See other Immigration Articles
Title: Illegal Immigration Myths
Source:
City Journal
URL Source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-05-01hm.html
Published: May 1, 2006
Author: Heather Mac Donald
Post Date: 2006-05-31 09:45:22 by Phaedrus
Keywords: None
Views: 1306
Comments: 96
As the nation braced for another demonstration of illegal alien power today, the press has been trotting out “fear engulfs the illegal alien community” stories, following the arrests last month of over 1,000 illegal aliens working for IFCO Systems North America. For instance: IMMIGRANTS PANICKED BY RUMORS OF RAIDS, reported the New York Times; ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FEAR ROUNDUP, announced the Wall Street Journal; TALK OF IMMIGRANT ARRESTS IN AUSTIN FUELS FEAR, blared the Austin American-Statesman; and PATIENTS, FEARING INS RAIDS, DON’T SEEK HEALTH CARE, the Contra Costa Times warned. And what exactly is wrong with that? The premise of all such stories is that the government has acted unconscionably in causing illegal aliens to fear deportation, however remote the risk. Worrying about deportation is a cruel burden that no illegal alien should have to live with, the reporters imply—and their sources state outright. “It doesn’t help society or anyone to have these people running scared,” Mexican consul general Jorge Guajardo told the Austin American-Statesman. The stories sympathetically reported on illegal aliens too nervous to attend karate class, shop, get their free medical examinations, or pick up their subsidized prescription drugs. Somewhat braver illegals go out only to pick up their children from taxpayer-subsidized school or Head Start programs. After Border Patrol agents arrested a few hundred illegal aliens in southern California cities in 2004, the Los Angeles Times ran similar stories bemoaning the resultant fear among illegal aliens and quoting advocates and politicians blasting the Border Patrol’s outrageous behavior. This ubiquitous journalistic conceit exposes two myths and raises a public policy question. The first myth is that illegal aliens live in the shadows. The “shadows” claim then becomes an urgent reason why Congress must pass a legalization plan: so that 11 million people can come out of hiding. In fact, illegal aliens live in the full blaze of day. Only when confronted with the merest hint that immigration enforcement is even possible do they curtail their movements—and then elite thinking immediately declares such curtailment a gross injustice. But even if it were true that illegals lived in the shadows, why is that unfair? The bargain they chose was clear: if you come here illegally, the law says that you should face deportation. It is a measure of how surreal our immigration practice has become that it is now “mean-spirited” simply to raise the possibility in an illegal’s mind that his deportation risk is real, much less actually to deport him. The second myth is that the only way to reduce the illegal alien population is through “mass deportations”—assumed by the enlightened to be patently cruel. The fear stories make clear, however, that the illegal alien population has burgeoned precisely because illegals assume that they face no risk of enforcement. As soon as there is any move toward upholding the law, calculations change. Were enforcement actions to continue, the calculations made by illegals already here and those planning to come would change even more radically: many illegals would go home and many fewer would enter. As Jessica Vaughan points out in a recent report for the Center for Immigration Studies, after the Department of Homeland Security deported 1,500 illegal Pakistanis after 9/11, 15,000 more illegal Pakistanis left the country on their own. We have no reason to believe that illegal Hispanics and other populations would not follow a similar course. For this voluntary flight to happen, however, the threat of enforcement must be credible. Perversely, the federal government makes sure that the opposite is the case. As soon as “illegal alien fear” stories appear, immigration policy-makers repudiate any intention of more widespread legal action and reassure illegal aliens that they have no reason to worry. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Virginia Tice told the Wall Street Journal last week that rumors of arrests of illegal aliens were “baseless. We don’t conduct random raids.” Many immigration officials even fear the “d” word. A CNN reporter called me last year for a comment on whether an illegal Chinese man, trapped in an elevator in New York for several days, should be deported. