Originally Posted By cmpaley That's AMLO? I thought the parties were PRI, PAN and PRD. The PAN candidate won. Then again, I am completely certain that certain factions of the extreme right want to see a civil war down in Mexico (Patrick Buchanan said as much on EWTN's news program, The World Over). What they fail to realize is that if that happens, our current "illegal" problem will grow exponentially as people try to escape the war zone.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador == AMLO, he is commonly referred to by his initials in Mexico. He is the PRD candidate for the presidency. He and his followers are refusing to concede defeat and are using massive civil disobedience (blocking highways, massive sit ins in government buildings, etc.) to challenge the results. While Calderon is widely recognized as the winner, the Fedleral Electoral Commission has yet to announce a winner. They are currently performing a partial recount. AMLO has threatened to escalate the civil disobedience to a level that would paralyze Mexico unless he is declared the winner. If the election is declared void and is followed by a run off between AMLO and Caldereon (the PAN candidate) it is certain that AMLO will win.
Originally Posted By cmpaley If the election were voided, wouldn't there need to be a new election with all the same players? That would make the most sense to me.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Of course, if something like that happened here, I wonder how long it would be before the Republicans in charge turned the National Guard on the populace.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I think a leftist government in mexico might be fun for a while. The mexican outlaws here might learn a lesson from the educated poor in peaceful discourse as a way to satisfy ones needs. Please, if you are a criminal, go turn yourself in. You might not believe it, but computers make crime completely unnecessary. I mean what do you really want or need? All you have to do is ask. I prefer being honorable. It's slightly harder than just taking the obvious first things offered. As Mark Twain says, "Always do right. It will gratify some, and astonish the rest." I just heard an actor, imitate mark twain, and say that over the speaker of the mark twain river boat, as i rode it on the rivers of america, just the other day, in america, u.s.a.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Oh, by the way, if you tell them Your Pal, Ed told you to turn yourself in, and let me know about you, i might go and even visit you in jail, if you are going to be there a while. I don't like to travel too far. But you can always read my posts here, just like you never left.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>If the election were voided, wouldn't there need to be a new election with all the same players? That would make the most sense to me.<< Perhaps. But its possible that the PRI might simply withdraw in order to allow AMLO to defeat Calderon.
Originally Posted By mele <<You know something i've noticed is that women are truely taking over a lot of the jobs normally done by men. All my men friends do not have to work. Once you take care of the basics you can play all you want. Playing for my friends has always been, looking for bargains, figuring computers and other toys out, and figuring out why things are, and how they work. I know if i really need money, i could get a job anywhere in the world, typing, reading, talking, anything. I honestly think these women were fooled by tv to think they wanted to own expensive useless items, to place in huge houses, that suck in all your money. To maintain the clean kitchen fantasy costs money, so they have to work. Not because they want to, like before, when men ignorantly took care of them, no, now they do it out of necessity, otherwise their fantasy's disappear and they have to face reality.>> Oh Lord, my head is going to explode. I don't even know where to begin with this one. What a steaming pile of misogynistic crap.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<"Back in the day," people merely had to show up at an immigration check point (like Ellis Island), register an submit to a quick medical exam, an interview, have $20. If you passed the exam, you were admitted.>> ... if you were white. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was born of racism for sure.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was born of racism for sure.<< Point VERY well taken.