It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Mexico threatens Arizona over Anti-Illegals Measure

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Build a wall, and use the army to guard the border, like every other country in the world, except the US and Canada. Make it, LIKE EVERY other country in the world, you invade our borders, we shoot you.
We find you in our borders, we either shoot you or send you b
ack and wait for you to cross again so we can shoot you. I don't know why, but when every other country does this, no problem, America?


Which first world country does this - I'd love to know? Please give links to credible sources (credible=NOT neonazi.com or hailhitler.org!
).

The truth is that civilized nations don't do that. It would be inhumane and frankly, cruel and unusual punishment without a fair trial - against everything the civilized world strives for. And no, the US and Canada are NOT the only countries in the world who face problems with having too many citizens who are illegal capitalists.



[edit on 1-2-2005 by Estrella]




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Why couldn't we just take half of the money we are investing into rebuilding Iraq, and use to to strenthen mexico's economy, so it isn't so depressing? I mean gee, I've lived in Texas for awhile, lots of hispanics running around down that way....ain't never heard of any of them flying planes into skyscrapers or blowing themselves up in highly populated areas...nor have I ever heard of them beheading any americans. What I've been told about them from those who have hired them and those that have worked with them is that they are nice people for the most part, and well, for the most part they are reallly hard workers. spend a little more money and use a little more influence to get the corruption out of the government and help them get up to a standard of living closer to ours...then I bet they will stay home, maybe even give us a good price on some of their oil.....so we can say heck with the arab countries and just let them blow themselves to heck.....



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Dawnstar, I'm not sure that your proposal is realistic or feasable, but can I just say that I really appreciate the humanity behind what you're saying? As long as we're making unrealistic proposals, it's nice to hear some that recognize the fact that Mexicans are human beings, and often, pretty nice people. In fact, I think Americans and Mexicans have a lot in common, if you take away the economic differences. To be honest, most Mexicans would prefer to stay home if they could make a living. Mexicans love Mexico just like Americans love the US. But just like Americans, Mexicans love their families most of all, and will do whatever it takes to give their kids a decent shot at life. It would be nice to see us grow closer as nations. "Way above" for you.



[edit on 1-2-2005 by Estrella]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Estrella

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Build a wall, and use the army to guard the border, like every other country in the world, except the US and Canada. Make it, LIKE EVERY other country in the world, you invade our borders, we shoot you.
We find you in our borders, we either shoot you or send you b
ack and wait for you to cross again so we can shoot you. I don't know why, but when every other country does this, no problem, America?


Which first world country does this - I'd love to know? Please give links to credible sources (credible=NOT neonazi.com or hailhitler.org!
).



Why place a stipulation to furnish links to first world country's only? He clearly said ALL, so lets play fair ok? Then do yourself a favor and do a google search "Shot while crossing border".



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Shots, I did the search you specify, and the only result was this article about militants crossing the Indian border. . The "militants" are people who are fighting, literally and violently, in a very real and present land dispute between India and Pakistan that has resulted in two very real wars.

Let's get this clear. Mexicans crossing the border are not terrorists. They are not waging war against the US. They are looking for work. That's the crime for which you want people to die.

Anyway, I'm still waiting. And sure, if you want to include all countries, so be it. I assumed that James didn't want the US to emulate the kinds of countries that don't practice things associated with the Enlightenment, but perhaps you would prefer to live in another type of society altogether. One that beheads people for saying things against the popular religion and stones women to death for cheating on their husbands and cuts off people's hands for stealing, perhaps?

So, what is it, then? Which countries shoot people as they cross the border? Make a list, so we can examine them and decide if you want the US to emulate those countries.

Perhaps you will find a new place that you can go to live, to get away from all of those evil Mexicans who have lost half their land to the US and taken their revenge by um... working. Oh, and speaking Spanish. Kill, kill, kill!





[edit on 2-2-2005 by Estrella]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
dawnstar says:

”By the way, a person in NY making around $35,000/yr who has a family of five will be eligible for child health plus.....the will only pay around $7/child and then Blue Cross/Blue Shield will cover the cost of their medical bills....subsidized by the taxpayers money of course....”

That is exactly my point, Dawnstar. Raising wages to $10/hour isnot going to cut our welfare expenditures, because people making $10/hour will get the welfare money anyway.

