A return to "Operation Wetback"?

[Joel Halfwassen 0]

I have heard that to get benefits from the Arizona DES one must now show a passport! I like the idea the only problem is someone in need of DES' support will most likely 1) not have a passport and 2) not have the $100 to spend on a passport!

Heck, until I planned my trip to Russia I did not have a passport, though effective Jan. 2008, you will NEED a passport to return from Mexico:

January 8, 2007 – Passports, Merchant Mariner Documents (MMDs) or NEXUS Air cards would be required for all air travel, and most commercial sea travel, from within the Western Hemisphere for citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda. This is a change from the previously scheduled date of January 1, in order to accommodate holiday travel.

January 1, 2008 – The statutory deadline for all Western Hemisphere travel, including land border travel. The specific requirements for the land border crossing will be addressed in a separate rulemaking in advance of this date.

source

I always thought that a passport was specifically for international travel and was quite surprised to learn at this time one is not needed to travel to Mexico!

Or Canada, or the BRITISH Virgin Islands, or several other places that have short flights from the US. That will change soon, but I spent most of my life going to and from Canada and Mexico without a passport. I always kind of thought it was silly, but not so much that I ran out to get a passport.

Joel

again, it's not my intention to throw the race card again.. but how funny, is that people who support these racial profilings or say 'these sacrifices are necessary' don't have a minority background. yea yea someone will say 'but what about the rapists, they usually target a crazy white guy'.. yes, but you don't see the cops pulling every white guy, as they'd do pulling a black guy in a nice car because he looks 'suspicious' or asking for legal proof to a bunch of hispanics because they look illegal.

But funny Pedroh, how (according to this link) 81% of the illegal aliens are Hispanic with your country being the leader of the pack at 57%. And a vast majority of "other than Mexicans" (OTM's in ICE lingo) come from Mexico too. Gabachos are a paltry 6%. I don't know how accurate it is, but it was what Googled up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar21.html

As I said previously...you either flame the sh!t out of me or throw out the race card of "poor downtrodden minority" when the going gets tough. Maybe it plays well with some of the "rebels without a clue" on VJ, but it doesn't deter me one bit.

There are plenty solutions to illegal immigration that target everyone and do not target only Hispanics. I do not advocate mass roundups according to skin color. But that has never been an issue with some folks. Some people can't handle the truth. As I have said repeatedly...nobody condones illegal immigration except when it benefits their own racial / ethnic / religious / national group or personal agenda.

The fact is that foreign nationals do not have the right to enter or remain in USA illegally. Entry and legal residency in the USA is not up to the individual foreign national to decide. It is the sole perogative of the USA as a sovereign country to grant this priviledge.

It's "Pedro"

[homesick_american 1]

again, it's not my intention to throw the race card again.. but how funny, is that people who support these racial profilings or say 'these sacrifices are necessary' don't have a minority background. yea yea someone will say 'but what about the rapists, they usually target a crazy white guy'.. yes, but you don't see the cops pulling every white guy, as they'd do pulling a black guy in a nice car because he looks 'suspicious' or asking for legal proof to a bunch of hispanics because they look illegal.

But funny Pedroh, how (according to this link) 81% of the illegal aliens are Hispanic with your country being the leader of the pack at 57%. And a vast majority of "other than Mexicans" (OTM's in ICE lingo) come from Mexico too. Gabachos are a paltry 6%. I don't know how accurate it is, but it was what Googled up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar21.html

As I said previously...you either flame the sh!t out of me or throw out the race card of "poor downtrodden minority" when the going gets tough. Maybe it plays well with some of the "rebels without a clue" on VJ, but it doesn't deter me one bit.

There are plenty solutions to illegal immigration that target everyone and do not target only Hispanics. I do not advocate mass roundups according to skin color. But that has never been an issue with some folks. Some people can't handle the truth. As I have said repeatedly...nobody condones illegal immigration except when it benefits their own racial / ethnic / religious / national group or personal agenda.

The fact is that foreign nationals do not have the right to enter or remain in USA illegally. Entry and legal residency in the USA is not up to the individual foreign national to decide. It is the sole perogative of the USA as a sovereign country to grant this priviledge.

I agree. Illegals have no right to be in the US and I'm tired of the US mollycoddling them. Send 'em home.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The one real solution that North American leaders aren't talking about.

