Immigration and a militarized border

[welsh]

For those of you who missed it, and since we talk abotu Immigration here- the President made a big speech on Monday about the border.

Apparently he plans to send 6K national guard to the border to help police, increase the number of border patrol officers and change policies.

Now as much as dislike Bush, I had to say... I liked the speech and it made sense. The guy sounded like a moderate for a change. If only there had been more of this and less the conservative asshole, I might actually like him.

The speech

That said, I think that this policy could be better. But that's for later.

Analysis from CNN-

Bush calls for 6,000 troops along border
In Oval Office speech, president backs legalization process

Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Posted: 12:23 a.m. EDT (04:23 GMT)


Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush outlined Monday night what he termed a "comprehensive" approach to immigration that combines tougher border enforcement with a guest-worker program.

Trying to navigate the election-year minefield on the issue, Bush called for the short-term deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops in a supporting role along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And he endorsed a controversial proposal to give illegal immigrants already in the United States a path to work toward citizenship.

"The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions -- and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display," Bush said in a 16-minute speech televised from the Oval Office.

"In Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision."

With conservatives in his base calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration, the president conceded that "we do not yet have full control of the border" and called on Congress to fund "dramatic improvements" in manpower and technology along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bush called for a 50 percent increase in the number of Border Patrol agents; construction of security fences and barriers and high-tech surveillance devices along the border; and more money for state and local law enforcement in border states.

Ok, a couple of problems here. It's the "throw money at the problem" approach which doesn't always work. But that said, there is little that can be done unless the border gets tighter.

Under Bush's plan, the number of Border Patrol agents would rise from 12,000 to 18,000 by the end of 2008.

Note- for those looking for work. Hey you get to ride horses and drive SUVS and ATVs in the desert. Can't be that bad.

But in a nod to America's growing and politically vital Latino population, Bush made the argument that a guest-worker program is necessary to gain control of the border and relieve the "enormous pressures on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop."

Every legal foreign worker would get what Bush said was a tamper-proof, biometric identity card that would make it easier for employers to determine an immigrant's legal status.

Employers that hire illegals should be sent to jail.

The Senate resumed debate Monday on immigration legislation that would create a mechanism by which illegal immigrants could proceed toward legal status, and eventual citizenship, by working for a number of years, paying fines, undergoing a background check and learning English.

Critics dismiss such a legalization process as "amnesty." Supporters reject that term, insisting the process amounts to "earned citizenship."

For the first time, Bush publicly endorsed the idea, calling it a "rational middle ground" between a policy of giving all illegal immigrants "automatic" citizenship or deporting them, which Bush said would be "neither wise nor realistic."

Which means its going to piss off conservatives.

"People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they would have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law," Bush said.

Incidently, did you know that it often takes between 15-20 years for a citizen to legally bring his family to the US?

Sorry, but that's fucked up.

The immigration system also needs to be reformed so that it's neither so expensive or difficult to get into the US legally.

An immigration reform plan that has the support of Senate GOP leaders would limit legalization to those in the country longer than five years.

Any form of legalization could be a tough sell to members of Bush's own party, particularly in the House, where lawmakers passed an immigration bill in December that contained neither a worker program nor a legalization process.

Giving the Democratic response to Bush's speech, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the assistant minority leader, said Bush's leadership would be required to bring House and Senate Republicans together.

"The president has the power to call up the National Guard, but now he must summon the power to lead his own Republican forces in Congress to support a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform," Durbin said. (Durbin transcript)

Which seems to be the problem as the Republican Congress seems to be ditching the President due to his declining approval ratings.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, called the decision to send troops "the shot in the arm we need to strengthen our borders and protect our families."

But I think this is where the mistakes lay. The program means that National Guard units will be rotated every two weeks. A better policy would be to use this border control problem as a means to reintegrate National Guard and Reserve guys coming back from Iraq only to find their businesses to have collapsed or to find themselves out of a job. Give those guys a chance to work and you have a longer term work force on the border, which you could transition into a more robust Border Patrol.

But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, said he was "very disappointed" by the speech. He took issue with Bush's distinction between a legalization process for illegal immigrants and amnesty.

But Rohrbacher is an asshole.

"If they are here illegally and you make them here legally, that is an amnesty," he said. (Reaction)

Troops called temporary
Bush said the Guard would assist the Border Patrol by "operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads and providing training."

"Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities --- that duty will be done by the Border Patrol."

"This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online," Bush said.

About 350 Guard troops currently are assigned to the border.

