Monday, April 10, 2006

Sí, Usted Es los Criminales

Watching some of the news and I've been seeing some of the illegal protesters chanting slogans like "We are not criminals" and "Equal rights for everyone". That just pisses me off.

1) Yes, you are criminals. That's why you're called "illegals". You broke the law. Law+Break=Criminal.
2) Equal rights? What kind of waterbrain crap is that? What "rights" are being taken away? Your right to live here illegally? Your right to give this country the bird because you don't want to follow the laws?

From a Fox News article.

"This country was built by immigrants, Pittsburgh in particular," said Yinka Aganga Williams, 54, who came from Nigeria six years ago. "This is supposed to be a land of freedom, that's why they came."

I think Navy veteran Jerry Owens says it best. "What Americans are saying is 'Yes, come here. But come here legally.'

I have yet to understand why that's racist.
Filed under US/Mexico Border

Technorati Tags: , ,

22 comments:

Opinionnation said...

I agree.

by the way, I like the new look.

Za said...

Jews were criminals in Nazi Germany.

Za said...

Forgot to cover your "equal rights" objections.

In the 60s, African Americans wandered around with "Equal rights for everyone" signs, remember? Their rights weren't being "taken away" - their rights weren't being given to them in the first place.

Indian Chris said...

Well, when we start a mass genocide of Mexicans I'll listen to that ignorant argument.

And you like to keep bringing up black civil rights insinuating that I'm some kind of racist or something. There's one big difference. They were here legally, illegal immigrants aren't. Hence the term "illegal immigrant".

Za said...

Alright, I'll give you an alternate one to the Nazi/Jew argument, since the genocide was actually irrelevant to my point.

In China, Taiwan is illegal. Anyone claiming to be Taiwanese is a criminal.

And no, got nothing to do with racism. My point is that you don't have to have your rights "taken away" to want equal rights.

Yeesh - I thought you thought more than this.

Indian Chris said...

What you seem to be either forgetting or not caring about is that we're not calling Mexicans illegal. We're calling illegal Mexicans illegal. If you cross that border into the United States without the proper documentation you are a criminal.

Indian Chris said...

They're not U.S. citizens, they have no rights. What is so fucking hard to understand about that?

Za said...

Chris, you're REALLY not thinking.

I'm stating that you can call ANY group illegal, doesn't matter whether you define that group by their race, where they come from, or their beliefs. The fact that they're being deemed illegal doesn't mean that it's a fair judgement.

Britain, until very recently had a completely open border policy. There ARE other ways of doing things.

Similarly, your statement "They're not U.S. citizens, they have no rights" can be altered to apply to anything. "They're not [--insert criteria here--] they have no rights". It's not actually an argument based on principle - there's no logic to back up that statement, as to why non-US citizens shouldn't be granted rights. You're just blindly following the crowd.

I could just as easily say "Chris, you're an Okie, you have no rights" or "Chris, you're a Republican, you have no rights" or even "Chris, you're male, you have no rights". Doesn't mean that any of those statements make any logical or moral sense.

Why SHOULDN'T non-US citizens be granted rights? That's the entire reason the US was formed in the first place - as a refuge where people could be granted their rights as human beings. And even the Bush administration has said that the US constitution applies when they deal with non-US citizens.

loboinok said...

"The fact that they're being deemed illegal doesn't mean that it's a fair judgement."

"there's no logic to back up that statement, as to why non-US citizens shouldn't be granted rights."

"Why SHOULDN'T non-US citizens be granted rights?"


The short answer... We function as a sovereign nation.

Za said...

That doesn't answer the question. Britain is a sovereign nation, and it let anyone in and gave them whatever rights it gave their citizens.

And it also doesn't address the fact that the US government holds the constitution to apply to non-US citizens.

Don said...

Za, I'm guessing Chris didn't go to Oklahoma illegally. He didn't joing the GOP illegally. He didn't become a man illegally. They came into this country illegally. And screw what Bush says. He's wrong. This debate doesn't concern you in any way, shape or form. Your opinion means nothing on this.

Za said...

Don, you miss the point entirely.

Any of those could be made into illegal actions. It was illegal under Nazi Germany to be a Jew. It is illegal in China to be Taiwanese. It's illegal here in Australia to say anything bad about John Howard (our Prime Minister).

My point is that anything can be made illegal. Whether or not it's fair is another matter.

Similarly, other nations run things differently. You are following this because it's the law, not because you can justify the law.

If any of you had bothered to actually give reasons why they shouldn't be here (other than "it's illegal" - which I've just shown to be a stupid argument), then I might shut up. But apparently none of you have the presence of mind to be able to explain why you're all so highly opinionated.

And the whole "this debate doesn't concern you" crap is just a way for you to dismiss the fact that you cannot answer my assertions. In actual fact, it concerns me just as much as it concerns you. Consider me concerned.

loboinok said...

"Britain is a sovereign nation, and it let anyone in and gave them whatever rights it gave their citizens."

I don't give a flip what Britain does, we are talking about the United States of America.

