Illegal Aliens Voting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Well it's getting close to voting time again. And while there have been whines from the Democrats that Bush did not win the election fair in square in Florida. Because convicted felons and others were blocked from voting. I'm sure that was more then made up for if it's true, by all the illegals that voted in Florida and Nationwide for the Democrats. As usual they point the finger with the thumb stuck up a very unflatering place, and 3 fingers pointing back at themself.

Do you have voting ballots in Spanish in your voting district? Does it also happen to be heavily Democratic?

One of the requirments of being able to vote is being a citizen supposively and one of the requirments to gain citizenship is knowing English. This is negated by the Motor Voter Bill Passed in '93 by Congress. Which gives states the option of asking for photo ID and proof of citiznship Showing what happens when attorneys run a society, you have lots of laws and no order.

My question is, what is the Catholic Churches stance on illegal aliens? I mean let's not pick on them, I too would rather live in the US then Mexico. Let's talk about the pond scum, I would beat around the Bush (no pun) Democrats and Attorneys that set this thing up to secure a sure power base. Do you think this has any corrilation with why an evasion of illegals is so out of control? Nhhhaaaaa!

But while the Catholic Church probably takes the stance on illegals something along the lines of "everyone should be allowed to become a citizen from anywhere." This people totally avoid becoming citizens and in some cases get more privledges from it. Does the Catholic Church have an opinion on this, besides the one I assumed? What's yours?

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004

Answers



-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.

Please don't tell us what ''stance'' the Church probably takes. And don't make assumptions about what __this people totally avoids__; or anything about them. It's a definite problem. The Church can't solve it. If some illegals are ''voting'' or not, you wouldn't find a sound statistic to prove how many or a method of dealing with it. My private sense of this is, not many vote. What illegal voting takes place is hardly limited to the actions of a tiny minority of non- citizens.

Besides, we know many CITIZENS in this country are too apathetic to cast a vote. Their number surely trivializes any harm done by illegals, who are too scared to expose themselves in any way to the law. Simple logic should show you this.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 21, 2004.


I don't know the Churches stance on the issue. And I would think that not being allowed to ask for ID's and putting ballots in Spanish, would be a welcoming for them. They do get great benifits, and they would vote for what ever canidate or party promises this to continue. This is why when Gray Davis was about to be outed he started offering illegals ie non citizens driver's licence. He knew it was a large voting base in places like Southern California.

Please bring more then assumptions, please have the courtesy not to waste our time with your emotionally based drivel.

-- (x@y.z), September 21, 2004.


Welcome back eugene!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 21, 2004.

Look at your own post, You show a very emotional reaction to illegal immigrants. It's close to hatred, or at least disgust. Don't believe it when the rabble rousers accuse them of ''voting illegally''. You have no clue.

They are human beings and never take anything away from you, for you to be so negative. You mention how they benefit from this economy; yet you ignore the fact they are all taxed. Every purchase they make contributes to our tax base. This in addition to supplying cheap labor. So; they aren't all getting something for nothing. They work for their food and lodging. In no way am I apologizing for undocumented immigrants. I wish they could be controlled. If you know a charitable way to do it, tell us about it. But try to keep your bigotry out of sight.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 21, 2004.



Thanks, Brian, for the welcome. I've been keeping an eye out, but didn't see many interesting threads. Things are picking up.

I've been in other forums lately, mostly discussing the presidential campaigns. More fun, actually, than discussions about annulments, etc.,

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 21, 2004.


Eugene, I will post my comments to your statment.

Don't believe it when the rabble rousers accuse them of ''voting illegally''. You have no clue.

According to the Washington Times, dated 23 Aug 2004,it is estimated that 8-10 billion illegals vote every year. The Border Patrol estimates that 20% of the votes cast in Fla. are from illegals.

They are human beings and never take anything away from you, for you to be so negative. You mention how they benefit from this economy; yet you ignore the fact they are all taxed. Every purchase they make contributes to our tax base. This in addition to supplying cheap labor. So; they aren't all getting something for nothing. They work for their food and lodging.

The tax money does not come close to paying for the welfare and medicaid they receive. They send their money home, it does not stay here in the states. So in fact, this "cheap labor", is not cheap.

In no way am I apologizing for undocumented immigrants. I wish they could be controlled.

It's simple; seal the borders, send the illegals already here back. Have them apply for legal status.

If you know a charitable way to do it, tell us about it.

Have you seen the amount of aid tax payers send to these countries? Add to that the aid sent by churches and it is in the hundred billions!

But try to keep your bigotry out of sight.

No bigotry here...there are right ways to enter this country. Thanks, Roger

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


Benvenido, Eugene, al foro. Se te extrañaba . Yo viví algún tiempo como "alien" en E.U.A., pero ni nunca trabajé, ni tampoco voté, ni nunca violé ninguna ley del país que me recibó amablemente. No sé por qué razón algunas personas piensan que por no ser ciudadanos americanos los que llegan a ese país o son ignorantes, o personas de segunda clase, o francamente malvivientes. Se supone que en un país como EE. UU. con un sistema educativo tan bueno las gentes tendrían un poco de conocimiento y aprecio acerca de la historia y la cultura de los que ahí llegan, pero yo mismo fui testigo de la intolerancia, el rechazo y hasta ataques verbales contra los negros o gentes de otras etnias.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.


One of my husband's and my dearest friends came to the USA from Mexico. Things were not good for him and his family, so he crossed the river and walked right in. My husband gave him a job on our farm and paid him a fair wage and I and my daughters helped him to learn to read and write english a bit better (He spoke it fairly well.). We also helped him to become a legal citzen (this summer it was official!). He has sent for his mother and 3 sisters to come here to live and we will do what we can to help them as well. I know there is a problem with the illegals and I am not sure what to do about it. Most of them just want a better life for themselves and their families, and they know they can find that here. I also know that hatred is not going to solve this or any other problem. Have a glorious day and God bless!

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 22, 2004.


Suzanne, My disagreement does not equate to hate. There are way to enter this country leaglly. Thanks, Roger

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


Hi, Roger. I mean hate in general. I wasn't specifically talking about you. I know some of them are treated shamefully when they are found. I do, however think that all people should have I.D. checked before voting to make sure that you are a citizen of this country. That is only fair to the people who are citizens. And those who are not citizens need to go about legally becoming one before they benifit from our government and before being allowed to vote. If they are truly serious about wanting to make a life here they would do like our friend did and get a work visa and ask around for work.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 22, 2004.


Suzanne,

I agree, but the problem with illegals voting starts at the registration point. There is no verification performed. During my 21 years in the Army, I witnessed hundreds of men and women from around the world work to become citizens. They studied english, U.S. history and took grammer courses to be prepared for the day they became legal citizens. What was more impressive was they held their children to the same standard. Illegals impose a large burden on the US tax payer. Studies show 25-33% of state and federal prisoners are illegals. Strange thing, but none were jailed for being here illegally. Most were on drug and weapon charges.

-- roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


That is really sad, Roger, but how do you propose we correct this problem? I still hold to the idea that we don't make it easy for them to just come and "live off" welfare like food stamps amd medicaid. We need to help the ones who are here for a better life to become productive citizens and those who are getting arrested on drug or weapon charges (or other charges for that matter;public drunkeness, fighting, ect...), send them back.

Thanks and glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), September 22, 2004.


Suzanne,

No plan will work over night, but I think we should;

1. We must seal our borders. 2. We must pressure Mexico and Canada to police their side of the borders. 3. Send known illegals back now. 4. A major shake up must occur with the INS and Border Patrol Departments. 5. Stop the marry a citizen, bring family to states, get a divorce game.

Just my humble opinion.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


Not very humble, Roger. Stop this, stop that. Let me ask a simple question: How many borders have you ever sealed ? ? ? If we could, we would. Stop the ''marry'' etc., --is absurd. Nobody ''marries'' for citizenship, only to divorce afterward. ''Pressure'' Mexico and (!) Canada,-- Have you ever pressured Mexico and canada? Explain HOW. You want a major ''shake-up''. That's wonderful. Let's do it. ''Send known illegals back?'' We already do that. In fact, the only illegals who never got sent back were our own Texans, who invaded a Mexican territory and now call that the Lone Star State. (Lucky for Mexicans who were born there later on.)

I'm a native-born hispanic American whose ancestors colonized New Mexico before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. I don't feel bad about the mass immigration that took place of our Spanish-Mexican territories by Anglo-Americans in the early 18th century. I do feel bad now as I see so many of them treating hispanics with open contempt. Make no mistake about it; it's mostly racial bias. Nobody's stealing anything you owned first.