”ya, I know the programs, and they guidelines....I've watched them increase as the years went by...and well, I've also seen the CEO's and upper management of blue cross/blue shield go up also....gee, where do you think all that taxmoney went to....a good portion of it I believe went to those salary increases.”

“You believe”??

Have you read the annual reports of outfits like CIGNA, BlueCross/BlueChield, Kaiser Permanente, etc? Here’s the websites of the various companies’ financial disclosures.
CIGNA: www.cigna.com...
BlueCross: www.carefirst.com...
Kaiser Permanente: newsmedia.kaiserpermanente.org.../feature/007announcements/newsmedia/nat_110804_thirdquarter.html .xml&contentRepository=ContentRepository


”Try standing in one of those lines for hours after working all night, with absolutely no sleep…”

And that’s exactly what the small business owners would have to do to justify their tax break, under your plan.

”I'm sure the government would be alot kinder to the businesses, they certainly won't be told that they don't have to work since the person who is there to serve them thinks her job is to make it possible that they don't.”

Why do you say that? Are you saying that a government bureaucrat is going to automatically take the part of Business? Then why are you recommending creating another huge government bureaucracy?

“As far as the cost of the paperwork, well, NY passed their great smoking ban a few years ago, and then decided that well, hey some of the businesses would more than likely be hurt. So they came up with vouchers, to exempt SOME businesses. Thus came the paperwork, plus a nice fee for filing it.... To me, if they can create the mass of paperwork to ensure that the person who is working the job that I used to have can enjoy the smoke free atmosphere while they breeth in the crap that is in the place....well, this should be a peice of cake, and more beneficial... “

A piece of cake? You just finished bewailing the government’s inability to serve the people by making us all stand in line, and then you say that the government is on the side of Big Business. And now you’re saying that handling this problem is a “piece of cake”!

Which one is it, Dawnstar? Is the government on our side or Big businesses’ side? Do they screw up their bureaucracy, or is it a “piece of cake”?

”I'm sorry, but the primary way for someone to support themselves and their family is through work. But, in order for it to be this way, well, their pay has to provide enough to do it. IF what you say is true, that the businesses just can't do this, well, then they are the charity cases, not their employees.”

No, they are not “charity cases”. The vast majority of small businesses are getting by via hard work and tough management, which is what keeps any business away from bankruptcy. The businesses are offering work to people at a wage they can afford and the people can take the wage or not. The only person pushing for “charity” is you, and you’re pushing for forced government “charity” -- which the workers have to subsidize through their taxes.

”Why should the employees be the ones standing in line begging? And, well, wouldn't the line flow a little faster, and with less paper work, if it was the businesses instead?”

Are you saying that we should start a new bureaucracyfo make the businesspeople stand in lind because you claim that the line would go faster? Is that your argument?

Dawnstar, you have not answered any of my questions or addressed any of my comments, nor have you, it appears, done any research for any of your assertions!



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Estrella, let me state I do not want this thread to get off topic, which it appears is what you want. This is not about people who enter this country legally, nor is it about countries that shoot people crossing their borders; it is about those that enter the US illegally., why can’t you understand that? I could give you several examples in other countries however; they are irrelevant in this case, since we are discussing those that cross the US/Mexican border.



Let's get this clear. Mexicans crossing the border are not terrorists they are not waging war against the US. They are looking for work. That's the crime for which you want people to die.


First, I never said they were terrorists. Second, I never claimed I wanted them to die.


Originally posted by Estrella
Shots, I did the search you specify, and the only result was this article about militants crossing the Indian border. . The "militants" are people who are fighting, literally and violently, in a very real and present land dispute between India and Pakistan that has resulted in two very real wars.


Now if you want an example I will give you just one and only one, as it pertains to Mexico. It may be old, but it does apply in this case to serve as an example.


At least six illegal immigrants were wounded when their vehicle was blasted with gunfire Friday morning as it illegally crossed the U.S. border near Calexico, Calif.

The six immigrants were hospitalized in El Centro and San Diego, two of whom were in critical but stable condition later Friday, said Manuel Garcia, spokesman for the Imperial County Sheriff's office.

