[BABRAM]

Obviously you all have misinterpreted what I've written. No where have I said ALL immigrants are crooks/druggies/bad people. I'm well aware that many of them come to this country seeking a better life. However, leaving an open border allows the undesireables to come across too. If we eliminate illegal crossing, we can ensure the people coming here are the lettuce pickers my buddy excon loves so much. :) I'm not against immigration, I'm against ILLEGAL immigration. I've posted in other threads that I don't think all illegals should be rounded up and deported (much to ETW's dismay), but the situation is out of control. As a nation we need to be aware of who is coming into our country.



I beg your pardon, a$$, but you are the one who brought up the "fear of Mexicans". Let me refresh your memory.



Oopsie! Looks like you're the one who turned the conversation that way! And then you had the audacity to imply "we" will try to get rid of all the African Americans! Sounds like trolling to me...



What positives do you want to hear? That a lot of immigrants come here to make a better life for themselves and their families? That they have more opportunities here than in their home country (which you keep referring to as Mexico, when it's not always Mexico)? That their children are given better educations here? That they have access to clean drinking water, fresh food, and in general, a safe environment? That not all of them are criminals waiting to steal the shirt off your back? That some are doing jobs "Americans won't do"? I'm well aware of all these things.



Mexico, Hondorus, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Panama, Venezuela, China, Korea... Sorry bud, it's not just Mexicans coming here illegally.



Legalization of what? You reference your "solution" but in your previous posts you only ever say,



Care to elaborate?



My argument is that national security is more important that a couple of antelope.

excon, I know you said your post isn't directed specifically at me, but this:



Is highly offensive. It is not racist to want secure borders. It is not racist to want eliminate illegal immigration and allow legal immigration into the country.

And on that note, I'm done here. Unsubscribing as soon as I hit "submit answer".

I addressed the original subject in the post using the Guadalajara link. In fact I think it was the third post in the first string. Your argument on the addendum subject was weak. Sorry you got your feelings hurt. However having known excon for years he respects your freedom of speech and appreciates your opinion, as well as I do, minus your name calling tantrum.



Bobby:)

[excon]

Excon, you see illegal immigration as a "little" crime. You see marijuana use the same way... a little crime. And you feel we should ignore those little crimes

Hello El:

Nope. I see it as NO crime whatsoever!! We've argued these points before.

It's true: I maintain, that behavior that isn't harmful to society isn't a crime, and wouldn't BE a crime, BUT for the laws against it. You can't say that about murder.

YOU don't care about the behavior. You only care about the law. I believe that kind of thinking is shortsighted, mean spirited, racist, and Un-Constitutional.

excon

[ETWolverine]

I maintain, that behavior that isn't harmful to society isn't a crime, and wouldn't BE a crime, BUT for the laws against it. You can't say that about murder.

Looks to me like you are trying to redefine "legality" for "morality". Sorry, but there is a difference between something that is illegal and something that is immoral. There is nothing immoral about doing 80 in a 40 zone. But it is illegal. And yes, the only reason that it is illegal to do 80 in a 40 zone is because the law says so. So what? That alone doesn't make it a bad law.

On the other side of the coin, there is no law against adultery in the American legal system. But it is immoral to do so. And the fact that there isn't law on the books preventing it doesn't make it "right".

Bottom line, morality is not the sole determinant of whether an action is legal or not. Nor is legality the sole derterminant of what is moral. The two are often closely related, but they are independent of each other.

So the fact that you believe that a particular action doesn't hurt people and is therefore moral doesn't make it legal... nor should it. We elect representatives who make laws and we can become part of the system to change the laws if we don't like them. But to say that a particular action is only illegal because the law says so isn't an argument. ALL illegal actions are only illegal because the law says so, just as all immoral actions are only immoral because morality says so. The law says that marijuana use is illegal. Nobody is making any arguments about it's morality right now. It is merely ILLEGAL. But it IS illegal. The fact that you would like to argue that it isn't really illegal because it isn't immoral is a poor legal argument to maintain your innoence. It's fine for saying that the law ought to be changed, but you can't say that it isn't illegal right now.

YOU don't care about the behavior. You only care about the law.

Actually, I do care about the behavior of illegal aliens. The behavior itself is illegal, and despite your arguments it is indeed harmful, and thus immoral... both to us, and to them. To us, because they are taking jobs from legal aliens and citizens and driving wages down, and to them because they are perpetuating their own government-sanctioned slavery and poverty.