Bush's plan to deploy the National Guard received initial support from both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

Ironic though that the national guard are not to be deployed on the Canadian Border, the popular conduit for Al Qaeda terrorists... because... well... those are white folks in Canada... well plus some Eskimos. And then there is the beer.

But Reid cautioned that the National Guard is already stretched thin by deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, a concern echoed by two prominent Republicans who have questioned the plan -- Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

The number of Guard troops deployed to Iraq has been cut by more than half, from about 50,000 a year ago to 23,000.

News that the National Guard might be deployed along the border also prompted Mexican President Vicente Fox to call Bush on Sunday to express concerns about any possible move to "militarize" the roughly 2,000-mile border.

But Fox might not be in office very long. As for the militarizing the border- ok, so what if it looks a bit like the Soviet Union in the old days....

"The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend," Bush said.

"We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border."

Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a former Border Patrol officer, sent a letter to the White House warning that the deployment of National Guard troops could result in Mexican voters choosing an anti-American president in their July election.

Only one more region of the world that hates W. Well, at least he's consistent.

"If that happens, illegal immigration will be the least of our problems," said Reyes, a Democrat.

In his speech, Bush said his administration would end the "catch and release" policy, under which illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico are released and allowed to live in the United States while awaiting a deportation hearing.

Bush said more facilities would be built to detain illegal immigrants, and he said steps were being taken to expedite the hearing process.

Poll: Reaction positive
A CNN poll conducted immediately after the speech by Opinion Research Corp. found that 79 percent of those who watched had a positive reaction.

To be honest, it was a pretty good speech.

Which is unfortunate as I'd like the guy to crash in the polls.

Three-quarters of those responding said they favored sending National Guard troops to the southern border. The guest-worker program and the legalization had similarly strong support.

The poll included interviews with 461 adult Americans and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

It does not reflect the views of all Americans, because more Republicans watched the speech than Democrats. (Poll results -- PDF)

CNN's Ed Henry, Suzanne Malveaux, Jamie McIntyre and Barbara Starr contributed to this report.

Because democrats don't pay attention to the monkey in the white house.

Well not all democrats. One should watch the monkey that has it's thumb on the nuclear button.

So the response-

Well... Then there is Lou Dobbs.

Now what I like about Lou is that he's on the issue and not the party line. The guy doesn't care about the Republican or Democrat positions on this- he's about the issue.

Why? The guy is a nationalist- or that's what my wife thought.

Dobbs: Bush speech satisfies nobody
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 1:38 p.m. EDT (17:38 GMT)

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com. See the latest on President Bush's plan to send the U.S. military to America's southern border, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" CNN, 6 p.m. ET.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.

The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals and overtax our local and state budgets.

And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guard troops to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as 3 million illegal aliens enter this country each year.

President Bush's five-point plan began with the words: "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is a positive step.

Except its hard not to see this a political manipulation. Mid term elections are coming and Bush needs to win a political victory. If he botches this, the mid-terms might turn disaster. More importantly, its the Congressmen who need to win their constituencies.

So sending 6K troops the border- its a damn big border- is peanuts.
And it's not like we've had a suddenly splurge of immigrants. Apparently its the same number that's been coming over for the past 6 years.

So where were the troops six years ago? or even 5 years ago- after 9-11?

But the president's proposal to place those National Guard members in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.

Point here- to please everyone is to please no one.

Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican border than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.

President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.

If it is necessary to send 20,000 to 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, then I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.

What we really need to do is rebuild Mexio. If you want to stop people from coming to the US, you have to give them incentives to stay in Mexico.

Few people will leave a country that is prospering. Take for instance China. For years people would flee China. Now they want to go back- why- it's 8% growth.

The US used to get people from Italy, Germany and Ireland. Now we don't. Why- prosperity.

If Mexico wasn't so economically fucked up, those folks wouldn't be coming here.

So let's invade Mexico and make it the 51st state.
Why not- in about 75 years we're going to be looking like Mexicans anyway.

And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?

President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest-worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.

Come on Lou! It's all about money, baby!

The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable -- but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?

It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both the U.S. and Mexican militaries would be used to create a border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the U.S./Mexico border.

Why would the Mexicans kill a golden goose?

Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.

Both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security. That mindlessness speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.

Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.

Meanwhile hate crimes are on the rise, in part because hate groups cash in on anti-immigrant feelings. More here

 

[Gail_Saint]

I believe that we should send them all back and lock down our boarders all together. I am not racist, but I don't like the idea of people coming from their country to ours without permission. To me it's just like stealing.

I propose that we set up troops with really big guns to mow down any illegal immigrants coming our way. After a month or two of slaughter, they will get the point and stop trying.

