Hillary: Those who want to deport illegals are "living in some other universe"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hi, friendly white people!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hi, friendly white people! I'm so happy to see so many of you here making a case for me! I'm brown, I steal, cheat, lie, trespass, exploit your tax money for educational opportunites, health care, and, social services to have a better life. I'm so happy that you feel sorry for me and reward me for my wrongdoing because you can't possibly deport me. I just wanna work and send money out of the country. If you make me legal, I can get a better job and not be paid so little, and my children can also take college slots from your children, and compete with them for the good jobs still left after outsourcing.

Please, white people . . . I'm brown and exotic foreigner. You can marry me and help me, or vote for illegal lovers to run the country. You know the plight of all the world's brown people is the burden of American white people who are historically responsible for all the problems in the world, so none of my crimes are my fault - they are not even crimes coz no illegal is a criminal for stealing, cheating, lying, and trespassing, right? I am more deserving of your sympathy than poor American blacks (you are tired of their problems anyway). Inform your representatives that you want me to stay and have a path to citizenship. Vote in the liberals!

While I do believe the above is meant to be semi-satirical, this kind of blanket statement crosses the line.

This fight has been going on for months now, and think the name calling just at this point is ridiculous. Not everyone who is proamnesty is pro illegal, not everyone who is anti amnesty is racist.

There is not a thing about my post that crosses the line. For months, I have been reading here the excuses illegal lovers make for being pro-amnesty (and you cannot be pro-amnesty without being pro-illegal, deny it all you want). This post sums the rationalizations up by putting them all together, with their consequenses. If it offends anyone, then it should also give you pause as to why you are pro-amnesty in the first place.

I seriously believe there is a ton of white guilt involved in not being able to see how being pro-illegal works against American interests, primarily that of poor,minority Americans. It's what I've observed, and not lacking in validity. Afterall, brown people recognize their own self-interest, and have no problem asserting it in your face thru highly activist, ethno-centrist advocacy. Black Americans poll among the most avid anti-illegal and protectionist groups. Each group knows what's good for them. Neither group feels guilty about defending their self-interest. It's only natural to do so.

Those who desist in their own self-preservation are either psychologically unhealthy, patently naive, or leveling where they see inequality. Whatever your deal, I'm not willing to sacrifice my kid's future to pay for it so you can feel better about yourself. Being brown myself, I have no white guilt to allay. Some folks get over theirs and become more self-aware. Legal immigrants should be rewarded for doing it right; rewarding illegality is just plain wrong.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't see it that way. I see it as a paraphrase of what all of the illegal immigrant sympathisers have been saying right here in this thread.

Not really, it's merely a ridiculous and incredibly whiney post that contains all the cliches and catchphrases that are used to demonise illegal immigrants. I have no problem with people arguing the merits of the different ways to try to solve what is a real problem, but to do it like that? Sorry, no, that is someone with a deep seated fear of or hatred of a group of people and not just because they are illegal.

If it's ridiculous and whiney, it's because of the ridiculous and whiney excuses pro-illegals make for forgiving illegality. Yea, the excuses look really stupid when put all in one post, but it contains views from both sides of the issue, pro and con, not just one. If you're honest, you can see that.

Personally, I have no deep seated fear or hatred of foreigners or non-whites. That is not a meritorious accusation on your part, PH. In fact, it is simply more race baiting. I come from a family of legal immigrant, non-white foreigners, and also married one. Can you say as much? Unlike some, I have no love for people who break the law and flaunt it. I feel this way no matter where they are from, or what color they are. Call me crazy, but I'm not into forgiving and rewarding brazen criminality, and do not understand the reasoning of those who are. I hope I never do understand it, God-willing.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Virtual wife

[HAL 9000 96]

I have never seen crowds of day labourers. Does not seeing these things make me niave? I guess if that's so, then I am.

Same crowds that are clogging up ERs...

Somehow most of us with a bit of common sense are not seeing these crowds.

[SqdnGuns 21]

[rebeccajo 14]

Hi, friendly white people! I'm so happy to see so many of you here making a case for me! I'm brown, I steal, cheat, lie, trespass, exploit your tax money for educational opportunites, health care, and, social services to have a better life. I'm so happy that you feel sorry for me and reward me for my wrongdoing because you can't possibly deport me. I just wanna work and send money out of the country. If you make me legal, I can get a better job and not be paid so little, and my children can also take college slots from your children, and compete with them for the good jobs still left after outsourcing.