I believe that kind of thinking is shortsighted, mean spirited, racist, and Un-Constitutional.

As I've said before, you are entitled to be wrong as often as you want.

But my view isn't short-sighted at all... we've tried this amnesty road before after the Mariel Boatlift, and it has just gotten worse. Trying the same thing that didn't work the first time again and again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. And looking at the short-term effect on the illegals who are here now, but ignoring the negative effects to us and to the next batch of illegals 20 years down the road is shortsighted.

Neither is my position mean spirited. If I were being mean-spirited, I would say that all immigration, legal or illegal, should be stopped completely. THAT would be mean-spirited. That is not, nor has it ever been my position, and you know it.

Nor is my position racist. I want to apply the same rules to all illegal aliens, regardless of race... including illegal immigrant Israelis, by the way. That isn't racism.

And finally, my position is NOT unConstitutional at all. My position is that we should enforce the immigration laws that are on the books, which are completely Constitutional. Ignoring the law... now that would be unConstitutional.

Elliot

[Starman]

Since when have Mexicans ever cared about the environment? Since we decided we wanted to put up a fence!

Do you really want to know? Since forty years ago.


Excerpt

By the 1970s the high concentration of people, industry and air polluting motor vehicles inhabiting limited geographical areas created a visible and troubling pollution problem for Mexico. During the 1970s, the Mexican government made its first attempts to establish mechanisms designed to protect the environment.

On March 21, 1971, Mexico's first consolidated environmental Law, the Ley Federal para Prevenir y Controlar la Contaminación Ambiental (Federal Law for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution), went into effect. This Law primarily addressed public health concerns, including provisions for the control of atmospheric emissions. Three sets of regulations were enacted to implement this Law: regulations to prevent and control atmospheric pollution caused by dust and smoke; regulations to control water pollution; and regulations to prevent and control pollution of the sea.

In 1982, Congress enacted the Ley Federal de Protección del Ambiente (Federal Law for the Protection of the Environment) which covered omissions issues more broadly than the prior Law did. This Law included provisions for the protection and preservation of ecosystems, and initiated a new legal framework to protect flora, fauna, soil and water. This Law was the first to deal with environmental principles with mechanisms for socioeconomic development.

Mexico amended its Constitution in 1987 giving Congress, among other powers, the authority to enact laws to promote the participation of federal, state, and local authorities in environmental matters and to impose limitations on the use and ownership of real property in order to protect the ecological equilibrium. This amendment gave rise to the enactment of new federal environmental laws, such as LGEEPA, which are still in effect today.

LGEEPA, Mexico's first comprehensive environmental law, went into effect on March 1, 1988. [ Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (equivalent to U.S. Federal Register) , January 28, 1988 .] LGEEPA was amended in 1996. In contrast to its predecessor, LGEEPA addresses a broader range of environmental matters including protection of natural areas; exploitation of natural elements, including land and water; and protection of the environment, including atmospheric contamination, water and soil contamination, hazardous activities and waste, nuclear energy and other forms of pollution. LGEEPA also sets forth control and safety measures, penalties for non-compliance, guidelines for environmental impact statements and risk assessment. Additionally, LGEEPA addresses matters of jurisdiction, ecological zoning, and enforcement. The following five sets of regulations are currently in effect that implement this Law:

• Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Impacto Ambiental (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Environmental Impact). (DOF, June 7, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Prevención y Control de la Contaminación de la Atmósfera. (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Atmospheric Pollution). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Residuos Peligrosos (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Hazardous Waste). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente para la Prevención y Control de la Contaminación Generada por los Vehículos Automotores que Circulan por el Distrito Federal y los Municipios de su Zona Conurbada (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for the Prevention and Control of Pollution Generated by Motor Vehicles that Transit through the Federal District and the Municipalities of the Counties in the Metropolitan Zone). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento para la Protección del Ambiente Contra la Contaminación Originada por la Emisión de Ruido (Regulations for the Protection of the Environment against Pollution Originating from Noise Emissions). (DOF, December 6, 1982) [ This regulation was enacted to carry out the law of 1982; however, it remains in effect as a regulation for LGEEPA.]

