NEWS: Anti Immigrant Crowd Full Of Shit On The Medical Front

Good luck with him, wildswan. You're wading into some serious wingnut territory now.

I didn't, but I do recal that the article mentioned that the operator told the person not to go outside with his gun.

It was my understanding that, asside from 2nd Ammendment rights, US Citizens were allowed to use deadly force on people who hadcome into/onto their property uninvited. (without a legitimate reason, ie deliveries etc)

Says the person who takes umbrage at non-existent bigotry in someone's posts...

I'm hovering, because I don't wade.

I'm as cool as cucumber, and ever so slightly cruel, so I believe I shall leave the issue open to wondering.

Which is exactly what happens.

Even immigrants who really don't want assimilate into American culture wind up learning at least some English, since it's an incredibly valuable job skill, and helps with day to day matters.

While immigration standards (at least here in the U.S., I'm not up to snuff on my history of British immigration) have varied dramatically over the last few centuries, the habits of first-generation immigrants, legal or otherwise, hasn't really changed that dramatically.

They arrive, and much more often than not move to or establish cultural enclaves with others who have immigrated from the same country/area/region they have. There's a bunch of reasons why this makes sense, both external and internal. Those first-generation immigrants then wind up assimilating a bit, and learning enough English to get by, but don't embrace American culture (and English) as vigorously as their children do.

While there are possible exceptions on an individual level, this pattern has repeated itself throughout most of the 19th and 20th Centuries here in the states, regardless of how open or closed the U.S. borders have been.

That's why I really don't understand the logic that cultural or linguistic enclaves are now impeding the assimilation of immigrants more now than they did back when it was, say, the Italians showing up in massive numbers.

And the guy literally says that he's going to kill them.

And indeed, that's how things should be if someone plans on living in a country for the forseable future.

The reason I mentioned UK immigration, was because of recent instances where people living in countries which were about to join the EU, and who intended to emigrate to the UK, but did not posess the necessary qualifications to do so, came to the UK 'on holiday', and, when their country then gained EU membership, they were legally entitled to stay. Not quite the same thing as border jumpers in the US, but mentionable, as it is an example of people not following the legal procedure for immigration, as they would not have had the qualifications to do so legally.

Absolutely so.

This was not so much about 'enclaves', but certain areas of the UK where road signs are posted in English, and with another road sign in Arabic, and how that can lead to the perception that the Arabic communities do not want to learn English (or they would not need the Arabic signs) Now, that's not to say that that's the intention of the Arabic community, but it is a perception which some people react to as an insult to the hopitality of the UK. I mentioned it as comparable, and as a possible explanation for, Zarth's assertion that there was no rational reason for people in the US to take umbrage at signage in Spanish.

inkonnu, surely you must realize the highly political nature of enculturation? You seem to be saying that all of this "speak English, dammit" ethos is an impartial, merely pragmatic one, when it's well know that these cultural struggles have a hell of a lot to do with dominance and subordinance.

The stupidity if fucking astounding.

I listened to the tape. Turns out the burglars did not identify themselves as illegal immigrants, so that is a moot point. Burglars don't usually yell, "I am an illegal immigrant and I am stealing a television."

Also, police have this crazy idea that sealing off an area is less dangerous than rushing in with their guns a blazing. Less people end up dead that way.

Horn should be prosecuted and receive the death penalty under Texas law. It was premeditated and he murdered two people.

Also, this woman should be executed for being retarded.

And the broad daylight issue just means they are not vampires.

Absolutely, I'm aware of the issue, the thing is though, it is not me personally saying "speak English, dammt", I am merely pointing out, that there is legislature in both US and UK immigration policies which requre the applicant to have a reasonable grasp of English, and that it is beneficial for everyone in the US and UK to be speaking English in issues of business where ease of communication is key. Of course, in their own communities, or in private conversation, people are entitled to speak whatever language they want. If it's a private conversation, it's not addressed to me, so it's irrelevent if I can understand it or not, but, when it comes to going in a shop, or applying for a job, then ease of communication should be key. Other countries are much less lenient on language assimilation. I believe, that in Holland, immigrants must learn Dutch within a certain time of arrival, or face having their visas revoked. As I mentioned from my vacation to Spain, the immigrant populations there, be they Chinese, Arabic Muslims, unidentified 'white' races (most likely German), when they were in shops or restaurants, were all using Spanish when dealing with the public, as that is the primary language of the country. All I am illustrating, is that in other countries, such linguistic 'rules' are adhered to.