"the US government holds the constitution to apply to non-US citizens."

It doesn't matter what the US gov. "holds", the constitution enumerates the "people's" rights and "restricts" or "limits" the Gov. from violating those rights.

There are federal immigration laws on the books. Those laws are valid, constitutional and active.

The fact that the gov. is not enforcing those laws, show that the gov. is derelict in its duty. Homeland Security is derelict in its duty. The ICE is derelict in its duty. The President, Congress and the courts are derelict in their duty and in violation of their public oaths.

None of that changes the law or the facts. I don't care what you believe or how badly you want it to be so.

"doesn't mean that it's a fair judgement."

We don't care that is not fair either, as long as it is just.


As for Britain, they will be suffering the same as France and all other European nations who are having illegal immigrant and immigrants that refuse to assimilate, problems.

Za said...

So you're arguing that it's "just" to throw them back to a country that can't help its own citizens due to corruption, rather than giving them a hand up?

And oddly enough - Britain has more social cohesion than the US.

loboinok said...

"So you're arguing that it's "just" to throw them back to a country that can't help its own citizens due to corruption, rather than giving them a hand up?"

Absolutely! They are a Socialist country on the verge of marxism. If they can march and protest in this country, where they are illegal and do not have the right, they can march and protest in their own country to change their government.

Americans fought and died to gain freedom and independence and to protect the same.

I'm not about to freely hand it over to a bunch of invaders that don't have the moxey to stand up to their own government but would rather cross our borders and demand that we give them what they did not earn or are not entitled to.

This applies to Mexicans, Canadians or any other nationality.

As for giving them a "hand up".

No! We are tired of giving the whole frick'in world a hand up. We prop up their economies with hundreds of billions of dollars. We send men and women to fight and die for their countries and freedoms and security. We give billions in aid and tons in humanitarian aid to help after natural disasters, wars, droughts, plagues and disease outbreaks.

We give and give and give, and in return, recieve criticism, belittlement and mealy-mouthed slander. Cries that we don't give enough, we don't care enough, we don't respond quickly enough.

We are tired of extending the hand of friendship, only to have it slapped away and be attacked and criticized.

We aren't perfect, nor are many of our foreign policies, but if there is another country out there that believes it can do better... they can put their money and troops where their mouth is.

Illegal immigration is a serious drain on our economy. Keep that in mind when contemplating a US economic collapse and the affect that would have on world markets.

"And oddly enough - Britain has more social cohesion than the US."

Thats your opinion, hold onto as long as you can.

Za said...

Actually, no, Mexico is a capitalist nation. So that suggestion is bollocks. If you'd done any research, you'd know that Mexico has a free-market economy with an increasingly dominating private sector, and has the 12th largest GDP in the world. Similarly, its government is run in a very similar fashion to that of the US. There is no nationalisation of business, there is no "socialism" there by any extent of the imagination. You either have to be utterly ignorant or utterly insane to think that.

In fact, Mexico has opened its markets to free trade like few other countries have done, lowering its trade barriers with more than 40 countries in 12 Free Trade Agreements, including Japan and the European Union. So your ignorance is astounding.

Americans fought and died to gain independence and freedom for all who want it. To quote Thomas Paine:
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemies from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

The thing you don't get is that the crime lords in Mexico have far more power than the government - and standing up for themselves would probably get them killed. So while they can protest in the US, to do so in Mexico is to have their lives threatened.

As for the rest, yes, the US does that - generally at other people's requests, not of its own will. When it does do it of its own volition, it's inevitably for its own advantage. As such, you can cite many many exampls to be sure, but you can cite very few where America did it for their own constitutional values.

And no, illegal immigration is actually a boost to the economy, because you're getting more free workers. Chris has already said - 4% of your economy is made up by illegal migrant workers.

loboinok said...

"In fact, Mexico has opened its markets to free trade like few other countries have done, lowering its trade barriers with more than 40 countries in 12 Free Trade Agreements, including Japan and the European Union. So your ignorance is astounding."

Mexico's industries are in their infancy, compared to most countries they are doing business with.
They have not taken the time to build those industries to the level of world market competition, yet they are reducing or eliminating tariffs with countries that dominate in every area of trade.

Vietnam does not have wide access to foreign markets yet their GDP raises approx. 5% a year.

Mexico's GDP is 1%.

What does that tell you?


"The thing you don't get is that the crime lords in Mexico have far more power than the government - and standing up for themselves would probably get them killed. So while they can protest in the US, to do so in Mexico is to have their lives threatened."

Well now, that just makes it all okay then.
We'll just open our arms wide for a bunch that have the courage to burn and disrespect our flag, on our soil, yet wave their flag on foreign soil, but do not cherish it enough to fight and die for it on their own soil.

If they are not willing to fight and die for their own, they will not fight and die for what they have no respect for here.

As for the rest, yes, the US does that - generally at other people's requests, not of its own will. When it does do it of its own volition, it's inevitably for its own advantage. As such, you can cite many many exampls to be sure, but you can cite very few where America did it for their own constitutional values.