B. The 1996 amendment to LGEEPA

The amendment to LGEEPA was published in the DOF on December 13, 1996 (the "Amendment"), and went into effect the next day. Some of the changes to LGEEPA brought about by this Amendment included:

• Purpose of the Law The Amendment changed the stated purpose of LGEEPA, expanding the purpose of the Law and adding the concept of sustainable development which had not existed previously in the Law. The Amendment also added elements which established the following:

- A guarantee of the right of all persons to live in an environment suitable for their development, health and well being;

- A specific environmental policy and the instruments for its implementation;

- The preservation of biodiversity;

- The establishment and administration of protected natural preserves;

- Sustainable use, preservation and remediation of soils, water and other natural resources in ways that make the obtaining of economic benefits and activities of society compatible with the preservation of the ecosystem;

- A guarantee of the participation of responsible persons, collectively or individually, in the preservation, restoration, and protection of the environment;

- The exercise of powers related to environmental matters delegated to the federal government, the states, the Federal District and the municipalities under the principle of concurrence provided for in Article 73 Section XXIX-G of the Constitution;

- The establishment of mechanisms for coordination, inducement and cooperation among authorities, the public and private sector, as well as with persons and public groups on environmental matters; and

- The establishment of control and security measures to guarantee compliance with, and the application of, this Law and the provisions derived from it and to impose applicable administrative sanctions and penalties.

Overview of Mexico's Environmental Laws spmxen13.htm

[nauticalstar420]

Do you really want to know? Since forty years ago.


Excerpt

By the 1970s the high concentration of people, industry and air polluting motor vehicles inhabiting limited geographical areas created a visible and troubling pollution problem for Mexico. During the 1970s, the Mexican government made its first attempts to establish mechanisms designed to protect the environment.

On March 21, 1971, Mexico's first consolidated environmental Law, the Ley Federal para Prevenir y Controlar la Contaminación Ambiental (Federal Law for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution), went into effect. This Law primarily addressed public health concerns, including provisions for the control of atmospheric emissions. Three sets of regulations were enacted to implement this Law: regulations to prevent and control atmospheric pollution caused by dust and smoke; regulations to control water pollution; and regulations to prevent and control pollution of the sea.

In 1982, Congress enacted the Ley Federal de Protección del Ambiente (Federal Law for the Protection of the Environment) which covered omissions issues more broadly than the prior Law did. This Law included provisions for the protection and preservation of ecosystems, and initiated a new legal framework to protect flora, fauna, soil and water. This Law was the first to deal with environmental principles with mechanisms for socioeconomic development.

Mexico amended its Constitution in 1987 giving Congress, among other powers, the authority to enact laws to promote the participation of federal, state, and local authorities in environmental matters and to impose limitations on the use and ownership of real property in order to protect the ecological equilibrium. This amendment gave rise to the enactment of new federal environmental laws, such as LGEEPA, which are still in effect today.

LGEEPA, Mexico's first comprehensive environmental law, went into effect on March 1, 1988. [ Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (equivalent to U.S. Federal Register) , January 28, 1988 .] LGEEPA was amended in 1996. In contrast to its predecessor, LGEEPA addresses a broader range of environmental matters including protection of natural areas; exploitation of natural elements, including land and water; and protection of the environment, including atmospheric contamination, water and soil contamination, hazardous activities and waste, nuclear energy and other forms of pollution. LGEEPA also sets forth control and safety measures, penalties for non-compliance, guidelines for environmental impact statements and risk assessment. Additionally, LGEEPA addresses matters of jurisdiction, ecological zoning, and enforcement. The following five sets of regulations are currently in effect that implement this Law:

• Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Impacto Ambiental (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Environmental Impact). (DOF, June 7, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Prevención y Control de la Contaminación de la Atmósfera. (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Atmospheric Pollution). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Residuos Peligrosos (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for Matters Related to Hazardous Waste). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento de la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente para la Prevención y Control de la Contaminación Generada por los Vehículos Automotores que Circulan por el Distrito Federal y los Municipios de su Zona Conurbada (Regulations of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection for the Prevention and Control of Pollution Generated by Motor Vehicles that Transit through the Federal District and the Municipalities of the Counties in the Metropolitan Zone). (DOF, November 25, 1988)

• Reglamento para la Protección del Ambiente Contra la Contaminación Originada por la Emisión de Ruido (Regulations for the Protection of the Environment against Pollution Originating from Noise Emissions). (DOF, December 6, 1982) [ This regulation was enacted to carry out the law of 1982; however, it remains in effect as a regulation for LGEEPA.]