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman had referred the reporter to me, because he was unwilling to offer any opinion himself on whether deportation was in order. When the Denver Post, in 2002, took up the cause of Jesus Apodaca, an illegal alien in Denver denied in-state tuition to the University of Colorado, Congressman Tom Tancredo was the only public official who suggested that deportation might be more appropriate. ICE stayed mum. And that leads to a key question, usually ducked: What does the country want regarding deportation? If an official from the agency responsible for protecting our borders is unwilling to call for the removal of a single illegal alien once the illegal has a face and a name, where does that leave us? Right-wing talk radio hosts and their audiences complain about border-breaking and informal legalization measures like driver’s licenses and matricula consular cards. But they usually avoid the next question: if not legalization, then, what? If ICE were to start upholding the immigration law and regularly removing illegals, the press would go into overdrive, painting each removal action as a heart-wrenching injustice. It is a calculated falsehood by the open borders lobby that mass “round-ups” are the only way to stop the invasion of illegals. But it is true that consistent enforcement actions will be necessary to broadcast that our national sanctuary policy has come to an end. Some polls suggest that the public would support such actions, and virtually all polls show that the American people certainly have a far stricter stance toward illegals than do the press and the political class—something to keep in mind before we devise our next feckless immigration bill. What Would Mexico Do with Protesting Illegals?
Poster Comment: Cutting through the illegal immigration "debate" BS. Heather McDonald is a gutsy, insightful commentator who deserves much wider recognition.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#15)
But you yourself said above that race is a fiction. Try to be consistent, Mike. Or do you prefer to try to play the "white guilt" card?
Likewise, I'm sure. Now that we have traded ad homenim attacks, what is the point? Explain. The people committing the worst violations in this are the white collar perps - as usual - but people like you are too frightened and cowed to take on the Business leaders as these movers and shakers have incredibly large war chests of capital and political power, so people like you look for scapegoats in your frustration. You see immigrants have Little money and almost no political savvy, so they are your whipping boy. You are going after the jaywalkers and ignoring the bank robbers. You ignore the pimps and go after their street workers. Any policy should systemically smash the testicles of those who started this, not primarily focus on those why used to lower wages and standards of living. In many ways, these Mexicans are every bit as much the victims of the power elite as we are.
I said race was irrelevant, not that it didn't get used as a tool by people to pit one people against another. Read for content.
Everyone, Ferret Mike is a self-confessed Wiccan, take everything this sicko says with that in mind. The Wiccans are led by Satan.
God is always good! How much of Mexico should we allow to come into this country? According to polls 40% of Mexicans want to come to the US. Should we allow all 40% of Mexico to come here? What if it increases to 50%? 75%? 100%? What's the limit? What about the rest of Central and South America? What percentage should we allow to come from there? You tell me how many people should be allowed to come into this country and what the immigration policy should be. Go ahead. Tell me that number and procedure.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Correction of verbiage in #17 - those why used = who they used
Not really Ferret. I'm no racist, I agree with you about one Human Race. But they are crossing illegally. You should read how the early colonialists arrived. When the German Palatinates were being burned out of Germany for being Protestant in Catholic strongholds, they wrote letters to the Crown of England begging for permission to go to America. Some were admitted. Some were allowed to settle in Ulster (and there are graveyards with German surnames). Some were allowed into the UK. When the starving Irish and later the Italians, Armenians, and Jews landed on Ellis island, the criminal and infirm were sent back. All the rest were admitted legally. Now if you want to argue about why the British Crown and later the American govt believed themselves to have the right to exist in America, that's a different discussion. But, exist they did and do, and it is their laws that were and are being enforced. When the Shanandoah Valley opened up to settlers, some prick passed a law that all persons of color could not own land. Because this was very rich fertile land and there were some non-slaves that owned it. Now that was really ugly. And of course, only the first of many ugly laws and broken promises. But that's not what the discussion about illegals is about. Most Native Americans are in favor of stricter border enforcement. As one put it, we chased them back to Mexico many times in the past. And I take exception to your depiction of the Minutemen. They have been very careful not to do anything remotely violent. In fact, the reverse has been reported. They have learned never to be alone. Which is not to say that there is no racist element to the discussion about illegals and immigration as a whole. There is. But at least acknowledge the facts as they stand. And the problems are much greater than just skin color. To me, the problem is the rate of entry. There is no time to assimilate and so balkanization is occuring.