You prove my point quite well... the world can not just say thank you and move on.

The U.S. always has ulterior motives and as such, our charity is tainted. All other countrie's motives are pure as the driven snow.

We have rarely had need to accept charity, but when offered, we accepted graciously and without need to question motive.


"And no, illegal immigration is actually a boost to the economy, because you're getting more free workers. Chris has already said - 4% of your economy is made up by illegal migrant workers."

In the state of Oklahoma, 25% of its prison population(37% nationwide) is illegal aliens, which cost the OK taxpayer 1.3 billion dollars per year.

In the state of California, illegal aliens cost the taxpayers 9 billion dollars a year for health care, education, prisons, welfare and all other social programs.

IF each illegal alien made 30,000 a year and IF illegal aliens each payed taxes as they should, the net gain to gov. would be 2500.00 per alien.
The COST per alien in gov.programs is 18,000.00, for a loss of 15,500.00 you do the math!

"free workers" Get real!

loboinok said...

That 1.3 billion figure for prisons is nationwide...my bad.

Za said...

Mexico's industries are in their infancy, compared to most countries they are doing business with.
They have not taken the time to build those industries to the level of world market competition, yet they are reducing or eliminating tariffs with countries that dominate in every area of trade.

And this makes them socialist does it?

Vietnam does not have wide access to foreign markets yet their GDP raises approx. 5% a year.

Mexico's GDP is 1%.

What does that tell you?

That following the free-market far-righters is bad for your economy.
Hate to break it to you, but free-market policies are the REPUBLICAN party's policies.

Well now, that just makes it all okay then.
We'll just open our arms wide for a bunch that have the courage to burn and disrespect our flag, on our soil, yet wave their flag on foreign soil, but do not cherish it enough to fight and die for it on their own soil.

Why fight and die for something that is currently corrupt and would only wind up as an ultimately futile massacre, when they can just hop a river, huh?

I don't see you fighting for your nation while it goes down the tubes.

You prove my point quite well... the world can not just say thank you and move on.
For fuck's sake! Say thank you for something the US wouldn't do of its own volition? For doing something it had to be coerced into doing?

The U.S. always has ulterior motives and as such, our charity is tainted. All other countrie's motives are pure as the driven snow.
No, but most other countries aren't QUITE as bad at ripping people off.

We have rarely had need to accept charity, but when offered, we accepted graciously and without need to question motive.
Tell me the last time you had to borrow money from another nation. Now tell me the last time you praised another nation for doing so.
Hypocrite.

In the state of Oklahoma, 25% of its prison population(37% nationwide) is illegal aliens, which cost the OK taxpayer 1.3 billion dollars per year.
And in the whole of the US?

In the state of California, illegal aliens cost the taxpayers 9 billion dollars a year for health care, education, prisons, welfare and all other social programs.
Once again - compare to the whole of the US.

The thing you completely fail to forget is that they also do the most fundamental jobs that get no pay at all. They will work for the US minimum wage because it's more than they'd get at home. Janitorial jobs. Cooking in fast-food joints. Et cetera.

Working underclass. And, in case you weren't aware, it's not generally one's nationality that causes criminality or sickness or education deficiencies - it's income. Do some research before trying to pass it off as "just that group".

Za said...

That 1.3 billion figure for prisons is nationwide...my bad.
Sorry, missed this bit - but still my question remains:
Which is what percentage of the nationwide budget?

loboinok said...

"For doing something it had to be coerced into doing?"

za, that is just bone-jarringly stupid, as is most of your other assertions, speculations, etc.


"I don't see you fighting for your nation while it goes down the tubes."

You don't see much of anything that you don't want to see.

I left the Marine Corps and Army 35 and 32 years ago.
They consider me too old or I would be there now.

Moron.

Za said...

No, Lobo, if it were stupid, the US wouldn't require the UN to request things of it. If it were stupid, the UN would very rarely have to ask the US to deploy troops here or there or deliver food or aid, because the US would already be doing it. But unfortunately, that's the rarety, and generally only when it gives the US an advantage.

And I love the way you avoid dealing with the points I raised.

Want to know the last time the US had to borrow money? Well, gee, New Orleans is being financed with European money, not by the US. For heaven's sake AN ENTIRE US CITY. But as I said - you're not doing what you expect everyone else to do, and be so grateful. You could care less.

And, the fact is that state prisons alone cost the taxpayers around $30 billion a year. $1.3 billion, sure is a large amount, but is tiny compared to the other "groups" you could point out.

Next, Hispanics are the LEAST represented by the healthcare industry. Of the 45.8 million Americans who are uninsured, 13.5 million are Hispanics.

As for education, EVERYONE adds to that cost, it's ridiculous to point to any group as being a "problem". But oddly enough 85 percent of US-born Hispanics have completed high school or higher, so that's a worthwhile investment. They're not drop-outs, so it's not a waste.

And so on.

The facts are against you, you just choose to ignore them.