pendejo estupido wrote:
>>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

Repeating your incoherent bullshit doesn't clarify anything.

> that US citizens call
> themselves "Americans", as you mentioned none of those other nations do. We
> make an assumption that we ARE AMERICA.

That's the kind of sophistry one only expects to hear at closing time.
Shame a tee-totaler like me has to endure it.

> 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.

WTF are you talking about now?

> The Monroe Doctrine has been supersided now by the Bush Doctrine.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

<snip>
>>>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.

The US wasn't colonizing other nations in the western hemisphere, idiot.

> 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.

You don't comprehend the Monroe Doctrine, Texas Independence,
immigration law, or anything else we've discussed. I don't expect you to
grasp the French intervention in Mexico OR the US-Mexican War.


> 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.

Wrong, you idiot. Mexico was not and never has been a US colony. Nor has
Canada, the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras,
Belize (fomerly known as British Honduras), El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, or Panama, nor any nation/state in South America. We only
have territories in the Caribbean like Puerto Rico and the USVI. We also
have use of the port at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a condition of ending
the Spanish-American War.

> 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.

Explain that to your drinking buddies. They might be more impressed by
your insight than I am.

>>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.

And what a semi-literate, low-grade moron 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.

Irrelevant issue. The Monroe Doctrine applied to nations, not individuals.

>>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.

Stop making it up as you go along. You can do that at the bar with your
drunken friends, but that won't float here. The Houston Chronicle ran a
series on the amnesty issue after its first decade. The introduction starts:
It was a grand experiment. Invite millions of illegal
immigrants out of their hidden world, then slam the door shut on
those who would follow. But 10 years later, the Mexican border
remains porous. And while some who accepted the government's
amnesty offer flourish, hundreds of thousands came out of the
shadows only to vanish again in America's dead-end culture of
urban poverty.
http://www.chron.com/content/interac...y/english.html

A little hisory lesson for you. The *law* -- not some piece of
Presidential fiat as you suggest -- was the 1986 Immigration Reform and
Control Act. It was an act of Congress which President Reagan signed
into law. Like many other policies of the 1980s, the Democrats (who ran
the House of Representatives) promised future border control in exchange
for amnesty. The law granted amnesty to illegals who could document that
they'd been in the US for at least ten years (among other things, like
functioning in society by holding jobs). The immediate effect for the
Democrats is they'd have more ethnic minorities in their voting block.
It also freed up Border Patrol and INS to actually enforce the borders
rather than investigate people who'd been here working for a number of
years.

I encourage you to read the series. I also ecourage you to read more
about the amnesty issue before shooting from your hip.

>>>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.

No. Try again.

>>>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?

Yes. A big, fat idiot.

> I am not able to employ illegals nor am I able to
> grant amnesty like the president so what are their reasons?

The text of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act is available
online. Perhaps you can read it and see what Congress had in mind, and
compare it to what Congress has actually done about the "Control" part
of the law. Hint: They backed away from it, just as they backed away
from the future spending cuts they promised when they passed the Tax
Reform acts.

>>>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?

We don't. In the aggregate, they drain every aspect of the system.
Individually, many of them do very good work and very low wages. We need
to find ways to encourage that part of it without opening our borders to
those who'll drain social services.

>>>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

Prove it, jerk off. The Justice Department is investigating now, but
nobody's proven anything yet.

> 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.

Maybe you can help INS and DoJ sort it out then, Robert.

> 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.

It isn't socialized. Either situation ($5 immigrant of $15 union guy) is
a voluntary exchange between worker and employer.

> I am all for free enterprize.

Good, even though you can't spell it.

> You want to subsidize workers then go to Cuba.

Strawman.

>>>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.

No, you dork. PLYER is predicated on the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to discrimination (not nationality
or economic necessity). The Court found that the part of the Fourteenth
Amendment that applied ("...nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") had no regard for legal
status of those within a jurisdiction. The part that's infuriated
scholars and citizens is the first part of that section of the amendment
says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the state wherein they reside."

> It's hard to give a person US
> rights if they are deported and not even in the states.

That has NO bearing on the PLYER decision. Go read it yourself, numbnuts.

> 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.

Read the ****ing decision yourself, loser.

>>>>>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.

You're talking out of your big fat ass. That wasn't your point. Look
above. I left your comments intact.

>>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?

Both...
http://www.chron.com/content/interac...y/english.html

> You want to have it both ways just as long as it is ethnocentric in origin
> for you.

We have laws, we should enforce them; if we're not going to enforce
them, change them and disband the agencies charged with enforcement.
That's the "both ways" I seek.

>>>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.

Take it up with the '82 Supreme Court. Some of those people are dead,
but a couple are still there.

>>>>>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!

No, I'm right.

> They have equal protection moron so what laws are they violating two
> face.

Equal protection only applies to programs like education and health
care, you retard, NOT to immigration law itself.

