As many other Americans I've been very pro-Immigrant, but this irritates. Essentially, another country's population wants us to legalize illegal immigrants. If we chose to do it, it won't be because we've been coerced or blackmailed ... and if their home nation expresses strong anti-American sentiments...well how exactly does that entice us to welcome their countrymen with open arms? If this boycott is widely recognized, I (fwiw) would seriously revisit my opinion. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/14/mexico.boycott.ap/index.html
Ironic that Texas was originally fought for and won from Mexico due to the American settlers' annoyance that Mexico had closed the borders so that Americans would not be able to continue to pour in. Many at the time were angry that family and friends wouldn't be able to join them in Texas. That said, I don't support illegal immigration and find the Mexican protests to be inane. I want free tacos, but I'm not getting that. I surmise that we're going to have a problem...
Why didn't they choose Cinco De Mayo? It's already Mexican holliday celebrating independence from France. They could celebrate their independence from the US and have speeches about how they are going to make Mexico flourish so that the people won't have to immigrate illegally.
arkoe, that "annoyance," as you put it, was far from the only reason for the Texas Revolution, but I digress. I find the protest in Mexico a bit off-base myself. Considering that the legislation is still being thrashed out, and the protests of the illegal immigrants and their supporters has been very effective at bringing public attention to what the GOP is attempting in Congress, the "May 1st Protests" down in Mexico is a distraction those working on the issue here don't need. It gives ammunition to the hardliners in the GOP, and those out of it, who are trying to get the House's bill passed. In my opinion. (Cohen, that's a long-winded way of saying I largely agree with you! ) Keep D&D Civil.
This is Mexican terrorism at its finest. I'm sure Bush will have a very harsh response. He hates terrorism in any form.
yak in d box is conspicuously absent here anyhow...this will have as much effect as the gas boycott emails. it's just a provocative news story.
You're right, I overstated it's importance a bit. It was definately in the mix though. Only if you're paying the bill. I can't imagine how much money it would cost us to bring the standard of living up there to match what it is in the States...
To be fair, maybe we can also add 'don't eat fruit and vegetables day', 'don't live in your house day', and 'don't work in your office building day'. Should gringo be considered offensive? Is it different/worse than using hispanic or latino?
Well I guess there were folks who claimed that they were going to revisit their support for civil rights, whenever they didn't like a protest tactic. There were a lot of folks who also objected to calls for a boycott of Apartheid South Africa, yet, who claimed to be for civil rights there. I'm not sure whether this boycott is a good tactic, but someone who wants to revisit the whole idea of immigrant rights due to one tactic, was about to flip anyway. Cohen, still a big fan of the Iraq War? Hopefully you have revisited that.
"On May 1, people shouldn't buy anything from the interminable list of American businesses in Mexico," reads another. "That means no Dunkin' Donuts, no McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, Sears, Krispy Kreme or Wal-Mart." funny how coke is absent from that list. no way mexicans could go a day without the sweet nectar. btw, they use real sugar down there instead of corn syrup and it makes for a purely magical beverage experience. you gringos dont know what your missing!
What a horribly weak analogy, but no surprise. Apartheid was illegal and inhumane. In this instance, the illegal immigrants are the ones who... well, you get it by now don't you? If you have no legal basis for your argument and your 'tactics' alienate your supporters... that's not too birlliant, eh? Illegal immigrants are not entitled to US citizenship, they're not entitled to stay here illegally. If they and their supporters wish to harm us and/or exhibit anti-American then they do not deserve our support. Nice ad hominem, peabrain. My views on this teeny-tiny subject you decided to inject here are expressed where they belong.
its like the equivalent of black people calling you 'white boy'. its not great but its meaning is certainly contextual. lmy gf's friend who is illegal used to always call me guero and pretty much any white guy guero.
Actually I think that it was legal under laws enacted in 1948 in South Africa. The brutal suppression of protests against apartheid was also legal based on a later law. It was, of course, inhumane but that goes without saying.
Well let's discuss the anlaogy. 1) We have the Civil Rights Movement, which was protesting some customs and practices some of which which were legal under the law of some Southern States. I assume we can agree that they were immoral. Now for Apratheid, it was legal under So African Law and we agree immoral. WRT to "illegal" immigration I think we can agree it is illegal by defintiion. I would argue that it is not immoral. I can agree, it might be an unwise tactic, but as noted I wonder how strong your support actually is to confuse, perhaps unwise tactics, with the justice of the movement. This doesn't look so supportive to me. . "Peabrain" could be considered an ad hominem in my book. I'm not sure why asking whether you are revisiting other subjects leads to such ire.
