Civil War - Page 3

Marbleheader · 04-24-2006, 08:52 PM

We wanted cheap labor but we got human beings.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060...2545-2371r.htm

The article in case link goes down is from the Washington Times By Tony Blankley
March 29, 2006

Quote:

It is lucky America has more than two centuries of mostly calm experience with self-government. We are going to need to fall back on that invaluable patrimony if the immigration debate continues as it has started this season. The Senate is attempting to legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public. The Senate Judiciary Committeemen — and probably a majority of the Senate — are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them.
National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.
An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.
Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.
I commend to all those presumptuous senators and congressmen the sardonic and wise words of Edmund Burke in his 1792 letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe: "No man will assert seriously, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of." The senators should remember that they are American senators, not Roman proconsuls. Nor is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee some latter-day Praetor Maximus.
But if they would be dictators, it would be nice if they could at least be wise (until such time as the people can electorally forcefully project with a violent pedal thrust their regrettable backsides out of town). It was gut-wrenching (which in my case is a substantial event) to watch the senators prattle on in their idle ignorance concerning the manifold economic benefits that will accrue to the body politic if we can just cram a few million more uneducated illegals into the country. ( I guess ignorance loves company.) Beyond the Senate last week, in a remarkable example of intellectual integrity (in the face of the editorial positions of their newspapers) the chief economic columnists for the New York Times and The Washington Post — Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson, respectively — laid out the sad facts regarding the economics of the matter. Senators, congressmen and Mr. President, please take note.
Regarding the Senate's and the president's guest-worker proposals, The Post's Robert Samuelson writes: "Gosh, they're all bad ideas ... We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking, many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate, many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished ... [It] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico ... The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers ? Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits ... [Moreover], [i]t's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants.
"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force." (For all Mr. Samuelson's supporting statistics, see his Washington Post column of March 22, from which this is taken.) Likewise, a few days later, the very liberal and often partisan Paul Krugman of the New York Times courageously wrote : "Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive ? As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.' " Mr. Krugman also observed — citing a leading Harvard study — "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants 'do jobs that Americans will not do.' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants." Thusly do the two leading economic writers for the nation's two leading liberal newspapers summarily debunk the economic underpinning of the president's and the Senate's immigration proposals.
Under such circumstances, advocates of guest-worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic.
When the slandered ones include not only The Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics.
The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph.
So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators — and hasten your political demise.

Dylan · 04-24-2006, 09:00 PM

I liked the plan that would grant citizenship to all illegals who have been here for ten years or more. I think guest worker visas are a somewhat bad idea, since they've obviously caused problems in Europe.

Actually, I really like Newt Gingrich's idea of granting guest worker visas which require that holders place 10% or more of the money they earn in America in an account which can only be accessed after returning to Mexico. I'm not sure how long people would have to have been here for that, or whether we should just start granting a set number of them. Making it more profitable to go back to Mexico is a great idea.

That being said, I think the flags people are waving are irrelevant. So what, it's a Mexican flag, or a socialist flag, or whatever. This is America. Freedom of speech, baby.

Marbleheader · 04-24-2006, 09:04 PM

So we can overturn the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, defeat Hitler, lead the world in scientific discoveries, have the strongest economy on the planet, but we can't deport law breakers? At what cost is rule of law anyways. If my government cannot deport law breakers than this is an invitation for anarchy.
Below is an article quoting Bush stating "Massive deportation of the people here is not going to work". How is the American public supposed to trust our government after this?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/24/D8H6GU60B.html

Dylan · 04-24-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbleheader

So we can overturn the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, defeat Hitler, lead the world in scientific discoveries, have the strongest economy on the planet, but we can't deport law breakers? At what cost is rule of law anyways. If my government cannot deport law breakers than this is an invitation for anarchy.
Below is an article quoting Bush stating "Massive deportation of the people here is not going to work". How is the American public supposed to trust our government after this?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/24/D8H6GU60B.html

The only reason illegal immigration is illegal is because the government says it is. That's a catch 22 (great book, by the way. I read it a couple of months ago).

