Spirit of 1776, anyone?

PRCalDude on March 13, 2007 at 8:25 PM

” … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

AZ_Redneck on March 13, 2007 at 10:51 PM

I won’t ask you for opinions on statistical matters if you were able to conclude that a crime rate of 3-4 times the white crime rate among Hispanics must automatically mean a crime rate among Catholics of 3-4 times the non-Catholic crime rate. There is an obvious problem with such a deduction.

Thank you. I agree. That’s my point, which you obviously didn’t comprehend. If almost all Hispanics are Catholic, and YOU are saying that Hispanics lead all in crime rate, then it’s not possible to disassociate the two and my intent was to show you how inaccurate that is. My point is that those numbers you’re quoting are effected by many different variables and can be manipulated to whatever outcome serves your purpose. For example, how many of those Hispanic crimes were by Mexicans? How many by Cubans? How many by Venezuelans? And when you come up with the answer, are you then going to say that whoever wins/loses is the most violent on Earth? How many lived in Los Angeles? How many lived in Vermont? How many lived in Ohio? How many are illegal aliens? And if they are all Catholic, are you then going to conclude that Catholics have a tendency toward crime? And if you took all the white people who live in poverty or third world countries (such as the most impoverished areas of Russia) and compared it to THOSE numbers instead of comparing it to the white people who live in middle-class America, would the numbers be the same? It’s just idiotic. It’s like concluding that people using anti-depressants have a higher rate of suicide. Duh.

See if you can figure it out. Oh, by the way, I am of predominantly German Catholic extraction.

tommy1 on March 13, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Good for you. I’m also German and Irish, and I’m also Catholic. So what?

And the conclusion leads to the illegal aliens, no matter how you classify them.

CyberCipher on March 13, 2007 at 9:47 PM

And THAT would be the statistic that’s relative to this discussion, and that goes with my point that there are many variables that boost the crime numbers of the Hispanic population, and illegal aliens and third world country living conditions make it ridiculous to compare the over-all numbers to whites living in the most comfortable living conditions imaginable.

The crime rate of “illegal aliens” however, is entirely relative.

Gregor on March 13, 2007 at 11:12 PM

tommy1 boy you still did not comment, are you going to pay more in taxes for spending money to help provide jobs to the illegals.

by the way, you do have a link for everything don’t you. goodness son, here is a link for you!

kara26 on March 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Nobody with the name “newt” and “Gingrich”… is going to be elected President…

Hilts on March 13, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Oh, man, PinkyBigglesWorth is going to be SO BUMMED to hear THAT. (Pinky had such high hopes for running for public office.)

CyberCipher on March 13, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Are you footing their medical bills or are we all?

Are you, all by yourself, going to pay extra in taxes to educate those Hispanics kids or are we all going to have to foot the bill? How about the extra welfare costs for their kids? How about costs of any ESL classes their children will be taking?

Will you pay any restitution if they should commit crimes? Can you guarantee your children be the only ones victimized by their crimes? Are you willing to be held partially responsible if they commit a murder or a rape or kill someone in a drunk driving accident? Will you pay the yearly prison costs for such an employee if they wind up in a state or federal institution?

Way back in 96′ the gov’t of Santa Ana talked the INS into a pilot program to check the nationality of EVERY person being booked into the Santa Ana jail. It turned out that 33% of those being booked were in the country illegally…
After the said time for the pilot program expired, the INS wanted to pull out.
Think about that for a moment. The taxpayers were using 33% of their police power to catch illegal aliens committing crimes…

At the time, my two sons and I were driving home through Santa Ana on a surface street. My sons were 10 and 8 years old. A car came from behind and struck us with such force that our car became airborne and struck a large tree. The car then flipped around and landed in a parking lot, destroyed.

The driver of the car that struck us had no drivers license, no car insurance and, the car wasn’t registered. My two sons and I went to the hospital in an ambulance.

What did the police do? They issued a ticket to the driver of the other car for “following too closely”. I kid you not. That is when I decided we needed to move.

As I said previously, I am sick to death of this issue.
Hiding out in America…

Babs on March 13, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Did I mention that the driver of the car that struck us didn’t speak English?

Babs on March 13, 2007 at 11:54 PM

If almost all Hispanics are Catholic, and YOU are saying that Hispanics lead all in crime rate, then it’s not possible to disassociate the two and my intent was to show you how inaccurate that is.