An investigation was being conducted by officers from both the sheriff's office and FBI agents, said Manny Figueroa, spokesman for the U.S. Border Patrol's El Centro sector. The Associated Press said that at least one of the victims reported the vehicle in which the shooters were traveling belonged to the Mexican military.


Now I ask you why they were traveling in a Mexican military vehicle? My guess would be the military personnel involved were coyotes trying to help illegal’s get across the border.



Mexican federales illegally crossed the border near Yuma five times in the fiscal year 2001. And there was one incursion, or illegal entry, by the federal officers this fiscal year, said Mike McGlasson, spokesman for the patrol's Yuma sector.

McGlasson said the Mexican officers fled back south of the border in every instance before Border Patrol agents could apprehend them. But agents know Mexican officers are armed and are advised to call for backup in such circumstances, McGlasson said.

Over in the Tucson sector, not all Mexican officers are heading back over the border just at the sight of U.S. officers. It's believed a U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot at by a Mexican military unit south of Ajo May 17, though the investigation is still pending.


Source www.stevequayle.com...

Can you explain why the Mexican military are crossing the border illegally? Here again it seems obvious to me, they appear to be acting as coyotes.

Lets face it times are hard in Mexico for their own and corruption abounds as we all know. That is not a problem for US Taxpayers is it? What makes you think that anyone that wants to cross our borders can do so whenever they want? I am positive if Americans were going to Mexico if Mexico was the same, as the US Mexicans would complain big time.



Perhaps you will find a new place that you can go to live, to get away from all of those evil Mexicans who have lost half their land to the US and taken their revenge by um... working. Oh, and speaking Spanish. Kill, kill, kill!


First why on earth would I want to leave the US to get away from Illegals? Unlike them I was born an American.

Second, I never said I wanted to get away from Mexicans and I never said anything about killing anyone. Also I have no prolem speaking Spanish. I lived in Spain for 8 years.



[edit on 2-2-2005 by Estrella]

[edit on 2/2/2005 by shots]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Off the Street.

Look around and see just how many jobs there are that are paying less that half of that income guideline that is being used to determine the eligibility for medicaid....I'll use $9-$10 and hour. You may bring it down to $8 to $9 if you like, doubled that is $16-$18 dollars and hr. I am doubling it because every child in this country has two parents, so both have the responsibility of providing the financial support the children requires. But, in actuality, neither is that accurate, since we aren't taking into consideration the number of children they have to begin with. They might need less, they might need more. The only way we could address this issue would be to do away with the idea of equal pay for equal work and replace it with one that takes into consideration just how many children there are. And, to be more accurate, we would also have to take into consideration weather or not the marital status of those involved, since if they are separated and cannot share the responsibilty of the child care while the other is working, well, they would have to pay for it.....the idea of a living wage is a little far out because of these two factors....it would vary according to the circumstances in each case. But, this is also true of the present system also.....it it sending away people who genuinely need help and aren't getting it either. But, well.....the current minimum wage wouldn't even take care of the needs of the employee, let alone any children they may have. you say they should get a different job, well, if they could do that, they probably would have before they went running to social service, don't you think?
But, well, look around your area, look through the employment ads in the paper. How many people are there around you relying on the medicaid, the food stamps, the hud, ect, ect, ect.
Your answer to the problem is that it isn't your problem, and well, you don't want your money being used to support them. Okay, let's imagine the economy without taxmoney being used to support them for a minute. Would these people have homes to live in? Would they have food to eat? Medical care that they need? Will you still be saying that it's not your problem when you find their kids rummaging through your trash for a small morsel of food? Will they be living in their cars? ect.


Would they be able to hold that job with the income they have?
Will the businesses be able to increase their wage so they can?
Could the business community replace these with others who could live on that wage? Could our medical system even survive?
If you answer is no to these questions, well then the businesses are now really charity cases....they could not operate their businesses and return a profit unless the government intervened in some way. And, I believe the answer is no for alot of them, and well, those that the answer is yes to the one about increasing their wages are now claiming our taxmoney and putting our country in danger just so they can enjoy their profits more.

And, before you bring up the idea of the conservative christian charity bit, well, here's a glimpse of times gone by. When there was little government regulation and the poor had to rely on the charity of others.

Guilty or Not.