Reagan granted amnesty, and called it that, in the 80's. America hasn't spiraled into chaos yet. I think a massive deportation would be a monstrosity, let alone the unfeasability of it.

Actually, I trust my government just fine when it comes to immigration issues. More than crazy guys with guns on the borders, anyway.

I'd be more worried about human rights abuses in black sites and illegal wiretapping. That's the kind of stuff that causes me to not trust my government.

I'm with Mark Twain. "Support your country all of the time, and your government only when it deserves it."

Marbleheader · 04-24-2006, 10:10 PM

The Mexican Nationalist Socialists are planning their anti-US pro illegal immigration assembly for May 1st. Ever wonder the significance of using this day? Check this link:
http://www.marxists.org/subject/mayday/index.htm

The 3 major forces behind the illegal aliens are MEChA,Atzlan and Raza.

Get information here:
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

Recall link for the Mayor of embattled LA:
http://www.lawatchdog.com/KissLAgoodby6329.html

Former Mexican president Zadillo addressing a Chicago audience making declarations about the Mexican border:
http://americanpatrol.com/WMV/zedill...ncontext01.wmv

A redux/alternate link of the atzlan montage with audio from the rally organizers:
http://lawatchdog.net/videoclips/aztlan_caps.wmv

http://www.americanpatrol.com/WMV/06...ection-56K.wmv

The May Day Mayday article:
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-.../s_446855.html
If it goes down:

Quote:

A May Day mayday

Subscribe
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, April 24, 2006

Armando Navarro is on the verge of doing more to end illegal immigration in America than anyone in the Bush administration. (Speaking of damning with faint praise.) But Mr. Navarro does not know it.

Even when he candidly admits that the invasion of illegal aliens will not slow even if every illegal now in America qualifies for amnesty.

Mr. Navarro, a University of California, Riverside, professor and coordinator of the National Alliance for Human Rights, is organizing an international boycott of American goods and services on May Day to pressure this republic to instantly morph the 11 million-plus illegal aliens here into legal ones.

His organization and others are asking immigrants in America to boycott work, school and community activities to intimidate the U.S. government with a show of economic and political force by "undocumented workers" and their advocates.

Latin American countries also will tell their citizens not to buy American goods, he says. It's to demonstrate international support for illegals demanding American citizenship.

"We are going to show power with incredible marches to be in concert with the struggles with immigrants in America," Navarro said when we spoke on Thursday. "We want to create multiple pressure points for Congress and the president. No other group in history did this much. Not even Martin Luther King Jr. Not even he can claim that."

True, but the Rev. King appealed to the best in Americans. He did not try to intimidate. No one waved Mexican flags during the 1963 march on Washington.

Navarro also seems to be somewhat of a security expert. "The borders cannot be secured as long as the United States needs cheap labor," he said. "It is not going to cease as long as Mexico and other Latin American countries struggle. As long as there are inequalities the influx of people will continue."

Remember that the next time President Bush or any other politician in the Beltway says that amnesty for illegals in America will solve the illegal immigration problem. It might alleviate the problem, for a while, but not eradicate it, Navarro said. "It's like the Dutch boy and the dike, only he could not plug all the pressure points."

The Mexican minimum wage -- $4 or 42 pesos a day -- is another pressure point, Navarro says.

"Ask them why they are crossing and they will say there is no work where they live; that they cannot survive on the minimum wage," he says. "The idea of coming to this country and making $10 to $20 an hour is unbelievable for them."

And it will be unbelievable if America is not frightened by this international naked challenge to its sovereignty. The only thing more galling than 11 million foreigners who are violating the law and yet want, no, make that demand , American citizenship is that other nations also will be demanding it.

If that does not motivate every American to reclaim this country then all is lost. And get used to virtual mob rule when policy in Washington is based on how many protesters march for the cause du jour.

Let's hope the boycott is an international success -- but only if it awakens this sleeping giant so it can reclaim its identity before every American is forced to learn Spanish and the lyrics to the Internationale, the anthem of workers around the world. Especially the Third World.