Of course it’s possible to dissociate the two. Almost all Hispanics are Catholic but not all Catholics are Hispanic. We can ask if white Catholics have a crime rate that is more similar to white Protestants or more similar to Catholic Hispanics, for instance. If it isn’t, there is good reason to believe Hispanics are more violent than whites and that Catholicism is not the cause. Again though, I’m not interested in causes. I’m interested in the reality that Hispanic commit a much higher percentage of crime than do whites in the United States.

My point is that those numbers you’re quoting are effected by many different variables and can be manipulated to whatever outcome serves your purpose.

Hispanics are more prone to crime than whites. Barring a sharp reduction in Hispanic crime rates in relation to whites that we’ve never before witnessed, more Hispanics will mean more crime than if we had fewer Hispanics. Pretty simple to figure out regardless of the causal factors behind Hispanic crime.

For example, how many of those Hispanic crimes were by Mexicans? How many by Cubans? How many by Venezuelans?

Your point seems to be that because we can subdivide Hispanics into various groups, we cannot say anything about Hispanics generally. Unfortunately, that is fallacious reasoning. By the same logic, we couldn’t say that Zimbabweans are more likely to suffer starvation than Americans because there is some group of people in Zimbabwe (like those friendly folks connected to Mugabe) who are living quite nicely and some homeless Americans that are missing meals. That may all be true, but it doesn’t change the fundamental fact that Zimbabweans are more likely to face starvation than Americans.

And when you come up with the answer, are you then going to say that whoever wins/loses is the most violent on Earth?

No. But we might be able to conclude which Hispanic group is the most violent group in America. That would be reasonable.

Good for you. I’m also German and Irish, and I’m also Catholic. So what?

It was a clue. Unfortunately, statistical reasoning doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

How many are illegal aliens? And if they are all Catholic, are you then going to conclude that Catholics have a tendency toward crime?

If we found that Catholics committed crime at a greater rate than Protestants, we would be justified in stating “Catholics are more prone to crime than Protestants.” That would be reasonable. Now, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that Catholicism is the cause of crime.

If America were an almost entirely Protestant nation and Catholic immigrants and their descendants were found to be causing a disproportionately high percentage of crimes then, logically, cutting off the flow of Catholic immigrants would result in a lower crime rate than allowing further Catholic immigration. The fact that some Catholic nationalities may be more or less prone to criminality than other Catholic nationalities wouldn’t change that fact. Again, I’m not interested in causal factors. What interests me is this: Hispanics are more likely to commit crime than whites. More Hispanics equals more crime.

The crime rate of “illegal aliens” however, is entirely relative.

Crime rates are not “relative.” They are objective and they can be measured statistically. If, by relative, you mean that Hispanics are relatively less prone to criminality than blacks according to statistics, you would be right. They are also relatively more prone to crime than whites. That “relativity” is hardly an encouraging sign. Imagine if we applied such logic to economic developments. Mexico is a relatively rich country compared to Burma. Yeah, but do you want to live in either country? Mexican-Americans may be relatively less prone to crime than blacks, but do you really want to live in East LA?

tommy1 on March 14, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Perhaps the “Impeach Bush” moonbats are on to something after all.

Lehosh on March 13, 2007 at 3:43 PM

That’s a good one. You know what’s funny about that is those same moonbbats think Bush has finally come to his senses!

csdeven on March 14, 2007 at 12:42 AM

He thinks it’s pro-business to have immigration reform, and he’s right. There are a lot of industries that rely on immigrants (legal and illegal) to help power this economy.
Matticus Finch on March 13, 2007 at 4:28 PM

The mentality of those who don’t care about the freeflow of immigrants that refuse to assimilate, are those people who are rich enough to live in communities with 12′ walls around them, have servants do all their errands, and go everywhere in huge luxury cars. Basically they are rich enough to insulate themselves from the consequences.

csdeven on March 14, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Oh, man, PinkyBigglesWorth is going to be SO BUMMED to hear THAT. (Pinky had such high hopes for running for public office.)

CyberCipher on March 13, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Sorry, CyberC, I had another pressing engagement (300…. can’t get enough)…. but I have spent the last hour and a half reading these posts…….. That was fun!

