Sue wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:43:52 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
<ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
Zerge wrote:
Nightmare wrote:
<< Pure garbage propaganda "study". Illegals are a "net benefit" to
the
economy... hillarious. >>
And what would some kneejerk racist piece of ***** moron possibly know?
Not a damned thing, that's what. You trailer trash hicks are just
worried because with a little competition you'd have to get off of
unemployment and welfare and earn livings for yourselves, instead of
whine and cry about why you cannot make it in US society.
You racists are pathetic.
In all honesty, what I have learned is that a good percentage of
anti-immigrationists are not really racists, and not even truly worried
about the net impact on the economy. What seems to be ***** about
is the cultural influence and the crime that illegal immigration
brings. They are just not very articulate and cannot express their
ideas and feelings clearly, so they resort to racial slurs and
pseudo-economics. Poor people.
Your honesty is appreciated and is perhaps the best evidence that a
bi-national solution is possible, regarding massive illegal immigration
by Mexican nationals, or by other nationals of other origins who travel
illegally overland from Mexico to the USA.
It's not so much cultural influence, Zerge, as it is an outrage against
what is seen as unfair, and unjust.
What is unfortunate is that very many of the people who have these
feelings have been victims of our poor educational system, and they
don't have the words to directly express their own feelings. They must,
therefor, resort to slogans put before them by propagandists. The
propagandists think that they are winning every time they see their own
words coming from, as it were, the mouths and pens of others. Yet they
do severe disservice -- a malfeasance, actually -- to those who have
sincere desires simply to see their country retain sovereignty. (May I
suggest that you look up that legal term, sovereignty?)
We are concerned with the loss of sovereignty. Our nation is based on
Liberty, on "freedom" as the President continually prates, but the price
of Liberty within the nation is constant vigilance. People who live in a
society truly characterized by Liberty are generally so free that they
are insufficiently paranoid. Not being constantly at risk of the
infiltrations of Secret Police, they have forgotten how to detect
Infiltration. Yet the instincts of all human history remain within them.
We are at present directly infiltrated by a huge mass of "useful fools",
the average Mexican illegal-alien who truly does only want a well-paid
job that allows them to send remittances back to their family and
village. But within the vast mass of workers who have generally innocent
intentions, there move several conspiracies, some of which merely
promote the illegal trafficking in human cargo, to exploit as working
chattel. Some, on the other hand, have goals which are more political,
or even ideological or religious. This latter group presents potentially
astonishing risks. Most people feel this, but they cannot articulate it.
Thus, the first psychotic ideologue who presents anything which
sufficiently addresses the instinctual concerns of the masses, may find
themselves with a following who repeat their words. Again, propagandists
may be found on any side of any conflict or debate.
Do we think that there should be access by US businesses to Mexican
agricultural workers? Yes, of course, so long as it is in good order and
done through the proper channels. Do we think that the borders should be
absolutely closed to those who don't come in good order and through the
proper channels? Absolutely. Is there already a program in place that
can do all of this? Certainly, there is such a program. Should it be
streamlined? Probably it should be streamlines. Should all persons
attempting to cross the border and work in the USA outside of that
program be stopped and returned to Mexico? Without exception. Should
commercial interests who employ those who come here illegally be
subjected to extreme penalties? We won't have it any other way.
Should we hate Mexicans for being from Mexico? Well, that depends on the
politics of Mexico, and how the Mexicans carry and express those
politics. Should we hate the politics of Mexico? To the degree which
Mexico promotes lawlessness and violation of US sovereignty, we should
consider Mexico our political enemy, and as you will recall, there is no
violence nor hatred as extreme as violence or hatred between neighbors.
But should we hate Mexicans because they're mostly native-americans?
Absolutely not... unless they hate us for not being native-americans. If
that is the case, if they have some idea of exterminating the blancos,
I'm sorry, racism must be considered repugnant and something we won't
tolerate, especially if it is sneaking across the borders, undermining
our legal system, fomenting insurrection on behalf of a neighboring
nation, dividing our political system, and indeed putting the whole
nation at the edge [of] outright Civil War.
You have been warned.
And *you*, IMO, have written an excellent piece.
I must give credit to reading Patrick Henry's "The War Inevitable" a
couple times too often, and lots of Milwaukee's Best.
Really, we Americans have tended to go far out of our way to be a "good
neighbor" to Mexico no less than to Canada. Certainly we've had our
conflicts with both but most of those conflicts lie closer to the
beginning of our nation's history as a polity. Aside from the brief and
certainly inconclusive War of 1812, we've come out on top of all of our
conflicts when they were waged in conventional military modes. Yet we
have consistently shown ourselves to be rather easily swayed politically
when subjected to clever infiltration and propagandization. All anyone
has ever had to do is to appeal to our better nature, and as a simple
and kindly people we have been swayed and swayed again, occasionally to
our significant disadvantage, because we mostly lack the sophistry and
suspicion to detect the clever ploys of foreign sophisticates. Yet when
we see that which is undeniable, which can't be explained away no matter
how clever the lies and pretense, we realize we've been gulled and then
comes the anger. The giant, when he slumbers amid his plenty, dreams
peaceful dreams and hardly notices the first coming of the warrior ants,
but soon enough their stinging may rouse him, and for the first few
moments of his waking he rolls and stumbles and thrashes and flails and
few ants are crushed but all which surrounded him is thrown into
disarray. Yet when wakefulness is full upon the giant, when the eyes are
cleared of the sleepy clouds of dream, he sees the ants and easily
discerns what is his own soft and aching flesh from what are the alien
little insects in their stings and armor. And with great care and all
deliberate speed, he crushes the nest and poisons the queen, all the
while picking off the stinging little monsters crushing them as he goes.
And when, in the world of insects, he is known as 'that which leads to a
full belly today, and eradication tomorrow', unfortunately he goes back
to sleep, kindly and simple, to dream and digest amid his plenty.
This time, the ants have come again, not with stings of venom, but of
cancer. To be whole, the giant will have to wake and rip at his own
flesh, from the skin to the bone, from outside the skin to deep within
the mind. And in the agony the flailing of the giant will leave no place
untrampled, and those who come with cancer for the giant should again be
warned: your cleverness will kill you, when the giant wakes.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
.
|