Dylan · 04-24-2006, 10:13 PM

If Marxists are Nazis, then red is blue.

that being said, I won't deny there aren't some crazy anti-semitic, weirdo Hispanic groups out there. The one I can think of off the top of my head is Aztlan. However, most of their contributors are legal American citizens, and it's still freedom of speech. Also, thankfully, these nutbags are a minority.

I'd quote Voltaire, but that might be overkill.

Marbleheader · 04-25-2006, 12:43 AM

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1817391.php

Dylan · 04-25-2006, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbleheader

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1817391.php

Hey, that's pretty cool.

Marbleheader · 04-25-2006, 05:30 PM

I propose some serious dialogue on the decay of the state which lays before us. This destructions core rests amidst the arguments made by the illegal immigrants. By ignoring the hypocrisy that a non-citizen is demanding their "rights" while in the process of commiting a crime and demonstrating disregard for the law we are sanctioning disrespect for jurisprudence as the contract which defines our sovereign existence. If we allow this to take place, then answer where the demands will end? What prevents any group from making a demand as long as it is done in massive turnout? May the middle class simply now take to the streets and present that they will no longer pay any taxes? Who will punish 100 million people? Right? Isn't this the beginning of mob rule? As for the plight of civilizations, it is simple...When you let a foreign entity determine the direction of your soveriegn persuasion then you no longer control your soveriegnty. If this demanding mass, who by the way are all too cowardly to attend to their own corruptions at home, gain their desires then this will spell the end of the constitution as our governing hope. We will no longer be a society ruled by law but a society ruled by men. Our constitutional heritage demands that we are not subordinate to the convenience of the moment, the unending desire to bury our heads or complain at an arm chairs distance. So what then if our own executives, the ones we have given so much to have decided to endulge their collectivist fetish of internationalist desires? For me I do not chose to "rationalize" away my nation amidst sound bytes and poorly drawn metaphors about speeding. If it is nessecary then I will chose civil war and leave our president to his newly landed charlatan horde...

April 10th 2006, the day Rule of Law became Mob Rule and ushered in a new political process.
"It is okay to break the law if enough people do it"

Article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49707

Reconquista Forum San Bernadino CA Jan 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZxawMguIU

hevusa · 04-25-2006, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marbleheader

I propose some serious dialogue on the decay of the state which lays before us. This destructions core rests amidst the arguments made by the illegal immigrants. By ignoring the hypocrisy that a non-citizen is demanding their "rights" while in the process of commiting a crime and demonstrating disregard for the law we are sanctioning disrespect for jurisprudence as the contract which defines our sovereign existence. If we allow this to take place, then answer where the demands will end? What prevents any group from making a demand as long as it is done in massive turnout? May the middle class simply now take to the streets and present that they will no longer pay any taxes? Who will punish 100 million people? Right? Isn't this the beginning of mob rule? As for the plight of civilizations, it is simple...When you let a foreign entity determine the direction of your soveriegn persuasion then you no longer control your soveriegnty. If this demanding mass, who by the way are all too cowardly to attend to their own corruptions at home, gain their desires then this will spell the end of the constitution as our governing hope. We will no longer be a society ruled by law but a society ruled by men. Our constitutional heritage demands that we are not subordinate to the convenience of the moment, the unending desire to bury our heads or complain at an arm chairs distance. So what then if our own executives, the ones we have given so much to have decided to endulge their collectivist fetish of internationalist desires? For me I do not chose to "rationalize" away my nation amidst sound bytes and poorly drawn metaphors about speeding. If it is nessecary then I will chose civil war and leave our president to his newly landed charlatan horde...

April 10th 2006, the day Rule of Law became Mob Rule and ushered in a new political process.
"It is okay to break the law if enough people do it"

Article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49707

Reconquista Forum San Bernadino CA Jan 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZxawMguIU

What about the "we were here first, nah na nah na nahhhh" defense?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode