Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
After all this time, and the words repeated over and over again and the concept to me fading rapidly, one has to laugh that anyone would even suggest there is such a thing as "comprehensive immigration reform." When one looks at all the wrangling going on in the Congress for some time it is easy to conclude that.
Employers don’t want it. They want the exploitation of the cheap labor under the guise of lower prices and to further their bottom line without any inconvenience of making any background checks for citizenship. Illegals don’t want it. They want an easy path to citizenship without obstacles in doing so. Any time law enforcement picks up illegals it is decried by the churches as interfering with their sanctuaries. Or they are labeled as crusaders as they seek the publicity. Many law enforcement agencies will not enforce the law as it is a "federal" matter, but mostly it is not "politically correct." Whenever a town or city passes an ordinance some federal judge puts a restraining order on it as "unconstitutional." It is hard to even continue building a fence in our most explosive areas of illegal border crossings without someone filing a lawsuit.
"Comprehensive immigration reform" is a laughable phrase and should be discontinued, as nothing comprehensive will ever be passed that would be remotely suitable for all the special interests.
I point out to people every chance I get the fallacy of people even using that ridiculous phrase"(Comprehensive immigration reform". IT is totally ridiculous and furthermore impossible to achieve in the present poltical climate against American citizens and for the illegals. No one cares about comprehensive. No one cares about citizens who have been complaining for eons about the flood of illegals. You have to wonder about the mindset of people like Linda Valdez, E. J. Montini, Salvador Riaz, and other columnists who perpetuate this righteousness about their touchy feely and goody goody writing toward illegals and this attitude that the illegal part of it is irrelevant. How many million times does the hypocrisy have to occur? Yes, they say: WE are against illegal immigration but, but, but, but. The only two people in the County who don't cast the illegal aspects aside are Sheriff Joe and Andrew Thomas. But their public support record means nothing to people who have a politically correct agenda.
Here are a few things plain and simple and we don't need all knids of what ifs or what about this or that for anything else.
1. They are illegal aliens, not undocumented immigrants.
2. They break the law, and as far as anyone excusing that, they come from a different mindset than I do.
3. They are NOT like immigrants of the past.
4. Quit dismissing their serious crimes as if the same crimes would happen to the same people without them here. Tell that to the wives of policemen wounded and killed by illegals and to the parents of the serial killer and rapists by an illegal in Chandler or elsewhere that "It didn't matter if they were illegal. If the illegals weren't here it would have happened anyway". That is the message, subtle or not, that is given when their crimes are downplayed as some kind of statistical garbage lumped together with other crimes. They are not supposed to be here. Plain and simple.
5. I will continue to view employers and people who continue to not try to support our laws for "politically correct" jargon as not doing their duty.
I am really sick of people using the racism card for every criticism of behavior of lawbreakers such as illegals(holding on to their skin color diatribe), and failing to understand in the slightest that citizens have a right and a duty to not take kindly to illegals for the very nature of their illegally crossing the border and their obvious contempt for America and the mockery of our laws and sovereignty.
I view employers using illegals the way they do as participating in slavery.
Hegemony Everywhere But At Home
By Paul Craig Roberts
31/07/08 "ICH" -- - What explains the fantastic amount of resources that Americans have thrown into combatting a nonexistent Muslim threat to the United States, while acquiescing to decades-long encroachment by illegal aliens?
According to economic and budgetary experts, the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq will cost Americans in excess of $3 trillion. And that might only be the beginning. Currently, the US military is violating Pakistan’s sovereignty by conducting military strikes within Pakistan’s borders, and the political regime in Washington, pushed by its Israeli overlord, has been preparing the American people for an attack on Iran.
Meanwhile, Southern California has been lost to Mexico, and Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico are not far behind. Indeed, there are now large Mexican communities almost everywhere in the United States.
How in the face of the facts did the American political mind get focused on a fabricated threat half a world away while being blinded to the cultural loss of vast chunks of US territory? Is the “war on terror” a distraction from the silent invasion that is transforming the US?
In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English; 3.9 million speak Spanish. Forty percent of all workers in Los Angeles County are illegals working for cash. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County are to illegal Mexicans.
Some people accept what they regard as the inevitable return of the southwest to the peoples from whom white immigrants stole it. But what this argument leaves unexplained is why the US government is so much more determined to impose its hegemony abroad than within its own borders?
In the United States, internal security is focused entirely on the airports. It is American citizens who are accosted, strip-searched and abused. The airport security gestapo are proud that there have been “only” 110,000 complaints from mistreated airline passengers.
Airport security claims to have “screened” two billion airline passengers, but the US government cannot keep one to two million illegals from crossing illegally into the US each year.
Neoconservative propagandists and their dupes exclaim: “We have to fight them over them before they come over here.” But between the US and Muslim countries there are many national borders and wide oceans.
Moreover, no Muslim organizations exist that lay claim to territory within the 50 US states.
There are organizations of Mexicans that claim the US southwest. Shall we invade Mexico to keep them from coming here?
The mindlessness of those who say “we have to fight them over there” is apparent. The American invasion of Iraq has displaced millions of Iraqis, many of whom will find their way “over here.” Without the invasion of Iraq, hardly any would have found their way “over here.”
I sometimes wonder if Americans have enough sense to justify their continued existence as an independent country.
Americans have proven themselves to be incapable of dealing with any threat unless it can be hyped as a terrorist one.
If the loss during the Bush regime of three million US manufacturing jobs were attributed to terrorism, Americans would get riled up.
If the inability of American college graduates to find jobs in the technical and scientific areas in which they are educated was the consequence of a terrorist plot, outraged Americans would demand action.
If the erosion of US civil liberties were due to an Osama bin Laden plot, something would be done about it.
As it is, no real American problem can be faced, because the neoconservatives and the interest groups that they serve have Americans bamboozled about the “terrorist threat” from people in distant lands, who had rather fight one another, and who have no way of reaching Americans except through the troops that we place on their territory or as displaced persons on US immigrant visas.
While the Empire seeks hegemony over distant lands, it is losing its hegemony within its own borders. But before we get all worked up over it, does anyone think the Mexicans would produce worse political leadership than what we have now?
Report Abuse