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison
You are trying to slip by the fact that these people are being used much as those escaping the dust bowl drought in the Midwest when their farmers were foreclosed when they were enticed to migrate to California by business leaders in that state. Okies were as badly hated by factions as Mexicans are today. Steinbeck's book "The Grapes of Wrath" talked about how these people suffered stereotyping and vilification while those who created the migration never had a hair knocked out of place on their balding heads. What will it take to go after the criminals in this? Why scape goat others for the crimes of business movers and shakers? How is the crime of being desperate enough to migrate worse then that of greed for even more power and money by people who already have too much of both?
Oh, right -- I'm duly impressed with your insight into my character. The poignant question is: Why are you wasting our time?
I disagree. They have a public face, and operating procedures that contradict that. They take away press credentials from reporters who talk to the other side of the struggle as they do not want a balanced portrayal of things in the media. They claim they do not carry guns, yet many of them who have permits to carry them let the border patrol know who is packing as they patrol. They claim to be eyes and ears to detect illegal crossings, but there are many documented cases of them harassing and holding people despite their words. They are heavily infiltrated by white nationalists and racists, and if you go to Storm From and see how carefully they nest Minutemen advocacy pictures and copy to protect the illusion that they are not part of the Minutemen show instead of bitterly decrying excluding, you would become very suspicious. People know how to teach others how to bypass screening protocols. And people who put screening protocols in place do it for public appearances knowing full well that infiltration is occurring but close their eyes to it. I do not like or trust the brown boot militia know as the Minutemen. They are the primary problem in the immediate vicinity of the border, not the crossers.
And I'm just as unimpressed with your tongue in cheek sarcasm. Why are you joining a lynch mob instead of working for justice and ignoring the criminals guilty of felonies to go after those guilty of a far lesser violation?
Humor break ...
And Thomas Jefferson denied the request of Cherokee Indians who has assimilated into our culture translating the Bible into their tongue, fought in war beside us, and whose farms looked exactly like ours to be covered under the sovereignty of the United States. Then Andrew Jackson criminally caved in to greedy and jealous Whites and removed entire peoples from their ancestral homelands in the 1830s in the event called the Trail of Tears. A black spot on our Nation's very being that will never wash out any more then what the Nazis did to Jews and other peoples will disappear from our collective consciousness.
If it's a matter of your brand of "justice", then I'm for injustice. I just can't take you seriously. You have a burr in your saddle and a bee in your bonnet. It's about the ability to think, Mike. Read the article, Mike.
I think we should ask the remaining American Indians how they feel about the illegal immigration of all those countless white people from Europe that they welcomed and helped and were so nice to at first. If there's any lesson to be learned about mass immigration, that's the precedent.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Mike Mike Mike. There are no races, Mike. You said so yourself.
