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
> >>legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws.

Wrong! They have equal protection moron so what laws are they violating two
face. Is it against the law for them to apply for medical benefits?
> First, the Court doesn't enforce laws; the Court interprets laws. The
> Supreme Court has never made a finding that our immigration laws are
> unconstitutional, nitwit. They HAVE found, for whatever reason(s), that
> entitlement programs must be operated without respect for legal status.
> Many of us find that inconsistent, as well as very expensive. I
> encourage you to read about immigration issues. The following site has
> some very helpful information, but they *are* activists who want less
> (not zero) immigration.

It doesn't matter what you want or what I want, it is driven by market
forces.
> Stop making up shit, you ignorant ****. Name one government program
> which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare assistance for TB or
> anything else.
Brochers written in Spanish and taken to Camp sites by Public Health
Officers moron. They even have doctors visit them on occasion if Public
Health personal deem it necessary. Looks like you completely forgot about
equal protection and protecting the public in matters of Public Health.

>
> Illegals usually wait until something's gone out of hand to go to an
> emergency room. They're afraid of deportation.
Which is it? They are afraid to go and apply for services because they
might get caught or as you stated earlier that they apply for every benefit
including Welfare? Again, you want it both ways just as long as it conforms
to your arguments.

They're reliance on
> EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem.
They should go to public health clinics or public health hospitals.
One-third of the Texas
> state budget now goes for public health care expenses. ER bills of
> aliens are usually picked up by taxpayers. States aren't reimbursed for
> this by the feds.

And the answer is to go to them as the public health officers do and inform
them that they can not be deported for health concerns and the cost will
decrease for hospitals. That is the Aim of Publich Health Departments.
>
>
> >>>If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border
patrol,
> >>
> >>He used to do that.

Lets see here the Courts don't enforce the laws bright one and now you tell
me police don't. You really make me look stupid with your intelect.
>
> Not bull, you bitch. I live about 200 miles from the border. Parts of my
> city are no longer distinguishable as an American city. Every
> convenience store does Mexico cash transfers for illegals. Many citizens
> are turned away from ERs this time of year because the illegals have
> inundated them. Etc.

That's pretty lame, now you are telling me it's not equal protection but
illegals have priority over citizens there.
I find that hard to believe that a city close to Mexico doesn't look like an
American city. Some even have Spanish I'll bet, that's pretty shocking. The
brown hords inundating you.
'
> > Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for presidential
legal
> > amnesty especially during the boycott years.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> > You got to be kidding.
>
> No, I'm not. You haven't supported any of your bullshit >
> > Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how much would that
> > cost at $20,000 a year.
>
> Idiot. We don't imprison illegals unless they commit other crimes. We
> deport them.
>
> >>No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
> >>(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.
> >
> > Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal status by
the president.
> > sign of the presidential pen.
>
> No, clueless dolt. They have green cards because they go through INS
> processing. You're confusing green cards and visas with amnesty. A green
> card isn't amnesty. It's a legitimate step to citizenship.
>
> http://www.us-immigration.org/
>
> >>>Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers
> > Union
> >>>and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
> >>
> >>What's your source for this information?
> >
above, so I
> don't expect you to support any below.
>
> > I marched with Mr Chavez.
>
> Sure you did.
>
> > There was no protection
> > of union organizers and if you didn't know that Mr Conservative did not
like
> > unions.
>
> He was president of one, asshole. It was called the Screen Actors Guild.

President Reagan, after his experience as Gov of California, proudly signed
an amnesty giving millions of undocumented aliens legal status. Make no
mistake about that.
> Maybe you forgot that while emoting over shit you don't comprehend.
>
> > Let me give you a clue here as most Republican conservatives don't
> > like unions. Shocking isn't it.
>
> Why did all those union voters overwhelmingly vote for Reagan in '80 and
> '84?
>
> > Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he was not a
> > Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker, Democrats like unions.
>
> Why do Democrats raise taxes on union workers so much?
Don't like the observations OK then switch the two and then start laughing
at how dumb it would sound. Here's some of your skewed view, most media is
conservative and not liberal. No, see how dumb that sounds.

> You're wrong regardless. Reagan was president of SAG, a union. He had
> nothing against them. Many union members are Republican, and they help
> elect GOP candidates. Democrats like unions because those high union
> wages are taxable despite all the fawning about being for the common man.

Yea sure, most unions and union members are Republicans. LOL.

> > There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and after the fight
was
> > won you enslaved them.
>
> I didn't enslave anyone. I was born well over a 100 years later.

You are a slave of your own ethnocentric view. Go to the Alamo and don't
forget to take your hat off to those great heroes who brought slavery to the
Republic of Texas.
>
> > Even after letters from leaders for their freedom.
> > It never mentions that at the Alamo does it?
>
> WTF does that have to do with anything in this thread, much less your
> rambling posts?

YOU DON"T LIKE MEXICANS. Most of it is hand me downs from the Alamo.
Mexicans are treated like shit in Texas because of it.
Thank God you stopped lynching them. All that's left is pseudo logic trying
to hide your racist view. Just be honest and say you hate Mexicans and send
them all back and then your city will look more "American".