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Two observations relevant to ecdc's initial post that perhaps prejudice has something to do with anti-immigration sentiment... (1) The rapid and rabid responses to his post -- "This is NOT prejudice!" -- for me, confirms that prejudice plays a part. Too much passionate denial. (2) The most widely held paradigm is that prejudice leads to discrimination. In that view, we believe or feel negative things about a group of people, and then we resist, resent, or discriminate against them. There's a very interesting opposing theory. That one says that we have the need to discriminate first, and so we invent reasons to justify the discrimination. Conventional wisdom: We see evidence -- or we learn from others -- that blacks are lazy. Jews are out to screw us over. Arabs can't be trusted. The Irish are drunks. Germans are evil. Asians are tricky. Therefore, based on the evidence, we resist them. They are flawed. We have a rational reason for opposing them. That is, our prejudices rationally lead to our discrimination. Alternate view: Whenever a "foreign" group challenges our livelihoods or our way of life as we know it, it's a threat. Too many Irish move into our neighborhood and are willing to work in the mines cheaply, that reduces the jobs available for the WASP's that live in the area. A Jewish or Arab family is willing to work the ridiculous hours it takes to make a jewelry story or gas station work, that raises the bar for those who are not as willing to work those hours. Blacks move northward and seek jobs, and suddenly there is competition for all the white guys who wanted the easy entry into the factories. Well, being the fair and open-minded people we WASP'y white people are, we're not going to oppose these people based on their ethnicity. But, still, they're threatening our livelihoods, dammit. And we can't let that happen. So we invent reasons to oppose them, to discriminate against them. We "create" evidence that blacks are lazy, and therefore should not be hired at the factories at which we are seeking jobs. That the Arabs who've opened a competing gas station or party store down the street are not trustworthy. That the Hispanics who are willing to work their asses off for minimum wage are... whatever. I think there is a lot of truth in both points of view. Americans are prejudiced, and that leads to discrimination. They're also culturally and financially selfish, but cursed with a written and historical charter that says, "We welcome everyone." So they have to invent, and keep reinforcing, reasons to discriminate against those who are not like themselves.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<So they have to invent, and keep reinforcing, reasons to discriminate against those who are not like themselves.>> A very well thought out post. However, it is not an invention that there are many, many illegal aliens in this country. I guess it really comes down to whether we actually care about that. Do we just leave things the way they are, and more-or-less turn a blind eye? Do we enforrce the laws that are on the books and do a better job of keeping out illegal aliens? Or do we change the laws governing entry into the USA?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<it is not an invention that there are many, many illegal aliens in this country. I guess it really comes down to whether we actually care about that. Do we just leave things the way they are, and more-or-less turn a blind eye? Do we enforrce the laws that are on the books and do a better job of keeping out illegal aliens? Or do we change the laws governing entry into the USA?>> My post was not about immigration policies. It was about the role of prejudice in dealing with the "others" who enter our culture. But I can see that the issues are related.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I want to direct everyones attention back to the title of this topic, The Real Reason for Anti-Immigration. 1) First point Immigration is a LEGAL process. I don't think I have heard anyone here say that we need to stop, hinder or prevent Immigration in anyway. So no one here is against Immigration. 2) Point two; The individuals in question are NOT immigrants. They have not IN ANY WAY gone through ANY LEGAL PROCESS to enter this country legally. By our own laws they are considered criminals and trespassers. 3) Point three; ONLY Federal, State and Local government can pass laws. No one here has indicated that they are in any position to enact, legislate or judiciate over any Law enactment. Don't blame anyone here. 4) Point four; We are a country governed by LAWS. That means that the laws of this land are suppose to be enforced. I could have a topic just on this point alone! 5) Point five; We have Immigration Laws enacted and in place already. These existing Immigration Laws treat ALL individuals regardless of country of origin an equal standing and opportunity to Immigrate to our country. Now, I know that all of this doesn't sit well with the "laws are for the little people" crowd, or the "mob rules mentality" crowd. BUT ITS THE LAW and some of us actually want the laws enforced. So before you start discrediting us and passing judgement of your own that WE ARE ALL JUST PREJUDICE. I would suggest that you first listen to just what is being said.