Please, white people . . . I'm brown and exotic foreigner. You can marry me and help me, or vote for illegal lovers to run the country. You know the plight of all the world's brown people is the burden of American white people who are historically responsible for all the problems in the world, so none of my crimes are my fault - they are not even crimes coz no illegal is a criminal for stealing, cheating, lying, and trespassing, right? I am more deserving of your sympathy than poor American blacks (you are tired of their problems anyway). Inform your representatives that you want me to stay and have a path to citizenship. Vote in the liberals!

While I do believe the above is meant to be semi-satirical, this kind of blanket statement crosses the line.

This fight has been going on for months now, and think the name calling just at this point is ridiculous. Not everyone who is proamnesty is pro illegal, not everyone who is anti amnesty is racist.

There is not a thing about my post that crosses the line. For months, I have been reading here the excuses illegal lovers make for being pro-amnesty (and you cannot be pro-amnesty without being pro-illegal, deny it all you want). This post sums the rationalizations up by putting them all together, with their consequenses. If it offends anyone, then it should also give you pause as to why you are pro-amnesty in the first place.

I seriously believe there is a ton of white guilt involved in not being able to see how being pro-illegal works against American interests, primarily that of poor,minority Americans. It's what I've observed, and not lacking in validity. Afterall, brown people recognize their own self-interest, and have no problem asserting it in your face thru highly activist, ethno-centrist advocacy. Black Americans poll among the most avid anti-illegal and protectionist groups. Each group knows what's good for them. Neither group feels guilty about defending their self-interest. It's only natural to do so.

Those who desist in their own self-preservation are either psychologically unhealthy, patently naive, or leveling where they see inequality. Whatever your deal, I'm not willing to sacrifice my kid's future to pay for it so you can feel better about yourself. Being brown myself, I have no white guilt to allay. Some folks get over theirs and become more self-aware. Legal immigrants should be rewarded for doing it right; rewarding illegality is just plain wrong.

Now we know why every issue is either so black or white with you.

If you really believed your own rhetoric, you wouldn't have a problem with illegals being self-preservationists. Or is that the real problem? You see this as some 'war' to be waged against those who commit "brazen crimininality" - a term which I feel is better used for rapists and murderers.

Aside from LaL stating the obvious ("not everyone who is pro amnesty is pro illegal") there are "illegal lovers" (as you choose to call us) who oppose diatribes like yours because of the benefits that your family enjoyed when they entered America legally many years ago. Some of us oppose the past proposed amnesty legislations because our government can't resist monkeying with all the immigrant categories when they try to deal with the problem of illegal entry. We aren't in favor of a 'points based' entry system wherein the education level and language skill of an immigrant will help determine their eligibility. We aren't in favor of upping the number of 'highly skilled' immigrants our country will admit because we don't believe in 'picking and choosing' our immigrants. And we aren't in favor of new legislation that violates a basic tenet of our freedoms by declaring innocent children "illegal" simply because when they were born on US soil, one of their parents hadn't been rubber-stamped by our government as a legal entrant.

I would also add that there are many people in this community who read these 'illegal immigrant' threads who don't post to them. They are red, yellow, black, brown, and white. To read such vitriole as you posted is more than a violation of TOS - it's disgusting and disrespectful.

[kaydee457 13]

I have never seen crowds of day labourers. Does not seeing these things make me niave? I guess if that's so, then I am.

Well, perhaps you are for you clearly don't know the scope of the problem. There are communities that have been overrun by illegals and are a burden, and a threat, to these communities......

Here's a couple of links describing communities where illegals congregate in certain places, usually on street corners in front of business' such as 7-Eleven's and the like......

"Community Controversy

Farmingville has been a focal point of controversy regarding the situation of illegal immigrants gathering in large groups on street corners and in front of businesses. Some community members have criticized and protested the lack of immigration-law enforcement, while day laborer supporters have proposed building a site to shelter the workers. There has been an attempted murder of two immigrants (as discussed in the 2004 documentary film Farmingville), and a firebombing of a house. The group Sachem Quality of Life Organization was formed in response to this situation."

