May marches march on despite influenza threat

LatinaLista — Tomorrow is when people in cities across the country will be taking to the streets in the name of immigration reform. There hasn’t been this much buzz for May 1 marches since the original marches when hundreds of thousands of marchers filled the streets of cities everywhere.
Students, who are praying that the first phase of immigration reform passes with the DREAM Act bill currently before Congress, know that a public march underscores to government leaders how seriously people are taking the issue of immigration reform.
Well-known artist Shepard Fairey (the artist whose rendition of Obama for a campaign poster resulted in the Associated Press suing him for copyright infringement) has created two special bilingual posters for the May Day marches.

Poster depicts a little girl marching in a May march.
The posters were inspired by pictures taken during the 2006 May Day marches and are available for free download at Producciones Cimarron.

Fairey said, “…Something that is not complex and should not be controversial is the right of all humans to be treated like humans. People coming to America for the same reasons our ancestors did deserve human rights. The United States was created by immigrants and now our country needs immigration reform…”

Unfortunately because of the increase in cases of the H1N1 influenza (popularly known as swine flu), some towns are discouraging outdoor public gatherings.
Continue reading May marches march on despite influenza threat

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to stay informed and up to date with articles delivered to your feed reader. Invite a friend to read news on LatinaLista.

Related posts

22 Comments

  1. Karen said:

    This is probably the worst time for them to march. Politically, the climate is not right for it with the bad economy, and secondly, the LAST thing we need right now are large groups of people in close range of one another.
    I hope they don’t march in my town. We don’t have that virus here and I would like to keep it that way. I hope the government denies them a permit.
    They don’t THINK.

  2. Horace said:

    Like so many predictions made in this blog, including the idea that a majority of Americans support illegal immigrants, you were ridiculously far off your prediction on the turn-out of the marches. Your failure to make a correct prediction is due to the fact that you base most of your assertions on wishful thinking and not good investigative journalism. Aside from a few radical advocates and their illegal alien charges, few people participated. The illegal aliens who hold jobs were not about to miss a day’s work for your cause, and the tens of thousand unemployed are looking for work, facts that your elite and ignorant Latino politicians cannot seem to fathom. Such poor turnout reflects the fact that despite your assertion that the heart of legal America is with you, few non-Hispanics support your cause. In spite of the assertion that this is the new civil rights movement, very few citizens have shown support in their belief that this is true. In spite of another year passing since the last poor turnout, your supporters have not not grown in numbers. You may think that you have Washington in your pocket, but you certainly do not have the majority of the American people there.
    While it may appear that Obama and the Democrats support CIR, in fact, they are sweating bullets in their effort to court elitist Hispanic politicians, while realizing could become victims of a backlash from the rest of America, should amnesty be enacted. The Dems will likely defer action on CIR from year to year using any excuse they can muster, meanwhile, support for this will continue to die out.

  3. Marisa Treviño said:

    You’re right Horace. The turnouts were disappointingly low, and in some cases, just non-existent but you’re wrong as to the reasons. When I wrote that column, the influenza virus wasn’t even on our radar and immigration reform hadn’t had a hearing in Congress. In some cities (like Fort Worth, Texas), health departments were strongly discouraging people from gathering in groups at outside events. And contrary to what you say the reasons are people didn’t show up, it’s because they know immigration reform is going to be addressed in Washington and something will be passed. Last week, there was a committee hearing in Congress regarding how to construct the immigration reform measure. People know it’s going to happen and so rather than march for a done deal, they found other ways to spend their Friday nights — can’t blame them.

  4. Hissy said:

    “It’s a done deal”…REALLY??? I guess we don’t need to chat any more. I for one…will never hire a Latino …they are too much trouble.

  5. Evelyn said:

    It’s a done deal”…REALLY??? I guess we don’t need to chat any more. I for one…will never hire a Latino …they are too much trouble.
    ~
    I alwayse wondered why some companies never accomplished anything.
    Here is my answer. They belong to people who are prejudice.