B. The 1996 amendment to LGEEPA

The amendment to LGEEPA was published in the DOF on December 13, 1996 (the "Amendment"), and went into effect the next day. Some of the changes to LGEEPA brought about by this Amendment included:

• Purpose of the Law The Amendment changed the stated purpose of LGEEPA, expanding the purpose of the Law and adding the concept of sustainable development which had not existed previously in the Law. The Amendment also added elements which established the following:

- A guarantee of the right of all persons to live in an environment suitable for their development, health and well being;

- A specific environmental policy and the instruments for its implementation;

- The preservation of biodiversity;

- The establishment and administration of protected natural preserves;

- Sustainable use, preservation and remediation of soils, water and other natural resources in ways that make the obtaining of economic benefits and activities of society compatible with the preservation of the ecosystem;

- A guarantee of the participation of responsible persons, collectively or individually, in the preservation, restoration, and protection of the environment;

- The exercise of powers related to environmental matters delegated to the federal government, the states, the Federal District and the municipalities under the principle of concurrence provided for in Article 73 Section XXIX-G of the Constitution;

- The establishment of mechanisms for coordination, inducement and cooperation among authorities, the public and private sector, as well as with persons and public groups on environmental matters; and

- The establishment of control and security measures to guarantee compliance with, and the application of, this Law and the provisions derived from it and to impose applicable administrative sanctions and penalties.

Overview of Mexico's Environmental Laws spmxen13.htm

Okay, then I have a simple question for you. If they care so much about the environment, why does Mexico look like crap? Why do some Mexicans make America look like crap? They may have attempted to improve the environment, and kudos to them. But they don't care about their surroundings, much less ours. They trashed their country, and now are trying to do the same to ours.

[Starman]

Okay, then I have a simple question for you. If they care so much about the environment, why does Mexico look like crap? Why do some Mexicans make America look like crap? They may have attempted to improve the environment, and kudos to them. But they dont care about their surroundings, much less ours. They trashed their country, and now are trying to do the same to ours.

I lived among Mexicans in Chicago and saw none of the trashing you are referring to Just clean, honest hard-working people. Or maybe I was among the wrong kind of Mexican immigrants?

Actually, most criminals in prison aren't immigrants. They are pure red- blooded Amercans. Neither are most serious crimes, such as murder and rape committed by immigrants. They are committed by Anglo and Afro American citizens. That also applies to most of the trashing of American neighborhoods as well.


BTW
As for looking like crap, most countries look like crap to Americans. If it doesn't look like America, then its crap. If they don't immediately find crap they'll seek it out in some God forsaken slum in order to photograph it and put it forth as representative of the whole country.

[Big10]

If this was a year ago, I would have said to forget about Mexico, but after going to school this past year, I think my views are changing. And reading some of these posts are scaring me.

Is it okay to think that because Mexico use to not care (or almost totally still doesn't care) about the environment,. that we should use this as an argument for today and say "whatever, they never cared about the environment, so this case should slide on the stupid Mexican part...i'll even prove to you how dumb they are with pictures of their dirty country".

If this is the case and this is the way we are going to argue, then I guess we can say "Well don't listen to America about Human Rights because their White people enslaved their Blacks and grinded the bones of Natives to dust". Do you understand what I'm getting at?

[nauticalstar420]

I lived among Mexicans in Chicago and saw none of the trashing you are referring to Just clean, honest hard-working people. Or maybe I was among the wrong kind of Mexican immigrants?

Actually, most criminals in prison aren't immigrants. They are pure red- blooded Amercans. Neither are most serious crimes, such as murder and rape committed by immigrants. They are committed by Anglo and Afro American citizens. That also applies to most of the trashing of American neighborhoods as well.


BTW
As for looking like crap, most countries look like crap to Americans. If it doesn't look like America, then its crap. If they don't immediately find crap they'll seek it out in some God forsaken slum in order to photograph it and put it forth as representative of the whole country.

I never said any country that isn't America looks like crap. I said Mexico looks like crap. I have seen it with my own eyes. Most of them (not all) are hard workers, I will give them that. They work very hard out in the fields making sure everything that needs to be taken care of, is taken care of. But as for clean and honest, a lot of them are not. I have seen and heard of them them steal (even though they have jobs, nothing is enough apparently), kidnap and molest children, attack women.. I mean the list goes on.

Now I don't know much about the African Americans and the crime they commit. I have only lived around them since I have been here in Florida. The majority of my life I have been in California, where a lot (not all) of the crimes are committed by Mexicans.

As for the ones that don't want to work, all they have to do is bring their wife/girlfriend/whatever over here, have a child, and they do not have to leave, AND they can get welfare after the child is born. Aside from the fact that some of them are hard workers (I agree with you on that one), how do you feel about the ones that choose not to work, and want to live off welfare, when they are physically able to work?