About half way through, my mind was telling me…… “Don’t you have a bottle of wine around here somewhere?”

People, (kara26, tommy1, etc…) I think this thread has proven what a “Hot Topic” this is, but it is just not a “Topic”…… Illegal Immigration, better known as an “Invasion” is having a HUGE impact on this country, our demographics, the power of our votes, our schools, our hospitals…… yeah, yeah, yeah, this has all been covered, but I was thinking of another possibility for President Bush’s comments…….

Just think about this for a moment….

I think President Bush knows how big of an issue this is. I also think that between “Big Business” and “La Raza” on the left, he has to bring debate and support to the issue and bring it back to the “Front Page”.

Has anyone been listening to the questions (prepaied) for the canidates on both sides of the isle are…. “How do you feel about Roe vs Wade?”, “What’s your stance on Gay Rights?”, “What is your plan to fix the Healthcare System?”, “What about Education?”….. the same crap, asked time and time again.

We all know how President Bush feels about the “Terror War on Us”…… WIN IT!

Now, in one speech, he has thrust the problem of “Illegal Immigration” back on the front burner.

He is not running in ‘08, but can get the canidates to address it. If the Democrats and RINO Republicans put together an “Amnesty Comprehensive Border Reform Bill”, they are DONE!

This opens up the Republicans to race one another to “Who will secure the Border first…….”, “I will….”, “No, I will….”, “No, me…”…. just watch.

And CyberC, a correction, I like Newt, but I will say it again, Hunter/Thompson/Tancreado/Newt/Romney/Guliani (sic), the strongest will rise, the rest should be in the cabinet….

Just my $0.02……

By the way, Gregor, people are going to Washington to knock on the doors of Congress, and all are welcome…..

(OK, everyone whisper…….. Roooooooovvvvvvvveeeeeeee)

PinkyBigglesworth on March 14, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Crime rates are not “relative.” They are objective …

tommy1 on March 14, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Once again Tommy, you fail at reading comprehension.

I wrote … “The crime rate of “illegal aliens” however, is entirely relative” while explaining that “race” is “NOT relative to this conversation.” Reading comprehension 101 would give you the understanding that my intent was to say that the crime rate of illegal aliens is entirely relative “to this conversation.”

But you’re stuck on the color of the immigrant’s skin, regardless of their legal status. But somehow I’m not supposed to conclude that you’re a bigot. Your answer to that is simply “facts are facts.” Interestingly, this would be the same response from a KKK member explaining why he feels he’s superior to another race.

If we found that Catholics committed crime at a greater rate than Protestants, we would be justified in stating “Catholics are more prone to crime than Protestants.”

You still don’t get it. Using your method, you HAVE found that. If almost all Hispanics are Catholic, and in YOUR head Hispanics are the world’s greatest crime threat, what do you think that does to the crime numbers of Catholics? It would obviously boost the numbers quite a bit, correct? Is that an accurate statistical conclusion? Would it be a balanced method of weighing the crime committed by Catholics, to only take Hispanic Catholics for the study? So, if not … why do you think it’s fair to use the same method when labeling Hispanics as criminals? Why do you think it’s fair to take all Hispanics throughout the world, while knowing that most Latin American countries are impoverished, and then use the findings to label all Hispanics in general? Would it be fair for Catholics in Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, and Alabama to all be thrown into the same statistical data as illegal alien Catholics from the most impoverished areas of Mexico, or Honduras? Do you think Catholic crime rate is the same in Ohio as it is in Mexico City? No. Is the Hispanic crime rate the same in Ohio as it is in Mexico City? NO!! So why do you insist on doing that to Hispanics? Why do you throw legal Hispanic families into the same statistical pool as those from the most impoverished areas of Mexico, Honduras, or even illegal aliens? Don’t you think that it’s possible that the reason why the numbers come out the way they do is simply because there are so many crimes committed by illegal aliens who have absolutely no fear of being caught, or being prosecuted? And don’t you think that those numbers are slanted due to the fact that an overwhelming number of illegals happen to be Hispanic, simply because our border happens to be shared with a Hispanic impoverished country?

You know? Sort of like the suicide rate of people using anti-depressants is slightly slanted based on the fact that those using anti-depressants are … DEPRESSED?!

I guess that just makes it easier for you to feel comfortable your bigotry.

