Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

Bob
Bob

October 15th, 2006, 4:19 pm #1


A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials
in ages!! It explains things better than all the
baloney you hear on TV.

Recently large demonstrations have taken place
across the country protesting the fact that Congress
is finally addressing the issue of illegal
immigration. Certain people are angry that the US
might protect its own borders, might make it harder
to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay
indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand
the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say, I break into yo ur house. Let's say,
that when you discover me in your house, you insist
that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and
washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the
floors; I've done all the things you don't like to
do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I
broke into your house).

According to the protesters, not only must you
let me stay, you must add me to your family's
insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other
benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do
your yard work because he too is hard-working and
honest, except for that breaking in part). If you
try to call the police or force me out, I will call
my friends who will picket your house carrying signs
that proclaim my right to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a
nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better
myself. I'm hard working and honest, um, except for,
well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your
house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of
my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it
without being accused of selfishness, prejudice, and
being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you
to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?

(MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!!)

Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 15th, 2006, 5:50 pm #2

Good analogy Bob, except that there is a growing mindset among immigrants that our house(country) is really "their" house/country because that we 'stole' it from them during the Mexican-American war, so now they are only reclaiming what is 'rightfully' theirs.

(and it doesn't help that half the places in the Southwest have Spanish names)
Reply
Like
Share

Jean-Yves
Jean-Yves

October 16th, 2006, 10:56 am #3

I was not aware of this aspect of the problem; I did not see any newspaper article introducing this side of the US imigration problem.
Wher did you see this issue rising up?
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 16th, 2006, 1:01 pm #4

I heard a lot of discussion about this on radio and TV back last April when they were having those big "immigrant rights" marches. Here's a few quotes I found from that time via a quick Google search:

from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n16228894

"Last week's column regarding Mexican immigration and the idea, as expressed by former U.S. diplomat David Timmins, that many Mexicans are taught that the Western United States was stolen from them in the war of 1846-47 prompted a flood of e-mails no fence could keep out."

from: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030012

"the Nazi style group is crying out for the death of all who are not of Hispanic decent, and the reconquest of American land. People from the earliest age and up are taught that America stold "their" land, and they are taught hatred for Americans and everything American: this is why they refuse to learn English!"

from: http://buchanan.org/blog/?feed=rss2&p=97

"Here's what I don't like. I didn't like a lot of these signs: "this is stolen land, America." "This is our continent, not yours." If you disagree with the idea of amnesty, you're a racist or anti-immigrant. People holding the Mexican flag up. It seemed to be, in many, many ways, outrages, some of the things that were said and done. Do you agree with that? "
Reply
Like
Share

GA
GA

October 16th, 2006, 2:07 pm #5

Why is it that the white man is always the racist one?

Firstly, whenever a Mexican comes forward for the cause of "all immigrants", do they speak for me? Does amnesty include me? (I am a caucasian immigrant resident, not a U.S. citizen)

If the caucasians are racist, then why are most of the workers white people hire Mexican? Dont' say it's because "mexicans will do the work white men aren't willing to do blah blah blah" because I know plenty of white workers, including landscapers.

When was the last time you saw any Mexican hire a white man or non Latin person to.....do their plumbing...mow their yard etc? NEVER.

Who're the racist ones here?
Reply
Share

Eric UK
Eric UK

October 17th, 2006, 8:21 am #6

Where exactly are you from then, GA? Canada? Europe? The most obvious answer to your question about why do people employ Mexicans etc, is because they work for less than others.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

October 18th, 2006, 1:42 am #7

I heard a lot of discussion about this on radio and TV back last April when they were having those big "immigrant rights" marches. Here's a few quotes I found from that time via a quick Google search:

from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n16228894

"Last week's column regarding Mexican immigration and the idea, as expressed by former U.S. diplomat David Timmins, that many Mexicans are taught that the Western United States was stolen from them in the war of 1846-47 prompted a flood of e-mails no fence could keep out."

from: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030012

"the Nazi style group is crying out for the death of all who are not of Hispanic decent, and the reconquest of American land. People from the earliest age and up are taught that America stold "their" land, and they are taught hatred for Americans and everything American: this is why they refuse to learn English!"

from: http://buchanan.org/blog/?feed=rss2&p=97

"Here's what I don't like. I didn't like a lot of these signs: "this is stolen land, America." "This is our continent, not yours." If you disagree with the idea of amnesty, you're a racist or anti-immigrant. People holding the Mexican flag up. It seemed to be, in many, many ways, outrages, some of the things that were said and done. Do you agree with that? "
If the rationale for Mexicans invading and taking over the southwest U.S. is that "the land was originally ours", then I guess all of us . . white, black, Hispanic, Asian . . . better get the hell off the North American continent, cause none of us was the "original American". In fact, wouldn't very few people that currently occupy land masses anywhere in the world be considered the original occupants of those lands? Over the millenia, haven't there been so many wars and occupations, migrations, by and between various peoples that most land areas were taken . . stolen . . won . . given up or conquered by one group over the group that had previously resided there?

