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.

 

Is Massachusetts racist?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy
I have tried and tried to put down something here... I just keep deleting it. So in short. Day late and a dollar short. I live dead nuts center in this once great state. I have seen far to many nice neighborhoods go to sh1t due to the parasite known as the illegal. This morning i was at home depot, to none my surprise there was the usual 20 odd Haitian, Cuban, Bahamian islander of some sort standing at the end of the parking lot getting picked up by all the local contractors for 50 dollars for a days work. Worst yet there's a STATE office in this city that hires out people for 50 dollars days wage, the kicker is they just ask you for your name. No ID nothing. So for them all of the sudden to put this budget amendment out there is crap. It's just another way of trying to keep an inept retahd named Deval as Governor, which to the best of my understanding is straight of Camp Obama. Furthermore this state is so broke due to universal healthcare and a manipulated welfare system that they cant possibly follow thru. Hell Didnt Obama have an aunt or something living in Mass illegally. Good thing she became naturalized. Thats all i got... In closing this is BS. Nothing will change.


This comment is just as bad as people blaming drug cartels for getting them hooked on coc aine. Illegals aren't the problem. The companies that higher them for dirt cheap are. We need to crack down on these companies and make it way more expensive for them to higher the aliens if they are caught then its worth for the cheap labor they provide. Once that well drys out I can assure you the migrations for work will stop. Calling these people parasites and other bad names just shows that your aim is on the wrong target. The true parasites are the owners of these companies that are taking advantage of a cheap non-citizen work force to turn a hefty profit.




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Procession101
 

Let me state first that I am glad to be a citizen of a country that still has people doing whatever they can to get in, rather than out.


Illegal Aliens are a part of the problem, so is the economic difference between the U.S. and other parts of the world (not just talking about Mexico here) and you are correct in saying that the employers who hire the illegal aliens are primarily at fault and should suffer some type of consequence for those actions.

Securing our borders is only part of the answer, finding and deporting the illegal aliens is another part (not blanket amnesty). Eliminating the incentive to come here illegally while not eliminating the incentive to come legally is another part of the solution, and possibly one reason why our Federal Government does nothing.

Maybe these other countries should look at the reasons so many of their people want to leave and come to the U.S. just as the U.S. needs to look at why they are coming here illegally.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
It passed in the senate (28-10 I think) But it wont become a law. Deval Patrick can "line item veto" anything in the bill, and he said he is against the immigration policy that passed. Martha Coaxley, the AG, has stated that being illegal isn't illegal in massachusetts and she is also against the bill. The senate president has said that she is against the bill and will do anything she can to get it killed.

All that was done here is the same old- same old in mass politics. The democratic leadership allowed democrats in the senate to vote for the bill for political clout, knowing that deval patrick will veto it in the end. The senators get to say "I voted for the bill", knowing that the bill will never become a law. Its all about being re-elected. Smoke and mirrors.


[edit on 2-6-2010 by METACOMET]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


Agree with you 110%. By putting the pressure on the employers of illegals, I believe the United States would essentially get rid of a large amount of the aliens within our borders. I'd say the majority of illegal aliens in the States are really just here to work and would leave as quickly as they came if they were unable to do so.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Maybe if more people understood the huge difference between this and what Arizona has done, they might understand that being against what AZ did does not mean supporting illegals. Mass is doing it the right way.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Maybe if more people understood the huge difference between this and what Arizona has done, they might understand that being against what AZ did does not mean supporting illegals. Mass is doing it the right way.

I believe AZ is doing it the right way, first by bringing attention to the problem, then acting on it.
If what METACOMET has said above is true (and I have no reason to doubt him) then Mass is just posturing and needs a turn-over in administration. If on the other hand METACOMET is wrong (and I hope he is) then more power to MASS.
The AZ proposal to eliminate anchor babies will not fly as that actually is against the 14th amendment as it stands.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by RedmoonMWC]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
It is just political posturing in an election year. Here's a run-down.

Before this vote to amend the budget, the mass legislature voted to continue to allow illegal aliens to receive full government welfare, even ahead of citizens on the waiting list.

Then Rasmussen came out with a poll a few days later that stated


Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits. 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.