You didn't answer the question. Step up to the plate and answer the question. It's simple enough. How much of Mexico (and or Central/South America) would you allow to immigrate into the United States? We now have 10% and 40% would like to immigrate. Would you allow that 40%? 50%? 75% 100%? What, if any is the limit? What rules or laws would you have in place, if any, to regulate immigration? Don't give me any bullshit about the Okies - they were already here. That's not an immigration issue. Give me the numbers and policies you would allow.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
I'm the man with the answers, mehitable (so watch what questions you ask... ;)): Microcosm? The Arizona Republic reports that illegal immigrants are bankrupting the nation. Not the American nation, which still has a lot of ruin in it, but the Tohono O'odham nation, an Indian reservation unlucky enough to border Mexico on one side, and America on the other. The Tohono O'odham (Pronounced toe-hone-o ahtum, and known as the Papago until 1986) found an international border running through their lands in 1848, as a result of the U.S. purchase of Arizona. Many of them moved north of the Border to escape Mexican persecution. Now the flood of undocumented immigrants is costing them a lot of money. “Tribal leaders estimate border-related expenses, from investigating immigrant deaths to towing vehicles abandoned by smugglers, cost the Indian nation $6.5 million to $7 million in 2002.” [DEATH TRAIL: Illegals create financial crisis for O'odham, By Daniel Gonzalez, The Arizona Republic, April 30, 2003] The Indians blame both the Federal Government, for its enforcement successes elsewhere, which tend to “funnel” crossers to unguarded areas, and the smugglers. The Indians have also refused to install water stations on their land, leading to complaints from the usual suspects. I sympathize with the Tohono O'odham. But it’s all part of a larger picture, in which the same illegals are traipsing through white people's land, too. The collapse of the southern border is a problem not only for the Tohono O'odham, but for a much bigger nation to the north of it. ---VDare, Fulford File, 05/07/03
The Moving Finger writes; and having writ, At best your advocacy for the injustices in this issue are due to myopia, at worst they are as criminally calculating as the thugs who run the Minutemen. So, what's your point? There is serious issue with the views and tactics of people like the Minutemen. I am far from being alone in views. You are just going to have to deal with the fact you can't avoid dealing with disagreement from you in this issue. Yeah, it's called a high degree of political efficacy. It has had me active politically for decades now, So? I read it, and I question the though process and atmosphere of hysteria on your side of the issue. It is you and others like you who are not being rational, not those who take exception with the antics and purpose of people like the Minutemen.
Food fight. In years past when I encounted the sophist or seriously misled, I would occasionally do The Phaedrus Grand and Famous Parse. Stephen J. Gould was subjected to it and he wilted. That may of course had something to do with the fact that he was dead.
Oh, thank you for that endorsement. Whatever side you're on, Mike, I'm on the opposite side. That way, I will always be right.
I see no point to your query if you see no point to dealing with the criminality of those who entice people into this country to make a buck and to pit one people against another. You are like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sight of Mexicans just as the people making a buck over them being here want you to. They want you to focus on scapegoat, not the real criminals in the issue. You don't want justice in this issue, you want to have a lynching on the macro to relieve your stress concerning the problem just like they used to do in the South on a micro level when a Black man was hung for looking at a White woman the wrong way.
As I learned in the land navigation course at the Special Forces Qualification Course; if your information concerning your location or azimuth is even slightly wrong, you go off course. You are engaged in the role of articulating a Sophist line of logic here as you are working with inaccurate data. Even if you have good intentions, your side's end result would be bad if your wishes were implemented. Even if a road of good intentions to a hell is well paved and groomed, it still leads to a bad place to be. Be disingenuous concerning the issue if you wish, because the issue will be thoroughly worked trough and you will eventually find you have been on the wrong side. That's just the way it is.
Oh, right you are. Your lack of credibility is showing, Mike. In case you don't get that, Mike, I don't believe you. Why are you still here messing up my thread?
Yeah, but he gave Hitler syphillis too, so it all worked out in the end. Irish Puerto Rican Whaddya know! Just like my daughter. She looks pretty darn white though, unlike her mom. You are obviously a White Nationalist Well, duh. Got bored with Don Black's Storm Front site Yeah. They've got a clue, but they'll never get over my choice of spouse. And actually it was here that led me there. There is only one race, the human one. LOL!! Here is your treat: No one ethnic or racial group is any better then any other. But apparently some one is worse than any other. Or so we've been told. As for "better" -- we don't love our children because they are objectively better than the children of others. A stranger's child might be demonstrably superior to our own in some quality that we value. But subjective reasons are sufficient. We love our children because they are ours, and that is enough. In a few generations, these racial and ethnic divisions will be far more blurred then they are today. On the contrary, as the supercycle bear market gets going, they will become all the more important. That is just a simple fact, part of the realities of the principle of physics called defusion. Ah, but the system is not closed.