  6. Horace said:

    Evelyn said: “Here is my answer. They belong to people who are prejudice.”
    Considering how often you demonize and steroetype people of European extraction, this is like the pot calling the kettle black.

  7. Horace said:

    The truth about illegal immigration advocacy:
    Amnesty Pushers Concoct Six Straw Men
    by Rep. Lamar Smith
    05/06/2009
    It’s an old device in politics: Set up a straw man to criticize when you can’t win an argument on your own. Such tactics, unfortunately, are standard fare when it comes to efforts by a handful of special interest groups to bring about amnesty for illegal immigrants.
    Organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Migration Policy Institute know that most Americans disagree with their desire for amnesty. Most Americans want to see immigration laws enforced. So these groups create straw men. They use them as diversionary tactics to criticize the way in which immigration laws are enforced without ever admitting to their true amnesty goals.
    Who are these Straw Men? Let’s take a look:
    1. The Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man
    One of the most popular with the amnesty movement is the Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man. He is the one on whom the open-borders crowd call when they want to undercut successful efforts of state and local police and sheriffs to enforce immigration laws through a federal program known as 287(g).
    The 287(g) program was created in the “Illegal Immigration Control and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.” It allows states or localities to enter into an agreement with the federal government to assist in the investigation, apprehension and detention of illegal aliens. It is purely voluntary on behalf of local law enforcement officials.
    But the Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man suggests that allowing state and local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws increases the risk of racial profiling and leads to civil rights violations.
    This claim, however, fails on several fronts:
    First, 287(g) is authority given to police and sheriffs, sworn to uphold our laws. Those officers regularly interact with the public to enforce a huge range of criminal statutes — day in and day out. It is absurd to suggest that granting additional authorities to police officers and sheriffs’ deputies will somehow cause them to take leave of their senses and start violating people’s civil rights.
    Moreover, as the Supreme Court made clear in the 1996 case of Bush v. Vera, mere “racial disproportions in the level of [law enforcement activity] for a particular crime may be unobjectionable if they merely reflect racial disproportions in the commission of that crime.” In other words, the fact that many illegal immigrants fall into specific racial categories, and arrests of illegal immigrants reflect those categories, does not mean that civil rights violations have occurred.
    2. The Strained Resources Straw Man
    A close friend of the Civil Rights Abuses Straw Man, the Strained Resources Straw Man is also often called upon to undercut 287(g). This one suggests that police and sheriffs shouldn’t be given 287(g) authority because enforcing immigration laws will strain their ability to carry out other law enforcement functions.
    But 287(g) is entirely voluntary.
    The reality is that the annual number of jurisdictions that choose to voluntarily participate in 287(g) has risen dramatically — from one in 2002 to 67 currently — and DHS cannot keep up with the increased demand. In fiscal 2007, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which administers the program, received 69 new applications, the vast majority of which had to be rejected because of limited funding.
    Does the Strained Resources Straw Man really believe that if police chiefs and sheriffs thought that 287(g) authority would detract from their other public safety responsibilities, they would ask for it anyway?
    3. The Serious Criminals Straw Man
    Another of the men of the amnesty movement is the Serious Criminals Straw Man. He rightly recognizes that some illegal immigrants commit heinous crimes, and that they pose serious threats to public safety in American communities.
    But the suggested response is flawed.
    The Serious Criminals Straw Man wants ICE to focus on finding and deporting serious criminal aliens only after they have committed their crimes and to the exclusion of other immigration enforcement. He suggests that federal agents should not arrest illegal immigrants for a whole array of crimes like identity theft, Social Security fraud, vandalism, public intoxication and even driving under the influence. His argument is that these “minor” offenses should be ignored.
    A better approach is to comprehensively identify and work to deport illegal immigrants for their violations of immigration law, rather than waiting to identify them until after they have committed a more “serious” crime.
    4. The Family Separation Straw Man
    One of the newest men in the amnesty movement is the Family Separation Straw Man. He’s traveling around the country with amnesty advocates on a so-called “Family Unity Tour.” His goal is to focus on what happens to families when immigration laws are enforced.
