Thank god Bush is doing something about Immigration
Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
Thank god Bush is doing something about Immigration
On January 4th President Bush made 16 recess appointments. Finally he took some kind of action against the flood of immigrants and has stepped up the terrorist stopping U.S. Customs by appointing Julie Myers to the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. This women is one tough S.O.B.. She was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, N.Y., for two years. She has also worked in many departments in the white house such as the departments of Commerce, Justice and Treasury. She also worked briefly as chief of staff to Michael Chertoff when he led the Justice Department's criminal division before he became Homeland Security secretary.
However she did write the above link in a letter to congress while on her honeymoon. Who did she marry? John F. Wood, Chertoff's current chief of staff. Thats totally normal and acceptable. Rather than find someone who is qualified for the job, like I dont know a former coast gaurd general or a former law enforcement leader you should hire a person with no real experience in that field. As far as the name Myers you may think you recognize it. Well you do from Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yeah thats her uncle.
It sure is a great country that we live in where anyone can be anything.
Seriously though, some freaky tweeker mexicans come to Austin trying to push that and other stuff without a drivers license or green card. Its like all downtown and on the drag. The new insight is good, it is something I will watch the progress on.
You know what I think is funny? People in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California keep complaining about their Mexican populations. You guys know we stole that land from them, right? So, really, they're just in some piece of land that used to belong to them.
Isn't that ironic? We steal their land and get mad when they live in it.
we stole it fair and square. I dont know how it is where your at but here in california every piece of literature from a public school that I have seen in the past 8 years has 4 languages on it. You cant say that by having this many undocumented immigrants we arnt holding back the kids from englih speaking homes. Its one thing to teach a room full of 1st graders how to read its another to explain what hair is and how to say it.
This thread isnt about mexicans it is about Bush being a dip and appointing another cronny to an office she doesnt deserve.
we stole it fair and square. I dont know how it is where your at but here in california every piece of literature from a public school that I have seen in the past 8 years has 4 languages on it. You cant say that by having this many undocumented immigrants we arnt holding back the kids from englih speaking homes. Its one thing to teach a room full of 1st graders how to read its another to explain what hair is and how to say it.
This thread isnt about mexicans it is about Bush being a dip and appointing another cronny to an office she doesnt deserve.
Where I'm from, if kids get to learn four languages in school, that's a good thing.
They dont get to learn 4. They get to learn english. The problem is that the teachers must teach to the lowest common denominator. When 1/4 of the class is esl they cant all fit in the portable behind the gym. Also when the parents of these kids speak and read at a 6th grade level it doesnt allow them to help their 5+ kids. So kids who could speak english at the age of 3 in complete sentences are now held back by people running accross the border.
I am not saying we need to keep them out of schools. I am saying open different schools because it is a problem. But once again this thread is to point out how Bush will give anyone any job. There is a retarded thread about a shirt for the pros and cons of being bi-lingual.
Last edited by nick95673 : 01-13-2006 at 12:28 PM.
you guys say stole. Yet it looks to me like most mexican leadership doesnt look like any of the cooks or lawn service guys or mexican friends I have. The Spanish won the land from the mexicans. Then we won it. I am pretty sure most mexicans understand that they would rather our gov't take over their nation than let them have a war on both borders.
texans stole the land from the mexicans: it wasnt americans that stole it from mexico...
Really? It was the Americans who had settled in the eastern part of the state that fought the Mexicans for the territory. They did so, however, with the intent of joining the union, as I remember (hence the short time between them gaining independence from Mexico and joining the union). Either way, Americans took the land, even if it wasn't the U.S. Army. The Army did help to take the lands west of Texas, tho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick95673
you guys say stole. Yet it looks to me like most mexican leadership doesnt look like any of the cooks or lawn service guys or mexican friends I have. The Spanish won the land from the mexicans. Then we won it. I am pretty sure most mexicans understand that they would rather our gov't take over their nation than let them have a war on both borders.
Yes, when you take property by force it is called stealing. The people that lived there were mostly of Indian descent. Those are the same ones coming in today (the poor people).
drive in to mexico with a bullet and you go to jail on the charge of supporting the uprising. they are having a small civil war in chiapas. They may not call it a civil war but thats what it is. Priests from the area go from church to church in america collecting money for the rebels.
The United States beat the crap out of Mexico, in war, and took the lands fair and square. It's not like there were significant populations of Mexicans in Colorado... there wasn't even all that much in New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas. There were *VERY* few in Nevada and Utah. Gimme a break.
Talk like this makes me pissed off. Only complete idiots refer back to the mexican-american war and use that in justifying illegal immigration.