[nauticalstar420]

If this was a year ago, I would have said to forget about Mexico, but after going to school this past year, I think my views are changing. And reading some of these posts are scaring me.

Is okay to think that because Mexico use to not care (or almost totally still doesn't care) about the environment, that we should use this as an argument for today and say "whatever, they never cared about the environment, so this case should slide on the stupid Mexican part...i'll even prove to you how dumb they are with pictures of their dirty country".

If this is the case and this is the way we are going to argue, then I guess we can say "Well don't listen to America about Human Rights because their White people enslaved their Blacks and grinded the bones of Natives to dust". Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I totally see what you are getting at, and it is a good point, but the white americans having black slaves (just so you know, I really hate talking about this subject) was legal back then. People coming here illegally (not just Mexico, I might add, but the majority come from there), well, it obviously isn't legal. Now I know the migrant workers are here legally (well most of them), but the ones who aren't, don't you feel they should have SOME sort of consequence for doing something ILLEGAL?

And I never said they were dumb, they are actually pretty smart. They have figured out a way around our system so they won't have to leave. But you have to admit, their environment and how they take care of it, says at least SOMETHING about them.

[Big10]

I totally see what you are getting at, and it is a good point, but the white americans having black slaves (just so you know, i really hate talking about this subject) was legal back then. People coming here illegally (not just Mexico, i might add, but the majority come from there), well, it obviously isnt legal. Now I know the migrant workers are here legally (well most of them), but the ones who arent, dont you feel they should have SOME sort of consequence for doing something ILLEGAL?

And i never said they were dumb, they are actually pretty smart. They have figured out a way around our system so they wont have to leave. But you have to admit, their environment and how they take care of it, says at least SOMETHING about them.

Nauticalstar, I only used the environmental argument and totally attacked only that. If you examine what you have wrote, your response to the arguments that I had been following, do not fit one simple bit.
Between the two lines is what I had wrote and what you were responding to:
_______________________
If this was a year ago, I would have said to forget about Mexico, but after going to school this past year, I think my views are changing. And reading some of these posts are scaring me.

Is it okay to think that because Mexico use to not care (or almost totally still doesn't care) about the environment,. that we should use this as an argument for today and say "whatever, they never cared about the environment, so this case should slide on the stupid Mexican part...i'll even prove to you how dumb they are with pictures of their dirty country".

If this is the case and this is the way we are going to argue, then I guess we can say "Well don't listen to America about Human Rights because their White people enslaved their Blacks and grinded the bones of Natives to dust". Do you understand what I'm getting at?
___________________________

Despite me having wrote the above, nauticalstar, you are choosing to talk about the consequence of illegal Mexicans and the border as a rebuttle to what I had written. I have not mentioned what you are talking about at all, yet you use your rebuttle against what I am saying. This is an interesting twist you have taken, because it gives the appearance that you are making a good argument against mine, where in fact, you are in a totally different argument.
If you read my comments on other posts, I believe the borders should be secured (as you do). I was not saying they should not be secured. I never once said that. Also, thank you for clarifying for everyone that you never said Mexicans were dumb... because I never once said that "you personally have called mexicans dumb". The line that I used is in a completely hypothetical prose, yet you made it appear literal... as if I accused you of calling Mexican's dumb.

And you choose to remind us that "their environment says something about them..." Why are you saying this? I hope that is not in response to me saying "yes even though they may be almost totally in the wrong about the environment, this does not mean that if they ONE time do something environmentally sound, that we should discard it and go 'well they are horrible with the environment so forget that' ". I am only analyzing the logic there.

And then you get into the scarey point of saying "well that was legal for us to be racist." Well then, that is even worse! That is even far worse than I could have put it. That is also a very bad thing to say (in the light you have put it in). It even shows how much more profound we were. Your point actually helps mine, and does not fit in with the rest of your stance. It points out how "we loved racism so much that we made it a part of the law for it to exist, and to enjoy everyday".

[Starman]

I totally see what you are getting at, and it is a good point, but the white Americans having black slaves (just so you know, I really hate talking about this subject) was legal back then. People coming here illegally (not just Mexico, I might add, but the majority come from there), well, it obviously isn't legal. Now I know the migrant workers are here legally (well most of them), but the ones who aren't, don't you feel they should have SOME sort of consequence for doing something ILLEGAL?