The ''estimates'' you quote, about how much is lost to Mexican illegals, could be accurate. Or could NOT be. The love of MONEY shouldn't determine our attitudes toward a neighbor, should it? I estimate these fine people contribute many great intangible benefits to our society.

I realize they're breaking the immigration law. America has come full circle, it appears. Let us pray for wisdom and for God's grace. No one knows what the future holds for us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 22, 2004.



Eugene,

Thanks for judging me. I can feel the love. Here is my response.

I have helped seal two borders, North and South Korea, and the former border between East and West Europe.

Your statement; "Nobody marries for citizenship", is incorrect. Matter of fact, check out the Asian population in Houston and ask them.

I have not pressured Mexico or Canada, but I bet if the US started cutting aid to these countries they would be more willing to police their side of the border.

If you cant see how cumbersome and bloated the INS is I dont don't what to tell you, except go ask some one how long it takes to process a Visa request or how many mistakes are made when people file for residence. Also coordidtion is greatly lacking between the two agencies.

We do not send illegals back. Matter of fact New York and Florida stopped asking for green card and Visa's.

Racial bias is not a factor for me.

The estimates I quoted are for all illegals, not just Mexicans.

Love of money is not a determining factor in enforcing laws.I refer you to my previous statement on the amount of aid given by faith based groups to our neighbors.

As far addressing your stealing statement; what is it when illegals take entitlements they are not entitled to?

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


My, but you're ready with all the answers, Hmmm?
--You sealed NOTHING. You talk a good game. The U.S. gives ZILCH in ''aid'' to Mexico, Sir.

'' . . . Check out the Asian population in Houston and ask them?'' What for? I'm referring to illegals from Mexico, who by & large are Catholics. They don't come here to marry for citizenship. If you thought that, forget it. ''What is it when illegals take entitlements they are not entitled to?'' OK; it's benefiting from our public programs. Most of them put it back into the American economy in time. At least as well as some of our own freeloading citizens do.

They come here mainly to WORK, Roger. These people pick the farmers crops for a pittance. They wash our cars, do our gardening. Those who clean and serve and mop for a living also pay taxes. They buy goods, and pay rents and/or mortgages. You may think they're all freeloaders, but you may be wrong. And you're very wrong about their voting illegally. It's a figment of your uncharitable imagination. The so-called estimates you cite are just guesses. I would mainly worry about your own vote.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 22, 2004.


My, but you're ready with all the answers, Hmmm?

Thanks, I do try to stay infomed.

--You sealed NOTHING. You talk a good game.

You are wrong, we have and still do seal borders. No brag, just fact. Just my opinion, but you do a diservice to Soldiers out there getting it done. Bad mouth me if you like but don't bad mouth our Soldiers. I seriously doubt you could carry their ruck sack.

The U.S. gives ZILCH in ''aid'' to Mexico, Sir.

Once again you don't have the correct info. Here is the site and the numbers. http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eataglance1.htm Foreign Aid from USAID (in millions of dollars) Category FY 2001 (Actual) FY 2002 (Actual) FY 2003 (Prior request) FY 2004 (Request) Development Assistance 7.885 7.715 12.165 12.265 Child Survival and Health Porgrams Fund 5.987 5.509 6.200 4.976 Economic Support Funds 6.178 10.000 12.000 12.000 TOTAL 20.050 23.224 30.365 29.241

'' . . . Check out the Asian population in Houston and ask them?'' What for? I'm referring to illegals from Mexico, who by & large are Catholics. They don't come here to marry for citizenship. If you thought that, forget it.

I am refering to any and all illegals. It does not matter where they come from or their faith...they are illegal.

''What is it when illegals take entitlements they are not entitled to?'' OK; it's benefiting from our public programs. Most of them put it back into the American economy in time. At least as well as some of our own freeloading citizens do.

We spend way more per person they will ever pay.

They come here mainly to WORK, Roger. These people pick the farmers crops for a pittance. They wash our cars, do our gardening. Those who clean and serve and mop for a living also pay taxes. They buy goods, and pay rents and/or mortgages. You may think they're all freeloaders, but you may be wrong. And you're very wrong about their voting illegally. It's a figment of your uncharitable imagination. The so-called estimates you cite are just guesses. I would mainly worry about your own vote.

The fact is they are illegal! Why can't they come here leagally? I never called any one a freeloader...you seem to be the only one calling names. These are not "so called estimates", they are facts complied from studies and surveys...which I note you dont quote any to back up your side of the story. Any time there is illegal activity that involves an election, it is every citizens duty to report it and stop it.

By the way...have you seen how Mexico seals their southern border...does it bother you they kill or inprision South Americans that cross there? Seems like a double standard dont ya think?

If you can come up with something rational to support illegals please post and I will answer. But if all you can do is bad mouth or use here say, Im done with this thread. Thanks, Roger

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.


This is begging the question; after which you sound a retreat:

''Facts'' compiled from studies and surveys--? Call them facts after you prove some of them, Sir. Not after you read a survey.

I never denied that they come illegally. I stated up front it's a bad problem. But to me these aren't ciphers, they're human beings. You may think they are, too. But it's always the bottom line that bothers you. They 'cost'' you! --What a crock! Have you given up a vacation or a new SUV along the way because some tomato-picker made it safely into California? I doubt it. Is the fact his kids eat daily and go to public school keeping you from sending you own to college? Very unlikely. Does that man pay for his own groceries, or do you pay for him?

It's a lie that Mexico ''kills'' illegals coming in from South America. Yes, they do stop illegal immigration and enforce the law. We've done it along our own borders for many decades. But it's become a traffic. Regretably, the solutions suggested by people like you are inhumane. I've yet to see from you, Roger, any sensible way of changing the situation. We can't place land mines along our border, or fire at will. This is not North Korea. (The border you sealed. In a pig's eye.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 22, 2004.


They may have come here illegally, but that doesn’t make them “illegals”. There is no such thing as an “illegal person”. Did your ancestors get permission to come here from the Native Americans?

Eugene, I’m gratified that you now recognize that there is such a phenomenon as racism.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” – and Roger will send them straight back whence they came!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 22, 2004.


But while the Catholic Church probably takes the stance on illegals something along the lines of "everyone should be allowed to become a citizen from anywhere." This people totally avoid becoming citizens and in some cases get more privledges from it. Does the Catholic Church have an opinion on this, besides the one I assumed? What's yours?

This is an interesting article on catholic teaching about illegal immigration. As usual, there are contradictory statements and actions from different popes and councils. Nothing is cut and dried. Catholic Teaching on Immigration

Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, when there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there (Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris).

But what about illegal immigration? While Popes back to Pius XII have advocated a right to immigrate, especially from political persecution, they did not advocate breaking laws, to my knowledge. But Cardinal Mahoney, who presides over the archdiocese with the most illegals in the U.S. seems to feel differently. If the question is between the right of a nation to control its borders and the right of a person to emigrate in order to seek safe haven from hunger or violence (or both), we believe that the first right must give way to the second (Cardinal Mahoney, 1987).

But as the article notes, immigrants are expected to learn the language of the host country and assimilate. And often, immigration may deprive the country of origin of talent and manpower while creating labor disruptions, weakening trade unions and creating income inequality in the host country.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 22, 2004.


Wow, don't know what happened to my post. It got cut off at the beginning. Oh well. Not going to take the time to re-create it. But here's the link...hopefully

Catholic Teaching on Immigration

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 22, 2004.


“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” – and Roger will send them straight back whence they came!

Steve,

Why take such a cheap shot at Roger (and at eugene)? Do you advocate unlimited immigration? Do you feel that governments have no right to control their borders?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 22, 2004.


Brian, no I don’t advocate unlimited immigration. But I think our country is a long way from reaching its limit. And I do think it’s remarkable that many people who are adamant that national borders must not at all restrict the flow of trade, money and corporate activities, demand tight restrictions on the flow of PEOPLE, who overwhelmingly, migrate not to get welfare or free medical care, but in order to find WORK – usually work that the people in the place they migrate to refuse to do.

I was just (humorously I thought) contrasting Roger’s attitude with the attitude of mass immigration that the USA was built on. It wasn’t a cheap shot at Eugene, it was a compliment. Previously he had argued that “racism” was little more than a meaningless straw-man invented by liberal university professors. He is now facing up to the reality of it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 22, 2004.


Haha!

Steve; Did I previously argue that “racism” was little more than a meaningless straw-man invented by liberal university professors? All you were told was, I'm not a racist.

You decided I was. I say I am not. Today you see the truth. I can argue in defense of foreign citizens coming here undocumented, and still not denounce you or other white anglo-saxons. The reality is that I don't discriminate. You and I disagreed about Muslim culture and its perverse influences, I stand opposed to Muhammad, the false prophet; you uphold him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 22, 2004.