    This man acts as if the only option for illegal immigrant parents who are caught breaking the law is separation from their children. But he forgets that children can travel to their parents’ home countries with them. And the federal government may even cover the cost if the family cannot afford it.
    In most cases, the children will be welcomed abroad as citizens of their parents’ home countries — so they won’t be “stateless” as Family Separation Straw Man suggests. In fact, the 10 countries that are estimated to have sent the most illegal immigrants to the U.S. are Brazil, China, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, the Philippines and South Korea. In all of these countries except China, the country’s law is clear that children born in the U.S. who have at least one parent who was a citizen of their country (and born in the country) are either automatically citizens of the country or can easily seek citizenship. In China, the law is unclear, but the practice of the Chinese embassy is to allow children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant Chinese parents to return to China as Chinese nationals.
    The Family Separation Straw Man also fails to account for the number of illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. alone, leaving family behind in their native countries. These individuals knowingly broke our laws and entered our country illegally. They need to take responsibility for their actions.
    5. The Detention Straw Man
    As the American public and Congress increasingly pushed the Bush Administration to enforce the immigration laws on the books, the need to increase the capacity of immigration detention facilities became clear.
    At the time, there were an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, including more than 600,000 who had already been ordered deported but stayed in the U.S. instead of going home. There were many thousands more who were arrested by the Border Patrol or ICE, but never even showed up for their day in court.
    Catching and releasing these individuals clearly wasn’t working. In the old days, the Justice Department’s inspector general found that only 13% of non-detained aliens with final removal orders were returned home. What’s worse, only 6% of non-detained aliens from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism who had final removal orders were deported.
    But ICE had the capacity to hold only about 17,000 detained aliens. The bipartisan Congress worked with President Bush to roughly double that number.
    The Detention Straw Man, however, doesn’t like detention because it is effective: It ensures that those ordered deported actually leave.
    His solution is to use so-called “alternatives to detention” such as electronic monitoring or telephone reporting. He forgets, however, that these programs do not work in most cases. Even under ICE’s intensive monitoring program, one third of the “supervised” aliens who are ordered deported ignore their deportation orders.
    The Detention Straw Man also suggests that detained illegal immigrants should have more rights, including the right to comprehensive medical and dental care and an array of comforts. While he is correct that basic medical screening should be provided to individuals, he overlooks the fact that most illegal immigrants are in ICE custody for just 31 days and therefore do not require that level of care. More important, in many cases, illegal immigrants remain in custody only while they continue to fight their deportation cases in U.S. courts. They could in fact go home at any time if they chose to.
    At the core of the Detention Straw Man’s philosophy is the erroneous proposition that individuals who broke our laws to come here illegally in the first place will automatically comply with our laws after they are caught and ordered to leave.
    6. The Flawed Verification System Straw Man
    The final straw man is the Flawed Verification System Straw Man. Although he doesn’t insert himself into many of the day-to-day debates about immigration enforcement, he works quietly to be sure that individuals who illegally enter the U.S. can continue to find jobs when they arrive.
    His presence among the Straw Men of the Amnesty Movement is particularly troublesome now: Currently, nearly 13 million citizens and legal immigrants are looking for jobs. Almost eight million illegal immigrants hold them.
    The Flawed Verification System Straw Man consistently claims that he understands the link between illegal immigration and the ability of illegal immigrants to gain employment, yet he opposes efforts to help employers comply with the law.
    Notably, he claims that E-Verify, the federal government’s system that enables companies to hire legal workers, is fatally flawed. He forgets that there are currently more than 115,000 companies that voluntarily use the E-Verify system. And he fails to recognize that it immediately confirms 99.6% of work-eligible employees, the kind of success rate that any company would be happy to have.
    Those who use the straw men politically never admit knowing them. If they did, the truth might come out: These straw men exist to divert attention from their true goal: amnesty for all illegal aliens.