 

[Quantos Leap]

I've discussed too many times my views on this particular matter but I guess I can do it briefly again.

I hated Bush's speech. I'm tired of politics, and I'm tired of politicians. Bush took the safe approach. Try to appease the most possible. If Bush wanted the borders secured, he could have done it so many times over by now. Almost every measure outlined in his speech are just token jestures, trying to appease his opponents, in an attempt to get his "comprehensive" plan accross.

I agree that this issue does need to be looked at holistically and comprehensively, but that doesn't automatically mean legalization or a guest worker program. As long as the pressure valves are released in the form of waves of illegal immigration, Fox and his ilk will continue creating the problem, while corporate big wigs profit, and Mexico will never change; all at the expense of the United States and the Mexican people.

Many things must be done to fix this problem. Before any reform can be done, we must first enforce current laws, specifically the one's aimed at businesses that hire illegals, and the border must be secured. Further, in a broader scope, Mexico needs revolution, and we can help by abolishing NAFTA.

Viva la Revolution!

 

[PhredBean]

And it's not like we've had a suddenly splurge of immigrants.

Not true, talking to friends in the border patrol, they've near given up recently except where drugs are involved. As the immigrant issue became more involved hundreds to thousands flocked over in the last year hoping for a sudden amnesty.

It is good to see the national gaurd getting involved, really about time. I would like to see the nationalization plan a little tougher, but its a good start. Perhaps we'll finally instate english as a national language... though california will be left behind for a few years if we do.

I'll respond to the rest of the post later when I have more time.

 

[Tempistfury]

IMO, it's just a lame attempt at appealing to the masses. 6,000 soldiers isn't going to do anything useful. A militarized border? Hardly. I personally think we need a wall along the whole damn border.

Of course people fire back with "they do jobs we dont want to do." Jobs we dont want? There are very few people who actually *want* to work. I know I'd rather be an idler personally. If I could sit on my ass all day and do nothing that would be awesome.

Long story short. We need a wall across both borders. Nothing against Canada either, but in this day and age where everyone hates us, a little wall is better than no wall.

Just my $0.02

 

[Wooz]

Got to love our retarded gringo posters' racist posts.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Got to love our retarded gringo posters' racist posts.

I don't understand why they would even bother with walls and stuff when the could just nuke the shit out of Mexico, Canada and Cuba and be over with it ...

I hope they realize that:
1. they are all the descendants of immigrants
2. immigrants made that country great
3. those illegal aliens have a really rough time in the states, they can be exploited, bought and sold etc. and the only thing that keeps them going is that someday somehow things are going to be better... who could hold that against them?

 

[Quantos Leap]

While a few may try to make this an issue condusive to their racism, the anti-illegal immigration argument alone is not racist, and wanting a steadfast solution to this problem, such as a wall, shouldn't be considered racist either.

It appears many will never understand the entirety of this issue, because they are all too busy knee-jerking at any chance they get. It's trendy to label anybody that considers this issue a dire concern, as racist, without even considering the argument. Too many people can't get past their irrelavent emotional reasoning.

Listen, illegal immigration is a BIG problem. Many of you sure are doing a bad job at realizing the economic effects it has on the middle class, or just discounting it all together. Oblivious to how this increases the gap between the rich and the poor. How can you condone this extortion? And who really benefits from this? I'll tell you: the economic elite. And who suffers? The average working american. You are all being played by corporate supremacy. Why do you think the neocons push for this anyway?

So in a nutshell, what are some major consequences of illegal immigration?

Generally increased crime rates, significantly increased crime rates in highly afflicted areas, lower acedemic standards, drug trafficking, aforementioned poor-rich divide increase, financial deficits (tax money spent on illegals > illegal economic output), cultural usurpation, etc.

Being "a nation of immigrants" doesn't mean we can just open the floodgates to the third world. We have a legal way of becoming a citizen, a rational way. It's ridiculous to believe any country can healthily continue to perpetually take on this amount of poverty, crime, cultural clashing, etc.

The more you learn about this issue, the more transparent it, and the parties pushing for it becomes. Don't be a tool, stop claiming this is an issue of race. Read into this issue. The facts are out there, the numbers are out there, the consequences are being felt, and the projections are accurate.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

cultural usurpation

You have a culture? Explain this, please, how are the evil immigrants blatantly usurping your oh so precious culture.

Being "a nation of immigrants" doesn't mean we can just open the floodgates to the third world. We have a legal way of becoming a citizen, a rational way.