Gee I’ve really missed you Eugene,…not. Nobody else can turn a compliment into an argument like you can. You know very well that I do not uphold the false prophet Mohammad, and I am not a white anglo- saxon. And yes maybe you’ve forgotten it but that is exactly what you said about racism. Today you see the truth about racism, and I’m glad you do, even if it’s only when it’s directed at your own race.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 23, 2004.

Ah....excuse me for a minute while I bask in the glow of Eugene's and Steve's love.

Eugene, you refuse to belive the truth. Mexico is locking up or killing people from Guatemala, for doing what Mexicians are doing on the US border. The fact is illegal's (no matter where they come from), take from every tax payer,they tie up law enforcement and clog the INS, taking away from the people who are trying to enter legally! I have provided links to support the facts I presented....while you chose to spout snide and juvenile comments. I have offered solutions, while you hurl insults...Which leads me to conclude you must be around 10-12 years in age. Perhaps when you complete puberty we can go hump the border between the Korea's...providing you can carry a ruck.

Steve, I never said people entering this country illegally were not humans. The fact is they are here illegally. There are ways to enter here legally.

Guess I better E&E on outta here...with all this love I might get soft.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.


In the midst of all the arguments presented, maybe this could be helpful:

U.S. Archbishop Reflects on Spiritual Contribution of Latino Immigrants May Help Country “Recover Its Soul” DENVER, AUG. 29, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Colorado said last week that the arrival of Latinos to the United States may help the country to "recover its soul." The Archbishop expressed this conviction at a meeting to which he invited, among others, bishops of the southern border with Mexico and businessmen of the area. Archbishop Chaput, who is also pesident of the U.S. International Commission for Religious Freedom, said that "North American life has lost its soul" and that "the Latin Americans can change this." Addressing businessmen and public opinion leaders of the southern United States, the archbishop insisted that, rather than an obstacle, Latin American immigration should be considered an opportunity for the nation to grow spiritually. The Latino population has grown exponentially in the United States over the last decade. According to the latest White House survey, it is now the first ethnic minority of the country, surpassing the African-American population. According to statistics, there are 42 million Latinos in the United States, not counting the illegal immigrants, who also work, produce and consume, but are not reflected in the population census. The archbishop said that 31 percent of the Denver population is of Hispanic-American origin. In ten years it has grown by 73 percent. "The whole of North America is changing and the Latino population will shape the nature of this change. The Latin Americans can bring a Catholic sense of family, of community, a Catholic love for life, generosity and respect for the dignity of the person," he said.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


The problem Roger that when people say illegal they always think Mexican. You just reinfornce people's stereotypes.

What about Chinese, Armenians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indians (from India), Arabs, Poles, Ucranians, Russians,....

The USA took our land (We are part Native American too), after we allowed them to come to Texas, California,...with open arms.

Like the old saying,

"Les das la mano y te agarran los pies".

The problem they not only pulled our feet, they now accuse us of coming here illegally? Be serious. You took our land.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.


I do not agree with Archbishop Chaput that the U.S. has lost it's soul. I do agree that immigration will enrich our country...but it must be legal.I would also add we should remove the lottery system we placed on Europe for immigrating.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.

Elpido,

It's clear you have not read my post...I am for legal immigration...no matter the country of orgin. Others have steered the thread to Mexicans.

It seems ironic you bring up the Mexican War and the U.S. annexing Texas and Califorina... Mexico's governor in California, Pío de Jesus Pico (North America's first "black" governor -- actually part Indian, black and European) wrote of California being threatened by "hordes of Yankee emigrants" whose wagons had scaled the Sierra Nevadas. Pico complained of the Yankees "cultivating farms, establishing vineyards, erecting mills, sawing up lumber, building workshops and a thousand and one other things which seem natural to them but which Californians neglect or despise." Mexico was not rushing in settlers of its own, and Pico, speaking for California's Mexicans rather than its Indians, asked whether they were to "become strangers in [their] own land?"

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.


Nothing wrong with legal immigration, Roger.

We are familiar with the few legally documented from over the border. Techs, teachers, college educated in Mexico. Well-to- do families who settle in a nice neighborhood, drive cool cars. I've known many of them. They come here as resident aliens to work. Then they are naturalized. They play by the rules.

But what about those ''poor, huddled masses?'' I mean a day laborer from the provinces. He comes to work as a bus boy or fruit- picker. When he arrived, he soon found out where the undocumented farm workers meet in the morning. Or lived in a barrio where no one cares if he's documented. Can you picture this man waiting at the embassy with 500 other poor people, in hopes of a temporary passport? So he can come to Texas or California to work out in the sun all day?

He will never own his own BMW, my friend. All he wants is some menial work. Those jobs which Americans refuse to do. You seriously think this poor guy should get himself legal status for that? Maybe he should.

But you wouldn't do that in his place. Be honest.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 23, 2004.


Eugene,

I do want to help the people that want to come here. I also believe they must be legal. I do believe we must start with a clean slate. As I stated in an earlier post, the INS needs a major over haul! I have personally taken young men to INS to apply for a VISA so they could enlist in the Army...the red tape is incredible! Then mistake after mistake was made. I would also suggest Mexican officals assist those wanting to come here...help with forms, information and contacting INS.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.


The real problem is/are all of the "hyphenated Americans". I remember when people used to say "I am an American of such-and-such descent". You don't hear that any more. More and more it is the ethnic group (whatever it is) first, and the "American" last. Fewer and fewer people even make the effort to learn English when they come here--it is not uncommon to see 4 and 5-year olds translating for their parents at the stores--same people for MONTHS. Folks, it is not that difficult to learn basic "survival" words/sentences in any language, you can do that just by listening to others and within a month.

I believe we can all be proud of our heritage, but do it the right way, instead of trying to turn the US into the wretched place you (general you here) just left.... We do need a Federal English Only amendment for all government operations, it would really help to get people all on the same page again. No ballots in any other languages. Only in the US do people move here and want everything done "their way"....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 23, 2004.


Dear GT: I know Mexican families that started here as illegal immigrants, and now ALL speak English. In fact, the most frequent criticism heard in these homes is how little Spanish the kids speak.

The worst offenders in this practice of hyphenating their Americanism are black people. They said negro was a slave name. They rejected it. (It was only the word for black.) Later they said, ''Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud.'' Then they called themselves Afro- Americans. Now African-Americans.

So-- Who cares? I also think providing Spanish-language materials in official places is stupid and unnecessary. But there are so-called activists (Like Elpidio's partidos--) who insist on that concession to their racist group-think. It's a shame. I feel just as American as you. You'll see I'm bilingual; but my first language is English. I love Spanish, but this isn't Spain or Mexico.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 23, 2004.


Poor Roger:
He answers me with, ''you choose to spout snide and juvenile comments. I have offered solutions, while you hurl insults. --Which leads me to conclude you must be around 10-12 years in age. Perhaps when you complete puberty we can go hump the border between the Koreas,'' He offered solutions ? ? ?

Isn't he falling back on juvenile remarks, ''To conclude you must be around 10-12 years in age. and, perhaps when you complete puberty--''

Speaking to a 66 year-old man?

Who spouts snide & silly comments? I asked had Roger ever ''sealed any border.'' Has he ever ''shaken up'' the INS or any other bureaucracy? Does he KNOW any answer to our country's problems; or would he even entertain another person's answers? NO, he feels put out because we disagree with his knee- jerk complaints. I maintain we must pray and have faith. God has us in His hand.

Yes, our United States is in danger of losing it's soul. We have made an idol of Lady Liberty, For the sake of passive tolerance all the great American traditions are being sold out. Not many things remain reprehensible in our ''free'' society. There is mere lip service against child abuse and racial injustice. But other depravities are smiled upon. Divorce is the norm, not anomaly. Children know plenty about gross sexual licence; because it's tolerated all around us. When a teacher seduces her 13 year-old student, is that boy learning anything valuable? How can our society pretend there's anything evil about child- molestation anymore? Abortion will soon become the cause of white anglo-saxon extinction, because the WASP will rarely object absolutely to it.

Is there hope in the mass influx into this country of poor immigrants? A way of saving America's soul? Well; something better save it. If not them, who? Maybe God is taking it into His hands. This is Nineveh; we have a moral crisis all around.

The Catholic Church knows it. --Which might be why she doesn't disown or condemn those illegal immigrants who still PRAY, and still BELIEVE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 23, 2004.


Hi Eugene, my complaint is about any group who wants special treatment--it is not just Spanish ballots we're talking about here (I apologize if you got that impression). Anyplace where you have a "Little (name of other country)" section of town you have this problem or the potential for this problem. I do not want us to become like Canada.

