Right-Wing Anti-Immigration Movement Spurs Hate: "Hate Group Count Reaches 844 in 2006"

[Rudy Canoza]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> "f. barnes" <fredlb@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:1184962572.061607.186300@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 20, 2:25 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:sR6oi.8783$rR.6379@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > the liar timmmmmmie crawley lied:
>>> >> On Jul 17, 11:20 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >>> "TimothyCrowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>>news:1184614152.563915.179000@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >>>> On Jul 16, 10:07 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>> How about ending illegal immigration and taking away the issue
>>> they
>>> >>>>> are
>>> >>>>> rallying around.-
>>> >>>> We had a bill that would have made great strives in doing so.
>>> The >>>> anti-
>>> >>>> immigration kkkult proved they don't care whether it's legal or
>>> >>>> illegal, most of 'em are just filled with hate and fear.
>>> >>> The immigration bill?? It wouldn't have done anything except
>>> create a
>>> >>> huge
>>> >>> amnesty incentive
>>>
>>> >> Actually, there was NO amnesty provision in that bill.
>>>
>>> > It was an amnesty bill. It removed all criminal penalties for the
>>> > crime
>>> > the illegal immigrants committed when they came here. That is
>>> amnesty.
>>>
>>> So what? We have somewhere around 20 million illegals in this
>>> country. You
>>> cannot come up with a scheme to get rid of them all, so live with the
>>> fact
>>> that they will be here as long as they want to be here, and they are not
>>> caught.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Anti-illegal groups are growing and growing. And so long as those
>> illegals are here, and keep coming, more and more people will join
>> those groups, or start their own. Eventually a critical mass will be
>> reached. Guess what happens then?
>>
> What happens then?

Use your imagination, jerry. Oh, wait...you haven't any.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

timmmmmmmie crawley wrote a meaningless load of ****:

[snip timmmmmmmmie's meaningless ****]

Try this instead, timmmmmmmmie:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large
majority of Americans want to change the immigration
laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status
and to create a new guest worker program to meet future
labor demand, the poll found.

At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about
whether the recent wave of immigration has been
beneficial to the country, the survey found, and they
are sharply divided over how open the United States
should be to future immigrants.

Half of all Americans say they are ready to transform
the process for selecting new immigrants as proposed in
the bill, giving priority to job skills and education
levels over family ties to the United States, which
have been the foundation of the immigration system for
four decades.

[...]

Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who
have a good employment history and no criminal record
should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by
paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving
a renewable four-year visa.

[...]

Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants
should eventually be allowed to apply to become
American citizens. But 59 percent said that former
illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship
only after legal immigrants who have played by the rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/u...tml?ex=1185076800&en=5cc5fe3620f64eb1&ei=5070


So, it is, of course, not as clear cut as the liar
timmmmmmmmmie crawley wants to pretend. The key
element in the Times's story is that Americans DO NOT
want family reunification to be the goal of immigration
laws, which means that unskilled Juan who manages to
gain citizenship (because of amnesty) can now easily
bring in Pedro and Lupe. Instead, Americans want the
value of potential immigrants TO AMERICA to be the
primary consideration.

In addition, while a majority of Americans want to be
fair and generous with those illegal immigrants already
here, they do NOT intend for the amnesty to cause the
flood to continue. Generosity toward those already
here; SLAM THE DOOR on those who might attempt to enter
illegally in future.

You are wrong, timmmmmmmmmie - Americans DO NOT WANT
illegal immigration to continue as it has been.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

timmmmmmmie crawley wrote a meaningless load of ****:

[snip timmmmmmmmie's meaningless ****]

Try this instead, timmmmmmmmie:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large
majority of Americans want to change the immigration
laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status
and to create a new guest worker program to meet future
labor demand, the poll found.

At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about
whether the recent wave of immigration has been
beneficial to the country, the survey found, and they
are sharply divided over how open the United States
should be to future immigrants.

Half of all Americans say they are ready to transform
the process for selecting new immigrants as proposed in
the bill, giving priority to job skills and education
levels over family ties to the United States, which
have been the foundation of the immigration system for
four decades.

[...]

Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who
have a good employment history and no criminal record
should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by
paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving
a renewable four-year visa.

[...]

Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants
should eventually be allowed to apply to become
American citizens. But 59 percent said that former
illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship
only after legal immigrants who have played by the rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/u...tml?ex=1185076800&en=5cc5fe3620f64eb1&ei=5070


So, it is, of course, not as clear cut as the liar
timmmmmmmmmie crawley wants to pretend. The key
element in the Times's story is that Americans DO NOT
want family reunification to be the goal of immigration
laws, which means that unskilled Juan who manages to
gain citizenship (because of amnesty) can now easily
bring in Pedro and Lupe. Instead, Americans want the
value of potential immigrants TO AMERICA to be the
primary consideration.

In addition, while a majority of Americans want to be
fair and generous with those illegal immigrants already
here, they do NOT intend for the amnesty to cause the
flood to continue. Generosity toward those already
here; SLAM THE DOOR on those who might attempt to enter
illegally in future.

You are wrong, timmmmmmmmmie - Americans DO NOT WANT
illegal immigration to continue as it has been.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

timmmmmmmie crawley wrote a meaningless load of ****:

[snip timmmmmmmmie's meaningless ****]

Try this instead, timmmmmmmmie:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large
majority of Americans want to change the immigration
laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status
and to create a new guest worker program to meet future
labor demand, the poll found.

At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about
whether the recent wave of immigration has been
beneficial to the country, the survey found, and they
are sharply divided over how open the United States
should be to future immigrants.

Half of all Americans say they are ready to transform
the process for selecting new immigrants as proposed in
the bill, giving priority to job skills and education
levels over family ties to the United States, which
have been the foundation of the immigration system for
four decades.

[...]

Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who
have a good employment history and no criminal record
should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by
paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving
a renewable four-year visa.

[...]

Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants
should eventually be allowed to apply to become
American citizens. But 59 percent said that former
illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship
only after legal immigrants who have played by the rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/u...tml?ex=1185076800&en=5cc5fe3620f64eb1&ei=5070


So, it is, of course, not as clear cut as the liar
timmmmmmmmmie crawley wants to pretend. The key
element in the Times's story is that Americans DO NOT
want family reunification to be the goal of immigration
laws, which means that unskilled Juan who manages to
gain citizenship (because of amnesty) can now easily
bring in Pedro and Lupe. Instead, Americans want the
value of potential immigrants TO AMERICA to be the
primary consideration.

In addition, while a majority of Americans want to be
fair and generous with those illegal immigrants already
here, they do NOT intend for the amnesty to cause the
flood to continue. Generosity toward those already
here; SLAM THE DOOR on those who might attempt to enter
illegally in future.

You are wrong, timmmmmmmmmie - Americans DO NOT WANT
illegal immigration to continue as it has been.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

timmmmmmmie crawley wrote a meaningless load of ****:

[snip timmmmmmmmie's meaningless ****]

Try this instead, timmmmmmmmie:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large
majority of Americans want to change the immigration
laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status
and to create a new guest worker program to meet future
labor demand, the poll found.

At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about
whether the recent wave of immigration has been
beneficial to the country, the survey found, and they
are sharply divided over how open the United States
should be to future immigrants.

Half of all Americans say they are ready to transform
the process for selecting new immigrants as proposed in
the bill, giving priority to job skills and education
levels over family ties to the United States, which
have been the foundation of the immigration system for
four decades.

[...]

Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who
have a good employment history and no criminal record
should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by
paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving
a renewable four-year visa.

[...]

Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants
should eventually be allowed to apply to become
American citizens. But 59 percent said that former
illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship
only after legal immigrants who have played by the rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/u...tml?ex=1185076800&en=5cc5fe3620f64eb1&ei=5070


So, it is, of course, not as clear cut as the liar
timmmmmmmmmie crawley wants to pretend. The key
element in the Times's story is that Americans DO NOT
want family reunification to be the goal of immigration
laws, which means that unskilled Juan who manages to
gain citizenship (because of amnesty) can now easily
bring in Pedro and Lupe. Instead, Americans want the
value of potential immigrants TO AMERICA to be the
primary consideration.

In addition, while a majority of Americans want to be
fair and generous with those illegal immigrants already
here, they do NOT intend for the amnesty to cause the
flood to continue. Generosity toward those already
here; SLAM THE DOOR on those who might attempt to enter
illegally in future.

You are wrong, timmmmmmmmmie - Americans DO NOT WANT
illegal immigration to continue as it has been.