Farmingville, NY

And another........

queens

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have never seen crowds of day labourers. Does not seeing these things make me niave? I guess if that's so, then I am.

Same crowds that are clogging up ERs...

Somehow most of us with a bit of common sense are not seeing these crowds.

Try to go through the day with your eyes open. It helps tremendously.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

My response to Rebeccajo:

A nervous laugh, no doubt.

Now we know why every issue is either so black or white with you.

Every issue isn't black or white with me, but supporting criminality is not justified.

If you really believed your own rhetoric, you wouldn't have a problem with illegals being self-preservationists. Or is that the real problem? You see this as some 'war' to be waged against those who commit "brazen crimininality" - a term which I feel is better used for rapists and murderers.

I believe what I say and it is not rhetoric. Please read carefully; I stated before that I do understand the natural tendency toward self-preservation demonstrated by the "browns" and "blacks". What I don't understand is the acquiesence to white guilt on this legal immigration board. No self-preservation going on there, and that's not natural. Ialso don't see this as a war, for the solutions are simple, enforce the law, reward those who do things right, and do not reward illegality.

Aside from LaL stating the obvious ("not everyone who is pro amnesty is pro illegal") there are "illegal lovers" (as you choose to call us) who oppose diatribes like yours because of the benefits that your family enjoyed when they entered America legally many years ago.

My post was not a diatribe, however, yours is.

Any rewards my family received as immigrants came from doing it right, not from white guilt and doing it wrong. That is positive reinforcement. You propose negative reinforcement by rewarding illegal entry and what it takes to stay illegally. Promoting illegal immigration makes one an illegal lover; if the shoe fits , wear it. If it doesn't, what is there to whine about?

Some of us oppose the past proposed amnesty legislations because our government can't resist monkeying with all the immigrant categories when they try to deal with the problem of illegal entry. We aren't in favor of a 'points based' entry system wherein the education level and language skill of an immigrant will help determine their eligibility. We aren't in favor of upping the number of 'highly skilled' immigrants our country will admit because we don't believe in 'picking and choosing' our immigrants. And we aren't in favor of new legislation that violates a basic tenet of our freedoms by declaring innocent children "illegal" simply because when they were born on US soil, one of their parents hadn't been rubber-stamped by our government as a legal entrant.

And you are allowed to believe what you want to believe. I am allowed to believe what I choose to believe. I oppose the interpretation of the Constitution that created anchor babies on the basis that legislative intent, a valid tool of judicial interpretation, did not create the law to benefit the children of illegals, but to expand citizenship to slaves. Judicial activism, a liberal tactic, as produced an injustice that needs to be corrected. FYI: children are innocent whether they are American or not.

I propose that we don't enable foreign government to continue policies that abuse their citizens by serving as their pressure valve, taking in people who would otherwise serve to demand changes in their own countries and be their own heros instead of becoming social service burdens, cheating and stealing from legals here, and allowing for abuse of our own citizens by employers, and pandering politicians. If you believed your own rhetoric about not wanting basic tenets of freedom violated, you would understand that I'm saying.

I would also add that there are many people in this community who read these 'illegal immigrant' threads who don't post to them. They are red, yellow, black, brown, and white. To read such vitriole as you posted is more than a violation of TOS - it's disgusting and disrespectful.

Another basic tenet of freedom in the US is freedom of speech. You lose it easily when someone disagrees with you, threatening, name-calling, and engaging in transference. But that doesn't make my posts in opposition to amnesty and enabling illegality "vitriol". I certainly was not the first person to play the race card in these discussions; it's an easy tactic to take if unopposed. I have demonstrated it as a manipulation. Nothing I have said violates the TOS, nor is it racist. It's also not disrespectful. It's not flowery, nor does it conform to your acceptable level of sympathy for law breakers. I'm proud of that, even as you try to shut me down under false premises.

You may not believe it, but there are red, yellow, black, brown, and white people reading here who are willing and able to support the law and eskew criminal behavior on the part of illegals and their exploiters and enablers. They don't need you to take up their cause; they can speak for themselves. I am one of them and happy to be one of them.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Virtual wife

[natty bumppo 297]

vw ....

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

vw ....

geg for president

[kaydee457 13]

Here's the social costs of illegal immigration in Illinois......