By Robert A. Pastor

....

Illegal immigration has increased and if anything, NAFTA has inadvertently fueled immigration by encouraging foreign investment near the U.S.-Mexican border, which in turn serves as a magnet for workers in central and southern Mexico. As a result, the number of undocumented Mexican workers who live in the United States has skyrocketed in the NAFTA era, from an estimated 1 million in the mid-1990s to about 6 million today. One of every six undocumented immigrants is under 18 years old, and since the mid-1990s the fastest growth of the population has occurred in states like Arizona and North Carolina that had relatively small numbers of foreign-born residents in the past.

......................

Valuable lessons can be gleaned from the continent that supplied America's original pool of immigrants. When the European Union added Greece, Spain and Portugal as member countries in the 1980s, it channeled massive amounts of aid to these newcomers and Ireland to narrow the income gap separating them from more-prosperous nations like Germany and France. About half of the $500 billion in aid was spent unwisely; the best investments were in roads and communications linking these four countries to richer markets. Between 1986 and 2003, the per capita GDP of the four nations rose from 65 percent of the average EU member country's economic output to 82 percent. Spain spent much of the $120 million it received on new roads that boosted commerce and tourism. As a result, Spanish immigration to other EU countries all but ceased. Ireland now ranks as the second richest member of the EU in per capita terms—and for the first time in its history, it is actually receiving rather than sending immigrants.

North America isn't Europe. But the region's three countries should draw on the EU's experience and think in more regional terms. The leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico must articulate a vision that recognizes how instability or recession in one affects the other two. At the same time, they need to remind their constituents that when the value of a neighbor's house rises, so does theirs.

Transforming that vision into programs to promote development in Mexico, the trio's poorest partner, will require leadership, capital and institutions that have been sadly lacking in recent years. Take for example transportation: the three governments have never put together a continentwide plan for transportation and infrastructure despite the huge increase in trade crossing their borders. The first thing NAFTA partners should do is establish a North American Investment Fund that would invest $200 billion over 10 years in roads and communications connecting the poorer southern part of Mexico to the North American market. If we build them, they will stay: companies will be more likely to invest there, encouraging many Mexican workers to stay home and others, already in the United States, to return. Experts estimate that such investment could double Mexico's rate of GDPgrowth.

The funds should be administered by the World Bank. As the main beneficiary, Mexico would provide half of the total, the United States could chip in with an additional 40 percent and Canada the remainder. To ensure optimal use of the funding, Mexico also needs to increase taxes, modernize its labor laws, and open up the state-run energy and electricity sectors to private investment. The United States and Canada could help Mexican leaders sell those overdue reforms by promising to commit resources to a joint effort to narrow the income gap.

While the idea of funding Mexican development may sound ludicrous, this investment would also benefit the U.S. economically, and the total is less than half of what the EU spent. Washington's $80 billion contribution would amount to about a third of what the Bush administration has spent in the last three years in Iraq.

The fund won't end illegal immigration overnight or even in a decade. But if the investment eventually helps Mexico to achieve 6 percent growth rates, double those of its northern neighbors, the income gap will be reduced by 20 percent in just the first decade. Only then will Mexicans begin to think about their future in Mexico rather than plan for an exit north.

This is just one piece of the regional puzzle. To compete with a rising Asia, North America needs a customs union that will end needless inspections of legal goods circulating among the three countries. A North American Regulatory Commission could promote shared goals in health care, protecting the environment and improving conditions in the workplace. Such a panel would also eliminate nonsensical discrepancies in the laws of the three nations that, for instance, bar Americans from buying drugs from a Canadian pharmacist even if the medicine was made in the United States.

The dividends accruing from a true North American Community would not be measured strictly in dollars. Instead of defining security exclusively in terms of fences and border guards, Canadian, Mexican and U.S. officials should create a broader perimeter around the entire region. Teams of officials from all three countries could share intelligence and terrorist watch lists and standardize inspection procedures used at ports of entry. These steps would be intended to supplement rather than replace existing border-protection systems.

To be sure, there is little prospect that these initiatives will be approved in the near future. The Bush administration remains preoccupied by the quagmire in Iraq and mushrooming fiscal and trade deficits. The Canadian prime minister lacks a working majority in Parliament, and Mexico is heading into a presidential election this summer that will choose Vicente Fox's successor.