 

[f. barnes]

On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tancredo down to less then 1% from a high of 1%. hahahahahahahaha.
>
> Republicans
> July 14, 2007
> May 20, 2007
>
> F. Thompson
> 22% July 14, 2007
> 10% May 20, 2007
> 7%
>
> Giuliani
> 21% July 14, 2007
> 26% May 20, 2007
> 29% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> Romney
> 11% July 14, 2007 10%
> 9% May 20, 2007
>
> McCain
> 9% July 14, 2007
> 13% May 20, 2007
> 20% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> Huckabee
> 5% July 14, 2007
> 4% May 20, 2007
> 7% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> Brownback
> 2% July 14, 2007
> 3% May 20, 2007
> 4% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> Hunter
> 1% July 14, 2007
> 1% May 20, 2007
> 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> Tancredo
> Less than 1% July 14, 2007
> 1% May 20, 2007
> 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336

This is a poll of those likely to vote in the Republican primary, 32%
of registered voters. It completely ignores the 33% of registered
voters who are independent. It could not be more useless for
ascertaining what the majority of voters really think or who they will
vote for in '08.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

f. barnes wrote:
> On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tancredo down to less then 1% from a high of 1%. hahahahahahahaha.
>>
>> Republicans
>> July 14, 2007
>> May 20, 2007
>>
>> F. Thompson
>> 22% July 14, 2007
>> 10% May 20, 2007
>> 7%
>>
>> Giuliani
>> 21% July 14, 2007
>> 26% May 20, 2007
>> 29% Feb. 26, 2007
>>
>> Romney
>> 11% July 14, 2007 10%
>> 9% May 20, 2007
>>
>> McCain
>> 9% July 14, 2007
>> 13% May 20, 2007
>> 20% Feb. 26, 2007
>>
>> Huckabee
>> 5% July 14, 2007
>> 4% May 20, 2007
>> 7% Feb. 26, 2007
>>
>> Brownback
>> 2% July 14, 2007
>> 3% May 20, 2007
>> 4% Feb. 26, 2007
>>
>> Hunter
>> 1% July 14, 2007
>> 1% May 20, 2007
>> 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>>
>> Tancredo
>> Less than 1% July 14, 2007
>> 1% May 20, 2007
>> 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>>
>> http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336
>
> This is a poll of those likely to vote in the Republican primary, 32%
> of registered voters. It completely ignores the 33% of registered
> voters who are independent. It could not be more useless for
> ascertaining what the majority of voters really think or who they will
> vote for in '08.

Exactly. timmmmmmmmmie is a classic case of someone
deliberately misstating numbers to try to "prove" an
invalid point.

 

[skm1942@msn.com]