The legislature caught wind of the numbers and panicked. It's an election year and things aren't looking so hot for even the most embedded "public servant" of the commonwealth. The needed a vote to show they are "with the people" on this. The mass political machine does this with regular frequency. If they know they have enough to pass or kill a bill, they will allow those who are "politically in trouble" to vote against the party line if it can help get them re-elected.

I guarantee Patrick will line item veto this out of the budget. If it does pass, I'll eat my ATS hat.


Let me be clear: As long as I have anything to say about it, there’s not going to be an Arizona law in Massachusetts, I can’t see such a thing passing our Legislature. But if it did, I would veto it.
Governor Deval Patrick, May 11 2010



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Post 911, I don't think that anyone should be in the US illegally. I don't care about the color of your skin or your nation of origin.

For the past 30 years, the feds have pretty much done nothing about illegal immigration. I think that democrats thought that all the illegals would eventually get amnesty and become democratic voters and that the republicans viewed illegals as a cheap source of labor.

However, the states that have the highest concentrations of illegals are having difficult issues. I live in California and the annual cost for welfare, schooling, and jails for the illegal immigrants is estimated to be 10 billion dollars per year. Currently the state is 20 billion dollars in the red.

We have 12 % unemployment. Why should we tolerate people who have come here against current law?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
It is just political posturing in an election year. Here's a run-down.

Before this vote to amend the budget, the mass legislature voted to continue to allow illegal aliens to receive full government welfare, even ahead of citizens on the waiting list.

Then Rasmussen came out with a poll a few days later that stated


Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits. 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation. Thirteen percent (13%) more are not sure.


The legislature caught wind of the numbers and panicked. It's an election year and things aren't looking so hot for even the most embedded "public servant" of the commonwealth. The needed a vote to show they are "with the people" on this. The mass political machine does this with regular frequency. If they know they have enough to pass or kill a bill, they will allow those who are "politically in trouble" to vote against the party line if it can help get them re-elected.

I guarantee Patrick will line item veto this out of the budget. If it does pass, I'll eat my ATS hat.


Let me be clear: As long as I have anything to say about it, there’s not going to be an Arizona law in Massachusetts, I can’t see such a thing passing our Legislature. But if it did, I would veto it.
Governor Deval Patrick, May 11 2010


In that case the information needs to be put in front of as many voters as possible (if I was in Mass I would be printing flyers with this info).
Pure political postering.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
I believe AZ is doing it the right way, first by bringing attention to the problem, then acting on it.


Acting on it by implementing a pointless law that is at first unconstitutional and then altogether useless? GOOD JOB AZ!


If what METACOMET has said above is true (and I have no reason to doubt him) then Mass is just posturing and needs a turn-over in administration.


As opposed to what Arizona is doing?



If on the other hand METACOMET is wrong (and I hope he is) then more power to MASS.
The AZ proposal to eliminate anchor babies will not fly as that actually is against the 14th amendment as it stands.


I was not referring to the anchor baby deal. I guess I missed allllllllllllllllll the threads bashing or sticking up for that. For some reason I thought there was also this other Arizona law that was a little bit bigger deal.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Well,this lady has it all figured out.

From a California school teacher - - - This English teacher has phrased it the best I've seen yet.

"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of.
I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens , Huntington Park , etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and a roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten.

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America.

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students, here in the country less than 3 months, who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas" (whores) and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, free day care etc., etc, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding and new diseases. For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: It involves an American third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "political correctness" that we don't have the will to do anything about it.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/ hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps.
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00 /hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/ hour left after paying their bills and his.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!


[edit on 4-6-2010 by Oneolddude]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
First I would like to say thank you to Oneolddude you are on the front lines here and know the score better than many on ATS, I commend you for having the patients to be a teacher in the first place and to teach English as a second Language especially.

How many are non-Spanish speakers?