Heh, since when is disagreeing with a thread parent "messing up a thread?" You are still thinking in a FReeper modus here. Disagreement and debate improves a thread, not disrupts it. ;-D
I believe he means "diffusion" but what do I know?
Questionable. What is it about me that attracts zealots and sophists?
The Creator does not intercede to create good or bad reality, the physical universe operates in complete dispassion to what is good or bad about something happening. Many humans try to manipulate others by telling others their arcane and self generated insight into what the Goddess' intentions and principles are. But that never makes them that, it just shows that after many thousands of years, humans have ultimately not changed very much when it comes to building a base of support of followers.
Doubt it. But it would at least get them back there.
I can no longer touch type after severely injuring my hands and arms in a three story fall to the pavement. I used iespell in my browser as many of my typos are generated from me trying to go as fast with my hands as I used to be able to. Unfortunately, the beta Microsoft browser does not mesh well with the old iespell, and it no longer moves the text as the spell checker points out possible mis-spellings or typos. Hopefully iespell will correct the problem soon, because I hate doing allot of proof reading when I post. ;-)
First the "white guilt" card. Then the "sympathy" card. When comes the Joker?
Ayup!
Hey now, that's my job -- or you'll have to answer to the Union.
Guilt should be felt if any people of any color or ethnicity commit wrongs against another. Again you are being disingenuous and diversionary. As for the Joker, to me you are it and to you I am covering that role. You are still in that FReeper modus of insisting God is on your side, and that everything is defined starkly in black and white. I respectfully submit you are wrong in your perceptions in that regard.
Mike, you are completely and totally full of shit. You cannot answer the simple question I put to you. This makes you dishonest and a liar by omission. I have no patience with people like you who do nothing but criticize others for legitimate concerns when you yourself don't have the decency or integrity to answer a simple, honest and direct question about what kind of immigration policies WE SHOULD HAVE. This makes everything else you say utter garbage and not worth responding to. You're a coward.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
People lie with statistics and numbers all the time on the Internet. They also use diversionary questions that try to bypass dialog regarding the particulars of an issue which is what you do with your pointless question. I have clearly stated that I know there is a problem, and that those most guilty are getting off scott free, and you still want to talk not about the hit and run drivers, but just how many jay walkers should be allowed to jay walk. I submit it is you who is full of bovine droppings, not me. You don't have an patience for dialog on the issue period. You just want lock step compliance with how you perceive the problem to be and what solutions should be executed in regard to it. It is you and your intemperate and starkly black and white attitude concerning this issue that is the problem here, not my dismissal of your pointless and diversionary tactic that drives your ploy regarding this pointless question.
I have told you explicitly that 10% of Mexico's population is already here. That is well documented. Another 40% wants to come in according to polls. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? Is 50% okay? 75%? 100%? This is a simple goddam question that you can obviously answer but you won't because you'd rather play foolish, non-productive, hateful, blame-whitey games instead of actually addressing the problem and what should be done. I am again asking you - what percentage would you allow in, and what policies would YOU put in place in this country for immigration.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Again I would say you are talking numbers regarding people committing a minor violation in contrast to the felonies perpetrated by those powerful men and women who were very Machiavellian in how they constructed the influx of people, why they did it, and how they want people to focus on Mexicans with their anger instead of them. That is how a Machiavellian ploy like this works, it is formulated to give those most guilty in a problem cover and concealment. In this case a very visible scapegoat far more easier to pick on then those creating the problem is what you want me to crunch numbers in regard to. I lost my job to illegal immigrants in the 1980s when all reforestation, wild land firefighting and other Silva-culture related jobs went to them as those bidding on these contracts knew that hiring Mexicans kept their bids in the low range giving them the contracts. Now this was under Reagan and was part of the spectrum of policies revolving around the deregulation of private industry. While I was being pinched out of my job, I got to know many Mexicans as I worked with many of them. Some of them are my good friends today. Some who were illegal then are citizens now and own homes and have families. I can certainly understand your pain at those formulating the policies creating this influx being brought to task and accountability, but that frustration in no shape way or form makes your question pertinent enough to try to answer. When people stop scapegoating and get at the the root of the problem instead of making scapegoats perhaps questions regarding the mechanics of and demographics regarding the problem will be worth looking at.