Education- 3.1 billion annually for the eduction of illegals

Healthcare 340 million annually

Incarceration 55 illion annually

Social cost of illegals in my state

And here's some info about costs of treating illegals in Dallas....

Dallas hospital cares for illegal immigrants

But it's U.S. taxpayers who are footing the multi-million-dollar bill

source

The cost of medical care

August 3:

DALLAS - Parkland Memorial Hospital — the same iconic institution where doctors tried to save John F. Kennedy in 1963 — is today where tens of thousands of illegal immigrants receive taxpayer subsidized care.

“Whether they come from this country or somewhere else, doesn’t matter how I treat them,” says Richard Benson, a doctor at Parkland Hospital.

The most common patients here are expectant mothers. Each year about 16,000 babies are born at Parkland. The hospital estimates about 70 percent of them are delivered by undocumented mothers.

Among the new mothers is a woman who didn't want to be identified — an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Her medical bills will run more than $6,000.

But with no insurance, Parkland — a public hospital — is forced to cover the cost.

“We have to figure out how to continue to deal with this because it’s very difficult to fund it,” says Parkland President Dr. Ron Anderson.

Anderson says the cost of treating undocumented immigrants — millions of dollars each year — is unsustainable.

Still, he says, his hospital will never turn away patients.

“You are going to make some awful mistakes when you decide that one person is worthy and one person isn’t worthy,” Anderson says.

But 30 miles away, a Fort Worth public hospital is making those decisions, requiring patients to prove they're here legally before picking up the tab for non-emergency treatment.

“In some cases, you can’t afford 100 percent subsidized care to everyone that walks in here,” Robert Earley with John Peter Smith Hospital says.

The decision has drawn fire from Hispanic rights groups and people like Dominga Valderama, with her newborn baby at Parkland. She's a U.S. citizen, but has undocumented relatives.

"Can you put a price on someone’s health, put a price on a baby’s life?” says Valderama. “Everyone’s entitled to basic rights.”

But who should pay?

That’s a question one of the nation's top public hospitals is struggling to answer.

Edited February 3, 2008 by kaydee457

[rebeccajo 14]

My response to Rebeccajo:

A nervous laugh, no doubt.

Now we know why every issue is either so black or white with you.

Every issue isn't black or white with me, but supporting criminality is not justified.

If you really believed your own rhetoric, you wouldn't have a problem with illegals being self-preservationists. Or is that the real problem? You see this as some 'war' to be waged against those who commit "brazen crimininality" - a term which I feel is better used for rapists and murderers.

I believe what I say and it is not rhetoric. Please read carefully; I stated before that I do understand the natural tendency toward self-preservation demonstrated by the "browns" and "blacks". What I don't understand is the acquiesence to white guilt on this legal immigration board. No self-preservation going on there, and that's not natural. Ialso don't see this as a war, for the solutions are simple, enforce the law, reward those who do things right, and do not reward illegality.

Aside from LaL stating the obvious ("not everyone who is pro amnesty is pro illegal") there are "illegal lovers" (as you choose to call us) who oppose diatribes like yours because of the benefits that your family enjoyed when they entered America legally many years ago.

My post was not a diatribe, however, yours is.

Any rewards my family received as immigrants came from doing it right, not from white guilt and doing it wrong. That is positive reinforcement. You propose negative reinforcement by rewarding illegal entry and what it takes to stay illegally. Promoting illegal immigration makes one an illegal lover; if the shoe fits , wear it. If it doesn't, what is there to whine about?

I do not propose negative reinforcement by rewarding illegal entry and what it takes to stay illegally. If you could read as well as you type, you would know that.

Some of us oppose the past proposed amnesty legislations because our government can't resist monkeying with all the immigrant categories when they try to deal with the problem of illegal entry. We aren't in favor of a 'points based' entry system wherein the education level and language skill of an immigrant will help determine their eligibility. We aren't in favor of upping the number of 'highly skilled' immigrants our country will admit because we don't believe in 'picking and choosing' our immigrants. And we aren't in favor of new legislation that violates a basic tenet of our freedoms by declaring innocent children "illegal" simply because when they were born on US soil, one of their parents hadn't been rubber-stamped by our government as a legal entrant.

