Title says: "Obama Will Let Me Go" ...So says a captured Illegal Alien

reply to post by WaterBottle

i know quite a few who travel regularly and they also get regular "medical clearances" to do so.

whether that requirement is a govt one or a personal one i couldn't say, however, it is a regular event to keep their credentials.

you said no background check was necessary and i responded ... to get a US passport, it IS.

illegal immigrants don't usually FLY into the country
however, once here, they DO get passports, so, how's that happen when a BG is required ???
(yes, i know they are likely fake documents, THAT's the point)

reply to post by WaterBottle

You can't stop everyone from sneaking in over the border

i don't believe anyone is suggesting we could, however, given the opportunity for target practice, we could certainly reduce their numbers, substantially and without govt assistance.

Spanish as a predominant language in this country is directly related to ILLEGAL immigration, nothing else.

Legal immigrants speak the primary language and their native language becomes secondary/household/private ... not govt/state sponsored.

the French/Creole folks have been here influencing this country (from the south) long before any english or spanish explorers made their way over, so why isn't French the primary/default language ?

you're forgetting that 30yrs ago, English was the default language, regardless how many spanish-speaking folks inhabited the land.

edit to add --> back then (30-50yrs ago) we had way more Asian immigrants than spanish ones so why didn't chinese/japanese/korean or any other asian language become 'default' or even included in govt business relations ??

what you surmise/suggest would equate to France changing its default language to Arabic because there are so many residents there who function by it

reply to post by WaterBottle

this has to be the best BS i've heard in awhile

Most hispanics living in America are bi-lingual.

like i said previously, you don't get out much, do ya ?

i can guarantee you on a single block, there are more spanish-only speaking families than english ones. and, i seriously doubt that this block is an exception to those areas suffering same.

one child is bi-lingual, not the rest of the 14 in the family.
one parent is American and bi-lingual, no one else in the family.
no one speaks english and uses hand signals to communicate.
^^^^^ these are the real dynamics of such neighborhoods, not your imaginary "most"

I guess you feel seeing Spanish on a sign is a language problem.

no, but i do often wonder why official/Obama speeches don't include a signer for the deaf.
not all tvs have functioning txt/caption options.
and if you've ever read them (captions), they are horrible for both spelling or correct content.

we have many deaf/hearing disabled in this country and i find our "leader's" lack of attention to them, embarrassing.

so i've gotta wonder, why is the language of ILLEGAL immigrants more important than that of the deaf citizens ??

and ya know what else is sad ... even on disasterous days like today, not a single of the 4 msm stations i viewed included SIGNERS, not one. CBS, CNN, BBC, FOX ... all of them fail imho ... it's as if the deaf in our society don't even exist and ya'll are whining about illegals getting more ??
that's some priority

reply to post by WaterBottle

Europeans didn't learn the language of the Natives, they killed them, oppressed them, and forced them to speak English.

that is a lie

yes, the natives were taught english but their languages were not denied and they were not killed for failing to learn english

as a matter of fact, it was a native language (Navajo) that enabled covert messages to be exchanged during wartime. (400+yrs after the discovery/occupation)
need a link ??
code talkers

reply to post by Honor93

i don't believe anyone is suggesting we could, however, given the opportunity for target practice, we could certainly reduce their numbers, substantially and without govt assistance.

This is outrageous hate speech.

reply to post by wildtimes

you're entitled to your opinion.
however, what i said is reflective of the reality of the situation, not hate speech.

you don't like it ?
fine, just don't go throwing stones from your glass house.

so, how was your burger ? and how many immigrants did you feed ?

reply to post by Honor93

however, what i said is reflective of the reality of the situation, not hate speech.

you don't like it ?

No, I don't like it.
You are saying that you would gladly sit on the north side of the border and 'pick off' people, and that IS HATE SPEECH.
You are the one who's been doing all the laughing and mocking and arguing with everyone (inconsistently, I might add, and I'm rather baffled that you didn't include a flame-face and several laughy-faces and a barf-face in this post) about this issue.

Do you really hate these people? You hate them that much that you would shoot them like tin targets in a carnival game?
There is something very sick about that thinking.

reply to post by Honor93

so, how was your burger ? and how many immigrants did you feed ?

WHAT?!!
My 'burger'? Wow. I said I was going to watch 'Bob's Burgers' on television (strangely enough, it's a Fox show....their cartoon satires are in direct opposition to their 'news' shows...but you are apparently not aware of that).

Wow.
Yeah, you're being belligerent now, and quite obviously not interested at all in discussing any of this as adults (and probably drunk-posting again).

reply to post by wildtimes

You are saying that you would gladly sit on the north side of the border and 'pick off' people

no, i didn't say any such thing.
you did though, so what does that say about you ?

oooooh, pick more at the 'style', please ?
it only proves you have -0- argument, yet again.

i despise humans, equally ... is that ok with you ?
i do not judge for it is not my job.
why do you project such a superiority complex ???

guess you don't know very much about 'target practice', do ya ?

that's ok, keep on presenting your foolishness, at least in that, you are succeeding

reply to post by wildtimes

excuse me but you said nothing about "television".
you may have said 'watch' and i missed it ... but, you said nothing about a tv program of any kind and i'm not familiar with much tv programming anyway.

you haven't responded with any 'adult' conversation yet.
and, not that its any of your business but i don't drink alcohol.
any chance you could stay on topic or just be "done" as you've claimed so many times ??

reply to post by WaterBottle

All you do is cry. You want to be some sort of a victim so bad. Get over yourself.

Why would I want that??