On Jul 15, 10:33 pm, "ClassWarz"
<NoObedienceSki...@WorkingClassHero.Progressivism> wrote:
> Right-Wing Anti-Immigration Movement Spurs Hate: "Hate Group Count Reaches 844
> in 2006"
>
> http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=762
>
> quote
>
> The Year in Hate
>
> Hate Group Count Reaches 844 in 2006
>
> Energized by the rancorous national debate on immigration and increasingly
> successful at penetrating mainstream political discourse, the number of hate
> groups in America continued to grow in 2006, rising 5% over the year before to
> 844 groups.
>
> That increase translated into a 40% jump in the number of groups since 2000,
> when there were 602 hate groups operating in America, according to research by
> the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Much of
> the expansion has been driven by hate groups' exploitation of the issue of
> illegal immigration, which most Americans see as a pressing concern.
>
> Last year's hate group growth came despite continuing disarray on the neo-Nazi
> scene, with various relatively weak groups vying for dominance; a series of
> embarrassments including the arrests of two key leaders; the deaths of many
> stalwarts of the white supremacist old guard; signs of a splintering skinhead
> alliance; and the absence of any single major group working to unify the
> others.
>
> At the same time that hate groups continued to proliferate, the United States
> has seen the breathtakingly rapid rise of a right-wing anti-immigration
> movement made up of groups that are xenophobic but mostly stop short of the
> open racial hatred espoused by hate groups. In just the last two years, some
> 250 new nativist organizations have sprung up, some of them armed and engaged
> vigilante round-ups of undocumented Latino immigrants. More and more of them
> have taken up the tactics of personal, in-your-face intimidation.
>
> Most of these anti-immigration groups routinely denigrate undocumented Latinos
> and also popularize conspiracy theories, such as an alleged Mexican plot to
> annex the American Southwest, that originate in hate groups. As a result, it
> is no longer uncommon for these ideas and theories to make their way to radio,
> television or other mainstream venues. Even U.S. congressmen now bandy about
> unsubstantiated accusations of immigrant criminality, helping to whip up an
> atmosphere in which immigrants are seen as personally threatening.
>
> "This kind of really vile propaganda begins in hate groups, makes its way out
> into the larger anti-immigration movement, and, before you know it, winds up
> in places like 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' on CNN," said Mark Potok, director of the
> SPLC's Intelligence Project. "This country needs a robust debate on
> immigration, but it does not need a debate based on racist allegations and
> bogus conspiracy theories."
>
> Although the anti-immigration movement has endured several recent splits, it
> appears to be growing more radical overall, particularly since its supporters
> on the right wing of the Republican Party have grown increasingly isolated and
> weak as the GOP suffers from election losses and an unpopular war. That
> radicalization was reflected in a recent comment from Chris Simcox, a
> co-founder of the Minuteman Project who had been a relatively moderate voice
> in the nativist movement.
>
> "Be prepared and stock up on survival supplies, you may well need them,"
> Simcox warned movement colleagues in an E-mail early this year, as immigration
> legislation that could bring a guest worker program advanced. "I'm not
> advocating it, nor am I claiming I will participate, however, the fact
> remains, hundreds of thousands of Americans will consider this the final
> straw, violent civil disobedience will break out all over the country if this
> legislation gets passed."
>
> Here's a more detailed look at several sectors of the radical right:
>
> NEO-NAZIS
>
> The Minnesota-based National Socialist Movement (NSM), with 81 chapters in 36
> states, remained the largest group on the neo-Nazi scene last year and was
> highly active for the first half of that period. But in July, scandal hit the
> group in the form of reports that Chairman Cliff Herrington's wife was a
> practicing Satanist. Before it was over, both Herringtons had left the group,
> as had its energetic spokesman, Bill White of Roanoke, Va. White took several
> NSM members and officials with him to form the American National Socialist
> Workers Party. Although that group has begun to publish a magazine, thus far
> it has done little else.
>
> NSM has been pushing immigration heavily, and planned to follow a rally held
> in Texas last fall with a "Rock Against Illegal Immigration" concert and "mass
> rally" scheduled for Laurens, S.C., this April. NSM leader Jeff Schoep has led
> several such rallies, attacking Latino immigrants for "stealing jobs" and
> more. The neo-Nazi National Vanguard, formed in 2005 as a split-off from the
> once-dominant National Alliance, had 14 chapters last year. But it was not a
> very active group, and last July its leader, Kevin Strom, took a leave of
> absence without any real explanation. That mystery was apparently resolved in
> January, when Strom was arrested on charges of possession of child pornography
> and witness tampering. It soon came to light that a prominent National
> Vanguard organizer outside Boston, Matthew Downing, also had been arrested,
> for statutory rape, just two weeks earlier.
>
> Like the NSM, National Vanguard has concentrated heavily on the issue of
> immigration. On its website this spring, the group claimed that "the upsurge
> of anti-Third World immigration sentiment . is pushing a small but increasing
> number of ordinary White people into considering serious White nationalist
> alternatives like National Vanguard."
>
> The National Alliance continued its long decline into irrelevance. Although it
> still claimed 12 chapters last year, it was hardly visible on the white
> supremacist scene - "essentially dead," in the words of long-time
> Alliance-basher Bill White. The nadir came in June, when Alliance Chairman
> Shaun Walker was arrested in Utah and charged with federal civil rights
> violations in two attacks on non-white bar patrons in 2002 and 2003. Another
> Alliance member was also arrested. Former chair Erich Gliebe, demoted in 2005,
> was returned to the Alliance's top post.
>
> Aryan Nations, still recovering from a devastating lawsuit brought by the
> Southern Poverty Law Center in 2000, grew by six chapters to 20, partly by
> reaching out to racist skinheads and, especially, Klan members. In October, it
> managed to draw some 150 people to its 25th Aryan Nations World Congress in
> Laurens, S.C. But by this February, a split developed over how much to
> emphasize racist Christian Identity theology, and a splinter group, United
> Church of Yhwh, broke away.
>
> KU KLUX KLAN
>
> The Klan, composed of 34 named groups with a total 164 chapters, was down by
> 15 chapters last year. But that dip came after years of growth, from 110
> chapters in 2000 to 179 in 2005. Still, that steep five-year rise, some 63%,
> probably came more in the number of chapters than in actual Klansmen. There
> are likely between 6,000 and 8,000 Klansmen in all 34 Klan groups combined.
>
> The Kentucky-based Imperial Klans of America (IKA), the largest Klan group in
> 2005, dropped by almost half to 23 chapters last year. It fell behind the
> Illinois-based Brotherhood of Klans (BOK), which had 30 chapters in 2006.
> Imperial Wizard Dale Fox died in November, but was quickly replaced by Jeremy
> Parker.
>
> Both Klan groups, like most others, have concentrated heavily on immigration.
> A recent IKA pamphlet said that the huge pro-immigrant marches held last year
> showed that American cities are "terrorized by hateful, racist illegal aliens
> marching under a foreign flag." Not to be outdone, the BOK website, under the
> headline "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!" announced this winter that it was time for
> white Americans "to declare war on these illegal Mexicans."
>
> Last fall, two IKA members were indicted for allegedly beating a teenage boy
> they believed was Latino at a county fair. This February, immediately after
> Jarred Hensley and Andrew Watkins were sentenced to three years in prison
> because of the assault, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a civil lawsuit
> against them.
>
> RACIST SKINHEADS
>
> During the first half of 2006, the Vinlanders Social Club, a Midwestern
> coalition of racist skinhead crews, made a remarkable bid for power on the
> larger skinhead scene, challenging the Hammerskin Nation that had once been
> the unquestioned dominant force in that world. The Vinlanders, a group that
> includes crews from Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere, were admired for their
> cohesiveness and defiance toward the Hammerskins, who are widely seen by other
> racist skinheads as elitist and overbearing.
>
> But as the year wore on, there were rumblings of internal divisions. Still, it
> came as a surprise when, as 2007 began, the group announced that it planned
> "to separate [itself] from the racist movement," which it characterized as
> rife with "paid informants, social outcasts, and general losers in life." It's
> not clear what that meant, however, as the Vinlanders also said they would
> keep operating their Council of 28, an umbrella leadership group that also
> includes Klansmen and neo-Nazis.
>
> In California, meanwhile, David Lynch, who in the mid-1980s established a
> skinhead group called American Front, brought that group back to life in late
> 2005 and 2006. He has also reconnected with Richie Myers, a violent Florida
> skinhead who served a prison term for nearly drowning a fellow skinhead who
> was secretly Jewish. Lynch also runs the Sacto Skins, based in Sacramento,
> Calif., and has ties to international groups.
>
> NEO-CONFEDERATES
>
> The principal neo-Confederate organization, the League of the South, grew
> slightly to 103 chapters. But the group did not seem to be very active beyond
> Internet postings and the third, failed attempt to hold a Southern National
> Congress (apparently the group couldn't muster sufficient interest).
>
> At the same time, the league, ...
>
> read more