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 2:12 AM

100% of all illegal aliens are criminals regardless of nationality, race, religion etc. so what’s the problem.

Buzzy on March 14, 2007 at 2:23 AM

Exactly. But Tommy is not concerned with the fact that 100% of 20 million illegal aliens thrown into the same statistical category as legal Hispanic-Americans might be a little unfair. He dislikes ALL Hispanics just because of who they are.

But as he’ll tell you … we can’t argue with statistics.

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 2:28 AM

Fact: In selling the citizens of the US out to foreign countries, such as the open borders and amnesty for illegal invaders-immigrants, including Mexican nationals sneaking into, and stealing from, and injuring and murdering US citizens, President Bush is a traitor and is aiding and abetting the enemy.

President Bush,

You are supposed to be the President of the United States of America and you are supposed to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, and the citizens of the United States of America, not leaders and citizens of other countries!

Shame on you, George W. Bush!

William2006 on March 14, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Reading comprehension 101 would give you the understanding that my intent was to say that the crime rate of illegal aliens is entirely relative “to this conversation.”

Oh yes, that entire irrational screed followed by one single sentence of no obvious relevance to anything else at the end was so abundantly clear. In any event, I think it is apparent now that you meant “relevant” rather than “relative.” Yes, Hispanic descent is relevant to the issue of crime rates. Hispanics have higher crime rates than non-Hispanic whites.

But you’re stuck on the color of the immigrant’s skin, regardless of their legal status.

No, I’m stuck on the fact that Hispanic immigrants and, most especially, their children, have high rates of crime. I don’t give a damn about their skin tone. Straw man.

But somehow I’m not supposed to conclude that you’re a bigot. Your answer to that is simply “facts are facts.” Interestingly, this would be the same response from a KKK member explaining why he feels he’s superior to another race.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before I was compared to either Hitler or a Klansman. Thanks. Unfortunately, Gregor, if a KKK member says the sky is blue and clouds are white, I would have to agree with him. The fact that he is a member of the KKK doesn’t make the sky pink and the clouds orange simply so I can say that I don’t agree with a member of the KKK. Yes, facts are facts and truth is an absolute defense.

Using your method, you HAVE found that. If almost all Hispanics are Catholic, and in YOUR head Hispanics are the world’s greatest crime threat, what do you think that does to the crime numbers of Catholics?

Shocka! Yes. That is what I said. I’ll ignore your straw man about Hispanics being “the worlds greatest crime threat,” and get directly to it. To the extent that Hispanics compose a large and growing percentage of the Catholic population in the United States, they do indeed raise the crime rates of Catholics overall. Were you figuring they lowered the crime rate of Catholics instead? As I stated earlier, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Catholicism is a causal factor for Hispanic crime, only that Catholicism and criminality will become increasingly correlated as an increasing percentage of the American Catholic population is Hispanic.

Why do you think it’s fair to take all Hispanics throughout the world,

I’m not concerned about Hispanics all over the world. I’m concerned about Hispanics in the United States. Many Mexicans and few Chileans are coming to the United States. It doesn’t matter if some parts of the Hispanic world are less crime prone, only that Hispanics who live in the United States are much more likely to be involved in crime than white Americans. If Chileans are not dramatically different than non-Hispanic whites and are not a drain on society then, by all means, I’m happy to have them. However, we don’t have criminal stats for national origin (let alone, parental and grandparental national origin stats) for Hispanics. In no small part, we lack such information because of the Hispanic lobby itself, which has fought against “too much” identification of Hispanics in crime stats along with, of course, “too much” information about the immigration status of offenders. (I guarantee you, they aren’t fighting against such information because it will make most Hispanic groups look better in the public eye.) If you want to demand the government collect more specific information, then go ahead. In the meantime, we must make policy with regard to Hispanics generally. If Mexicans, who compose the bulk of our Hispanic immigrants, are disproportionately involved in crime, we cannot just ignore what that is going to mean for this nation’s Hispanic demographic simply because we think that the minuscule proportion of immigrants from Costa Rica or Uruguay might be different.

Would it be fair for Catholics in Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, and Alabama to all be thrown into the same statistical data as illegal alien Catholics from the most impoverished areas of Mexico, or Honduras?