America has always had millions of illegals. I've never encountered a language problem. I guess you feel seeing Spanish on a sign is a language problem.

Ok, you made me chuckle with that one. I'll tell ya though, I swear I've been traumatized having to work for 8 years being forced to hear spanish all day. It drove me out of my mind. It felt like I left MY country. The africans and asians were always asking them to please speak english so everyone could be included. It would work for a while, we'd all have fun then wham back to spanish.

You should learn Spanish since you seem to be so emotionally involved in not understanding it.

Me? I learned a lot of words, but not enough to ever have a conversation. I suck at languages! My spanish speaking co-workers got all embarresed when I heard and understood a swear word.

Europeans didn't learn the language of the Natives, they killed them, oppressed them, and forced them to speak English. Try again.

Yes, it was a tragedy. I have some native American ancestors. They were also killed by other tribes.

Why have ATS members brought this poor dead horse out to be flogged again?

You want the truth?

There are americans whose voices are louder than other americans. Their last name is Inc. They need, or are better off with, cheap labor. They will thow other americans under a bus and not even feel bad about it.

Somebody,Honor93, said it back on page 4, "oh boo hoo and grow up". Until americans are ready to meet the problem head on, instead of blaming the other pawns, then nothing will change.

reply to post by Night Star


The problem with illegal immigration is that you get a lot of criminals coming over the border - wether they're mexican or some other nationality - from the pourus mexican border.

I live in wisconsin - I have a state job - I'm a registered nurse - I work with other registered nurses from Poland, Africa, and the Dominican Republic - they all speak english as a second language. They are all very glad to have the oppurtunity to live in the USA.

I should add that the african immigrants speak english better than a lot of americans. And know american history better. And are bi-lingual in multiple languages - french, spanish, english, ect.

The people I work with came over by the law - not criminal types - there's a huge difference.

And they are more patriotic to the USA, than most americans. They know what political corruption is all about - they have had to endure it.

reply to post by daskakik


The legal immigrants I work with are much better, and higher, educated than most of the americans I work with - but they did come to america legally.

reply to post by Happy1

I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about illegals, specifically those who hire them, not legal immigrants.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm saying that there is a distinct difference between the two - illegal and legal.

Our idiot in charge doesn't seem to know the differenct - or care.

Maybe you don't either.

To say that americans, in general, are agaisnt immigration is a far cry from - americans are against illiegal immigration.

reply to post by Happy1

I've known enough illegals to know that they they are not much different from the legal immigrants. They both have a certain amount of bad element amongst them. Then again even 100% pure americans citizens do their brothers harm.

reply to post by daskakik


True enough.

reply to post by wildtimes

this "Republic" that we live in is a descendant of the Holy Roman Empire,

I was not aware that our Republic created by the Founding Fathers encompassed necessarily arranged marriages as you suggest, as I don't recall the Constitution as mentioning it. It is more or less a trend carried down through the centuries. But here is an interesting point of view on The Republic

The products of these unions were to be segregated at birth: officials would entrust the best children to nurses who lived in special buildings, while the children of the inferior, or any deformed infant, would be put away and never seen again. The parents would not know which were their children or vice versa, so that family ties would be replaced by those of community.

I really don't recall our Founding Fathers recommending children be separated from their parents at birth and segregated into a separate community to be tended by nannies of the State. No, but I DO recall reading it in Glenn Beck's book, "Agenda 21:", as the Communists setting up the Agenda 21 urban communities are planning this for our future.
The above quote is a Communistic approach to society and I don't recall our Founding Fathers espousing Communism, even if they were versed in the classics, including Plato's Republic. You should be more careful about what declarations you make, as you do expose your Communistic views.


Perhaps you were talking about the whole Philosopher/King business. Again, the Philosopher/Kings are from a past era and some were wise rulers. I am thinking of one particular who ruled over a land which we now called the Sahara Desert. But I digress...Are you trying to convince me and everyone else here that based on Plato's Republic you believe that our Founding Fathers were advocating a Communist society? I don't think so but we can just agree to disagree if you like.
So you are focusing on Plato as the main influence of our Founding Fathers and I will focus more on John Locke.

The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.

www.ushistory.org...

His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, one passage from the Second Treatise is reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, the reference to a "long train of abuses." Such was Locke's influence that Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton... I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences".[11][12][13] Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence.

In Chapter V of his Second Treatise, Locke argues that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods or utilise property to produce goods beneficial to human society.[28]

en.wikipedia.org...

I think what you are really doing is confusing the sense of justice which governs our Constitution with the "social justice" and "economic equality" of the Progressive generation and ideology and the two are not the same. Our justice system comes from "the consent of the governed" not from Marxist theories of equalizing everybody.

But since this thread is about illegals, I really don't see how Plato's Republic influences whether we allow illegals to run over the border and take the resources of the natural born and naturalized citizens. Are you assuming that somehow because of Plato, we are supposed to give our resources away for the sake of the Commune?
Maybe you can enlighten me on Plato's opinion of illegal immigration.

Are you aware that in Florida, in the deep south, where your kind of thinking is most pronounced

My kind of thinking? You are suggesting that I think like people in the deep south somehow? I grew up in St. Louis actually, so Midwestern is more apt. My father was invited into the Veiled Prophet Society which was an elite group of businessmen, and he advocated them allowing blacks and women into the organization before he bowed out.
My best friend in 1st grade was a black girl, so what exactly is MY kind of thinking?
You are so full of Pee and Vinegar it's almost laughable.

reply to post by muse7

Pretty sure pedophiles, murderers and theives already come in through our airports legally

Sure, but if they overstay their visas then they become illegal. So what's your point?