But the idea of a North American Community is so compelling in my view that it will emerge, one hopes sooner rather than later, as a cutting-edge issue. The question is not whether such a community is likely. The question is whether it is desirable and will lead to a more secure and competitive North America. The answer is a resounding yes on both counts. Bush, Fox and Harper face a choice in Cancún. They can pose for the photographers and pretend that relations among their countries have never been better. Or they can seize the North American opportunity and put their nations firmly on the road to a safer and more prosperous future.

PASTOR is the director of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., and author of "Toward a North American Community: Lessons From the Old World for the New."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11904430/site/newsweek/

[I'm Gone 60]

http://tinyurl.com/kza9m

The NAFTA superhighway: Coming soon

Posted: August 29, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

This is a "mind-boggling concept," exploded Lou Dobbs. It must cause Americans to think our political and academic elites have "gone utterly mad." What had detonated the mild-mannered CNN anchor?

Robert Pastor, vice chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, had just appeared before a panel of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to call for erasing all U.S. borders and a merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada in a North American union stretching from Prudhoe Bay to Guatemala.

Under the Pastor-CFR plan, the illegal alien invasion would be solved by eliminating America's borders and legalizing the invasion. We would no longer defend the Rio Grande.

"What we need to do," Pastor instructed, "is forge a new North American Community. ... Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric border pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through tolls."

The Pastor-CFR project for "economic integration" of Mexamerica is on the drawing board. North-south highways and railways would be built to weld us together as the American Union was welded together by the Northern Pacific, Union Pacific and Southern Pacific, and Ike's Interstate Highway System.

Speaking in Madrid in 2002, Mexican President Vicente Fox declared: "Our long-range objective is to establish with the United States ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as ... the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons. The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union."

Critical element of the Fox post-NAFTA agenda: absolute freedom of movement for persons between Mexico and the United States – a merger of the nations. Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Debrez put it succinctly in April 2005. What Mexico is about is "complete integration" of the two nations.

To appreciate what Fox, Debrez, Pastor and the CFR wish America to merge with, consider a few excerpts from the State Department information sheet on Mexico.

While hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens marched beneath Mexican flags in U.S. cities on May Day to demand amnesty, Mexico's constitution "prohibits political activities by foreigners, and such actions may result in detentions and deportations."

"Crime in Mexico continues at high levels, and it is often violent, especially in Mexico City, Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo (and) Acapulco," State warns U.S. travelers. "Low apprehension rates and conviction rates of criminals contribute to the high crime rate."

"Women traveling alone are especially vulnerable. ... Victims ... have been raped, robbed of personal property or abducted and then held while their credit cards are used at various businesses and automatic teller machines. ... Kidnapping, including the kidnapping of non-Mexicans, continues at alarming rates."

When Fox proposed his merger of America and Mexico in a North American Union, Robert Bartley, for 30 years editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, declared him a "visionary" and pledged solidarity: "He (Fox) can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision ... this newspaper."

The American people never supported NAFTA, and they are angry over Bush's failure to secure the border – but a shotgun marriage between our two nations appears prearranged. Central feature: a ten-lane, 400-yard-wide NAFTA superhighway from the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, up to and across the U.S. border, all the way to Canada. Within the median strip dividing the north and south car and truck lanes would be rail lines for both passengers and freight traffic, and oil and gas pipelines.

As author Jerome Corsi describes this Fox-Bush autobahn, container ships from China would unload at Lazaro Cardenas, a port named for the Mexican president who nationalized all U.S. oil companies in 1938. From there, trucks with Mexican drivers would run fast lines into the United States, hauling their cargo to a U.S. customs inspection terminal – in Kansas City, Mo. From there, the trucks would fan out across America or roll on into Canada. Similar superhighways from Mexico through the United States into Canada are planned.

According to Corsi, construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the first leg of the NAFTA superhighway, is to begin next year.

The beneficiaries of this NAFTA superhighway project would be the contractors who build it and the importers and outlet stores for the Chinese-manufactured goods that would come flooding in. The losers would be U.S. longshoremen, truckers, manufacturers and taxpayers.

The latter would pay the cost of building the highway in Mexico and the United States, both in dollars and in the lost sovereignty of our once-independent American republic.