Again, it would be fair if Catholicism was an apparent causal factor or if all those (presumably white) criminal Catholics from Iowa, Missouri, and Alabama were immigrating to the United States rather than already being citizens of our nation. However, if white Catholics are similar to white Protestants in terms of criminal proclivities, while whites and Hispanics are dramatically different, then we would be wiser making policy with an eye to the whites vs. Hispanics difference than the Catholics vs. Protestants one.

Do you think Catholic crime rate is the same in Ohio as it is in Mexico City?

No. Of course there are multiple causes behind crime. The crack epidemic caused a large increase in overall crime in the United States, for example. Now that it has tapered off crime has generally decreased. However, the fact remains, that Hispanic crime rate is invariably significantly higher than the white crime rate in national statistics. Your argument is hardly more convincing than saying, “I know a Mexican immigrant who is a fine upstanding citizen. Actually, come to think of it, I know three Mexicans like that. In fact, many Mexicans live in my neighborhood and I don’t know any Mexican criminals in my neighborhood. Therefore, Mexican-Americans are no more criminally prone than anyone else.” (Meanwhile, East LA is an entirely different story.) We must look at issues like crime from a statistical standpoint and by comparing averages. We cannot use anecdotes or local circumstances as a way of attempting to refute broad statistical measures. Even more so, when it comes to problems that have multiple causes. In fact, coming back to my mention of crack cocaine, using your logic, we cannot actually conclude that the decrease in crime in the United States and Canada has anything to due with the reduction in crack cocaine use. After all, in some locales, like Philadelphia, crime has remained stubbornly high. Taking your reasoning to its conclusion, we can determine nothing about the causes of crime because there are always exceptions. Broken families cannot be correlated, illegitimacy cannot be correlated, drug use cannot be correlated, the likelihood of having a parent in prison cannot be correlated. We cannot say anything about what factors underly crime.

Don’t you think that it’s possible that the reason why the numbers come out the way they do is simply because there are so many crimes committed by illegal aliens who have absolutely no fear of being caught, or being prosecuted?

Actually, Hispanic crime is more a problem of the citizen-children of illegal immigrants than Hispanic immigrants themselves. Thus, the immigration status of most Hispanic criminals is not an issue. The mean age of most illegal immigrants is usually reported to be quite a few years older than the 18-24 year age range that males commit the bulk of their crimes. Furthermore, illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes are deported and presumably many of them commit a fair share of their crimes in Latin America rather than the United States. This means such crimes don’t show up in our stats. We will not so lucky with their native-born children. They will live in the United States while 18-24 years old, and will not be deportable but will be returned directly to our streets after their sentences are served, and who are much more prone to gang activity and drug use than their parents.

tommy1 on March 14, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Allah,

I feel that you may not have had all the information. Bush clearly is not for an open border and open policy. Its an easy target but a fence will not solve anything they just will take to boats or dig under it.

A simple 3.2 sec google turned up this:

“I remind my fellow citizens that family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande River,” Bush said, referring to the body of water that separates Mexico and the United States. He described Mexican immigrants in the United States as “decent, hardworking, honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families.”

MERIDA, Mexico — President Bush told his Mexican counterpart on Tuesday that he hoped Congress would reach a consensus on a broad immigration overhaul by August but warned that finding a compromise would be difficult, U.S. officials said.

EricPWJohnson on March 14, 2007 at 5:20 AM

Our President is fulfilling his destiny not his oath of office. Speakup on March 14, 2007 at 12:44 AM

You hit the nail so square on the head! Well put.

lizzee on March 14, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Nothing makes me angrier about Bush than his feelings on our immigration issue.

ballz2wallz on March 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Except, maybe, his position on afirmative action sanction racism.

Alden Pyle on March 14, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Ronald Reagan was the worst immigration president and you treat him as a god.
Yeah, and you know what he called it when he tried amnesty? Amnesty. He was at least honest with us, not calling it “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, whatever the hell that’s supposed to be.

amerpundit on March 13, 2007 at 3:48 PM

You guys, and the others that state these mis-facts, should do a little reading. Where was this “amnesty” bill that Reagan promoted? Where was the word amnesty included in this bill. This was a bill, with defined parameters, to allow aliens to come into this country within a very defined program. Knowing english, American history, background checks, having work (to properly track social security) etc. A program that should have been in place for decades. A much more strict program that allowed most of your ancestors in.
What happended was the dem congress began to water it down, little by little until it was basically eliminated.