And I never said they were dumb, they are actually pretty smart. They have figured out a way around our system so they wont have to leave. But you have to admit, their environment and how they take care of it, says at least SOMETHING about them.

Since when does legality equate with morality? Your slave system was a crime against humanity regardless of whether the perpetrators chose to legalize it or not. Japanese medical experimentation with Chinese captives was considered legal. So was Hitler's murdering six million Jews. As a matter of fact, anything can be tagged as legal and excused by anyone who wishes to practice it. But the Nuremberg Trials and other trials against the Japanese perpetrators conclusively proved that legalization has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. It is simply a convenient tool which can be applied when deemed convenient.

BTW
You can't judge a whole country by what you observe in one locality. Its like going to a USA slum area and tagging the whole nation's appearance and habits based on that. Actually, this is a disconcerting tendency that Americans have. Puerto Rico is a beautiful Island. Yet, when first photographed all that was shown were two of the worse places there. El Fangito and La Perla. Why?

[nauticalstar420]

You know what, I feel very strongly about this issue, and all I am doing is getting pi$$ed off. I feel, they need to go home, and they need to not come here. They are draining our tax dollars, and are dirty to boot.

So, like jillian, I am also unsubscribing to this thread.

Have a good day everyone :)

[Starman]

You know what, I feel very strongly about this issue, and all I am doing is getting pi$$ed off. I feel, they need to go home, and they need to not come here. They are draining our tax dollars, and are dirty to boot.

So, like jillian, i am also unsubscribing to this thread.

Have a good day everyone :)

You can't get any dirtier than stealing a people's land by force, destroying theor land titles so they have no legal proof they ever owned it, and then tongue in cheek tell them to go back where they came from. Now that's dirty if you ask me.

BTW
In terms of physical cleanliness I found the Mexicans I assiociated with in Chicago far superior to filthy American Anglos I met there. But then again maybe that was the locality?

[Big10]

You know what Starman? I have been very Right wing, and still consider myself Right wing, but some of my views are changing. And I never thought about what you just wrote. It's a good point. They were forced out of their land and then as if we are Gods we tell them "stay out".

But I do believe that we should secure our borders. Yes we took their land, but we can't pay for what our fathers did. This is the new situation. We have to find out how to deal with it, but yes in a light that will benefit humanity, and not only America. Although, America needs to take care of America FIRST and it has the right to do that.

[nauticalstar420]

excon agrees: Here's a greenie, naut. But, I knew you were a racist. I don't care how much you deny it...

Trust me, if I was racist, I'd say so

[excon]

Trust me, if i was racist, i'd say so

Hello again:

You did - countless times.

excon

[nauticalstar420]

Hello again:

You did - countless times.

excon

Please quote me where I said the words "I am a racist"

Just because I don't want them here, does not mean I am racist. It means I care about this country. And if you read, I already stated that they are hard workers. Would I say that if I was racist? No, I'd say to hell with all of them.

[Starman]

You know what Starman? I have been very Right wing, and still consider myself Right wing, but some of my views are changing. And I never thought about what you just wrote. It's a good point. They were forced out of their land and then as if we are Gods we tell them "stay out".

But I do believe that we should secure our borders. Yes we took their land, but we can't pay for what our fathers did. This is the new situation. We have to find out how to deal with it, but yes in a light that will benefit humanity, and not only America. Although, America needs to take care of America FIRST and it has the right to do that.

The past is past. But in terms of decency, or moral cleanliness, their really isn't any basis to gloat. Europeans physically stunk to high heaven because they hardly ever bathed when they first arrived in the Americas. That includes, Spaniards, Englishmen, Germans, and French. In short, they were physically filthy in comparison to native Americans. Morally, well, you know the savagery that the Spaniards and English inflicted on the natives who generally received them in a friendly way. So where the is the moral superiority giving us the right to be namecalling and pointing fingers? As I said, I have associated extensively with Mexican people here in the USA and have NEVER encountered the filthiness this person is repeatedly referring to. I do not doubt that he has. But so have I in relation to Anglos and I don't go tagging all of them based on that.

As for border security, of course every country has a right to secure its borders.

[excon]

They are draining our tax dollars, and are dirty to boot.

Hello again, naut:

I understand that you don't get that your statement is racist. But the rest of us do.

excon

[otto186]

excon I will finish what my wife(Nautical) started. She is not racist but me on the other hand, I am and don't care who knows it. I say build a giant electric fence and shoot any runner that crosses