I'm glad you are so tolerant and all, being an open minded man sure is better than making judgements based solely on emotions... what can I say you're a role model.
May I remind you that one of the fundamental human rights is the pursuit of happiness and that people don't decide to move to another country just for the heck of it; they are looking for a better life. Are you saying they are free to pursue their happiness just as long as they stay in their 'third world' country? How humane of you...
Now if the procedure to become an American citizen would be easier and not so expensive maybe there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants, ever think of that?

It's ridiculous to believe any country can healthily continue to perpetually take on this amount of poverty, crime, cultural clashing, etc.

Makes perfect sense seeing how America was founded by by millionaires and such... Also nice of you to give them all the presumption of innocence. Very enlightened attitude...
And here you go again with that culture thing; I ask you this: what are the hallmarks of the American culture? And is this wonderful culture so frail and weak that it can not absorb new elements?

 

[Lazarus Plus]

cultural usurpation

You have a culture? Explain this, please, how are the evil immigrants blatantly usurping your oh so precious culture.

Hey, sometimes that shit is funny and sometimes it isn't. The fact is, it is a legitimate concern of many Americans. I'm sorry you can't see past your own illogical hatred of things American to see that.

I'm glad you are so tolerant and all, being an open minded man sure is better than making judgements based solely on emotions... what can I say you're a role model.

What's up with the jackassery? He wasn't doing anything like the shit you are on about. Maybe others in this thread...

May I remind you that one of the fundamental human rights is the pursuit of happiness and that people don't decide to move to another country just for the heck of it; they are looking for a better life. Are you saying they are free to pursue their happiness just as long as they stay in their 'third world' country? How humane of you...

I don't believe that the US guaranteed the WORLD the right to pursue happiness. It also did not attach an asterisk leading to the bottom of the page saying "*Even if you have to break laws to do it, which is totally ok by us."

You also sound like you're suggesting that we should simply suck it up. Sorry, but I have multiple problems with illegal immigrants. First and foremost, the large percentage of them that never bother to learn English. I know that it is not the "official" language of this country but it is the primary language, and I shouldn't need to speak Spanish to sell them a damn cup of coffee up in Oregon. Because so many of them require translation from one of their pals that bothered. In fact, the only two beefs I have are the language one, and the failure to pay taxes one. After that, you're good, pretty much.

Now if the procedure to become an American citizen would be easier and not so expensive maybe there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants, ever think of that?

Those measures, I think, were made that way intentionally to, you know, slow down immigration? I think Congress, a duly elected governmental body, might have decided on this some time ago.

Thanks for the advice.

Makes perfect sense seeing how America was founded by by millionaires and such... Also nice of you to give them all the presumption of innocence. Very enlightened attitude...
And here you go again with that culture thing; I ask you this: what are the hallmarks of the American culture? And is this wonderful culture so frail and weak that it can not absorb new elements?

It's not that it can't absorb new elements. It's that, at this rate, it is threatened to be overwhelmed by the number of immigrants. Ok by you, I guess, since you hate American culture in general, but I really hate those Mexican songs that I hear on the Radio (same with country, really). And I'm pretty sure that wouldn't change even if I spoke Spanish perfectly.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Hey, sometimes that shit is funny and sometimes it isn't. The fact is, it is a legitimate concern of many Americans. I'm sorry you can't see past your own illogical hatred of things American to see that.

First of all I don't hate American things (you yanks are really touchy about that aren't you? ). Yes I exaggerated that one but compared to other nations the Americans are a young nation and so is your culture. That can be a good thing because old civilizations tend to hold on too much to tradition while the younger, developing ones are more open, more willing to absorb new elements and change if necessary. Change is perhaps one of the few constant things in this world and being able to change means being able to adapt and survive; remember that.

What's up with the jackassery? He wasn't doing anything like the shit you are on about. Maybe others in this thread...

I admit my post was sharp and sassy but had he not said the things about cultural usurpation and the little bit about the immigrants being nothing more than illiterate criminals I wouldn't have even posted. But those few words said in just the right context set me off. Just like my little allusion about the lack of substance of your culture set you off. You see when you start saying bad things about other people you should expect other people to say bad things about you, reciprocity and all.
As for the language problem, I agree with you completely; if a person chooses to immigrate to another country he should definitely learn the official language. (we have this little problem in the part of the country that borders on Hungary, some of the people there can't speak and refuse to learn Romanian so the officials working in that area have to learn their language in order to communicate with them.... but there is a long story there and centuries of grudge, abuse and violence can't be wiped clean just like that)
Same thing for the taxes, it's the law and you have to respect the law for it is your only shield and guardian (in theory at least).

Those measures, I think, were made that way intentionally to, you know, slow down immigration? I think Congress, a duly elected governmental body, might have decided on this some time ago.