[I'm Gone 60]

New World Order Chieftans Openly Discuss Dismantling US Border and Bringing Us into the Pan-American Union

CNN | June 10, 2005

It was reported on Lou Dobbs last night that the traitors to the United States are finally coming out from their positions under the rocks. The

Council on Foreign Relations has published a report which articulates the plan to subvert the Constitution by dissolving our nation in favor of a

continental government. The media has kept a pretty tight lid on this treason until now. The 1986 amnesty, NAFTA, CAFTA have been stepping stones towards the dissolution of our national sovereignty.

Here is the transcript from last night's program -

DOBBS: Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country's fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico.

Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

ROBERT PASTOR, IND. TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA: The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at

the borders of North America as a whole.

ROMANS: That's the view in a report called "Building a North American

Community." It envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada

in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and

a freer flow of goods and people.

Task force member Robert Pastor.

PASTOR: What we hope to accomplish by 2010 is a common external tariff which

will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common

security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.

ROMANS: Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief

mention, "We must maintain respect for each other's sovereignty." But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: That's what would happen if

anybody serious were to embrace this strategy for homogenizing the United

States and its sovereignty with the very different systems existing today in

Canada and Mexico.

ROMANS: Especially considering Mexico's problems with drug trafficking,

human smuggling and poverty. Critics say the country is just too far behind

the U.S. and Canada to be included in a so-called common community. But the

task force wants military and law enforcement cooperation between all three

countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and

Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security.

ROMANS: And it wants temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full

mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union.

Yet, just this week, voters in two major countries in the European Union voted against upgrading -- updating the European constitution. So clearly, this is not the best week to be trying to sell that idea.

DOBBS: Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone

utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years

after September 11, we still don't have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It's astonishing.

ROMANS: The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in

one, rather than alone.

DOBBS: Well, it's a -- it's a mind-boggling concept. Christine Romans, thank you, as always.

There is no greater example than our next story as to why the United States

must maintain its border security with Mexico, and importantly, secure that

border absolutely. The police chief of the violent Mexican border town, Nuevo Laredo, was today executed. It was his first day on the job.

Alejandro Dominguez, seen here at his swearing-in ceremony, was ambushed by

a number of gunmen several hours just after that ceremony as he left his office. The assassins fired more than three dozen rounds that struck Dominguez.

He was the only person who volunteered to become Nuevo Laredo's police

chief. The position has been vacant for weeks after the previous chief of police resigned. The town is at the center of what is a violent war between Mexican drug lords. The State Department has issued two travel warnings for Americans about that area just this year. And amazingly, the Mexican government calls those State Department warnings unnecessary.

Still ahead, the military recruiting crisis is escalating. New questions tonight about the viability of the all-volunteer military. General David Grange is our guest.

And "Living Dangerously," our special report. Rising population growth in

the West, dangerous water shortages, the worst drought arguably ever. We'll

have that report for you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RECOGNIZING the contributions of the OAS and other regional and sub-regional

mechanisms to the promotion and consolidation of democracy in the Americas;

RECALLING that the Heads of State and Government of the Americas, gathered

at the Third Summit of the Americas, held from April 20 to 22, 2001 in

Quebec City, adopted a democracy clause which establishes that any

unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a

state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the

participation of that state's government in the Summits of the Americas

process;

"The terrorist catastrophes in New York and Washington swept away media

comment on other global events taking place on September 11, 2001.

Virtually obscured on that historic agreement reached in Lima, Peru by the

foreign ministers of the Organization of American States (OAS) on the

Inter-American Democratic Charter.

You'd never guess it from the ho-hum reportage of the Establishment press,

but the recently concluded Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, was

a revolutionary event of major magnitude. The two-day summit (January 12-13)

attended by President Bush marked another step forward in a long-term agenda

to abolish national borders and merge the countries of the Western Hemisphere into a regional Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The general spin by most of the media analysts is that the conference hosted by Mexican President Vicente Fox did not accomplish much, ending with a harmless declaration but little consensus among the hemispheric leaders.

The truth is far different. The summit's final statement, the Declaration of

Nuevo Leon, commits the 34 nations to courses of action that have little or

nothing to do with increasing trade - the ostensible purpose for creating

the FTAA - but much to do with destroying our borders, soaking U.S.

taxpayers for billions of dollars more in foreign aid, and promoting

socialism throughout the hemisphere. The Declaration, for instance, included

a call for tripling the funding of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

for loans to Latin American businesses. The IDB - like the World Bank, the

International Monetary Fund and other multi-lateral lending agencies - has a

horrible record of corruption and of funding statist projects that have

saddled Latin Americans with a crushing debt burden. With a huge infusion of

new IDB bribe money for business and political leaders, the FTAA architects

will be able to overcome much of the current resistance south of the border

to their merger plans.