Second for K J Gunderson, have you personally read the Arizona Law you are referring to? I have, all 15 pages, and there is nothing in it that is prejudicial or unconstitutional, it only requires that the LEO's enforce existing Federal Laws regarding Illegal Aliens and only then if they are stopped for some other infraction.
Here it is, for your convenience.
SENATE BILL 1070 in PDF
www.azleg.gov...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


RedmoonMWC, You know as well as me, K J Gunderson well not read the Arizona Bill. That would take all the wind out of his / her sails. He / she would all of a sudden be informed,,, No, No, You can't have that!
They would then have the understanding that the talking points of this Administration they love and admire so much is wrong and false and EVIL!

They have totally missed the part where,,, Their Idols have admitted to Not Reading The Bill, But they know more than we do, Who have read the bill.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


RedmoonMWC, You know as well as me, K J Gunderson well not read the Arizona Bill. That would take all the wind out of his / her sails. He / she would all of a sudden be informed,,, No, No, You can't have that!
They would then have the understanding that the talking points of this Administration they love and admire so much is wrong and false and EVIL!

They have totally missed the part where,,, Their Idols have admitted to Not Reading The Bill, But they know more than we do, Who have read the bill.


I gotta do what I can to educate the uninformed.
second line ...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Second for K J Gunderson, have you personally read the Arizona Law you are referring to?


That would be a big YUP YUP.


I have, all 15 pages, and there is nothing in it that is prejudicial or unconstitutional, it only requires that the LEO's enforce existing Federal Laws regarding Illegal Aliens and only then if they are stopped for some other infraction.


Right, maybe if you read what I actually posted, I would have faith you understood the bill. Sadly, that is not the case at this point.

I never said the law was prejudicial. That was not even my problem with it.


Here it is, for your convenience.
SENATE BILL 1070 in PDF
www.azleg.gov...


Thanks but I will pass on downloading your PDF since I already read the bill and I am fairly certain I can find it again in a form I do not need to download.


Thanks for once again proving to me that people who defend this bill have a hard time reading anything.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You have filed to prove how the law is unconstitutional.

You are arguing more out of emotion than intelligence.

A common trait when people cant refute fact.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


RedmoonMWC, You know as well as me, K J Gunderson well not read the Arizona Bill.


So you are both ignorant? I hope other people like you pointing out what THEY know, especially when it is wrong.


That would take all the wind out of his / her sails. He / she would all of a sudden be informed,,, No, No, You can't have that!


I am having a hard time seeing where you used anything real to refute what I said. Sails still up and full of wind from reading the bill itself. Thanks anyway.


They would then have the understanding that the talking points of this Administration they love and admire so much is wrong and false and EVIL!


Maybe you can show me the talking points I have been using? You can decide if you want to do that before or after you explain how I suddenly became multiple people.



They have totally missed the part where,,, Their Idols have admitted to Not Reading The Bill, But they know more than we do, Who have read the bill.


So I am a group of people and we have idols? Who are our idols? Did I quote someone else and not know it? Maybe you can show me where?

Your post actually looks like it is not really based in the reality of anything said so far in this thread or on ATS anywhere by me. Thanks for that...whatever it was.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You have filed to prove how the law is unconstitutional.


Because they fixed that part by making the bill completely useless altogether. Somehow people like you are happy about that?


You are arguing more out of emotion than intelligence.

A common trait when people cant refute fact.


Funny considering you have offered not one fact or even a cogent thought that would communicate anything about this bill at all. All you have done is address me, get what I said wrong, and attack me for it. How is that any better than what you falsely accuse me of?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


In what way do you consider the law useless?


Since its so useless, surely you would agree that all of the people protesting it are the true idiots here correct?

Protesting a useless law.....pure idiocy.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


So they fixed the Unconstitutional parts of SB1070 and now it is useless? You really need to show me how it is now usless.
It still addresses illegal aliens in Arizona, it still addresses the transport of illegal aliens and drugs, it still addresses the employers of illegal aliens, it still addresses Entrapment, and it addresses illegal aliens on federal and state owned lands (which is becomming a real problem).
edition.cnn.com...
If it was/is useless then why does the President of Mexico have such a problem with it? Our immigration laws are not half as stringent as Mexico's.

But this thread was supposed to address the Massachusetts law comparing the reaction to it to the Arizona law, I haven't seen too much in the MSM about Mass. nor have I seen much on ATS about the Massachusetts law, which is why I started this thread in the first place.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by RedmoonMWC]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join