She stood at the bar of justice,
A creature wan and Wild
In a form too small for a women,
In features too old for a child.

For a look so old and pathetic
Was stampled on her pale young face,
It seemed long years of suffering
Must have left that silent trace.

"Your name," said the judge as he eyed her.
With kindly look yet keen
"Is"- "Mary McGuire if you please sir."-
"And your age?"- "I am turned fifteen."
"Well; Mary,"-and then from a paper
He slowly and gravely read-
"You're charged here- I'm sorry to say it-
With stealing three loaves of bread."

You look not like an old offender,
And I hope that you can show
The charge to be false, Now tell me,
Are you guilty of this or no?"
A passionate burst of weeping
Was at first her sole reply
But she dried her tears in a moment,
And looked in the judge's eye.

I will tell you just how it was,sir,
My father and my mother are dead,
And my little brothers and sisters
We're hungry and asked for bread,
At first I earned it for them
By working hard all day,
But somehow times were bad, sir,
And, the work all fell away.

"I could get no more employment;
The weather was bitter cold;
The young ones cried and shivered
(Little Johnnie's but but four years old)-
So, what was I to do sir?
I took- oh, was it stealing?-
The bread to give to them."

Every man in the courtroom-
Grey-beard and thoughtless youth-
Knew as they looked upon her,
that the prisoner spoke the truth.
Out from the pockets came kerchiefs,
out from the eyes sprang tears,
And, out from old faded wallets
Treasures hoarded for years.

The judge's face was a study-
The strangest you ever saw,
As he cleared his throat and murmured
Something about the law.
For one so learned in such manners-
So wise in dealing with men
He seemed, on a puzzled question,
Sorely puzzled just then.

But, no one blamed him or wondered,
When, at last these words they heard-
"The sentence of this young prisoner
Is for the present deferred."
And, no one blamed him or wondered
When he went to her and smiled.
And then tenderly led from the courtroom,
Himself, the "guilty" child..

My great-grandmother collected poetry, I have her book, in which she pasted clippings of newpapers that have poetry on it. I'd estimate that date to be oh, around 1850 or so...
I like old literature, even the Bible. It's a gem in that it does give a glimpse of the way people lived during the time it was written. So, although I have no idea weather little Mary McGuire was a real person, or just someone made up. I'd venture to say that there were probably many children just like her.
So, where was your compassionate christian charity that you are trying to convince us will exist after you disassemble the safety net? It appears to have been lacking in times past, back in the good ole days of small government, and it seems to be lacking in your words also...

And, well, as a society we seem to be even more guilty than the judge in this poem would be. Since, back then, a young 15 year old girl could at least earn enough to take care of her young sisters and brothers, when she could find a job. Now, full grown men with familes would probably fare far worse than her, except for the social service programs, in appearing normal enough in this society not to have drawn the attention of us all to the point of having eviction notices, and charges pressed on them for their shortcomings.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
They didn't "lose" half their land to America, there was a WAR, may have heard of it? We won, to the victor go the spoils. Thats like saying France lost half their land to America, when they sold it to us.

Also, no problem with spanish, if you are in Spain, Mexico, Cuba, so forth, speak it. But say, in America, England, Australia, where English is the national language, you should speak freaking English. Or french if in France, even if it just enough to get around while on vacation. Japanese if in Japan, Chinese if in China, so forth.

Also, thanks for the Mexican Military invading America and killing Americans link, I was gonna google it, but that more of a military action, not 5million civillians invading a foreign country. How would France like it if 5million Germans invaded? Well, invaded again. It is called WWI and WWII. Or if 50million chinese invaded Russia, think that might start a war? BTW, china and russia have actual troops guarding the border, why can't we?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
They didn't "lose" half their land to America, there was a WAR, may have heard of it? We won, to the victor go the spoils. Thats like saying France lost half their land to America, when they sold it to us.

Also, no problem with spanish, if you are in Spain, Mexico, Cuba, so forth, speak it. But say, in America, England, Australia, where English is the national language, you should speak freaking English. Or french if in France, even if it just enough to get around while on vacation. Japanese if in Japan, Chinese if in China, so forth.

BTW, china and russia have actual troops guarding the border, why can't we?


Good points James.

I recall hearing that the US paid for some of the land after the war, however those supporting the illegals will never admit to that.