What you say is true for most of the older immigrant families (especially the kids not speaking the ancestral language at all), but sadly, not for the more recent ones. Yes, the younger ones are learning English, but not too many of the adults. The children are bilingual, but I suspect more from being told by their parents that there are tons of jobs out there if you can get on with the schools or some Affirmative Action make-work job than from any desire to preserve their heritage--how much money is being totally wasted on ESL programs in schools these days?

I do care when people put "American" last--because it divides us as a country. Some people I see on TV these days, I honestly do wonder where their loyalties lie.

All of the migrant workers I've seen work hard, and get money orders to send their income back home to their families. How much of it actually gets TO the families once it gets to Mexico, I don't know, from what I've heard, their postal system (where they cash their money orders) is somewhat corrupt, and it doesn't help if you're illiterate in your native language as well as a foreign one--how can you tell when someone is cheating you?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 23, 2004.


Eugene,

Please do not direct your false pity towards me. I may be poor money wise, but I am rich in so many other ways.

For the juvenile remarks, I only gave you what you gave me.

I have sealed borders...I dont know how I can make that any clearer to you.

I have tried to change the INS, I have complained to the State Department...I do write the Congress and Senate. You have not listed any suggestions to fix the problem...just belly ache and make juvenile remarks. I welcome your solutions...just post some.

I know of no one who has made lady liberty an idol. But the other problems you list are real and need the attention of the entire country. One way to start fixing the problems is at the ballot box.

I have not disowned on condemned any human...but the fact is people are breaking the law and causing problems by being here illegally. The fact remains that are legal ways to enter this country.

By the way, have you helped any one out who wanted to live here legally? I have, and if you don't think INS or the State Department needs an over haul you are a bigger part of the problem than I orginally thought.

Thank you...and good night.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 23, 2004.


Heh, heh, GT, you caught yourself out. You claimed “Only in the US do people move here and want everything done "their way".... “ then you say re the same matter “I do not want us to become like Canada.” You could have added, Australia, New Zealand or any other country predominantly built on migration as the US is, who all proudly and successfully promote multiculturalism and encourage people to be proud of their heritage instead of hiding it like some shameful secret and pretending to be WASPs. How would YOU like (if you speak only English) to spend the rest of your life in a non- English speaking country and never be allowed to use English again? And the US is one of the very few countries which insists that before you become a citizen, you must relinquish citizenship of your native country. Don't give us this "the US lets migrants have it too easy" rubbish.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 23, 2004.

Steve, the French problem has been with Canada a long time. Btw, you can hold dual citizenship, even in the US (I disagree with that, by the way)--I know people who do, mostly because it lets them go through the customs lines quicker....

And, you're confusing what I said. I have no problems with people being proud of their heritage (I'm proud of mine), but you cannot be a unified country if you don't all speak the same language in government. I would not move to another country and expect everything to be in English (or, even better, "American"--that is rude, to say the least. I have no problems whatsoever with people speaking in other languages or using it on signs in business districts for example--but there should only be one language used by any country's government, as far as laws, voting, street signs, etc.--that's just common sense.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 23, 2004.


“The French problem”, eh? Some Canadians call it “the English problem”. I thought you were referring to Canada’s multiculturalism, not its bilingualism.

What’s wrong with dual citizenship? It’s hard enough to migrate away from your homeland without having to officially make yourself an alien from it (and from your family, friends, culture etc.)

Many countries have no problems being unified while using two or more languages in government (eg Switzerland has 4 official languages). If the government refuses to publish guides to its laws, voting information etc in languages which a significant proportion of its population use, it is making those people second class. Why should they have fewer rights just because they don’t speak English (or don’t speak it well enough to understand complex legal documents)?

Of course all immigrants try their best to learn English, they know that not speaking English is a huge disadvantage, but many people just don’t have the capacity to learn a new language in adulthood, and many are too busy earning a living to have the opportunity to learn.

Btw I never said anyone accused them of being non-human (that was Eugene) I just said don’t call them “illegals” as there is no such thing as an illegal person.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 23, 2004.


Steve, I'll let pass the last part of your post. It doesn't deserve an answer. (Just when it seems you'll be reasonable, you foul your nest all over again.) Pathetic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 23, 2004.

The main problem I have with dual citizenship is in time of war--which side are you really on? How convenient to be able to flip-flop when it suits one.

And yes, I was referring mainly to the official bilingualism--think how much money is wasted that could go elsewhere. As to Switzerland, well, look at the size of the country and where they are on the map (most Europeans speak more than one language anyway), and add the fact that English has more or less displaced French as the language of diplomacy, and probably technology as well. And, the more languages they have things in, the more friendly it is for tourism....

I don't recall saying migrants were "non-people" either. And, the term "illegal" is just as erroneous as when people refer to a baby as "illegitimate"--when it is the parents that are in the illegitimate relationship.

It is never too late to learn a new language--believe me, if you were dumped out in the middle of some strange country, you would find a way to learn the language. It will take you longer than it would a child, but it is only impossible if you keep telling yourself it is.

The point about people who enter this country illegally is that they are breaking the law, So, how do you stop it? Maybe by making the other countries better places to live so people don't want to leave? Sure, but how?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 24, 2004.


Eugene if it doesn’t deserve an answer why did you answer it? “Foul your nest”? “Pathetic”? When was I not “reasonable”? Come on, I’m on your side on this one. I was just referring to you telling xyz, “They are human beings”.

GT, if someone is going to be a traitor to his adopted country in time of war, it will happen regardless of whether he still holds citizenship of his native country.

Switzerland is just one example. The majority of the world's countries (spread over all continents) have more than one official language. And the governments of just about all other countries use non-official languages for dealing with minority groups.

And yes for some adults it IS impossible to learn a new language no matter how hard they try.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 24, 2004.


If the government refuses to publish guides to its laws, voting information etc in languages which a significant proportion of its population use, it is making those people second class. Why should they have fewer rights just because they don’t speak English (or don’t speak it well enough to understand complex legal documents)?...And yes for some adults it IS impossible to learn a new language no matter how hard they try.

Define "significant" please. And second class citizens. Give me a break. So let me get this straight. We don't want to make second class citizens out of non-english speakers who speak spanish or chinese or some other language spoken by a "significant portion" of the population, but its ok to make second class citizens out of people who speak some obscure dialects, who do not fall within the "signicant portion." I've got an idea--how about just learning english, or enough english to be able to vote, if that's what you want to do. It can be very difficult, I agree. It may seem impossible to some. But for some adults it is impossible to understand voting instructions in their own language. as well. Whattya gonna do? If you want to vote, take the necessary steps. My wife's aunt, 84 years old, finally became a citizen after 40+ years in the US. She still does not speak english (her fault, nobody else's), and she cannot understand "complex legal documents," even in Spanish, but she knows how to push the button next to GWB. Oh, and btw, this may upset some people here, but she LOVES AMERICA.

Therefore let immigrating people accommodate themselves willingly to a host community and hasten to learn its language, so that, if their residence there turns out to be long or even definitive, they may be able to be integrated more easily into their new society. --Instruction for the Pastoral Care of Peoples Who Migrate (Congregation of Bishops, 1969)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 24, 2004.


Steve,
It's possible I misunderstood that last paragraph. It appeared you thought I'd called somebody non-human. Which I never have.

Clarity is not your long suit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 24, 2004.


Steve, if you mean "become completely fluent", I would be inclined to agree. But most or even all languages have borrowed foreign terms and people manage to speak those, so I still say that anyone can learn enough of a new language to "get by"--if they want to. And you completely ignore the fact that it is because all of these countries (different countries, not states or counties) are in close proximity to each other, it makes sense. It does not make sense for the US to do this.

The governments of Europe, sad to say, are headed down the "one world government" road. I don't think most Americans are inclined toward that model at all.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 24, 2004.


“Define significant”? Brian, what I meant was, obviously it’s impractical for a government to translate everything into hundreds of languages some of which might have only a handful of speakers; but if, say 5% of the population spoke a certain language I’d say the government definitely is obliged to translate necessary documents into that language. Obviously it’s a matter of judgment how low the percentage has to go before it’s not significant. Of course immigrants have an obligation to TRY to learn the majority language, but governments and the majority-language population have obligations too.

GT, why on earth do you find it “sad” that anyone wants a world government? I thought everyone of good will wanted that, at least as a theoretical long-term goal.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 26, 2004.


