Immigrants Rally in City, Seeking Rights

The New York Times ^ | October 5, 2003 | STEVEN GREENHOUSE

[texastoo]

I agree he could do it. We just have to let him know how many casualties are acceptable in the hypothetical scenario of resulting riots, lootings, burnings, killings, ets....the campus riots, civil disobedience, a whole "60s redux that you have described.

How many American casualties is it going to take in Iraq to clean the criminals out and guard their borders?

Last week in Florida they rounded up about 50 or 60 illegal alien sex offenders. What about the children casualties there? What about the casualties, 13 or 14 of the illegal alien DC snipers? Policemen, border patrol agents have been shot and killed by illegal aliens. How many innocent American casualties will it take for Bush?

Bush doesn't seem to mind the bad press coverage in Iraq so why would he mind if he got bad press coverage for Americans?

[Texas_Jarhead]

In the early 50s Operation Wetback resulted in the expulsion of ~1,000,000 illegals...

[sarcasm]

And I don't expect any mass deportations.

Because of political cowardice.

[Consort]

I agree he could do it.

He really could, hypothetically.

How many American casualties is it going to take in Iraq....

Americans will accept casualties over there, but casualties here are another matter. I don't think they will accept it.

Last week in Florida they rounded up about 50 or 60 illegal alien sex offenders....

All of that validates what I described will happen. It will get worse.

Bush doesn't seem to mind the bad press coverage in Iraq so why would he mind if he got bad press coverage for Americans?

You'll have to ask him.

[Consort]

That's the way it is.

[Age of Reason]

What part of what I described do you disagree with and how would you handle it?

I can't handle anything--I'm a lone citizen.

I can only say how I wish my country would handle this.

If the USA plays too rough about keeping the illegals out, then America looks like the bad guy.

So I wish America would instead persuade the Mexican government to do the dirty work of controlling Mexican citizens.

This persuasion of Mexico might be accomplished by refusing to trade with Mexico if Mexico doesn't guard its own borders.

By applying pressure to the Mexican government to police its border with the U.S., Mexico is made to do the dirty work--which I am sure they are very good at, not being as civilized as America in the enforcement of laws.

You know, if your neighbor's kids climb your fence and vandalize your backyard, the kids' parents should be responsible for controlling their children.

The same with neighboring countries.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Regardless of origin, illegal is illegal. Welcome to FR.

[sarcasm]

That's why I won't be voting for Bush again.

[Age of Reason]

Tancredo is a small factor in the overall scheme of things--the liberal smear machine leaves him alone because it knows by himself in his own little state, Tancredo can't do much.

And so the liberal smear machine knows there's no harm in pretty much ignoring Tancredo, whereas to go after him would result in giving Tancredo national publicity--and that the liberal smear machine wants to avoid.

It's the same with many small-time rebels: The powers that be know that by going after them, they give those small-timers national attention.

Why risk doing that when so long as they are small timers, they will accomplish little or nothing?

But step onto the national stage--get big enough to be a real threat, and the liberal smear machine goes after your reputation all out.

[TheWriterInTexas]

Our Rights are inherent. They are enumerated in the Constitution.

To have a country recognize you as a citizen, and grant you all the benefits of citizenship, is A PRIVILEGE.

When will these folks get this straight? I'm sick of this contortion of the language.

[getget]

Illegal Immigrants is the trojan horse of America

[Consort]

I think it's wishful thinking. Mexico is a neighbor but not a true ally and it will contuinue to encourage illegal immigration, covertly and overtly.

[Hoverbug]

Anybody see a different scenario?

Yep. Arrest them and deport them.

Hb

[Age of Reason]

In the early 50s Operation Wetback resulted in the expulsion of ~1,000,000 illegals

I remember that.

But there was an earlier expulsion during the Great Depression, done to allow Americans to have the jobs those illegals were taking away.

And now I've heard those deported are planning to sue for being thrown-out.

[Consort]

It doesn't matter if you vote for him or not.

[sarcasm]

Tancredo sure stirred up Karl Rove.

[Consort]

Yep. Arrest them and deport them.

Anybody see this happening on a large scale, .i.e., millions of people? If so, when might it start, how long might it take, about how much will it cost, and how will we handle all the potential problems described above?

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

A spokeslady for this travesty - someone with a hispanic name and accent - was being interviewed on the BBC tonight.

The BBC newsnerd actually asked how she could possibly advocate for "rights" for illegal immigrants. She replied that it was an invidious distinction (my words, her meaning) to discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants, because illegal immigrants "contribute to our economy and deserve to be here".

The BBC newsnerd didn't point out the lunacy of this assertion, but at least he asked the obvious question, which is often not asked by "our" news media.

Hmmm.... drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps and "white slavers", mafia hitmen, con men, insurance fraud arsonists, and smugglers all "contribute" to the US economy (if you assume the fiction of the GDP, as opposed to real wealth creation), but no one except the more extreme libertarian types advocates legalizing their activities based solely on their alleged "contributions" (never mind their costs) to the US economy.