But not now. That is my answer.
Tranlsation: Yours are the concerns of commoners. While he's off striking the root or whatever, us commoners will have to attend to the task at hand.
Comments (57 - 96) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestCalvin Coolidge signed an immigration quota bill into law that effectively institutionalized racism into immigration policy ...
#17. To: Phaedrus (#14)
"Aside from firmly establishing that you are a whacko, Mike,"
"You support our being overrun by ILLEGAL immigrants? Well, you thus don't believe in the rule of law, do you? Your law is better, I suppose."
#18. To: Phaedrus (#16)
"But you yourself said above that race is a fiction. Try to be consistent, Mike. Or do you prefer to try to play the "white guilt" card?"
#19. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#13)
The Minutemen are led by wannabe child molesters and wife beaters like Chris Simcox,
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02] More and more of our imports come from overseas. - George W. Bush
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
#21. To: All (#17)
#22. To: Ferret Mike, mehitable (#15)
I know, they did come over with as little legal authority to do so as did many who established and grew the beach head of Western Civilization in these continents, didn't they?
#23. To: mehitable (#20)
"How much of Mexico should we allow to come into this country? According to polls 40% of Mexicans want to come to the US. Should we allow all 40% of Mexico to come here? What if it increases to 50%? 75%? 100%? What's the limit?"
#24. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
... but people like you are too frightened and cowed to take on the Business leaders as these movers and shakers ...
#25. To: robin (#22)
"And I take exception to your depiction of the Minutemen. They have been very careful not to do anything remotely violent. In fact, the reverse has been reported. They have learned never to be alone."
#26. To: Phaedrus (#24)
"Oh, right -- I'm duly impressed with your insight into my character. The poignant question is: Why are you wasting our time? "
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
I do not like or trust the brown boot militia know as the Minutemen. They are the primary problem in the immediate vicinity of the border, not the crossers.
#28. To: robin (#22)
"When the Shenandoah Valley opened up to settlers, some prick passed a law that all persons of color could not own land. Because this was very rich fertile land and there were some non-slaves that owned it. Now that was really ugly. And of course, only the first of many ugly laws and broken promises. But that's not what the discussion about illegals is about. Most Native Americans are in favor of stricter border enforcement. As one put it, we chased them back to Mexico many times in the past."
#29. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
Why are you joining a lynch mob instead of working for justice and ignoring the criminals guilty of ...
#30. To: robin (#22)
#31. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
... greedy and jealous Whites ...
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
#33. To: mehitable (#30)
I think we should ask the remaining American Indians how they feel about the illegal immigration of all those countless white people from Europe that they welcomed and helped and were so nice to at first. If there's any lesson to be learned about mass immigration, that's the precedent.
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. ---Ruba'iyat, LXXI
#34. To: Phaedrus (#29)
"If it's a matter of your brand of "justice", then I'm for injustice."
"I just can't take you seriously."
"You have a burr in your saddle and a bee in your bonnet."
"It's about the ability to think, Mike. Read the article, Mike."
#35. To: Tauzero (#8)
#36. To: Ferret Mike (#34)
At best your advocacy for the injustices in this issue are due to myopia, at worst they are as criminally calculating as the thugs who run the Minutemen.
#37. To: mehitable (#32)
"You didn't answer the question. Step up to the plate and answer the question. It's simple enough. How much of Mexico (and or Central/South America) would you allow to immigrate into the United States? We now have 10% and 40% would like to immigrate. Would you allow that 40%? 50%? 75% 100%? What, if any is the limit?"
