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: 1526
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 (1-34) not displayed.
.
.
.
#35. To: Tauzero (#8)
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.
Mike, it's a simple question. If 50% of Mexico wanted to come into the US, would that be okay with you? If 100% wanted to come into the US, would that be okay with you? What if any, standards or rules would you apply? You are evading a simple, direct, and obvious question by trying to play blame- whitey games and I'm not going to let that go. You have to tell ME what YOU think immigration policies SHOULD be. I've had enough bullshit about how evil we are - there is no other country in the world that just lets people come across their borders as we do. So just be a man and answer the damn question.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Heh, Translation of mehitable's question: "Hey common folk, don't worry your pretty little heads about those men behind the curtain. Tell you what, let's go throw rocks at dumpster divers instead."
There is one, Canada.
God is always good! I don't know about that, Ricky. I know Canada does have pretty stringent immigration policies (I've checked) but I don't know if they enforce them. Certainly they don't have the demand we do...at least not yet, lol.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
You mean pointless. Show me where I talked about the racial composition of the authors of the policies enticing people to migrate here. I am talking about their money and power, I didn't say their faces were dollar bill colored. So, you are saying the power elite in the business world and large corporations and their lackeys in government are letting this happen because of their concern for their fellow human being? Interesting take on this. I say you are very wrong in this. There is no point to talking about the mechanics to immigration policy to someone blind to where the well head of the problem is, or has a willingness to deal with that. I am not interested in playing games in the mechanics of how to politically and socially lynch people who are as much a victim in this game of pitting workforce against workforce as the American people are. I'm not insecure in regards to my gender. That ploy is a no go at this station too.
Mike, you are just so full of shit. You cannot answer a simple question. Yes, I know all about these evil men who use and abuse the poor of all nations, including ours. That's not the issue I'm asking you about; it's another facet of it. The basic issue is immigration. And the question is very simple and direct: How many people from another country, on a percentage basis, would you allow to come here and what laws or policies would you enforce, if any? This is an issue and a question that needs to be answered totally on its own aside from any issues of abuse and exploitation from the rich. And you refuse to answer obviously BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. This makes your opinions irrelevant.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Pointless? 40% of Mexico would like to emigrate to the United States. Would you allow that and what if any rules would you apply?
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Avoiding the quite violent dumpster divers by moving to the suburbs and now, exurbs, has gotten pretty damn expensive. A lot of people can't afford it. They at least have no illusions. They can't afford those, either. Gotta draw the line someplace. Striking the root takes some time. Time during which Americans will continue to be robbed, raped, and killed. That informal violence though is an effective means for self-deportation.
In all fairness to Mike, he's simply verbalizing the thoughts of lots of
feckless whites. The white race has been gobbled up by the PC culture and what
is belched out speaks and talks like Mike. There's no need for us to lynch
him; The 3rd world scum he adores will do it for us ;)
I want to make him articulate what, if any limits he has, in terms of immigration. That is a reasonable and basic question aside from any issues or wealth, exploitation, racism, etc. I find that many people simply do not think through the logical problems and consequences associated with unrestricted immigration. When you consider that 40% of Mexico wants to come here, I think we need to consider what our policies should be and what, if any, limits we should draw, or rules we should have. I can only tell from Mike's non-answers, that he is an open borders guy who thinks that anyone should be able to come into this country from pretty much anywhere as he's unwilling to articulate any limits. I presume that he would apply the same "guidelines" to other countries, meaning that if I and several million of most closest friends want to skip across the border into Mexico and settle down, that would be fine with him.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
I explained very clearly why I know your question and tact is full of B.S. I am not interested in talking about the mechanics of how the people who were used by those who profited from this migration need to be regulated. You have no answer that is not frightening to you in regards to dealing with those who made this migration so. To deal with those people is dangerous as they can make any people or group of people pay dearly for messing with them. Not to mention they have co opted and neutralized many in key positions who could bring them to task because they have the power and money to do so. Your lack of willingness to acknowledge the full scope of the issue and to prioritize the issue whereby the most appropriate target in this issue is put in the cross hairs shows a lack of courage and will on your part, not mine. The above quote verbiage in fact shows you asked the question merely to deliver the "therefore your views don't count" punchline. Just because I've been posting enough not to let someone derail me from getting to the meat of a problem or let them put me on the defensive doesn't mean squat. But thanks for finally sharing your punchline, I was wondering then you were going to get tired of your rhetorical gambit and give it up. ;-)
Ah, a variation of the game of lying with statistics. Actually, the majority of Mexicans coming here are hard working, decent and good people. This game of putting the inevitable few in any population under a magnifying glass to vilify everyone is old, and unimpressive. Chris Simcox is fond of foaming at the mouth calling all Mexicans dope dealers and muggers. But this is a game of dehumanizing toward the end of creating a lynching of a people regardless of how good anyone person is, not one of encouraging dialog in this issue.