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/15/203619.shtml?s=ic" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/ic/2006/8/15/203619.shtml?s=ic</a> <<<Immigrant Crackdown Challenged in Pa. Hispanic activists and the ACLU sued Hazleton on Tuesday over one of the toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants by a U.S. city. Hazleton, a city of about 31,000 people 80 miles from Philadelphia, voted last month to fine landlords $1,000 for renting to illegal immigrants, deny business permits to companies that give them jobs, and make English the city's official language. The lawsuit contends that the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive power to regulate immigration and that the city's ordinance is discriminatory and unworkable. "It makes every person who looks or sounds foreign a suspect, including those who are here legally," Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "You might as well just paint a target on every foreigner's forehead or a sign saying, 'Please treat me differently.'" Mayor Lou Barletta, who proposed the ordinance after two illegal immigrants were charged with shooting and killing a man, said Hazleton would stand its ground. "They are attempting to scare the city into backing off. It's not going to work. We're not going to be bullied," he said. "We're confident the ordinance will stand up to judicial scrutiny and we'll fight it as far as we have to." Frustrated by inaction in Washington, many cities and states have passed their own measures to restrict or punish illegal immigrants and those who do business with them. Some local officials see the Hazleton lawsuit as a test of their ability to take immigration matters into their own hands. "I believe this will be a landmark case. A line has been drawn here in Hazleton. This will impact cities all across the country," the mayor said. Separately, another group of civil rights activists Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Riverside, N.J., a Philadelphia suburb that passed an ordinance similar to Hazleton's. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan agency that writes reports for lawmakers, said in a recent analysis that federal law probably precludes municipalities from enforcing such measures. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ACLU and other groups filed the lawsuit on behalf of 11 Hazleton residents and business owners and three nonprofit groups. Among the plaintiffs are landlords who say they lost tenants and a Mexican immigrant who says her grocery store and restaurant have fallen on hard times since the ordinance was passed. It is not clear how many illegal immigrants live in Hazleton, but the city's Hispanic population has soared in recent years.>>>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Just so you Democrats don't feel left out. <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/15/203259.shtml?s=ic" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/ic/2006/8/15/203259.shtml?s=ic</a> <<<Hispanics Blast Democrats' Ad A Democratic political ad is under fire from Hispanics who say it unfairly compares Latino immigrants to terrorists. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sponsored a 35-second ad on its Web site that shows footage of two people scaling a border fence mixed with images of Osama Bin Laden and North Korea President Kim Jong Il. Pedro Celis, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said in a statement Tuesday that the DSCC should remove the ad because it vilifies illegal Hispanic immigrants and is "appalling." Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, a Democrat, sent a letter to DSCC Chairman Sen. Charles Schumer of New York asking that the ad be pulled. She said it could alienate Latino voters. "To liken Latino immigrants to bazooka-toting terrorists not only undermines the positive relationship our party has with this community, but also lowers us to a despicable level as breeders of unfounded fear and hatred," Alvarado wrote. The ad opens with the words "Security Under Bush and GOP?" It features scenes of a masked man with a bazooka, scenes from terrorist attacks and police inspecting a subway train. It also shows Osama bin Laden, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a docked ship as it claims "4 times as many terrorist attacks in 2005." Then comes footage of a person climbing over a corrugated metal border fence and another preparing to climb it as the words "millions more illegal immigrants" form on-screen. In the following scene, viewers see the words "North Korea has quadrupled its nuclear arsenal" with footage of a tank and North Korea President Kim Jong Il. The ad ends with the words, "Feel safer? Vote for change." "Equating these undocumented migrants to the very real threats of terrorism is inexcusable and only serves to fan the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment in our country," Celis said in the statement. The faces of the people climbing over the fence are not clearly visible and there is nothing in the ad confirming the people in the ad are Hispanic. Such scenes are often captured in footage of the U.S.-Mexican border. Bettina Inclan, the assembly's executive director, said the people in the ad appeared Hispanic, "not just to us, but to other people who saw the video." DSCC spokesman Phil Singer dismissed the group's criticism as a Republican group "trying to gloss over the White House's abysmal record on security." "This group's time would be better spent pressuring reluctant Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform," Singer said in an emailed statement. Inclan said the group was among supporters of the bipartisan Senate immigration bill, which passed the Senate but has been criticized in the House. The ad drew rebuke from other Hispanics. "This is the same kind of fear mongering we condemn in the extreme media and now we are seeing it at the DSCC," said Lisa Navarrete, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza. "It's appalling.">>>
