No its not flawed. They are mostly poor. If they were not they would make themselves be legal. Yes I have been to bay area unfortunetly.
Those pics are crude and don't help any, but I wouldn't presume to know what insults an ethnicity and their decendants who have been persecuted over the centuries. A little digging into history will show how the American side used the Treaty of Hidalgo for toilet paper. That doesn't justify the stance on illegal immigration, but it should be taken into the emotional side of this debate.
For Native Americans, under the laws of the time there was nothing illegal. Standards for international conduct had not yet been created or thought of as 'international law' as understood. As such to create some sort of postfacto moralistic standard of 'law' that has been broken is silly. If they want to appeal to some sense of guilt or shame, that is fine I guess, but to claim that they have some sort of legal basis for their claims is unfounded. This is a bit like the Scots trying to get the Italians to pay restitution because the Romans built Hadrian's Wall. Nobody alive can claim direct injury. Nobody alive can be shown to be guilty of the specific acts claimed. There has to be some legitimate sense of a moral equivalent to a 'statute of limitations' or everybody could be making claims against every other group back to the beginning of time. Perhaps all the Irish-Americans could sue the English in turn, who would sue the Norse (Vikings) and Danes, and after they all win the Native Americans can have Norway and Denmark as some sort of restitution. Part of switching over from an illegal immigration system to a legal one is that you can require things like an oath of allegiance as part of the process. This is just another reason to make legal immigration more available.
Why don't poor people from Mississippi who can LEGALLY move to the Bay Area do so? You're argument doesn't seem to make much sense. You are saying that poor people want to act illegally even when they could do the same thing legally. Your argument boils down to that they just want to be illegal because they are poor.
I think most people recognize that the Europeans came here before borders or laws were even established but going to a point that Donkey Magic raised did Europeans ask Native Americans if they could come here? For that matter what about the courtesy of not slaughtering the natives and swindling them? Leaving the legality aside though don't you think its hypocritical for someone like the good doctor, Darren whatever his name is, to be proclaiming how much of a right that the Europeans earned to be here while denying others their chance to earn that right.
They have to be illegal because they are poor. It costs money to follow the law. As it is in most things.
Look, the bottom line is this ... The problem with illegal immigration/amnesty is this. Not so much just the economic, overwhelming and stretching of resources but rather look across the border and see all the problems over there. MS-13 and other gangs turning their towns and cities into war zones. Do you want that here? Diseases are popping up here in the last several years that never were here before. llegal aliens coming across the border are largely not properly immunized. If you legalize 12-20 million illegal aliens and give them citizenship within 7-10 years that number will at least quadruple. It is very simple, it would melt down our resources, and our economy. If they build the Trans-Texas corridor, the dollar we be devalued to ****! Other problems, we have DC crooks on the take who do NOT have the consensus of American's true interests at heart. They are corrupt, they are bought and paid for to facilitate the elite globalists agenda. Bush (directly or indirectly Halliburton) is on the take and obviously since Gonzales is a member of La Raza (the Race), he has a vested interest very much so to do whatever it takes to pass this illegal amnesty bill so he can get paid. Giuliani just recently was found out that his law firm has brokered the deal leading up to the wholesale raping of this state by starting the ground work for the Trans-Texas corridor, which will surely displace hundreds, even thousands of communities and have an irreparable effect on our economy probably bankrupt it! Add a forward assist by our government ok'ing outsourcing of manufacturing and industry abroad and you have the perfect catalyst for disaster. So, in summation, that is why illegal amnesty must be stopped at ALL costs! Believe what you want, people but this is no longer science fiction. Google: North American Union, Trans-Texas corridor just for starters and you'll see what I am talking about. For further evidence check out: www.freedomtofascism.com You can ignore what I am saying but you do so at your own peril. Learn about what is REALLY going on, get informed and make your voice heard.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nCcZABahqgg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nCcZABahqgg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
QUESTION: I understand Amnesty was given in 1986 under the Reagan Admin. I understand we have MORE Illegals now that then? Why did Amnesty not work then? Why do we expect it to work Now? Rocket River
Yes!!! We must resist these evil immigrants!!!! Our country will be destroyed if we don't!!! Sincerely, The 19th Century
I think it's more likely that America continues on and grows like it did back then with the Irish, Chinese, Italians, Mexicans, and all the other immigrants than the current immigrants conquering and committing genocide on us all.
That's not my point. My point is that there is no black and white with this issue. It is all very subjective.
There is a big difference between advocating a controlled border where we can control the flow of immigration and hating all immigrants. I'm sure there are some xenophobes out there who want a "pure" America - but it seems that most of us in the "anti" crowd just want to have legitimate enforcement.
great point. if someone says they need to restrict who comes, people seem to think that you are anti immigrants, thats just not the case. I think the vast majority of people just want some control, because as is right now it is completely uncontrolled. I dont think a lot of people really understand how out of control it is.
thx. as for me - i'd be perfectly ok with a more lenient immgration/naturalization policy as long as enforcement also becomes a priority. without enforcement, any policy is moot imo. I think the 1986 act was supposed to stress enforcement but that never really happened.