Heh, who you are imitating here: Lord, this sounds
like a LaRaza talking point. Mike....psst....it's a f**king invasion by
under educated, 3rd world scum. May countless thousands move into your town
and then you can celebrate May 1st at the nearest Taco Bell together.
You may think you're being clever some how but you're coming across like a mega- asshole who can't answer the most basic question about immigration. This means that it is impossible to have any kind of actual conversation with you as all you want to do is rant at us about how awful whitey is. As for these people who are exploiting the Mexicans my answer is simple, tax the crap out of them, make them pay higher minimum wages and benefits, penalize them if they get caught hiring illegals and SHUT THEM DOWN - literally force them out of business. Beyond that we should repeal NAFTA and probably most of our other trade policies made during the past 20 years. I would like to see most of these Mexicans return home and kill their ruling class - I mean that literally - and take over and run the country themselves. They can run it any damn way they please, I don't care what type of government they institute or what policies they want to live under. There may be room for some small guest worker program if we simply cannot find enough Americans, but I just don't believe that - and I don't trust guest worker policies. If the wages are higher and benefits given, there will be Americans to do these jobs. That's my answer for the exploitation. Now back to you: If 40% of Mexico wants to come to the US, is that okay with you? What if any policies or rules would you put in place?
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
True. Better behaved than 'groids, in this white devil's purely subjective opinion. But they are alien, which is sufficient. And anyway, I'm pretty sure the FBI's sample size is much bigger than yours or mine. This game of putting the inevitable few in any population under a magnifying glass to vilify everyone is old, and unimpressive. The unstated assumption there is that all or most of a group must be bad (in whatever sense) in order to act upon the group classification.
Don't fall into this twisted leftist trap, Me. There should be NO further legal immigration, and for the illegal trash here, open season for hunters.
Pssst.....It's working just as well as corporate fascists want it to. They are not in hot water, but the people they exploited are. That's the point, JT. People like Mike like to wallow in emotionalism and faux sympathy for the huddled masses, but if you ask them specifics about how to implement anything on an actual practical level, they always ditch specifics in favor of the broadest possible theories about oppression and racism. They refuse to either acknowledge that their own policies have consequences, or to discuss what the consequences of their policies - or lack of action, which is a policy in and of itself - would be. I don't play that game. I want everyone to put their cards down on the table. The only way to actually create an immigration policy is to deal in specifics, not in gross emotional generalizations about what this group or that group is "like" or what the "intents" of people are.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Comments (76 - 96) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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?"
#57. To: Ferret Mike, all (#54)
#58. To: Tauzero (#56)
"Tranlsation: Yours are the concerns of commoners."
#59. To: mehitable (#57)
there is no other country in the world that just lets people come across their borders as we do.
"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
#60. To: RickyJ (#59)
#61. To: mehitable (#57)
"Mike, it's a simple question."
"You are evading a simple, direct, and obvious question by trying to play blame- whitey games and I'm not going to let that go."
" You have to tell ME what YOU think immigration policies SHOULD be. I've had enough bullshit about how evil we are - there is no other country in the world that just lets people come across their borders as we do."
"So just be a man and answer the damn question."
#62. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
Tell you what, let's go throw rocks at dumpster divers instead.
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?"
#65. To: IndieTX, the illegal invading horde (#9)
#66. To: Jethro Tull (#65)
#67. To: mehitable (#62)
"This is an issue and a question that needs to be answered totally on its own aside from any issues of abuse and exploitation from the rich. And you refuse to answer obviously BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. This makes your opinions irrelevant."
#68. To: Tauzero (#64)
"Striking the root takes some time. Time during which Americans will continue to be robbed, raped, and killed."
#69. To: mehitable (#66)
"When you consider that 40% of Mexico wants to come here, I think we need to consider what our policies should be and what, if any, limits we should draw, or rules we should have."
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
how the people who were used by those who profited from this
migration need to be regulated.
#71. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#68)
Actually, the majority of Mexicans coming here are hard working, decent and good people.
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?"
#73. To: mehitable (#66)
I want to make him articulate what, if any limits he has, in terms of immigration.
#74. To: Jethro Tull (#70)
"Mike....psst....it's a fucking invasion by under educated, 3rd world scum. May countless thousands move into your town and then you can celebrate May 1st at the nearest Taco Bell."
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." -- PT Barnum.
#75. To: Jethro Tull (#73)
.
.
.