"Illegal Mexicans"? Actually, they were Columbian. But I bet she won't let facts get in the way of her xenophobia.

I'm referring to the subsequent "Rah, rah, rah! This man's a hero!" crap.

Lou Dobbs had several kittens, on air, about the people who are objecting to what happened.

Phsst. Mexican, Columbian, El Salvadorian: They're all "them ferners."

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, my itention was they they should exit the country and reenter through proper channels. I'd probably fall under the catagory of the "anti-immigration" crowd. I use anti-immirgration in quotes, because most of us who are against undocumented workers/illegal aliens aren't anti-immigration, so much as we want the people who come here to come here the the right way, as opposed to the wrong way. I have two step siblings, and a step mother who I love dearly. All three are immigrants to this country who came here the right way, using legal and proper channels. If your coming into this country by getting past something designed to keep you out, you're coming in the wrong way. It's just that simple.

Good point.
I believe the liberal left here thinks we should just have open borders and let everyone in.
Coming from people in Ohio, or South Dakota, what the hell do they know about illegal immigration?
Is it good for America, ask yourself that question? Does it help health care? oh please, I hate this author, he's a total moron.

Says the Ron Paul supporter.
shocking

Absolutely so. Well said

I think some of the questions you posited were also well said.

Thanks, it's nice to know that they made sense to some

There's also the very important issue that "the right way" to immigrate into the United States is inordinately difficult, bureaucratic and expensive.

Also, did I miss where our immigration laws were supposed to be designed around keeping people out? I thought they were designed to allow people to enter this country in an orderly and documented fashion, not act as a giant bullwark that says "No Poor People".

If current immigration law is not only failing to keep people out but also failing to let the vast majority of people who want to come here, work legally, and then leave or become U.S. citizens do so, then maybe "the right way" needs to be rethought.

Immigration policy, and it's designating who can enter and who can't, is the right of every sovereign nation. It's for the United States to what criteria need to be met before you can enter, and then to enforce that policy so that only those who are allowed to enter, do. You can't do a back ground check on somebody who climbs over our fence. You can't see if they're wanted for murder, or if they're a drug dealer or if they're a terrorist, or whatever. You can do that if they enter the through the proper channels, and that's why our borders need to be patrolled and enforced.

I absolutely agree with you that maybe our "right way" needs to be looked at and probably is in need of some serious changes, but that doesn't excuse those who chose not to follow our rules for entry to begin with. If they're willing to break our laws just to get in, how do you expect them to respect any of our other laws?

With regards to costs of immigration, as I mentioned before, be it with watches, cars, clothes or whatever, something 'costs what it costs', and if someone wants that something, but can't afford it, their desire for the 'thing', does not give them the right to simply take/do it anyway.

In all fairness, immigration procedures exist to allow people to enter the country who can show that they will be of benefit to that country. This was the issue I was refering to when I said about the UK situation of people visiting the UK 'on vacation', just prior to their home country being granted EU membership, and, once that membership was granted, simply remaining in the country (and having the legal right as EU citizens to do so) despite the fact that had they had to go through 'the proper immigration channels', they would likely have been turned away, for not having a sufficient grasp of English.

In terms of criteria requirements, Australia is way harder to emigrate to than the US, and it's port controls are extremely strict (even legitimate asylum seekers are turned away ) but, it's a system which works for them.

Lowering the financial and logistical barriers to entering the country on a work visa would encourage more people to apply legally for those work visas rather than resorting to crossing the border illegally.

The same reason I don't think people who smoke pot are going to en masse go on a murder spree.

Immigration procedures are 100% within the control of the government, so they don't "cost what it costs" to the applicant. If the government passed a law declaring that police protection would now cost citizens $1,000 an hour, would the proper response be to say "Well, if you can't afford it, tough shit" or "Hey, maybe that law needs a little fine-tuning".

I feel compelled to point out that Australia is a fucking island. I'm sure if America were located on the top of a giant mountain covered with razor-sharp spikes, it'd be easier to enforce a more draconian immigration policy.

Ron Paul, is for open borders, genius. The author (hello) is not.

Suck it.