Eugene, I suppose I should have worded my last paragraph (in reply to Roger’s “Steve, I never said people entering this country illegally were not humans”: “Roger, I never said anyone accused them of being non-human (that was Eugene who implied that you did).” I suggest charity is not your long suit. Try to assume that others mean well until proved otherwise, instead of searching for an uncharitable meaning to their words.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 26, 2004.

Steve, you use the term "illegal person", which I replied that I never said people were illegal humans. Webster's defines person as human.

You continue to make snide remarks about me, but you never refute the facts or offer up ways to correct the situation.

Your childish comments are boring me. Perhaps if you do some reasearch and come up with meaningful facts, we can debate them here. Other than that, I outa here. Bash me at will.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 27, 2004.


Steve, what would you support as a one-world government? Something the US would run, or the UN? The UN is a failed model.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 27, 2004.

While you argue who is the best candidate, your bank account is melting like a snowball in July. Closed those borders or face ruin.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT = $23,270 PER PERSON, and rising

At the left is a chart showing the rapid build-up of federal debt per man, woman and child to $23,270. This means a family of four (4) shares more than $93,080 in federal debt responsibility - - including those still in diapers. And, that's not all they owe.

Our nation's founders were against debt. At the writing of the Constitution they were concerned about debt incurred to finance the Revolutionary War, and it was their intention to promptly pay it off. Alexander Hamilton (federalist paper #7) called for the "extinguishment of all debt." Thomas Jefferson later wrote, "I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared."

If today's debt ratio to national income were the same as in the early 1970s (40%), today's debt would be a whopping $3.4 trillion ($12,000 per person) less than it is. (chart in the full Federal Government Debt Report, link at bottom of page).

Is the debt going down? Nope!! In fiscal year 2003 (ending 9/30/03) federal debt increased $555 billion, or $1,907 per man, woman and child - or $7,628 per family of 4 - - another in a long string of new records. In the prior year, fiscal year 2002 (ending 9/30/02), federal debt increased $420.8 billion, or $1,471 per man, woman and child - - or $ 5,885 per family of 4. (The Dept. of Debt reported federal debt at end of fiscal year 2003 (9/30/2003) was $6.8 Trillion ($6,783,231,062,743.62). This compares to Fiscal Year 2002 of $6.2 Trillion ( $6,228,235,965,597.16); Fiscal Year 2001 of $5.8 Trillion ($5,807,463,412,200.06); Fiscal Year 2000 (09/29/2000) debt of $5,674,178,209,886.86; $5,656,270,901,615.43 at end of FY 1999; and $5,526,193,008,897.62 at end of FY-1998).

As of 30 June 2004, U.S. Treasury reports total federal debt at $7.2 trillion ($7,274,334,972,199.15 - - $24,998 per person.

-- Scrooge (bankruptsy@political parties.com), September 27, 2004.


That's actually no more than chump change. Our economy can handle the debt, and will.

Oh ye of little faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 27, 2004.


There’s nothing “snide” or “childish” about it Roger. I’ll try to state it again more simply. Don’t call them “illegals” because there’s no such thing as an illegal person/human. But I never accused you of saying they are not (any kind of) human. How would you like to be called “illegal”, as if your very existence was against the law?

GT, obviously we all have different views about the form a world government should take. I was just amazed that you found the very concept of any kind of world government “sad”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.


Steve, people can't even agree on something as basic as religion, so I have little confidence in world government per se.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 27, 2004.

That said, obviously any world government could only come into existence with the agreement of all, or at least the vast majority of, the world’s 200 national governments. And I think it’s extremely unlikely that they would ever all agree to simply make themselves into dependent colonies of one country with just 5% of the world’s people. It scares me even more that you have seriously suggested this as an option, and even your preferred option.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.

Well, gee people in the USA strongly disagree with each other about religion but they’ve managed to set up and run a government for a long time now. But are you saying only that you think world government will always remain practically impossible? Because you seemed to suggest it should not even be aimed at!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.

They are not illegal aliens, they ae criminal aliens. Wy the PC language?

They are bankrupting California. Twenty million of them are here now. Tney do not adapt to the American way, but want to keep their own language and customs. The Terminator is a phony liberal, and wants to give kids clean syringes. The voters get what they deserve.

New world order? Are you not losing your freedom fast enough?

-- Roger (Westernreserve@aol.com), September 27, 2004.


You’re a funny guy Roger. You insist everyone has to speak English but when I suggest you speak English accurately you dismiss it as “PC language”!

What’s bankrupting California is the brilliant idea of making laws by referendum, the inevitable result of which was a majority of citizens voting in laws to lower taxes AND to increase government spending on their favorite hobbyhorses.

“Their” language and customs WERE “the American way” long before any Anglo set foot on what is now the USA. And what’s “phony liberal” about clean syringe programs? I thought that was a genuine liberal cause.

“losing your freedom”? You're the one wanting to restrict freedoms. For everybody else except you and people exactly like you, of course.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 28, 2004.


Well Steve, what government model do you want running the new world order? And why?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), September 28, 2004.

Sorry, GT, I'm afraid I've never thought about that. I don't have an opinion on EVERYTHING. But I'll have a think about it and if I come up with a model I'll get back to you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 28, 2004.

I don't see Roger as a funny guy. I think he's bigoted, at least inadvertently.

''They are bankrupting California. [Obviously he means undocumented Mexican immigrants.] That remark is BS. They haven't done anything of the sort, despite being here illegally. ''Twenty million of them are here now. Tney do not adapt to the American way, but want to keep their own language and customs.'' Another bigoted accusation. Any immigrant, legal or not, in time is assimilated and adapts to life in this country. If they want to preserve their customs and language, they ought to. It's a free country, Roger. I don't think our government has an obligation to serve them in Spanish. But that's another question. YOU have no right to interfere with anyone. You just have ONE vote. Use it, and lobby for your own causes. Enlist others who agree with you. But find another place, won't you-- (?) to vent your hatred of Mexicans. And quit your lies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.


Eugene,

Just want to ensure if you are addressing me or the other Roger.

Steve,

Just curious, but do you post in the same thread using different user names? I ask that becaue of these two post of yours. It appears you are arguing against yourself...

That said, obviously any world government could only come into existence with the agreement of all, or at least the vast majority of, the world’s 200 national governments. And I think it’s extremely unlikely that they would ever all agree to simply make themselves into dependent colonies of one country with just 5% of the world’s people. It scares me even more that you have seriously suggested this as an option, and even your preferred option.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Well, gee people in the USA strongly disagree with each other about religion but they’ve managed to set up and run a government for a long time now. But are you saying only that you think world government will always remain practically impossible? Because you seemed to suggest it should not even be aimed at!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 27, 2004.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 28, 2004.


Eugene;

I am not bigoted against anyone as that is not Catholic. True the Spanish settled the place, and if things worked out they would have had a Catholic Country. That would have been great.

As a man of Mexican origen, you have your own leanings. I can undestand that. It is not the influx of Mexicans that I object to, but the tidal wave that does not give them time to assimilate.

Same goes for any other immigrants. It happens in other large cities also. Go to New York and see Chinese and Korean signs all over the place. Hard working people, but little desire to assimilate. Those Chinese that do are excellent Americans, brighter than most whites. I have been there, and seen it.

-- Roger (2345@6789..com), September 28, 2004.


Any immigrant, legal or not, in time is assimilated and adapts to life in this country

I don't agree with this statement. Just because immigrants live here and work here does not mean they assimilate themselves to American culture--whatever that is. Often, there is not much to adapt to. In my small town, it is not a great impediment to be able to speak spanish only. Many Mexican immigrants can go all day without speaking a word of english. There are Mexican grocery stores, restaurants, butchers, video stores, and clothing stores. Banks and markets that cash checks have spanish speaking clerks. There are spanish speaking teachers and aides at the schools. There are cantinas. There is spanish mass, and spanish catechism with spanish first communions. There is satellite TV with Sabado Gigante, El Gordo y La Flaca, las novelas, soccer matches, and Univision. There are spanish speaking radio stations all up and down the dial. I think that Mexicans who come to live in my area, by and large, do not assimilate. They have their own community, and their own culture. There is seldom a need to step outside of it. Whether one thinks this is good, bad, or indifferent, that's the way it is.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 28, 2004.


Some may object to ,y calling illegal aliens criminals. What does the word illegal mean? Today in Oakland, they are driving without a license, no insurance, and in some cases drunk. They object to being stopped. Why are they not deported if they are illegal? But no, they even want the right to vote.

Is this not becoming a lunatic asuylum?

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 28, 2004.


Roger (are there two different Rogers in this thread?) I only ever use my own name and I certainly don’t see any contradiction between those two posts of mine. They state two points which I thought were pretty obvious to anyone: 1. The countries of the world would never voluntarily submit as one to being ruled by the USA. 2. It is perfectly possible to govern a group of people who have various religions.