[pedroh 21]

yay! back to the 50's.. so.. operation wetback and the KKK are back?! gonna go find my colored-only seat!

Edited October 1, 2006 by pedroh

[peejay 327]

yay! back to the 50's.. so.. operation wetback and the KKK are back?! gonna go find my colored-only seat!

Instead of digging up past history in America, why not protest the shameful treatment of migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc. arrested in Mexico as illegal aliens and deported. There are numerous reports of Mexican police robbing and raping illegal migrants from other Latin countries. How do they know they are illegal? Do they look or talk different than Mexicans? How do the Mexican cops know they are illegal? I really want to know.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

there is more of a side note. an article that talks about how ppl along the border feel about hte wall. LA Time Article

...no too positive.... also, note the 3 last paragraphs...

for those of you who can't link to it ... or do not want to read through it.

In Texas, Little Support for Putting Up Fences

Along the Rio Grande, residents say the barrier approved by Congress would sever cultural and economic ties, and cut off access to the river.

By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer

October 1, 2006

Few Americans are more fed up with the unending human caravan of illegal immigration — or more familiar with its macabre toll — than rancher Mike Vickers.

Multitudes of bedraggled migrants cut through his South Texas homestead every day to skirt U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints on their journey north, and many do not make it out alive. Vickers has found frightened children sitting in fields alone, abandoned. His dogs once brought home a human head.

He very badly wants to stop the trail of death and despair that passes by his doorstep. But when he considers the wisdom of building twin steel walls along the Rio Grande to seal off the Mexican border — the plan Congress approved early Saturday before heading home for the November election — his verdict is swift and harsh: stupid idea.

To Mike Allen, a former Catholic priest who helped the poor in the colonias of Texas' Hidalgo County, then switched careers and became a leading economic booster for the border region, the fence is a manifestation of politics at its ugliest.

"It is just so sad that the relationships we have worked years to build are being torn down by politicians in Washington, who quite frankly don't have any idea what they are doing," Allen said.

"I'll say it: It's the browning of America, and people are afraid of that. That's what this is all about. I have lived on the border most of my life. I'm not scared."

Daniel

:energetic:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

there is more of a side note. an article that talks about how ppl along the border feel about hte wall. LA Time Article

...no too positive.... also, note the 3 last paragraphs...

for those of you who can't link to it ... or do not want to read through it.

In Texas, Little Support for Putting Up Fences

Along the Rio Grande, residents say the barrier approved by Congress would sever cultural and economic ties, and cut off access to the river.

By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer

October 1, 2006

Few Americans are more fed up with the unending human caravan of illegal immigration — or more familiar with its macabre toll — than rancher Mike Vickers.

Multitudes of bedraggled migrants cut through his South Texas homestead every day to skirt U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints on their journey north, and many do not make it out alive. Vickers has found frightened children sitting in fields alone, abandoned. His dogs once brought home a human head.

He very badly wants to stop the trail of death and despair that passes by his doorstep. But when he considers the wisdom of building twin steel walls along the Rio Grande to seal off the Mexican border — the plan Congress approved early Saturday before heading home for the November election — his verdict is swift and harsh: stupid idea.

To Mike Allen, a former Catholic priest who helped the poor in the colonias of Texas' Hidalgo County, then switched careers and became a leading economic booster for the border region, the fence is a manifestation of politics at its ugliest.

"It is just so sad that the relationships we have worked years to build are being torn down by politicians in Washington, who quite frankly don't have any idea what they are doing," Allen said.

"I'll say it: It's the browning of America, and people are afraid of that. That's what this is all about. I have lived on the border most of my life. I'm not scared."

Daniel

:energetic:

Excellent piece, Daniel!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

there is more of a side note. an article that talks about how ppl along the border feel about hte wall. LA Time Article

...no too positive.... also, note the 3 last paragraphs...

for those of you who can't link to it ... or do not want to read through it.