  8. Evelyn said:

    Considering how often you demonize and steroetype people of European extraction
    Speaking truth is not demonizing because it is backed up with facts!

  9. cookie said:

    I don’t deny FACTS about history. So why do you deny facts about illegal aliens? But blaming historical events from hundreds of years ago on an entire race of people who weren’t even alive back then is demonization on YOUR part. What part of that falls into your so-called FACTS?
    I haven’t seen one lie spouted about illegals in here, just FACTS. Some are only guilty of crossing our border illegally and some are guilty of other crimes. Is that not a FACT? Whether you want to admit this FACT or not, they are an overall burden to our country in many ways. There are many reliable government sources to support those stats. Even just using common sense when you add millions of foreingers who are poor and uneducated to our population it stresses out our healthcare, education, housing, environmental and resource demands. That is a FACT! You call FACTS, demonizing? As I said in another post, we the American people were never given a voice in this illegal immigration mess we are in and we aren’t going to pay the consequences for it either because of our government’s lax in this matter.

  10. Evelyn said:

    I dont think you are capable of understanding anything cookie. Show me credable proof (a study) that immigrants are a burden to this country. Spewing lies without proof is only your opinion.
    The United States is, indisputably, a nation of immigrants and our heterogeneity, contra the howls of many a right-winger, is a big part of what makes America what it is. You can gorge on Bratwursts in Michigan, drink way too much vodka and mingle with decked-out Russian gliteratti in Brighton Beach, still read local Deutsche Zeitungen in small towns in Minnesota, eat Ethiopian food with your hands in L.A., sing weepy Irish ballads over your Guinness in dozens of Boston bars, wander the docks as the Vietnamese fishermen come in for a Texas evening and get the best roast pork in Little Havana. And thank god for all of that — I wouldn’t have it any other way.
    But consider how awkward that simple reality is for a nice Irish boy like Bill O’Reilly, or someone like Tom Tancredo, whose grandparents — all four of them — immigrated to the U.S. from Italy in the first decades of the 20th century. There are a lot of immigration restrictionists of European descent — people with names like O’Malley, Kowolski or Schmitt — who are incensed about the current generation of immigrants to America, and to avoid charges of hypocrisy — or simple cognitive dissonance — they have an almost obsessive need to distinguish between their forebearers — “good immigrants” every one — and these scoundrels coming here today.
    Usually, they’re content to hang onto the fact that their great-grandparents immigrated legally, but I guess some need to go a step further and deny that those who bypass the system are immigrants at all.
    Even the former distinction is weak. Consider the similarities between, say, the wave of European immigration that arrived in the 1880s and 1890s and those who have come over the past decade, and they dwarf the differences. Descendants of the huge waves of European immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries make much of the fact that their great grandparents came here “legally,” but they rest their case on a technicality: the only reason they were legal was that there was no law in effect restricting European immigration until the 1920s. In fact, European immigrants didn’t even need to identify themselves to get in — the derogatory word for Italians, “WOP,” was an acronym stamped on entry documents that meant the person was arriving “With Out Papers.”
    It’s true those earlier immigrants hadn’t violated any law, but they never asked American citizens for permission to come and, while they contributed much to the growth of the American economy they, like their modern counterparts today, were not embraced with open arms by all of American society. In the mid-19th century, gangs would pepper arriving German immigrants with stones; walk into any Irish bar in New York City and you’ll find the ubiquitous sign reading, “Irish Need Not Apply.” Now those signs are a kitschy testament to Irish integration into American society, but back then they were anything but.
    When one listens to the arguments put forth by people like Lou Dobbs today, they’re virtually indistinguishable from what was said of those earlier European immigrants: they’re invading in huge numbers; they won’t assimilate like earlier immigrants have; they won’t learn the language like earlier immigrants did; they vote in mindless blocs; they’re unclean; their religions are backwards, and etc. Consider Benjamin Franklin’s concerns expressed in a letter written in 1753:
    Measures of great Temper are necessary with the Germans … Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation … I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties; Few of their children in the Country learn English; they import many Books from Germany; and of the six printing houses in the Province, two are entirely German, two half German half English, and but two entirely English; They have one German News-paper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general are now printed in Dutch and English; the Signs in our Streets have inscriptions in both languages, and in some places only German … In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies … they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.
    That hearty German stock that had Ben Franklin so concerned would produce such esteemed Americans as Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, author of the infamous “Sensenbrenner Bill” that would have made it a felony to even offer humanitarian aid to an undocumented immigrant, among other provisions. Sensenbrenner is just as concerned with the large numbers of Latin Americans coming in to the country today, and his rhetoric is very similar to old Ben Franklin’s. One of the key differences is that in Franklin’s era — and through the middle of the 20th century — immigration restrictionists spoke of the innate inferiority of other human “races”; in modern times, that’s impolitic, so Sensenbrenner and his contemporaries make a big show of distinguishing between “legal” and “illegal” immigration.
    In every generation, the gloom and doom predictions about how those newer immigrants would ultimately lead to the nation’s destruction have proven overwrought and inaccurate. By the third generation, the Irish, Poles, Italians and all the rest of Europe’s immigrants had all become Americans. And so it will be with today’s new immigrants. According to a recent study cited in The Washington Post, immigrants today are no different; in fact, the study noted that “immigrants of the past quarter-century have been assimilating in the United States at a notably faster rate than did previous generations.”
    The similarities don’t end with the consistent hostility some Americans have for newer arrivals. Individuals have all sorts of reasons for emigrating, but throughout our history, when large numbers migrate from a single country or region, it’s always been in response to some kind of shock in their country of origin, be it civil strife or pestilence or drought or war or economic collapse or natural disaster. Today we have a large number of immigrants from Mexico — slightly more than half of all new migrants — which followed the peso crisis, which was aggravated by job displacement resulting from NAFTA’s liberalization of agriculture. Again, this is consistent, whether we’re talking about the Irish fleeing the Great Potato Famine, Russian Jews fleeing the pogroms or Vietnamese boat people fleeing war in South-East Asia. The Wikipedia entry for Swedish emigration to America explains that their numbers peaked just after the Civil War:
    There was widespread resentment against the religious repression practiced by the Swedish Lutheran State Church and the social conservatism and class snobbery of the Swedish monarchy. Population growth and crop failures made conditions in the Swedish countryside increasingly bleak.
    Aside from the obvious demographic differences between today’s immigrants and those of earlier eras, there was another difference. Relative to the native population, the wave of elevated immigration hitting our shores today is nothing compared to previous ones. During the 1980s and 1990s, about 16.4 million immigrants came to America — a number equaling 7.1 percent of the 1981 population; during the period between 1901and 1920, about 14.5 million new arrivals came to America, but that number represented 18.9 percent of the population in 1901.
    Those who like to throw around rhetoric about some huge “invasion” would do well to read some history — what we’re seeing now is a drop in the bucket compared to earlier periods of American history.

  11. Evelyn said:

    Whether you want to admit this FACT or not, they are an overall burden to our country in many ways. There are many reliable government sources to support those stats.
    SHOW THEM THEN!!
    Dont just sit there and regurgitate the same garbage over and over!
    SHOW CREDIBLE PROOF!( a study) that proves
    out of status immigrants are an overall burden to our country in many ways.
    Otherwise you are just regurtating the same lies!