And I repeat Roger, they are not “illegal”. If they break a law they are punished same as you and me. Why don’t YOU “assimilate” with them?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 28, 2004.


Roger
I'm not at all in favor of mass illegal crossings from Mexico. I also deplore how poorly the border is defended; most of all now with the security risks.

Howver, there's no feasible remedy at present. No amount of patrolling or deporting can bring any end.

I lived in San Diego 40 years. Across the border is Baja Calif. Every immigration official will tell you, the same folks you deported last week will come back in next week. You can't shoot them or imprison them all. Only one thing will correct the present situation: a robust Mexican economy with new jobs for these people. It's necessity brings them north; not envy or greed. ALL of them love their own country. But they can't make a decent living there. If they were steadily employed even as menials in Mexico, they would not migrate en masse. You will always have some; but this awful flood is coming to get lowly jobs nobody fills here. I've seen many grown men crying because they'll never see Mexico again. It would only mean abject poverty for their kids. Whatever you think of our immigration ''policy'', you shouldn't beat up on the poor. Life is very hard for them. You and me are lucky to have been born here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.


Steve and Eugene;

I am not some heartless creature that revels in someone's misery. If we lack charity we will never get near the pearly gates.

However the borders must be protected, even if that means using troops. Vincente Fox will not cooperate, as he is glad to get rid of the poor. Bush and Kerry will not do anything to help.

Could not Fox help some by sending some of that oil to us. The man takes and gives nothing.I am not against the Mexican people, or the Canadiens, but their governments are just like Europe. Take, take, take. Still they hate us.

Bythe way, I love those Spanish named cities. What is more lovely than Corpus Christi.

I believe that the poor of Mexico and even the USA, arae deliberetly held diwn by design. Eugene knows more about the Mexican situation but I know the government is corupt.

Thank God for death. It is the equalizer for all of us. God bless you.

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 28, 2004.


''--the borders must be protected, even if that means using troops.''

What a ridiculous idea.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 28, 2004.


What a lot of chauvinist propaganda. Vincente Fox is the most pro-US leader Mexico has ever had or is ever likely to have. You want him to just GIVE the US the oil ? Instead of selling it (on much more favourable terms to the US than our other suppliers give us). It’s you who wants to “take take take and still hate”. It’s you who wants to “keep the poor down by design”. The Mexican people and govt are working to expand their economy so people won’t have to emigrate in desperation because they can’t support themselves.

But how nice, you find their place-names agreeable. (The cities and towns that they founded and we stole). Just like those wonderful Native American place names – too bad about the Native Americans themselves.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 29, 2004.


Steve, according to Websters Dicionary, people entering a country illegally are by defination are in fact illegal immigrants. Main Entry: illegal Function: noun : an illegal immigrant Main Entry: 1il·le·gal Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'lE-g&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French illegal, from Medieval Latin illegalis, from Latin in- + legalis legal : not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game

Main Entry: 1alien Pronunciation: 'A-lE-&n, 'Al-y&n Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin alienus, from alius 1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : STRANGE b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : FOREIGN 2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility

Main Entry: 2alien Function: noun 1 : a person of another family, race, or nation 2 : a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country; broadly : a foreign-born citizen

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.


Go on, Roger:
The Israelites entered the Land of Canaan illegally. God told them to take it with His blessings. We all were dangerous invaders here at the start. I'm sure every Irishman was angered by the British landlord who was exploiting and oppressing his people. There was nothing he could do about it. And, for now there's nothing Americans can do about undocumented aliens except what?

Stop ranting and pray for God's Will to be done. We are in the midst of something historical & inevitable. Unless you wish the U.S. were a police state.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 29, 2004.


Eugene,

No ranting here...just a statement of facts. There are measures we can take to remedy the situation. If we don't enforce the laws we have now, we will head for a police state, which also means we will become a Socialist State. See ya on the other side Comrade.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.


You think those measures are to close the borders with troops? Skip it; you're just dreaming. You ever hear of human rights? You think soldiers will fire on running Mexican peons? Before long the Mexicans come carrying guns and we have open war. Just like happened in Texas in the 1800's. Did you know Texas Rangers used to shoot Mexicans? Fat lot of ''measures.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 29, 2004.

Eugene,

No one said anything about using Troops or shooting any one. Ignoring a problem or saying there is nothing to be done about a problem, creats more problems.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.


I didn't pretend to ignore anything. I even agreed with you to a point.

You don't seem to see the big picure.

When calif passed Simpson Fazzoli or whatzit; you all thjought that would stop mass migrations of farm laborers. Whoever hired workers from mexico without documents them was liable to federal prosecution.

Even back then, I privately expressed to others; it is merely going to result in a Baja cottage industry, forging passports and legal ID's. I was right. An illegal can buy phoney paperwork. The farmer is off the hook and hires them. If these farmers depend on that cheap labor, we can't do anything about it. They all come for work and they find it. We have to live with it; supply and demand.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 29, 2004.


Eugene,

I agree with you about the Government and employers turning a blind eye to the problem. The fact remains however that it is still wrong. We have the means to stop the problem. Just enforcing laws already on the books is a good way to start. Like I have stated, there are legal ways to enter this country.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 29, 2004.


I thank the other Roger for his views. I need some help here. Eugene thinks that American taxpayers should just shell out for all the illegals entering here. Do you nkow what it costs for medical, hospital, trials, prison, and on and on for these folks.

fox can keep his oil, if he just sends a check for the cost of keeping his citizens in the U.S.

Nice if we could just empty our prisons of violent prisoners and dump them on Mexico. Fox would take good care of

them...sure he would, in about 5 minutes.

Those crop pickers that work for a pittance only help the employers. Sure the price of vegetables may be a litle less at the counters, but the extra taxes we pay brings the price up again.

Those names like Sacramento, and Corpus Christi, are still great, no matter how they got there.

-- Roger (2345@6789.com), September 29, 2004.


Roger, there are over 600,000 US citizens living in Mexico!!!, should they be kicked out too?

They refuse to be asimilated. They speak english in a Spanish speaking country. I know. I saw them at Rosarito, Tijuana, Mexicaly, El Rio Hardy,....Guadalajara....

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 29, 2004.


Roger every time you open your mouth you just put your foot in further.

“If we don't enforce the laws we have now, we will head for a police state, which also means we will become a Socialist State.”

But Roger you’re the one who wants us to become a police state with your “send in the troops” etc. And it would come as a great surprise to the residents of of say, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under the junta, Spain under Franco, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc., that they are/were living in “a socialist state”.

“No one said anything about using Troops”? Well what else did you (or the other Roger?) mean yesterday by “the borders must be protected, even if that means using troops.”?

There’s no noun “illegal” in any dictionary I’ve seen. Even if it’s in yours, it’s a repulsive term to use for a human being.

“fox can keep his oil, if he just sends a check for the cost of keeping his citizens in the U.S.” Let’s see, with the negative “cost” to the USA of Mexicans who get paid next to nothing to do all the vitally necessary jobs which US citizens refuse to do, the net result would be a fat check FROM us TO Fox.

Looks like it won’t be long before people of Hispanic descent outnumber people of English descent in the USA. When that happens, I wonder if Roger will still want the new minority Anglos to “assimilate” with the majority?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 29, 2004.


Steve, You are addressing me and the other Roger here. I will asnwer as best I can.

Roger every time you open your mouth you just put your foot in further.

Not true Steve, I state fact or give my opinion, which is based on fact.

But Roger you’re the one who wants us to become a police state with your “send in the troops” etc. And it would come as a great surprise to the residents of of say, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under the junta, Spain under Franco, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc., that they are/were living in “a socialist state”.

Send in the Troops? This may come as a shock to you Steve, but we have Troops here. The US Army is older that the Country its self. And though you don't like the Constitution, it does require the Government to raise an Army to protect our citizens and borders.Chlie, Argentina and Spain were military dictatorship's and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Please study them and we can debate them some time if you like. It's funny how you only want certain laws enforced.

“No one said anything about using Troops”? Well what else did you (or the other Roger?) mean yesterday by “the borders must be protected, even if that means using troops.”?

There are lots of ways to enforce the laws along the border. The use of the military is just one of them.

There’s no noun “illegal” in any dictionary I’ve seen. Even if it’s in yours, it’s a repulsive term to use for a human being.

Its not mine, Websters is used in high schools, colleges, court rooms, homes, government officals...If you could understand what you read, you would know people comming to this country are immigrants..those that come here illegally, are illegal immigrants.