In Texas, Little Support for Putting Up Fences

Along the Rio Grande, residents say the barrier approved by Congress would sever cultural and economic ties, and cut off access to the river.

By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer

October 1, 2006

Few Americans are more fed up with the unending human caravan of illegal immigration — or more familiar with its macabre toll — than rancher Mike Vickers.

Multitudes of bedraggled migrants cut through his South Texas homestead every day to skirt U.S. Border Patrol checkpoints on their journey north, and many do not make it out alive. Vickers has found frightened children sitting in fields alone, abandoned. His dogs once brought home a human head.

He very badly wants to stop the trail of death and despair that passes by his doorstep. But when he considers the wisdom of building twin steel walls along the Rio Grande to seal off the Mexican border — the plan Congress approved early Saturday before heading home for the November election — his verdict is swift and harsh: stupid idea.

To Mike Allen, a former Catholic priest who helped the poor in the colonias of Texas' Hidalgo County, then switched careers and became a leading economic booster for the border region, the fence is a manifestation of politics at its ugliest.

"It is just so sad that the relationships we have worked years to build are being torn down by politicians in Washington, who quite frankly don't have any idea what they are doing," Allen said.

"I'll say it: It's the browning of America, and people are afraid of that. That's what this is all about. I have lived on the border most of my life. I'm not scared."

Thanks for saving my time. Didn't need to read through the whle piece. The highlighted part says it all. The writer has nothing to offer but the typical cheap shot of pulling the race card. yawn...

[homesick_american 1]

Please, I am so tired of people playing the race card whenever someone says they're against illegal immigration. If you have to call someone a racist, you've immediately lost the arguemnt.

[pedroh 21]

yay! back to the 50's.. so.. operation wetback and the KKK are back?! gonna go find my colored-only seat!

Instead of digging up past history in America, why not protest the shameful treatment of migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc. arrested in Mexico as illegal aliens and deported. There are numerous reports of Mexican police robbing and raping illegal migrants from other Latin countries. How do they know they are illegal? Do they look or talk different than Mexicans? How do the Mexican cops know they are illegal? I really want to know.

i do protest against that, not rallying and such, but I am against against the hipocresy of the mexican government who whines everytime a border patrol arrests an illegal, but turns a blind eye to the situation in the mexican south border, which is awful, and something really needs to be done. To your question, yes, centralamericans talk quite different from Mexicans..but you're right, it's really sad and outrageous that the mexican military does all those horrible things to the illegals that wanna cross to US through Mexico, and have to pass through all that mess..

Im also against the latin-american media who likes to comfortably say 'immigration measures' rather than 'illegal immigration measures'.. what they are doing is also a terrible thing, misinforming people of how the debates in washington are supposedly against 'all immigration' rather than the deportation of only illegals.

and I dont think as the past article said, that Americans are afraid of the 'browning of America' but I do think that the fact that hispanic culture hasn't been absorbed totally by the American melting pot(spanish media, spanish businesses) is a factor that contributes to a higher polarization of hispanics vs. ALL US.. lol.. and even though there are good laws that promote the learning of English, some hispanics feel threatened that they will affect their personal life, and will be forbidden of speaking their native language. Like some farmers in NC who forbid their hispanic guest workers from playing soccer, and don't care if the workers want to get a teacher from a community college to learn some english..

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Please, I am so tired of people playing the race card whenever someone says they're against illegal immigration. If you have to call someone a racist, you've immediately lost the arguemnt.

why is that? do you honestly think all of the "anti-illegal" crowd is as pure as you are?

if so, i got a bridge I can sell ya.

my opinions is that we do have a problem, just that we do not need bad "solutions". and a lot of solutions being bantered about stem from fear rather than objective look at the situation with an eye for a "win-win" solution.

E.T.: yawn away. new parents are exceused!

Daniel

:energetic:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Please, I am so tired of people playing the race card whenever someone says they're against illegal immigration. If you have to call someone a racist, you've immediately lost the arguemnt.

why is that? do you honestly think all of the "anti-illegal" crowd is as pure as you are?

if so, i got a bridge I can sell ya.

my opinions is that we do have a problem, just that we do not need bad "solutions". and a lot of solutions being bantered about stem from fear rather than objective look at the situation with an eye for a "win-win" solution.

E.T.: yawn away. new parents are exceused!

Daniel

:energetic:

Well said, Daniel.