Basically Reagans bill is the same that Gingrich is proposing to correct the situation. No bill in congress, or has been proposed in the past seveal years, has the checks and balances that the Reagan bill had.

Read it before slamming it. And look who dismantled it.

right2bright on March 14, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Isn’t Gingrich’s plan the same as Bush’s?

Bush is Mr Irrelevant right now. He simply does not matter anymore. The next year and a half is just an extended lame duck period.

I still wonder how I can become an illegal immigrant. Apparently, If I’m illegal, I don’t have to pay taxes, get free stuff from the government, can have multiple wives and soon I’ll be able to vote. That’s sweet shit, man.

lorien1973 on March 14, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 10:02 AM

… democracies in our neighborhood …

Officially, Mexico is a Federal Republic, not a democracy. Moreover, much like many other countries south of the Rio-Grande, Mexico is also a narco-state.

The United States is a Constitution-based Federal Republic with strong democratic tradition, not a democracy. If you travel along our southern border corridor, you can observe the southern narco-state that overlays our country.

… it is in the interest of the United States of America to help the people …

If you really want to help the Mexican citizen, arm them and let them throw off the current form of government and resolve the long train of usurpations and abuses from their current government for themselves.

“Helping” with handouts to individuals that won’t fight for it themselves never lasts longer than it takes for the next tyrannt to get in office. Teach a man to fish …

Many children never finish grade school; many mothers never see a doctor. In an age of growing prosperity and abundance, this is a scandal — and it’s a challenge.

A scandal for Mexico and a challenge for Mexican citizens to resolve. None of these items are a natural or inalienable right, nor within the budget of the US to satisfy. We aren’t the global welfare shop.

When millions are free from poverty, societies are stronger and more hopeful.

Societies are stronger and more hopeful through strong families. Money doesn’t buy happiness, it only creates a shallow materialistic society. If the Mexicans want more, they need to fix their own house.

Want to help the Mexicans fix their problems? Send the Mexican citizens guns.

AZ_Redneck on March 14, 2007 at 10:48 AM

AZ_Redneck on March 14, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Thanks AZ, helping people is one thing, helping a corrupt government is another. The way to help Mexico is to help them clean up their cesspool of a government. If we are so committed to a change, than we should keep as many of these hardworking citizens of Mexico in Mex. where they can help the economy. We can allow our businesses to move to Mexico, as we have granted rights to, and let them build from their side of the border.

right2bright on March 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Societies are stronger and more hopeful through strong families. Money doesn’t buy happiness, it only creates a shallow materialistic society. If the Mexicans want more, they need to fix their own house.

But as long as our leaders subsidize Mexico’s dysfunction by encouraging illegal immigration to this country, they will have no incentive to change for the better.

If indulging in “the soft bigotry of low expectations” is a crime, W. is public offender #1.

thirteen28 on March 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM

That’s okay. They’ll be able to vote soon too. Our Muslim friend Keith Ellison is taking steps in Minnesota to give voting rights to his fellow Muslim immigrants without being citizens. How long before they vote in Sharia law?

What’s up in Minnesota? Has the entire country gone mad?

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 11:44 AM

I’m with AZ. Let’s send them guns.

PRCalDude on March 14, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Let’s make sure our border is secured first. Otherwise they might turn them on us instead of their own government.

thirteen28 on March 14, 2007 at 12:05 PM

That’s okay. They’ll be able to vote soon too. Our Muslim friend Keith Ellison is taking steps in Minnesota to give voting rights to his fellow Muslim immigrants without being citizens. How long before they vote in Sharia law?

What’s up in Minnesota? Has the entire country gone mad?

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Overreacting a wee bit aren’t you?

The article you referenced said it hadn’t passed four years ago nor in San Francisco. There is also the pesky little thing called the constitution that defines who is allowed to vote — born in or naturalized yes, all others no. Even Legal aliens are not allowed to vote.

Somehow I don’t see this as even a remote threat — it would ultimately need to be ratified as an amendment to the constitution to be valid. The NOW amendment never made it to ratification and it had more traction by far.

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Overreacting a wee bit aren’t you?