  12. cookie said:

    We were ONCE a nation of immmigrants but today we are mostly a nation of citizens who were born here. We didn’t migrate here. The immmigrant population today is much smaller than the citizen population. None of your historic references has anything to do with our immmigration laws of TODAY so they are irrelevant.
    For the negative impacts on our country from millons of illegals here go to the GAO (Government Accountability Office) site and type in “illegal immigrant impact” under their search mode.
    http://www.gao.gov

  13. Horace said:

    “…out of status immigrants are an overall burden to our country in many ways.”
    LOL. The Germans who crossed the French border in WWII were “out of status” too, by your definition. Such euphemisms as “out of status” are a joke and an affront to people with common sense, as they are designed to bequeath undeserved respect to the illegal alien. By the way, “out of status” is a term used by immigration to refer to people who’ve overstayed their visas, not people who’ve illegally crossed our borders. To be “out of status” one must have been “in status” at one time, which certainly doesn’t describe border jumpers.
    Why a burden?
    They have no health insurance and use hospitals for primary care. We can’t even send catastrophically ill illegal alien hospital patients home to the country that’s resposible for their welfare, their homeland. Taxpayers wind up footing the bill in the form of higher insurance premiums and hospital bills.
    They pay less than average per capita taxes on property because many violate zoning codes by ignoring local housing occupancy rules.
    They are generally poor, so they pay a much lower share of income taxes and require more social services than average and thus contibute almost nothing to the treasury. Living below the poverty level, they wind up being tax withdrawers rather than net contributers.
    Mexicans send 23 billion dollars home, money that isn’t available to the U.S. economy.

  14. Evelyn said:

    Cookie this is an outdated 1993 report.
    ~
    Benefits for Illegal Aliens: Some Program Costs Increasing, But Total Costs Unknown
    T-HRD-93-33 September 29, 1993
    Summary
    The benefits available to illegal aliens and their U.S. citizen children make up a small but rising percentage of costs for some government programs, such as Medicaid, public education, and food stamps. Existing cost estimates, however, provide at best a sketchy picture of the situation. Illegal aliens are not required to reveal their status to receive some benefits; in other cases, officials are prohibited from asking about alien status. National cost data are only available for welfare benefits, which in fiscal year 1992 totaled $479 million for illegal aliens with children who are U.S. citizens. The five states accounting for nearly 80 percent of the illegal immigrant population–California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida–pegged the total cost of federal, state, and local aid to illegal aliens at about $2.9 billion. The costs of providing these benefits appear to be on the upswing. These cost estimates, however, exclude government revenues attributable to illegal aliens.
    ~
    In 1996 Clinton enacted laws that dont allow out of status immigrants to recieve any gov. benifits.
    If we are for the ‘rule of law’ we cannot pick and choose which laws we want to uphold.
    American citizen children are entitled to recieve welfair benifits. That is the law. If we change it how far back should we go? Should we exclude any American citizen who has foreign ancestors?
    Even your out dated report stated they did not factor in all the contributions (including taxes ) immigrants pay into our economy.
    The studies I have provided are current and do factor in the contributions made by immigrants including the taxes they pay.
    They show that immigrants are positive for America just like they alwayse have been.
    So we are back to square 1. You still havent provided proof immigrants are an overall burden to our country in many ways, like you stated.
    The spin you tried with the GAO report doesent fly! You proved that all the BS you claim about immigrants is based on someone’s opinion, not any credable study.
    All the regergitated drivel Horace stated is also based on his racist opinion.

  15. cookie said:

    Most all of the GAO reports that I linked you to back up my claims that illegal aliens are a net negative to our country (not to mention illegal immigration is against our laws which you don’t seem to care about).
    You pick one that is a bit inconclusive and toss out the other ones that are conclusive?
    I don’t care if children in this country were born from foreigners and have gained birthright citizenshp just as long as those foreign parents are here legally.
    I know how the 14th is being currently interpretaed but one can see how it doesn’t reflect what it was intended for by the wording of it. It can and should be changed. That is not to mean that I don’t consider children of illegal aliens as citizens under our current translation of it but this scam has got to stop. If these parents hadn’t crossed our border illegally in the first place they wouldn’t have had a U.S. born child and wouldn’t be entitled to taxpayer benefits for them. We also pay the bills for birthing these kids too.
    Of course being an anti-white, anti-American living in the past and only identifying with your native indian side you don’t give a crap, do you?
    Here is a link about the 14th Amendment.
    http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html · Cached page