And we go back to the change thing. As you yourself said those procedures have been established a long time ago, maybe it's time to make a few changes.

As for musical preferences, what can I say? Well, nothing... except for the fact that I find it a bit ironic that you would dislike country music (wich I belive to be one of those important cultural elements Mingus was so afraid of losing) just as much as you dislike Mexican songs. What can I say, you can't like everything...

The thing I disliked about Mingus's post was that it offered isolationism as a solution and it labeled all strangers as enemies. Do you know what happens to an isolated society? It decays, it chokes and in the end it dies. Is that what you want for your culture? If that would be the case, but I seriously doubt it is, then go ahead, build the walls and while you are at it you can change the torch wich is being held by the Statue of Liberty with a stick or something
I've said what I had to say, what you do with what I told you is entirely up to you. Freedom for all!

 

[Mikey]

When did America stop being proud of being a "melting pot" of differenct races, cultures and ethnicities?

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Round the same time the American dream became equated with the success myth.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

As for the language problem, I agree with you completely; if a person chooses to immigrate to another country he should definitely learn the official language. (we have this little problem in the part of the country that borders on Hungary, some of the people there can't speak and refuse to learn Romanian so the officials working in that area have to learn their language in order to communicate with them.... but there is a long story there and centuries of grudge, abuse and violence can't be wiped clean just like that)

This problem would easily be fixed if you just gave the Magyar and Szelekys back Transylvania, heh.

I tend to agree on the language issue, but for differing reasons. Yeah, half of my family came over on the boat in the 50's from Hungary. My grandparents certainly didn't get any slack for speaking Hungarian, but they learned English and adjusted here. Now, my grandfather was a machinist, so it wasn't exactly like it was an issue of class either. The point is that if you willfully immigrate to a country, yeah, you should learn the language. To me, it remains a simple issue of justice because in order to integrate, the first thing you do is acquire the language. If you WANT to integrate it isn't as impossible as it might seem. Otherwise you get a place like...Canada...or something.

Now, the wages for illegal immigrants suck and such, but people seem to be ignoring the fact of the big word: illegal. Basically, you have laws which exist in order to define what is a legal and an illegal immigrant. If someone from another country (look at the issue with illegal Chinese immigrants, and how they get turned right back) tried to pull that, would the government be as lenient? I would be happy to see these people as citizens (if they want to be) but they need to learn the language, and the government has everything to gain by helping them do that? If you jump a border, you take your chances...

Er...the melting pot theory involved people all learning to speak the language, and try to avoid the sort of ghettoizing that occurs today. From the Irish, to the Germans, to the Chinese coolies...this all has been played out before. The point was though, they integrated by learning English and speaking it.

As for musical preferences, what can I say? Well, nothing... except for the fact that I find it a bit ironic that you would dislike country music (wich I belive to be one of those important cultural elements Mingus was so afraid of losing) just as much as you dislike Mexican songs. What can I say, you can't like everything...

I don't get this one. Most of the 'cowboys' were black of Hispanic...not John Wayne. Our culture isn't embedded in Texas you know. We kind of fought a massive civil war and all about 'culture'.

 

[John Uskglass]

Got to love our retarded gringo posters' racist posts.

Funny how you did not say that with Rosh around.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Got to love our retarded gringo posters' racist posts.

Funny how you did not say that with Rosh around.

What did happen to Rosh? His avatar and title are... interesting.

 

[Big T]

Got to love our retarded gringo posters' racist posts.

Funny how you did not say that with Rosh around.

Because he has a valid point? I don't recall a single occasion where Rosh ripped into a valid point other than in the midst of a shit slinging contest.

For a country made up almost entirely of illegal immigrants and the descendants of rebels, you can hardly declare that further immigration and rebellion is contrary to the standards of your nation. It'd be like the US government complaining about other governments making money through drugs and slavery.

Incidentally, I agree with the whole "language" argument, but I am also of the minority that thinks it should be illegal to visit a country without learning their language.

As two rather petty asides: Mikey - the Armerican dream was always about success, hence the amount of immigration there. It was always about "seeking your fortune".

Fireblade: You fought a civil war about wealth & power and the control of them. Same as us Brits did, same as the Russkies did, same as most of the other nations on the planet have.

Those in control had little feeling for the cultural nicities of it, they just wanted to keep the petty empires that had been carved out for/by them

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Er...in many ways wealth and power define culture, Big T. THe slavery of the south was about economics for one thing. Yes I admit there are no altruistic motives in our Civil War, but they WERE two different cultures. The immigrants in each, slavery, urbanization, etc. all set the country on different views of America's future.