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Right Bradky. Elected government officials attempting to allow non-citizens to vote and we should all just relax. Why? Because Bradky says it can’t happen. I feel all better now.

Of course, the Constitution also says we have the right to bear arms too, but that doesn’t change the fact that NY City and San Francisco managed to bypass that.

Current laws also state that it’s illegal for businesses to hire illegal aliens. Current laws also state that our elected government officials are required to enforce those laws.

So much for what the Constitution and Federal law require, huh?

When you see our current President following what to him seems to be ‘just a piece of paper’, you let me know. Until then, I’ll let you handle the sleeping.

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
“The New Colossus,” Emma Lazarus

They soon will be adding a new sign to go around Lady Liberty’s neck. “No Vacancies.”

kiakjones on March 14, 2007 at 1:32 PM

This isn’t actually true. Many states don’t ask for ID before you vote. They just assume you’re a citizen. No one actually knows the extent of voter fraud, but suffice it to say, it’s gotten a couple of congresswomen from CA elected.

PRCalDude on March 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM

What I stated is true - the question is “what is your suggested solution to fix the problems you noted?” I agree that the problems you pointed out do exist.

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Dodgeball! Which police agency are you a part of?

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Violence is not the solution to everything.

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Agreed. I never stated such action was a solution for everything, but history has shown such action has proven extremely effective in stopping little things like tyranny in the form of monarchies, communism, facsism, and the like. Recent history reveals that such action is also effective against terrorism (when such action is actually permitted). Such action has even enabled the environment for you to express your opinion freely and not face reprisal from the government (thank the Founding Fathers for their foresight and a veteran). In addition, such action is not for the double-minded, cowards.

Although given your fetish with killing and violence to solve all problems, a chance to let the nukes fly may be the only thing that gets your blood rushing to your nether regions.

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Please don’t project your own insecurities on me. I don’t have a fetish for killing, nor am I a “let the nukes” fly proponent. However, I am not a pacifist either, and strongly believe that a government operates at the consent of the governed (contrary to how Mexico operates, and, unfortunately, a condition that the U.S. continues to approach). I believe that if you choose to continue in your current position, you should prepare to kiss the hand that will feed you one day.

AZ_Redneck on March 14, 2007 at 3:18 PM

… “free mean men”

AZ_Redneck on March 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Maybe we should send Bradky.

AZ_Redneck on March 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM

LOL! I’ve always had that philosophy. Send those like Bradky in and let them sort out the mess. I have the same theory with peace freaks who feel we can solve Islamic terror with “dialog.” I say give them all a Bible, fly them into Afghanistan, drop them in the middle of terror central, and point them in the direction of the Taliban. Let’s test their theory and see if they can have a peaceful discussion over tea, or whatever it is they drink over there.

Bradky, I’ll pay for your airfare if you’re willing to try to make a difference in the world. Or, are you not confident in your “violence is never the answer” approach?

Gregor on March 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Are you sure of that? Are you sure that local elected officials can only be elected by citizens? Are you sure that illegal immigrants are not already granted the priviledge of voting?

“There is no way of checking,” said Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone. “We have no way of doing that. We have no access to any information about who is in the United States legally or otherwise.”

Voting is for citizens only, right?Not exactly. It is not widely known that immigrants, or noncitizens, currently vote in local elections in over a half dozen cities and towns in the U.S.;
Democracy For All:
Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the U.S.
Ron Hayduk

Bradky on March 14, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Yes I read it, did you read my first group of comments regarding cleaning up the Mexican political mess first? Giving the Mexicans jobs at home does no good if the political thieves steal from them what they earn. We can reform our immigration laws, when Mexico reforms their polictical and economic mess.

right2bright on March 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Good luck on cleaning up Mexico’s political mess. Doesn’t matter anyway Mexico is going socialist within the next 8 years. Almost did last year but Gore Obrador lost the recount.

I’m of the opinion that Bush may actually think he’s helping Mexico and other cental and south American nations by taking in all their riff raff but I don’t think he understands that they’re exporting their socialist problems to el norte to keep the lid on at home.

Buzzy on March 14, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Read a great comment on a blog today regarding Bush’s Immigration policies…he said…..
blockquote>Build the fence whilst Bush is on the other side!!! hehehehhe

Mellen on March 14, 2007 at 7:05 PM