Canada also has a INS law stating that you have to speak either French or English. Spain requires that you speak spanish I might add.


You left out the fact that both Russia and China shoot their own people that cross those borders. You can't say the same for the Mexican army, in fact the Mexican military has crossed into our country illegally and shot at US Border guards. Yet those supporting the illegals leave out that fact.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Dawnstar says:

”Look around and see just how many jobs there are that are paying less that half of that income guideline that is being used to determine the eligibility for medicaid....I'll use $9-$10 and hour. You may bring it down to $8 to $9 if you like, doubled that is $16-$18 dollars and hr.’

So what you’re telling me is that even if a person gets $16-$18 per hour they’re still eligible for Medicaid? I agree. And that is why your argument about an increase in the minimum wage would be paid for by the lowered welfare costs. As you yourself keep telling me, they would not.

”I am doubling it because every child in this country has two parents, so both have the responsibility of providing the financial support the children requires. But, in actuality, neither is that accurate, since we aren't taking into consideration the number of children they have to begin with.’

You’re also not taking into account that a very large minority of children come from single-parent families. And, in many of those families, the absent parent doesn’t support the child(ren) in any way, shape, or form. When my wife and I got married, she had a six-year old son whom, ever since his parents were divorced when he was two, had never even seen his biological father, nor had my wife received a penny from him.

The only way we could address this issue would be to do away with the idea of equal pay for equal work and replace it with one that takes into consideration just how many children there are.

In other words, the amount of money you got would depend on how many children you had. Now that really makes sense. You want to reward people who help overpopulate the planet, by giving them all kind of tax benefits. I have son whom I am raising to be an educated, hard-working, and self0-sufficient citizen; and, instead of a pat on the back, I am punished by being forced to support a person who realizes that the more kids she has, the more money she gets.

What kind of an incentive toward a stable environment is that? Is that what you really want?

”And, to be more accurate, we would also have to take into consideration weather or not the marital status of those involved, since if they are separated and cannot share the responsibilty of the child care while the other is working, well, they would have to pay for it..”

So you want us to not only incentivize someone having lots of kids by paying her lots of money, but you also want to incentivize single parent families by rewarding further women who are not married and guys who will skip out on payments. Boy, Dawnstar, you’re really family-friendly, aren’t you?

“..you say they should get a different job, well, if they could do that, they probably would have before they went running to social service, don't you think?”

Not under your plan which rewards the man for leaving the family, and the woman for not working and having more kids.

“Your answer to the problem is that it isn't your problem, and well, you don't want your money being used to support them.”

Don’t put words in my mouth, Dawnstar; I never said that welfare should be abolished. I have been saying that raising the minimum wage would make the welfare problem worse, not better, and would cause a lot of people to be laid off and a lot of small business go bankrupt. You are the one talking about welfare, not I.

”Would they be able to hold that job with the income they have?’

Of course they’d be able to hold their jobs with the income they have! It’s only if the small business owner is forced to pay a higher wage and runs the risk of going bankrupt and the person might not be able to hold the job because of the layoff!

”Will the businesses be able to increase their wage so they can?”

That doesn’t follow. Businesses want to raise the pay of their people because it will keep them working and will also improve morale and efficiency. And as long as it doesn’t cause the business undue hardship and the risk of going bankrupt, they probably will -- especially if the economy continues to grow. You plan, by shutting down a lot of small businesses and throwing a lot of minimum wage workers on the street will damage the economy, not improve it!

“Could the business community replace these with others who could live on that wage?”

Sure, as long as there’re more jobs than workers. But your plan, which would shut down a lot of small businesses and throw a lot of minimum wage workers on the street, is going to lower the number of jobs available and increase the number of people looking for work.

”Guilty or Not….”

That is a touching poem, but what does it have to do with raising the minimum wage which will bankrupt a lot of small businesses and put minimum wage workers on the street?

“So, where was your compassionate christian charity that you are trying to convince us will exist after you disassemble the safety net? It appears to have been lacking in times past, back in the good ole days of small government, and it seems to be lacking in your words also...”