And you are allowed to believe what you want to believe. I am allowed to believe what I choose to believe. I oppose the interpretation of the Constitution that created anchor babies on the basis that legislative intent, a valid tool of judicial interpretation, did not create the law to benefit the children of illegals, but to expand citizenship to slaves. Judicial activism, a liberal tactic, as produced an injustice that needs to be corrected. FYI: children are innocent whether they are American or not.

And prior to Dred-Scott, all States held that anyone born within their borders was a citizen of that State. The 14th Amendment overturned State decisions that attempted to deny that right. And yes all children are innocent, which is why their rights should not be violated by zealots.

I propose that we don't enable foreign government to continue policies that abuse their citizens by serving as their pressure valve, taking in people who would otherwise serve to demand changes in their own countries and be their own heros instead of becoming social service burdens, cheating and stealing from legals here, and allowing for abuse of our own citizens by employers, and pandering politicians. If you believed your own rhetoric about not wanting basic tenets of freedom violated, you would understand that I'm saying.

I would also add that there are many people in this community who read these 'illegal immigrant' threads who don't post to them. They are red, yellow, black, brown, and white. To read such vitriole as you posted is more than a violation of TOS - it's disgusting and disrespectful.

Another basic tenet of freedom in the US is freedom of speech. You lose it easily when someone disagrees with you, threatening, name-calling, and engaging in transference. But that doesn't make my posts in opposition to amnesty and enabling illegality "vitriol". I certainly was not the first person to play the race card in these discussions; it's an easy tactic to take if unopposed. I have demonstrated it as a manipulation. Nothing I have said violates the TOS, nor is it racist. It's also not disrespectful. It's not flowery, nor does it conform to your acceptable level of sympathy for law breakers. I'm proud of that, even as you try to shut me down under false premises.

This isn't the NY Times or a public gathering place. It's a private message board where we are given the privilege of posting amongst people of all colors and creeds. Your post is offensive and racist.

You may not believe it, but there are red, yellow, black, brown, and white people reading here who are willing and able to support the law and eskew criminal behavior on the part of illegals and their exploiters and enablers. They don't need you to take up their cause; they can speak for themselves. I am one of them and happy to be one of them.

In a pigs eye. You speak for yourself and very few members of this board when you use racist slurs.

vw ....

geg for president

Of what? The KKK?

Edited February 3, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

vw ....

geg for president

Of what? The KKK?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do not propose negative reinforcement by rewarding illegal entry and what it takes to stay illegally. If you could read as well as you type, you would know that.

I read what you type, I wish you would extent the same courtesy to me. Your hormonal reactions to my posts tend to skew you toward illegal lover. If we agree more than we disagree, then it would be nice if you would show where we agree, coz I'm not seeing it.

And prior to Dred-Scott, all States held that anyone born within their borders was a citizen of that State. The 14th Amendment overturned State decisions that attempted to deny that right. And yes all children are innocent, which is why their rights should not be violated by zealots.

Dred Scott was a slave, and he was not a US citizen, and the court held that the rights held by US citizens could nto be extended to him. What you support in twisting the law, is extending the benefits of an amendment that stood in opposition to Dred Scott, to illegals. Using it to actually disadvantage the descendents of slaves by putting them, and the rest of us, in competition to the children of those who, by breaking the law, got a benefit that not only makes their children citizens, but endows upon them the ability to further assist law-breaking family members. I cannot support a profane irony out of what was meant to correct a wrong. That doesn't make me a zealot. Some of the countries your favorite illegals come from don't allow birthright citizenship. Do you ever direct your polemics to them?

In a pigs eye. You speak for yourself and very few members of this board when you use racist slurs.

No way you cannot convince me that the irrational empathy toward what is often called "brown people" is a symptom of white guilt and there is nothing racist about countering with that observation. As a non-white, I am keenly aware of the protectionism taken up by white liberals who seem to believe that non-whites need to be sheltered from the consequences of their actions. I reject ethno-centric activist groups of any sort that play on that guilt and I oppose the guilt outright when it comes straight from the horse's mouth. I believe in that rewards based upon merit rather than on skin color or nationality creates incentive to do well and not make excuses. There are many people of color who agree, I'm sure. And they do not need your empathy nor your defense.

Common sense is not racist. Try it, and you will see.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Virtual wife