Looks like it won’t be long before people of Hispanic descent outnumber people of English descent in the USA. When that happens, I wonder if Roger will still want the new minority Anglos to “assimilate” with the majority.

If that comment is for me, it's a rather stupid remark. Also childish in the fact you lose on the issuses and then resort to name calling or race baiting.

I have grown bored with your baseless side of the subject. If I may suggest, please at least know some of the basic facts of the situation and subject before sticking your foot in your mouth.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), September 30, 2004.


If the Hispanics ever become the maority,{and they probably will}, they would not be as generous as the American politicians. As for the 600,000 Americans in Mexico, how many are on the dole, how many are getting free hospitalization, etc etc. they are self supporting and, more important how many are illegals? Did they run for office yet? That is the next step here after drivers llicenses and the right to vote.

Vote for the new illegal candidate!

How come that they ask for green cards in the rest of the U.S.?

Whatever those illegals here save us, [and they really only are saving those greedy business men,]Nowhere but i it costs more for the taxpayer to keep them.

Only in the US of A.

-- Roger 2 (2345@6789.com), September 30, 2004.


Roger, there are over 600,000 US citizens living in Mexico!!!, should they be kicked out too?

Are they there illegally? If they are, Mexico has every right to kick them out.

There’s no noun “illegal” in any dictionary I’ve seen. Even if it’s in yours, it’s a repulsive term to use for a human being.

I agree. People shouldn't be called "illegal aliens." They should be called "people who enter the country without following the laws and rules provided for said entry. (pwetcwftlarpfse)" That is much nicer and rolls off the tongue. But we've got to think of a name for people who follow the rules and laws for entering this country. We can't call them "legal" immigrants. I guess, especially if we allow pwetcwftlarpfse to vote, we can call them "suckers."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 30, 2004.


Mexico doesn't ask Americans for passports to enter free trade zones.

Youngsters who here can't buy beer get loaded there (Cancun,....) , creating many dangers on the road.

Like any country, people are not refused emergency medical attention when their life is in danger.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.


And your point is what?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), September 30, 2004.

“This may come as a shock to you Steve, but we have Troops here.” (Roger1) This may come as a shock to you, but there is a vast difference between HAVING troops and SENDING them against unarmed civilians.

“you don't like the Constitution” – and you base this outrageous accusation against me on…what?

“Chlie, Argentina and Spain were military dictatorship's and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Please study them and we can debate them some time if you like.” You study them and you’ll find they were all police states, and none of them socialist. (In fact they killed any socialists they could find!) You'll have to rethink your stupid idea that all police states institute socialism.

“ It's funny how you only want certain laws enforced.” Another outrageous accusation without any foundation. I want all laws enforced.

“those that come here illegally, are illegal immigrants.” My point exactly. They are illegal immigrants, not “illegals”.

“'Looks like it won’t be long before people of Hispanic descent outnumber people of English descent in the USA. When that happens, I wonder if Roger will still want the new minority Anglos to “assimilate” with the majority.' If that comment is for me, it's a rather stupid remark.” It’s not a remark; it’s a statement of fact, and a question, which you have refused to answer, because it would only embarrass you further.

“ Also childish in the fact you lose on the issuses and then resort to name calling or race baiting.” I think you’re talking about yourself here Rog, old boy, not me. (Calling people of English descent "Anglos" is not "race baiting", they call themselves that.) You have been unable to counter any of my fact-based arguments so you instead childishly avoid the questions and make outrageous accusations against me.

“please at least know some of the basic facts of the situation and subject” It’s pretty obvious I’ve got a better grasp of the facts than you have Rog.

“As for the 600,000 Americans in Mexico, how many are on the dole, how many are getting free hospitalization, etc etc. they are self supporting” (roger2) How many are there to conduct activities that would be illegal if they did them at home, like exploiting virtual slave-labor, money laundering, polluting the environment, drug dealing, prostitution and sexual exploitation of children, etc.etc. As I heard one of them say, “I love Mexico, you can get away with ANYTHING here”. And every time the Mexicans try to toughen up their laws, the Yanquis squeal and apply political and financial pressure to stop them.

“Like any country, people are not refused emergency medical attention when their life is in danger.” (Elpidio) That is, any country except the USA if you can't afford health insurance or jump though bureaucratic hoops.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 30, 2004.


Of course you can get away with anything in Mexico. You cam buy any commander of almost any police station. Everything is for sale.

-- Roger 2 (2345@6789.com), September 30, 2004.

Steve...

This may come as a shock to you Steve, but we have Troops here.” (Roger1) This may come as a shock to you, but there is a vast difference between HAVING troops and SENDING them against unarmed civilians.

So...let me see if I have this right now. Supposing, a Soldier,( Border Patrol, Police etc),standing guard on the border, doing his duty to protect our border, is the same as taking up arms? Stopping people from entering here illagally is the same as launching an assualt on the country of Mexico?

“you don't like the Constitution” – and you base this outrageous accusation against me on…what? It's funny how you only want certain laws enforced.” Another outrageous accusation without any foundation. I want all laws enforced.

I placed these two comments together for ease of answering. If you want all laws enforced, why not the laws on immigration? Why not the laws on welfare fraud? The Constitution covers people entering here illegally.

“Chlie, Argentina and Spain were military dictatorship's and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Please study them and we can debate them some time if you like.” You study them and you’ll find they were all police states, and none of them socialist. (In fact they killed any socialists they could find!) You'll have to rethink your stupid idea that all police states institute socialism.

You were the one who equated them with Socialist...I merly pointed out your error, and what the difference was in each country. So on the matter of stupid ideas, I must say you are at the head of the class. But that is rude, so I will stick to my thinking that you are badly misinformed, or perhaps unable to comprehend what you read and hear.

“those that come here illegally, are illegal immigrants.” My point exactly. They are illegal immigrants, not “illegals”.

Thats what I've said from the start. Using the term illegals does not change the fact.

“'Looks like it won’t be long before people of Hispanic descent outnumber people of English descent in the USA. When that happens, I wonder if Roger will still want the new minority Anglos to “assimilate” with the majority.' If that comment is for me, it's a rather stupid remark.” It’s not a remark; it’s a statement of fact, and a question, which you have refused to answer, because it would only embarrass you further.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with the word assimilate. I'm guessing you want to know if i will be similar? I can only tell you I will remain an americam citizen and bound by the Constitution. I don't judge people the way you do Steve, race or ethic orgin is not important to me. By the way...your remark is a remark. You are asking a question, not stating any fact.

“ Also childish in the fact you lose on the issuses and then resort to name calling or race baiting.” I think you’re talking about yourself here Rog, old boy, not me. (Calling people of English descent "Anglos" is not "race baiting", they call themselves that.) You have been unable to counter any of my fact-based arguments so you instead childishly avoid the questions and make outrageous accusations against me.

Yawn...you are boring my friend. Race baiting(sp), is not calling some one Anglo...it is playing one race (Anglo) vs another (Hispanic). Which I find repulsive.

“please at least know some of the basic facts of the situation and subject” It’s pretty obvious I’ve got a better grasp of the facts than you have Rog.

You do not have a grasp of the facts Steve. Maybe you spend to much time grasping something else.

Thank you once again.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), October 01, 2004.


I'm sure we have lots of illegal Canadians running around loose here as well, getting medical care in a more timely fashion than they do at home, getting FOX news (apparently they do not carry Bill O'Reilly up there), etc.... We just don't notice them as much....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 01, 2004.

Our Niatross Roger is not very honest.

He's repulsed by race-baiting, he says. But he's been trying it here, and I confronted him about it. All he said for himself was that I make juvenile remarks. He says he ''sealed borders.'' Oh, sure. He built dikes and log cabins too. He says illegal aliens have bankrupted California.

That's a lie. No one says they aren't breaking a law. He has no proof, however, they'd even come close to bankrupting the state because they draw so much in benefits. What do they cost?

He quoted ''estimates'' from ''studies'', to back that assertion. What he hasn't factored in is, many legal citizens of Mexican or hispanic descent, usually come included in such demographic ''studies''. For all practical purposes, we cannot even say accurately how many illegal aliens live on this side.

We do know the number has increased sharply. By no means do we know how much they draw off in freebies & benefits. Particularly on welfare rolls or in penitentiaries. It's not something simple to estimate, All we have is some educated guesses. They do benefit a lot, I'm sure. But I say that by and large, they are NOT ''on the dole'' in massive numbers, as Roger claims. He loves that straw dog, doesn't he? I say it's strictly a racial bias, let Roger deny it if he pleases. He's not very convincing.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 01, 2004.