 

[Timothy Crowley]

On Jul 20, 2:50 pm, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tancredo down to less then 1% from a high of 1%. hahahahahahahaha.
>
> > Republicans
> > July 14, 2007
> > May 20, 2007
>
> > F. Thompson
> > 22% July 14, 2007
> > 10% May 20, 2007
> > 7%
>
> > Giuliani
> > 21% July 14, 2007
> > 26% May 20, 2007
> > 29% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > Romney
> > 11% July 14, 2007 10%
> > 9% May 20, 2007
>
> > McCain
> > 9% July 14, 2007
> > 13% May 20, 2007
> > 20% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > Huckabee
> > 5% July 14, 2007
> > 4% May 20, 2007
> > 7% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > Brownback
> > 2% July 14, 2007
> > 3% May 20, 2007
> > 4% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > Hunter
> > 1% July 14, 2007
> > 1% May 20, 2007
> > 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > Tancredo
> > Less than 1% July 14, 2007
> > 1% May 20, 2007
> > 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> >http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336
>
> This is a poll of those likely to vote in the Republican primary, 32%
> of registered voters. It completely ignores the 33% of registered
> voters who are independent. It could not be more useless for
> ascertaining what the majority of voters really think or who they will
> vote for in '08.-

I'm so sorry. You don't understand how our elections work. See
Tancredo is running as a Republican. The Republican Party is going to
hold caucus and primarys to choose it's candidate - in order for
Tancredo to have any chance of getting the nomination, he needs to win
a bunch of those elections. Soooo, with him getting less than 1% of
the Republican support, he has ZERO chance of being the Republcan
nominee and no chance of being President of the USA. Maybe it would
help if you took a civics class.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