Some idiots even claim that the mexican populations should rise up and take the lands back. I personally think people like that could be killed off like diseased cattle, for trying to be the rebels they are.
If western lands reverted back to mexican control, they would turn into poor pathetic desert lands like they started as... just like northern mexico is. On the contrary, if we invaded mexico and took it over, it would start sprouting an actual economy. I don't advocate that, but seriously... those hispanics in the areas that even mention the mexico-american war, they are complete and total idiots.
The United States beat the crap out of Mexico, in war, and took the lands fair and square. It's not like there were significant populations of Mexicans in Colorado... there wasn't even all that much in New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas. There were *VERY* few in Nevada and Utah. Gimme a break.
Talk like this makes me pissed off. Only complete idiots refer back to the mexican-american war and use that in justifying illegal immigration.
Some idiots even claim that the mexican populations should rise up and take the lands back. I personally think people like that could be killed off like diseased cattle, for trying to be the rebels they are.
If western lands reverted back to mexican control, they would turn into poor pathetic desert lands like they started as... just like northern mexico is. On the contrary, if we invaded mexico and took it over, it would start sprouting an actual economy. I don't advocate that, but seriously... those hispanics in the areas that even mention the mexico-american war, they are complete and total idiots.
Sometimes you fool me into believing you are smart. Not after reading this post, tho. Do you really think that under Mexican control the forrests of Colorado and Utah would turn into deserts? That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard all century. So, by your post, it was the Americans that sprouted all the forrests, marshlands, grasslands, and everything else non-desert in the western part of North America?
Like I said before, taking something by force is called stealing. Texas was taken, not by the Army, but by U.S. citizens. The rest was Manifest Destiny, the belief that America was superior and thus should control the land from coast to coast. If the Mexicans had taken our land that would be a crime but taking theirs is fine because we're superior to them, right?
If the Mexicans had taken our land that would be a crime but taking theirs is fine because we're superior to them, right?
If they had won they would get to write the history books. There is no good side of a war. There is your side and their side. It doesnt make it right. However america has done the most with the land. We were better than the mexican government and are better. Once again however dont forget Bush will appoint anyone to any job.
If they had won they would get to write the history books. There is no good side of a war. There is your side and their side. It doesnt make it right. However america has done the most with the land. We were better than the mexican government and are better. Once again however dont forget Bush will appoint anyone to any job.
That's a terrible mentality. Are we the only ones who can decide who the terrorists are? Take this example. Had Cuba been attacked and launched missles at Afghanistan we'd have called them a Rogue state and gone to war with them. But if we do it we're fighting terrorism. It's a double standard that really makes me sick.
We write our own history books. If you read the history books in Germany, Switzerland, Egypt, or Spain they read diferently. They state that we stole the land from the Mexicans because, as I said before, imperialism is about stealing land and resources.
There are two ways to assimilate land into a country: by force (stealing it via war) or cultural assimilation (be it religion, art, or racial intermingling). The U.S. has always chosen war while other people (such as the Maya, Australian Aborigines, and even China) have chosen to export their views, art, and government via more peaceful means.
Face it, we're a belic country; we love war. That doesn't change the reality, tho, that taking control of land inhabitted by other people is morally wrong. I'm amazed by how people, especially Christians, think that taking land from other people/races/creeds is morally acceptable. Jesus would never dream of it and would actually be 100% against it yet Christians committed these acts of war mostly in the name of the Bible and evangelization of the aboriginal people.
Edit: When I wrote about bombing Afghanistan I was speaking of when Clinton sent cruise missles into Afghanistan after the WTC bombing in 1993. We complained about Russia invading after Afghanistan flooded the border with opium and with "terrorists" (Rusians called them terrorists, we called them freedom fighters) but there is no problem if we invade them because they "harbor terrorists."
Last edited by silverdevil : 01-17-2006 at 10:09 AM.
^^^EXACTLY^^^
Its how we do.
Its what they would do if they won. You always forget the negative parts of your positive. I am not saying its right.
Your point about terrorists is my largest problem with this war. You can call anyone a terrorist/enemy combatant and keep anyone in jail or spy on anyone. Terrorism isnt an enemy its a tactic. Hey guess what people want us dead so I guess that makes them terrorists. Hey guess what we want other nations leaders dead(Iran) does that make us terrorist? I dont know about you but bombing houses with unmanned air craft in nations we are not at war with sounds like terrorism. I mean even if he was in there the only reason to bomb all 3 houses is simply to terrorize the locals. This way they know that by allowing abzukailiyies and the funky bunch to stay in their communities we will light their kids on fire. Yeah thats how you keep people from wanting us dead.