  16. cookie said:

    The Government Accountabillity Office isn’t based on someone’s opinion. It is based on research. If you won’t believe government statistics then you really are in serious denial.
    Since the “one” report you chose to quote was back in 1993 and there are millions more in this country illegally since then, I can only imagine what the costs are today. The report said those costs were on the upswing even at that time.
    Another point to make is that if these parents weren’t here illegally in the first place they wouldn’t be giving birth to U.S. citizens that end up being entitled to all kinds of welfare benefits. It is the parents that we should be angry at for creating their little welfare bundle on our soil.

  17. Evelyn said:

    Posted on 13 de Mayo 2009 20:06
    cookie :
    Most all of the GAO reports that I linked you to back up my claims that illegal aliens are a net negative to our country (not to mention illegal immigration is against our laws which you don’t seem to care about).
    You pick one that is a bit inconclusive and toss out the other ones that are conclusive?
    E
    You cant SPIN your way out of anything with me cookie. You still havent shown proof.
    ~
    I don’t care if children in this country were born from foreigners and have gained birthright citizenshp just as long as those foreign parents are here legally.
    I know how the 14th is being currently interpretaed but one can see how it doesn’t reflect what it was intended for by the wording of it. It can and should be changed. That is not to mean that I don’t consider children of illegal aliens as citizens under our current translation of it but this scam has got to stop. If these parents hadn’t crossed our border illegally in the first place they wouldn’t have had a U.S. born child and wouldn’t be entitled to taxpayer benefits for them. We also pay the bills for birthing these kids too.
    E
    Being for ‘Rule of law” like you claim goes out the window when it doesent fit your agenda. Did I hear the word HYPOCRIT!
    ~
    Of course being an anti-white, anti-American living in the past and only identifying with your native indian side you don’t give a crap, do you?
    E
    If you are the real hate filled racist in the house, what better defense than pointing the finger at the the person exposing you! Smoke screens are useless with me. I see right through them!

  18. Evelyn said:

    cookie :
    The Government Accountabillity Office isn’t based on someone’s opinion. It is based on research. If you won’t believe government statistics then you really are in serious denial.
    E
    I never said I didn’t believe them. When I let you know the GAO report said it did not take into consideration the contributions immigrants made in monetary form and other ways when making it’s determination as to what immigrants cost the government, you were the one saying “You pick one that is a bit inconclusive and toss out the other ones that are conclusive?”, even though I did exacally what you told me right down to typing in illegal immigrant impact.
    You have been trying to put words in my mouth for a while now . That wont work either.
    This little spin of smoke screens and refocus doesent work with me either. You are exposed!
    ~
    Since the “one” report you chose to quote was back in 1993 and there are millions more in this country illegally since then, I can only imagine what the costs are today. The report said those costs were on the upswing even at that time.
    E
    That there are millions more in this country today and more come in every day is a fact.
    And is the fault of those who say our immigration laws are not broken and support pseudo-amnesty in place now.
    Those hard-liners who are hateful white supremacist racist and dont want to compromise by accepting immigration reform.
    ~
    Another point to make is that if these parents weren’t here illegally in the first place they wouldn’t be giving birth to U.S. citizens that end up being entitled to all kinds of welfare benefits. It is the parents that we should be angry at for creating their little welfare bundle on our soil.
    E
    I agree with you, if the first illegal aliens that invaded this land hadn’t come to create those little anchor bundles of hate filled white supremacist racists on my land, then you and I wouldent be having this conversation.
    Those parents arent here now but their hateful descendants are.
    Their ignorant descendants who have white washed history will get an ear full of the truth because they are trying to do the same thing their ancestors did.

  19. cookie said:

    I countered your assertion that I or anyone else has white washed history but Marisa refused to post it. Not much I can do about that.
    As I have said numerous times those alive today had nothing to do with yesterday yet you are hell bent on demonizing the whole white race of today for the past and expect Americans not to have immigration laws because of it or they are hateful in your eyes. You really are in need of psychological help.