Another question I have is: What becomes of the land that is currently "southwest U.S." if it is taken over by the Mexicans? Does that land remain prosperous . . . or does it decline to be what Mexico currently is? Not only what media say is occurring there but also what Mexican-born friends have told me is common there: the poverty, the crime, the illiteracy, the teen pregnancy, child living and begging on the streets -- all things that occur in U.S., true, but to a degree in Mexico that makes the U.S. appear pristine by comparison. Will the addition of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada or whatever areas of land that might eventually become reunited with the country of Mexico . . or become their own Hispanic country . . . will that make Mexico or those "liberating" Hispanics more properous, more like what the U.S. has been? Or, will those lands regress into something akin to the troubled land that Mexico is described as today?

No, its not that I want to assume the country will nose dive without "whitey" in control. Its just that I look at the leading, most prosperous countries in the world . . . and I look at the most impoverished, troubled areas of the world . . . and which is which? Which groups are in control and how are things going there? Does the U.S. relinguish thousands of square miles of its land . . . for it to become part of a larger Mexican mess? What about all the illegals spread throughout the rest of the United States? Do they leave to go to their new homeland, or do we have to give them the rest of our land as well?

Personally, I think we should either fight the bastards tooth-and-nail to preserve the United States as it is . . . . or give the southwest U.S. up as part of a larger division of the U.S. into smaller countries (as I suggested elsewhere) . . the other regions being allowed to expell any illegal resident.


Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 18th, 2006, 2:26 am #8

Well I certainly don't advocate giving away any of the US. But it must be frustrating to Mexicans to see our prosperity when their own country right next door is so poor. And its inexcusable that Mexico has never been prosperous the way the US has.

However, I think this is changing because US companies are building factories in Mexico and pumping a lot of money there. The bad thing is that this is taking from our own prosperity since those could have been American factories employing American workers. So while Mexico will be getting more prosperous, the US is becoming less prosperous with jobs leaving the country and wages not keeping pace with inflation.
Reply
Like
Share

Marseil
Marseil

October 18th, 2006, 9:50 am #9

If the rationale for Mexicans invading and taking over the southwest U.S. is that "the land was originally ours", then I guess all of us . . white, black, Hispanic, Asian . . . better get the hell off the North American continent, cause none of us was the "original American". In fact, wouldn't very few people that currently occupy land masses anywhere in the world be considered the original occupants of those lands? Over the millenia, haven't there been so many wars and occupations, migrations, by and between various peoples that most land areas were taken . . stolen . . won . . given up or conquered by one group over the group that had previously resided there?

Another question I have is: What becomes of the land that is currently "southwest U.S." if it is taken over by the Mexicans? Does that land remain prosperous . . . or does it decline to be what Mexico currently is? Not only what media say is occurring there but also what Mexican-born friends have told me is common there: the poverty, the crime, the illiteracy, the teen pregnancy, child living and begging on the streets -- all things that occur in U.S., true, but to a degree in Mexico that makes the U.S. appear pristine by comparison. Will the addition of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada or whatever areas of land that might eventually become reunited with the country of Mexico . . or become their own Hispanic country . . . will that make Mexico or those "liberating" Hispanics more properous, more like what the U.S. has been? Or, will those lands regress into something akin to the troubled land that Mexico is described as today?

No, its not that I want to assume the country will nose dive without "whitey" in control. Its just that I look at the leading, most prosperous countries in the world . . . and I look at the most impoverished, troubled areas of the world . . . and which is which? Which groups are in control and how are things going there? Does the U.S. relinguish thousands of square miles of its land . . . for it to become part of a larger Mexican mess? What about all the illegals spread throughout the rest of the United States? Do they leave to go to their new homeland, or do we have to give them the rest of our land as well?

Personally, I think we should either fight the bastards tooth-and-nail to preserve the United States as it is . . . . or give the southwest U.S. up as part of a larger division of the U.S. into smaller countries (as I suggested elsewhere) . . the other regions being allowed to expell any illegal resident.

Bob wrote:
> No, its not that I want to assume the country will nose dive without "whitey" in control.
> Its just that I look at the leading, most prosperous countries in the world . . . and I
> look at the most impoverished, troubled areas of the world . . . and which is which? Which
> groups are in control and how are things going there?

Some of the richest countries in the world include Japan, China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei, Mexico, ...

Where is the whitey power excatly?

Marseil.
Reply
Share

Marseil
Marseil

October 18th, 2006, 9:52 am #10

Well I certainly don't advocate giving away any of the US. But it must be frustrating to Mexicans to see our prosperity when their own country right next door is so poor. And its inexcusable that Mexico has never been prosperous the way the US has.

However, I think this is changing because US companies are building factories in Mexico and pumping a lot of money there. The bad thing is that this is taking from our own prosperity since those could have been American factories employing American workers. So while Mexico will be getting more prosperous, the US is becoming less prosperous with jobs leaving the country and wages not keeping pace with inflation.
When a US company establishes its factory in Mexico, where do you think the profits go?

Marseil.
Reply
Share