Posted on 02/04/2005 7:30:02 PM PST by 82Marine89
Sweet article, sweet lament. The problem in SF is complex and primarily a brawl between black and gay "communities. This article author could have done a simple check to find out more specifically about the brawl. Asian immigrants have gotten the short stick in San Francisco and the cause is due the "preferential" activities of the lefty black and lefty gay "ruling elites".
If California is so unfriendly to immigrants, then why are they moving here in such large numbers, both legally and otherwise?
yup.......they always mix up immigration and illegal immigration.........and the minute some state says they are better than another than that to me is some type of insecurity or jealousy......so what......and we better mention how much illegals are costing the state in education, medical costs and prisons.....go down to LA where it is more prevalent and you won't find alot of sympathy down there.......if they had the same number of illegals as us or Ariz or Texas they wouldn't be opening their insecure big mouths.....
A lot of reports on this type of stuff fail to make the distinction between Illegal and legal immigration. That why they can make it look like the government is trying to steal the rights of legal immigrants, when in fact the people that are causeing the problems aren't here legally.
You forgot the homeless. Your mayor and city council has given them free run of the city.
Sanctuary Francisco has an immigrant problem?
The bots will arrive shortly I'm sure. Defending criminals with the same pointless sword.
Barf.
I blame the huddled masses yearning for freebies.
To people like this, there is no such thing as illegal immigration. The concept does not exist for them, and they will never acknowledge that the term "illegal" can ever be used with regard to immigration. There are a number of posters on this board that agree with them.
To them. borders and concerns about immigration status are antiquated beliefs that have no place in the 21st century. An equally antiquated notion is making any distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
Read a thread where ACLU is going after Texas -- as Texas is trying to "ban" the homeless in certain areas. You see, in SF they don't "outright" ban, they skew the verbiage and the ACLU knows this. Ergo, "no suit" against officials "hiding" their homeless.
SF long ago was my city. It isn't and hasn't been for quite some time.
There is a group of homesexuals in SF who are objecting to the proposed gun ban. They call themselves the "Pink Pistols".
lol. Yep "we accept anybody!" SF is having problems.
"Pink Pistols"... don't get me going.. SF the land of Puppets and Puppetry and sexual aides..
If California is so unfriendly to immigrants, then why are they moving here in such large numbers, both legally and otherwise?
WINNER! of the "Great Rhetorical Question Of The Day" award....
It's easier to demonize us by claiming we don't like *any* immigration and then calling us racists. That way, they don't have to actually think and defend their positions.
I remember when Carlos Estevez, I mean Martin Sheen, displaced a bum by sleeping on his manhole cover in order to stay warm at night.
Lets see the Libertarians defend their open borders "policies" alongside an anti-gun position. You see.. it comes from this mantra, which I use too, periodically: Your rights extend to the end of my fist. The thinking here in Libertarians is: Hey, I can defend myself, ergo I don't need no freakin' borders... And its folks like these who are causing problems (from the usual anti-gun Dems) for responsible gun owners and gun groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.