  20. Evelyn said:

    As I have said numerous times those alive today had nothing to do with yesterday yet you are hell bent on demonizing the whole white race of today for the past and expect Americans not to have immigration laws because of it or they are hateful in your eyes. You really are in need of psychological help.
    ~
    Again you try to put words in my mouth.
    People who use facts and History books for proof of History and other issues dont need psychological help.
    It is those who feel no empathy for others, those who are filled with so much hate that it makes them willing to use lies to demonize a whole race, those who are willing to treat Mestizos who share the same blood as Native Americans the way the first white man to come here did. Those are the people who need psychological help.
    There is a name for people like that, they are called sociopaths.

  21. cookie said:

    Evelyn, but you use history to claim we don’t have a right to immigration laws today that includes expecting those of native indian blood (whose tribes were from way south of our border) to come here legally. You use the history or white people in this country to justfify an illegal invasion of our country. You use history to deny us our soveirgn borders. Don’t try to lie and backpeddle now. Your words are right there for everyone to read.
    I haven’t denied the White European history of this country that you spout (although you only tell part of the story) and I tried to post the parts you left out but Marisa didn’t post them.
    I feel empahty for my fellow Amercans and obviously we Americans do feel empathy for others or we wouldn’t allow in over a million legal immigrants every year. So where is there no empathy in all of this?
    The Mestizos were not of the same blood or tribes as the natives of the U.S. You are full of it on that one! Doesn’t matter anyway this is the year 2009 and we are an individual nation now with sovereign borders. Mestizos from Mexico are alloted a very high percentage of legal immigration into our country already. Do you think that all of Mexico should be allowed to migrate here based on ancient history even though they aren’t even descendants of the tribes native to this country? How do you justify that?

  22. Liquidmicro said:

    According to mTDNA, there are at least 4 different bloodlines that have migrated to this continent.
    Common origin cited for American Indians
    Mitochondrial analysis has not yet yielded an entry date for the prehistoric settlers, although Wallace estimates that Asians first trekked into the Americas 15,000 to 30,000 years ago. Exceptions to the shared mitochondrial heritage include Eskimos, Aleuts, Navajos, Apaches and a few others who arrived later on, he says.
    Wallace reported these results, detailed in the March AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, at last week’s Short Course in Medical and Experimental Mammalian Genetics.
    His group’s findings contrast with those of another genetic study reported in March (SN: 6/9/90, p.361). Indians from predominantly Pacific Northwest tribes encompass up to 30 mitochondrial DNA lineages extending back 40,000 to 50,000 years, asserted a team led by Svante Paabo of the University of California, Berkeley. A series of separate migrations must have fueled the observed genetic diversity, Paabo proposed.
    Paabo and his colleagues studied chemical substitutions in a small section of mitochondrial DNA known to undergo rapid structural changes; Wallace’s team searched for genetic markers along the entire thread of mitochondrial DNA.
    Wallace says he has not seen Paabo’s data and does not know why the two studies arrive at opposite conclusions. However, he says the tribes he studied were largely free of the outside genetic influences that would obscure ancient mitochondrial mothers. Analysis of blood types and proteins affirms that the Ticuna and Pima tribes in his study had virtually no genes from non-native groups, while the Maya tribe possessed a small amount of European ancestry.
    The Maya tribe possesses a small amount of European Ancestry?? Well, Well, Well, More than 1 migration into N., C. and S. America, Asian and European blood lines, and to think we are all descended from Adam and Eve. How far back do we need to go Evelyn? 6000 – 10000 years ago with the Nadene Speakers? 20,000 years ago with the Amerind speakers? 30,000 years ago to the site in Peru? Your Father, as you have stated before, was an Anthropologist wasn’t he? If he was, didn’t you learn anything from him besides digging in the dirt?

Comments are closed.

Top