Eugene,

I have not baited any one. I simply respond to your and others comments. I want the laws enforced for any and all who enter here illegally. I do however base what I post on FACTS...something that you don't. The numbers I quoted came from the Washington Times, Washington Post, Lou Dobbs, State og Flordia and our Government to name a few.

You seem to overlook a simple law of nature, for every action there is a kind or greater reaction. As an example, Those paying to provide welfare, medical aid and education to people here illegally, after doing so, often cannot pay for there own. Is that fair?

Since you refuse or cannot comprehend simple facts, or refuse to even try to reasearch anything, there is not really much left to say.

For all the compassion you profess to have, you sure don't throw any my way.

As always, thank you and have a good week end.

PS: Since this is rather boring, I will no longer post to this thread. I will look for you all on the other side.

-- Roger (niatross65@hotmail.com), October 01, 2004.


How many are there to conduct activities that would be illegal if they did them at home, like exploiting virtual slave-labor, money laundering, polluting the environment, drug dealing, prostitution and sexual exploitation of children, etc.etc.

Aren't those activities illegal in Mexico as well? If these 600,000 Americans are there illegally, Mexico has every right to SEND THEM BACK TO THE US. If these 600,000 Americans are laundering money, pimping out kids etc., Mexico has every right to ARREST THEM.

And every time the Mexicans try to toughen up their laws, the Yanquis squeal and apply political and financial pressure to stop them.

Which laws are the Mexican trying to toughen up yet don't because of Yanqui opposition: slave labor laws? money laundering laws? environmental laws? drug laws? prostitution laws? child prostitution and pornography laws?

On the flip side, do you think Mexico would like the USA to toughen its own immigration laws? I don't think so. “Like any country, people are not refused emergency medical attention when their life is in danger.” (Elpidio) That is, any country except the USA if you can't afford health insurance or jump though bureaucratic hoops. (Steve)

Except the USA? Doesn't federal law (EMTALA) require American hospital emergency rooms to accept patients whose lives are in danger, whether they have insurance or not?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 01, 2004.


Yes, US hospitals have to take care of everyone, money or not. Which just encourages other people to not even bother to get health insurance of any kind, or work at a job.... Even if the hospitals go after you for payment, they often settle for less than what is owed, gee, why is that? Why are some people paying $5 for an aspirin if they have insurance, but others get them for free? However, this is not just an immigration problem, by the way.

However, people who are not here legally should not be driving on our streets in any case--it just adds to the problem of uninsured motorists, and how are you going to enforce a court judgement against a non-citizen who causes an accident?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 01, 2004.


Please, GT!
I'm for legality just like you.

But I'm ready to prove to you and to Roger that many, many more American citizens are driving without insurance today than are illegal immigrants.

Just why have you assumed an alien driver has to be driving uninsured? That's dumb. They only need enough to pay premiums, and obviously they're a minority compared to all our irresponsible American citizens who drive uninsured.

Roger has also jumped to the dumb conclusion that hundreds of those greasers are driving around Oakland drunk and without licenses. Let's see him prove that.

Face it. You're painting a whole group of people as miscreants just because they are here without passports and have ethnic backgrounds. That is called PREJUDICED JUDGMENT.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 01, 2004.


“Like any country, people are not refused emergency medical attention when their life is in danger.” (Elpidio) That is, any country except the USA if you can't afford health insurance or jump though bureaucratic hoops. (Steve)

Uninsured American citizen dies after Mexican Hospital refuses to treat him

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 05, 2004.


Eugene, I said it ADDS to the problem of uninsured motorists, if you check my post.

By the way, I don't know if you've been up on the latest insurance industry news, but in case you haven't, most if not all companies are now requiring SSNs so that they can run credit checks which determine how much in premiums you pay. In some states (at least where they haven't outlawed it yet), this means that they can and will refuse to insure you if you have bad credit or no credit. How many undocumenteds have SSNs that will give them a valid credit report?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 05, 2004.


Dear GT,

I've personally known them to have insurance. They buy theirs just like you & I do. The SS # is easy to get.

I also know of a few American citizens who drive uninsured. One of them owns several fine cars. He simply can't afford the premiums for all of them. One was stolen from his driveway, an older BMW. He had no insurance, so he got nothing for it. Everything is relative. If you're an undocumented alien and own a nicer car, you insure it. Not just to protect your property, but to avoid landing in jail if you're in an accident. They all know it's the law.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2004.


"Aren't those activities illegal in Mexico as well? If these 600,000 Americans are there illegally, Mexico has every right to SEND THEM BACK TO THE US. If these 600,000 Americans are laundering money, pimping out kids etc., Mexico has every right to ARREST THEM." Yes indeed, but they don’t because of financial and political pressure from the USA.

“Doesn't federal law (EMTALA) require American hospital emergency rooms to accept patients whose lives are in danger, whether they have insurance or not?” Yes, but in the USA as in Mexico, people often don’t comply with the law.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 07, 2004.


So the U.S. puts political and financial pressure on Mexico to not arrest 600,000 American money launderers, pimps etc? Ooookay.

You're up to your old mental gymnastics again, Steve. So let me get this straight. American hospitals are required by federal law to treat patients in life threatening situations. But according to you, the USA is the only country to refuse to treat patients in life threatening situations, because "in the USA as in Mexico, people often don’t comply with the law." Ay Caramba!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 07, 2004.


You claimed “Only in the US do people move here and want everything done "their way".... “ then you say re the same matter “I do not want us to become like Canada.” You could have added, Australia, New Zealand or any other country predominantly built on migration as the US is, who all proudly and successfully promote multiculturalism and encourage people to be proud of their heritage instead of hiding it like some shameful secret and pretending to be WASPs. How would YOU like (if you speak only English) to spend the rest of your life in a non- English speaking country and never be allowed to use English again? That is the dumbest thing I have read! Do you mean being outlawed from using their Native language amongst each other, or something? What are you talking about. The offical language is English. Why should Spanish be made a 2nd language for people that can't even become citizens and learn the first.

How about immigration. How about places like New York, which is very culturally rich. Where people of all types since the Germans may celibrate their culture have come here in large numbers, assimilated, learned the language. All but the Germans were WASPS. Why can't these people do the same?

And the US is one of the very few countries which insists that before you become a citizen, you must relinquish citizenship of your native country. Don't give us this "the US lets migrants have it too easy" rubbish. I believe you can be a citizen of both countries. The problem is there is no assistance here. And most countries you have to know the language, including Mexico. I would say they have it very good here, otherwise they would not flood in such hoardes. Why is French (Quebec for instance) Japanese, Vietamese anything else but Spanish made the 2nd language here? Could it be because those people can learn the first?

If there is a larage number of a group who cannot learn English there is nothing so special about them, that we should all instead learn the language for them. What is it that they then would offer besides dish washers, and cheap maintence. This is America where the dream is to learn the language and become a citizen. If you don't like it GO THE @#$% BACK!!!

-- Earl (earlsucktis@yahoo.com), October 08, 2004.


i nith pooyan_@yahoo.com

-- pooyan (pooyan_khaz_o_khol@yahoo.com), November 02, 2004.

"All but the Grermans were WASPs". That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Never mind about "aliens" voting; It's scary to think that people like Earl might have the vote.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 03, 2004.

your friendly neighborhood reminder to close your html tags

no more bold

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 03, 2004.


Am I the only one now, who sees no signs of the illegal alien voters in any of our ''battleground states'' yesterday?

Or did these insidious cheaters help us elect Bush?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 03, 2004.


eugene,

illegal immigrants who try to vote generally tend to vote democrat.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 03, 2004.


Take a trip around New York. A neighborhod with Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish signs, and no English spoken in many stores. They do not care to be assimilated. They want to start their own litle countries all over this city.

-- Lonely Caucasian (Bigapple@wherever.com), November 03, 2004.

I didn't know there was a wave of non German Protestants who flooded New York? The Swedes? In any case they learned the language then.

And they really curved the voter fraud in such places as Florida this time around, which is why the Republicans probably swept it so. But any city that has ballots in Spanish and accepts utility bills or government checks as a form of idenification is guilty of voter fraud!

-- (dumbstupiddonkeyhonkey@dnc.com), November 10, 2004.


*while accepting government checks as a form of idenification is guilty of voter fraud!

-- (notadumbstupiddonkeyhonkeyorillegaldirtbag@dnc.com), November 10, 2004.

Hey, Lonely Caucasian:
You say, ''Take a trip around New York. A neighborhod with Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish signs, and no English spoken in many stores. They do not care to be assimilated. They want to start their own litle countries all over this city.'' Same as when the Italians and Jews started in the City, isn't it? Nobody expected them to assimilate, yet they have. Up to a point. (I seriously doubt English isn't spoken in every other store. They aren't stupid.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