What do my religion and a “safety net” have to do with your plan to bankrupt small businesses and force the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of minimum wage people?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
sorry, must be mistaking you for someone else.
Ya know, around 10 years ago, that $35,000 was down around $20,000. That's over $10,000 raise a decade. In another decade, if the trends continue, it will be up to $45,000, then $55,000, ect, ect....
There was a time when if an employer knew that one of their employees were having a hard time, he could increase his pay weather he had more kids, or one of them was sick, or for whatever reason. He had that option. Now, if he is to obey the laws, well, if he wants to help him, he has to raise everyone's pay who are doing similar work. I think my boss would have helped me out, except for that one little flaw. The others were griping about their pay, he didn't dare. But, well, why did they pass the equal pay for equal work....oh ya, because the women and other minorities were doing the same work as the white male and making considerably less. So, I kind of doubt that most of the companies are willing to raise the pay to the level that they can in an equal manner. They haven't in the past. Too bad, because if they would, thenthat employer would have a choice to add a little extra in that one employees pocket instead of watching them walk out the door.
There's a growing number of people in this country that are really getting quite resentful of having their money taken and given to the lesser advantage. And, well, increasing the guidelines to the extent that they have in the past decade will just make that number grow. Especially as more and more above that level find themselves living below the standard that the government provides....which is happening now with the medical. So, just how long do you think we can keep going like this? And, well, remember those questions that I asked before? you said that they'd just find someone else to do the job. who? even mc donalds cannot run their business with just students. and they certainly don't pay enough for anyone to be able to hold their own. so, just who would they hire, at that rate?
Actually, I really would rather the government not pass any more laws in this area, they just mess things up. but any business out there who could be paying it and isn't (and I think there are a few, should really rethink their policy. because, well, it is damaging our country and therefore themselves.
Which is why I said I didn't think it was a bush issue to begin with, it is a moral issue. the businesses do have a moral obligation to pay their employees what is needed to live on, and well, if they are asking for 10 years or so experience, they should include the cost of the children.

As far as single parent families......well, how is it that one parent is allowed to fly the coop and get out of the obligation, while the one that remains ends up being considered a leech to the system to begin with.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
.
Who thinks it is only a matter of time before the US is annexed to Mexico?

You make think that is a joke, but culturally it is happening.

It makes me think of the movie alien, where the little critter is growing inside a person, and eventually bursts out, killing the host.

People coming to the US to gain the benefits of the US system, but wanting to change it to be more like the old system they escaped. Can anyone else see the illogic of this?

I am hearing talk of another amnesty. What is this the third in a couple of decades? I can hear illegals thinking now "Why worry about it, just hang around for the next amnesty" How about the 4th or 5th amnesty, WTF even pretend there is a law?

I guess we have spent too much money installing [attempting to] democracy in Iraq. No WMDs. What a waste. Now we can't even come up with the money or will to guard our own borders.

Maybe this is Mexico's revenge for taking all the Southwest territory in the Mexican American war.

America is dead. The corporate vampires have sucked all blood out of Washington and there is no strength left to keep our borders secure.
. . ___
. / . . . \
. | RIP | America
. |,.,.,.,|
.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Shots, how dare you tell the truth! Racist! Oh yeah, love that, anyone not for a foreign force invading your homeland is a racist.

Again, how can anyone allow a foreign force of over 5million invade their country, change the laws, take their jobs, force them to learn a new language, and still support them? Half the jobs require that you speak spanish nowadays cause there are so many illegals. So, want a job here? Do you speak spanish? No? Why not? This is America, we need to be able to serve all the people, including the person who is getting this job since he works for 4 dollars less then you.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Shots, how dare you tell the truth! Racist! Oh yeah, love that, anyone not for a foreign force invading your homeland is a racist.

Again, how can anyone allow a foreign force of over 5million invade their country, change the laws, take their jobs, force them to learn a new language, and still support them? Half the jobs require that you speak spanish nowadays cause there are so many illegals. So, want a job here? Do you speak spanish? No? Why not? This is America, we need to be able to serve all the people, including the person who is getting this job since he works for 4 dollars less then you.



Yeah no doubt Estreela will cry foul when it is not. If they want to live here and vote here, they should enter the country legally like others do.

In addition they have no need to get an American drivers license, all they have to do is get an International drivers permit. My guess is the only reason they want an American drivers license in some cases is because they want to steal someones identity.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join