> Is it against the law for them to apply for medical benefits?

Under the host of SC rulings on the matter based on the equal protection
clause, no.

>>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,

Yes it does. We live in a free country, where we elect officials and
hold them accountable for what we want.

> it is driven by market forces.

Immigration is driven by a variety of factors. The "market force"
argument is interesting because open borders would have the effect of
reducing wages even further. That won't increase SS tax revenues.

>>Stop making up shit, you ignorant ****. Name one government program
>>which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare assistance for TB or
>>anything else.
>
> Brochers

Brochures.

> written in Spanish and taken to Camp sites by Public Health
> Officers moron.

Show me one that says, "Welcome to our country. Please come see a doctor
because you might have TB."

> They even have doctors visit them on occasion if Public
> Health personal deem it necessary.

Where?

> Looks like you completely forgot about
> equal protection and protecting the public in matters of Public Health.

No, it looks like you're ignorant about the whole subject -- just like
everything else you shoot your mouth off about.

>>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.

No, they don't apply for welfare until they have a child here.

http://www.visalaw.com/03mar3/14mar303.html
http://www.onlineathens.com/1997/112...3.a3immig.html

Etc.

> Their reliance on
>>EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem.
>
> They should go to public health clinics or public health hospitals.

That's the problem. WHO PAYS THE ****ING BILL AT PUBLIC HEALTH
FACILITIES? Taxpayers.

> 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.

Ipse dixit. You don't know anything about this. It's just like your BS
about Monroe Doctrine and everything else.

>>>>>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.

Courts interpret and apply laws. Police enforce them. The present
situation with immigration is that we have one set of laws which say
people have to go through a process to come here and work; most of them
forego that process and come here anyway; the Courts have ruled that
once they're here, we have to treat their children without regard for
other laws and taxpayers must foot the bill; police in most
jurisdictions, especially in border states like Texas and California,
don't have the resources to do the grunt work for INS. The situation is
complex, but mainly for a two simple reasons. First, the SC in its
infinite wisdom has made rulings which say we must apply programs
equally, even to lawbreakers and their children. Second, Congress has
never exercised its responsibility with respect to the "Control" part of
the act they passed in 1986.

> You really make me look stupid with your intelect.

Intellect. But you're correct. You don't comprehend SIMPLE concepts very
well, and you're completely lost when more complex ones like immigration
arise.

>>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,

It's more lame that you can't comprehend what you read, or better yet,
that you make up shit as you go along.

> now you are telling me it's not equal protection but
> illegals have priority over citizens there.

I didn't say they have priority, I alluded to the fact that they've
overburdened the system. They're not here legally, but they can get
served and use up time and resources intended for legal citizens and
resident aliens -- those who go through legal channels to be here.

> 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.

I think you'd be stunned at the changes that have occurred to various
parts of the city in just five years. It's not the brown part that's the
problem. It's the illegal part. They don't respect immigration laws, and
they often don't respect any of the other ones.

>>>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,

WAS PRESIDENT OF A UNION. Stick to the facts. You ****ed up. Admit it.
Yuu stupidly wrote that he didn't like unions, yet he was AND REMAINS a
member of one and even served as its president. You complete goof.

> after his experience as Gov of California, proudly signed
> an amnesty giving millions of undocumented aliens legal status.

He signed a law passed by Congress, which was to reform and control
immigration; it wasn't simply amnesty. Congress included future
immigration CONTROL in that law, and that control has never been
implemented.

> Make no mistake about that.

I haven't. You've conveniently forgotten the scope of the actual law he
signed. It was much more than amnesty, it was a promise to CONTROL
immigration.

>>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.

You raised the union issue, you ****ed it all up, and it had absolutely
no relevance to the discussion. Bobby Kennedy doesn't care about unions
anymore.

> Here's some of your skewed view, most media is
> conservative and not liberal. No, see how dumb that sounds.

I agree, you sound pretty dumb.

>>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.

Many union members are Republican. Indeed, they're legally entitled to
refund of dues spent for the benefit of tax-raising Democrats and other
leftwing issue campaigns (e.g., anti-NAFTA ads, etc.).

http://groups.msn.com/RepublicanUnionMembersFriends
http://www.coaflcio.org/republicans.htm
http://www.ufcw7.com/political%20Issues.htm (scroll down to the RLC thing)
http://www.aft.org/publications/ps_r...03/caucus.html

>>>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.

Which view is that, asshole? I'm interracial.

> Go to the Alamo

I go at least once a year.

> and don't forget to take your hat off

I don't wear one.

> to those great heroes who brought slavery to the
> Republic of Texas.

They brought a lot more things to Texas. Including freedom.

>>>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.

¿Qué? Mi familia es bastante.

> Most of it is hand me downs from the Alamo.
> Mexicans are treated like shit in Texas because of it.

You've apparently never been to Texas.

> 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".

Go **** yourself, pendejo.