This may be why people don't like illegal immigrants

Originally posted by OrchusGhule

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

Originally posted by frazzle
[Some introspection. Not a common trait in America, but its good to see now and then.

Actually, I found it to be a pretty weak argument..

It is akin to saying that a displaced Russian has a right to land in France just because their ancestors lived on the same continent.. The Mexican people are mostly descended from the aboriginal peoples of Central America. In fact they are quite understandably proud of their Aztec heritage. There is a reason their ancestors did not settle on the upper half of the continent. The Native North American tribes would have run them out. (That's the way it goes when you have to defend your limited resources)..

The premise that all brown skinned, Latin people have a right to be in the US is actually a racist argument in and of itself. Just because a Cherokee and a Mexican citizen share the same skin color does not mean they are the same people!..

edit on 6/19/2012 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)

I said absolutely nothing about "rights," nor did I say the Cherokee and Mexicans share a common ancestry just because their skin color is the same or similar.

But, since you have made it clear that you know little or nothing about the subject of Native Americans, both southern and northern, allow me to enlighten you. Some ancestors of what are now considered Mexicans inhabited a great deal of North America, and at some periods of history inhabited areas north of Texas in the east and west. In fact, the line that separates northern Native Americans and southern Native Americans is a very blurred line at best, and likely never existed in the first place. Culturally speaking, many tribes of the northwestern (modern day) U.S. were virtually indistinguishable from some tribes from areas south of the Rio Grande, and there is evidence that they often coexisted and interbred. Imagine that! People living together and sharing things! What a concept!

Your belief that Native American cultures were based on confrontation is false, and the assertion that northern Native Americans would have "run them out" is similarly false. Violence, in truth, was a rarity in the Americas in ancient times and compromise prevailed until there was no other choice. Only when violence was the last resort, did physical conflict take place, and then to a very limited extent; conventional European-type warfare involving armies and mass troop movements simply did not exist.

Also, you stated that they are "Latin" peoples, which is preposterous in and of itself. They are only Latin to you because of Spanish influence, not because of any historical reality.

Read a good history book, and never argue with the husband of a forensic anthropoligist about indigenous peoples and their history. But I digress...

The point of my first post was to make people realize that the United States is their country only according to their limited viewpoint, and that this does not apply to everyone.

edit on 19-6-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

Meanwhile, back in Southern Mexico, Guatemalan immigrants (many of which share common ancestry with the locals in that region of Mexico) are being attacked by local machete wielding villagers..

www.nytimes.com...

Mexican law authorizes only federal migration agents and federal preventive police officers to inspect cars for illegal migrants and to demand proof of legal status. But Mexican authorities acknowledge that migrants face run-ins with every level of law enforcement.

Migrants are also routinely detained by machete-wielding farmers, who extort their money by threatening to turn them over to the police. So many female migrants have been raped or coerced into sex, the authorities said, that some begin taking birth control pills a few months before embarking on the journey north.

Few are punished for such crimes, the authorities added, because the migrants rarely report them.

"This society does not see migrants as human beings, it sees them as criminals," said Lucía del Carmen Bermúdez, coordinator for a government migration agency called Grupo Beta. "The majority of the attacks against migrants are not committed by authorities, although there is still a big problem with corruption in Mexico. Most violence against migrants comes from civilians."

Any Mexican citizen who rants about immigration policy on the northern border but turns a blind eye to the what is happening on their own southern border is a hypocrite at best..

reply to post by clay2 baraka


This has absolutely nothing to do with what I am discussing. Nothing at all. Thanks for trying, though.

And by the way, I'm not Mexican. I'm a caucasian American of Norse ancestry, as in, all of my grandparents were from Norway. Guess what? They came here illegally as well, according to your requirement of legality. Should my parents and I go back to Norway?

Suffice it to say, if you think illegal immigrants are a serious problem and detriment to the United States economy, then you have a severe mental problem. You should get that checked out, because its actually people of your own ethnicity who are destroying your economy.

A good night to you.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

 

The difference is that the 100% natural-born Americans are protected by the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

One can only assume you mean by "laws of the U.S. Constitution" the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments. Those Bill of Rights, however and the astonishingly disingenuous Dred Scott ruling notwithstanding, protect any and every person within the United States. The right to free exercise of religion is not limited to 100% natural-born Americans. The right to speech, press, peaceable assembly and a redress of grievances is not limited to 100% natural-born Americans. The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to 100% natural-born Americans.

Of course you realize that your argument by definition then makes Obama's Executive Order unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, right?

Laws cannot be selectively applied to those over 30-years old vs. those under 30-years old. The over 30 immigrants who are denied work permits and deported would then be able to argue the selective enforcement of immigration law based on their age is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

reply to post by clay2 baraka

Meanwhile, back in Southern Mexico, Guatemalan immigrants (many of which share common ancestry with the locals in that region of Mexico) are being attacked by local machete wielding villagers..

Any Mexican citizen who rants about immigration policy on the northern border but turns a blind eye to the what is happening on their own southern border is a hypocrite at best..

You may not know that the pressure being put on the indigenous peoples of Guatamala isn't coming from "villagers" but from transnational companies fighting over their resources.

In this paper, based on fieldwork in the summer months of 2004, 2006, and 2008, we argue that large-scale resource development by Canadian mining companies and their Guatemalan subsidiaries on Maya traditional territories, lands to which they have limited rights, is negatively affecting local indigenous peoples‘ lives and
realities. Through a rights- based approach to our analysis of development‘ we highlight the silenced voices of Maya community members in opposition to what they identify as unsound development practices and President Óscar Berger‘s need to―protect the investors‖ rather than the lives of his country‘s own citizens.

unbc.academia.edu...

Where have we heard this before?

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

Of course you realize that your argument by definition then makes Obama's Executive Order unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, right?

I have long argued that the 14th Amendment at worst is unconstitutional, and at best is an odious piece of legislation that people should decline to take up its invitation. The 13th Amendment correctly prohibited slavery and then Congress turned around and invited all of us to become their slaves. The federal government never had, nor do they have any lawful authority to grant rights outside of civil rights, which would be better characterized as privileges.

Laws cannot be selectively applied to those over 30-years old vs. those under 30-years old.

Laws cannot be selectively applied at all. If it is law, it is universal.

The over 30 immigrants who are denied work permits and deported would then be able to argue the selective enforcement of immigration law based on their age is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The immigration problem must be dealt with at the border, which Constitutionally speaking is precisely what the federal government has been tasked to do, protect our borders. Until our borders are properly protected, this nation will continue to have immigration problems and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

"We want something that is actually going to stop all of our deportations," said Perez,

We already have a solution in place for that. It is called applying for citizenship and getting a green card. If you followed the law to begin with, you wouldnt have to worry about being deported.

Now I understand and I sympathize with kids that were born in this country to illegal parents. However, they can thank their parents for the situation they are in. Your parents did not follow the law. If I robbed a bank, do you think I would be able to give the money to my children and they would be able to keep it free and clear? Of course not!