#38. To: Phaedrus (#35)
"Food fight. In years past when I encountered the sophist or seriously misled, I would occasionally do The Phaedrus Grand and Famous Parse. Stephen J. Gould was subjected to it and he wilted. That may of course had something to do with the fact that he was dead."
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
... at the Special Forces Qualification Course ...
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
Was God on the side of the Nazis because he gave them enough control to commit genocide
Mr. McGuire: "I just want to say one word to you -- just one word."
Ben: "Yes sir."
Mr. McGuire: "Are you listening?"
Ben: "Yes I am."
Mr. McGuire: "Makeovers"
Ben: "Exactly how do you mean?"
Mr. McGuire: "There's a great future in makeovers. Think about it. Will you think about it?"
#41. To: Phaedrus (#39)
"Oh, right you are. Your lack of credibility is showing, Mike. In case you don't get that, Mike, I don't believe you. Why are you still here messing up my thread?"
#42. To: Tauzero (#40)
#43. To: Ferret Mike (#41)
Disagreement and debate improves a thread, not disrupts it.
#44. To: Tauzero (#40)
"Yeah, but he gave Hitler syphilis too, so it all worked out in the end."
#45. To: mehitable (#12)
Hell, I'd be willing to give every Mexican who leaves here a machine gun, a bag of gold, and the directions to Vicente Fox's neighborhood. Now that would bring some progress.
Mr. McGuire: "I just want to say one word to you -- just one word."
Ben: "Yes sir."
Mr. McGuire: "Are you listening?"
Ben: "Yes I am."
Mr. McGuire: "Makeovers"
Ben: "Exactly how do you mean?"
Mr. McGuire: "There's a great future in makeovers. Think about it. Will you think about it?"
#46. To: Phaedrus (#42)
"I believe he means "diffusion" but what do I know?"
#47. To: Ferret Mike (#46)
Hopefully iespell will correct the problem soon ...
#48. To: Ferret Mike (#44)
after many thousands of years, humans have ultimately not changed very much
Mr. McGuire: "I just want to say one word to you -- just one word."
Ben: "Yes sir."
Mr. McGuire: "Are you listening?"
Ben: "Yes I am."
Mr. McGuire: "Makeovers"
Ben: "Exactly how do you mean?"
Mr. McGuire: "There's a great future in makeovers. Think about it. Will you think about it?"
#49. To: Phaedrus (#47)
When comes the Joker?
Mr. McGuire: "I just want to say one word to you -- just one word."
Ben: "Yes sir."
Mr. McGuire: "Are you listening?"
Ben: "Yes I am."
Mr. McGuire: "Makeovers"
Ben: "Exactly how do you mean?"
Mr. McGuire: "There's a great future in makeovers. Think about it. Will you think about it?"
#50. To: Phaedrus (#47)
"First the "white guilt" card. Then the "sympathy" card. When comes the Joker?"
#51. To: Ferret Mike, all (#37)
#52. To: mehitable (#51)
"Mike, you are completely and totally full of shit. You cannot answer the simple question I put to you."
"I have no patience with people like you who do nothing but criticize others for legitimate concerns when you yourself don't have the decency or integrity to answer a simple, honest and direct question about what kind of immigration policies WE SHOULD HAVE."
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#52)
#54. To: mehitable (#53)
"I am again asking you - what percentage would you allow in, and what policies would YOU put in place in this country for immigration."
#55. To: mehitable (#53)
(last post continued)
#56. To: mehitable, Ferret Mike (#53)
Mr. McGuire: "I just want to say one word to you -- just one word."
Ben: "Yes sir."
Mr. McGuire: "Are you listening?"
Ben: "Yes I am."
Mr. McGuire: "Makeovers"
Ben: "Exactly how do you mean?"
Mr. McGuire: "There's a great future in makeovers. Think about it. Will you think about it?"
.
.
.