Timothy Crowley wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:50 pm, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tancredo down to less then 1% from a high of 1%. hahahahahahahaha.
>>> Republicans
>>> July 14, 2007
>>> May 20, 2007
>>> F. Thompson
>>> 22% July 14, 2007
>>> 10% May 20, 2007
>>> 7%
>>> Giuliani
>>> 21% July 14, 2007
>>> 26% May 20, 2007
>>> 29% Feb. 26, 2007
>>> Romney
>>> 11% July 14, 2007 10%
>>> 9% May 20, 2007
>>> McCain
>>> 9% July 14, 2007
>>> 13% May 20, 2007
>>> 20% Feb. 26, 2007
>>> Huckabee
>>> 5% July 14, 2007
>>> 4% May 20, 2007
>>> 7% Feb. 26, 2007
>>> Brownback
>>> 2% July 14, 2007
>>> 3% May 20, 2007
>>> 4% Feb. 26, 2007
>>> Hunter
>>> 1% July 14, 2007
>>> 1% May 20, 2007
>>> 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>>> Tancredo
>>> Less than 1% July 14, 2007
>>> 1% May 20, 2007
>>> 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>>> http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336
>> This is a poll of those likely to vote in the Republican primary, 32%
>> of registered voters. It completely ignores the 33% of registered
>> voters who are independent. It could not be more useless for
>> ascertaining what the majority of voters really think or who they will
>> vote for in '08.-
>
> I'm so sorry.

You're a completely sorry ass, timmmmmmmie.

 

[Herb Martin]

"Timothy Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184953704.529719.272450@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 20, 10:42 am, "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>> "Timothy Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1184942476.692622.114070@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 17, 11:20 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> "TimothyCrowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1184614152.563915.179000@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jul 16, 10:07 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > How about ending illegal immigration and taking away the issue
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > rallying around.-
>>
>> >> > We had a bill that would have made great strives in doing so. The
>> >> > anti-
>> >> > immigration kkkult proved they don't care whether it's legal or
>> >> > illegal, most of 'em are just filled with hate and fear.
>>
>> >> The immigration bill?? It wouldn't have done anything except create a
>> >> huge
>> >> amnesty incentive
>>
>> > Actually, there was NO amnesty provision in that bill. Why do you
>> > lie? Oh, nevermind, we know EXACTLY why you lie.
>>
>> When the law is changed so that that those who broke it get to keep
>> doing what they did to break the law that is certainly amnesty.
>
> That is not even English.

Your problems with understanding English are not mine.

>> And the claim that paying some (small) fine removes it from the
>> class of amnesty is wrong since LAW ABIDING PEOPLE (those
>> who never broke the law) are NOT allowed to just pay that same
>> fine and get the benefits of breaking that law that the illegal aliens
>> would get.
>
> You seem to have no idea what is in the bill or what the word amnesty
> means. May I suggest you start with a dictionary and then read the
> proposed bill?

Both, and since I have offered evidence and you have not that settles
your attempt to substitute propaganda for facts.

>> It of course was a HUGE amnesty bill.
>>
>
> No, it was not.

Stamping your little metaphorical foot means nothing.

This law allows people to continue doing what they were doing illegally
and to benefit from the fruits of the illegal behavior.

An example that would NOT constitute amnesty would be to allow
them to depart, and thus adjust their status in accords with the laws
they violated, rather than adjusting the law to accomodate the illegal
behavior.

>> Anyone who enters illegally should be forever banned from legal
>> entry and especially from citizenship even if allowed to stay.
>>
>
> That is insane. Do you think that because you sped once, you should
> never be able to drive again.

No, it is not insane and such characterizations prove you have no facts
or basis on which to support your opinions and propaganda.

My speeding should NOT give me the right to continue speeding even
though others who obeyed the law are not allowed this privilege.

The act of breaking the law should not be turned into justification for
changing the law to allow their behavior to be continued.

This is in fact the meaning of amnesty.

> Sorry, that's not the way we handle
> justice in the USA. Maybe Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking?

No, in Saudi Arabia they would just execute illegals or turn them out into
the deserts of neighboring countries.

We should make their leaving as easy and humane as possible, and we
should fine then arrest any employers who continue to give jobs to
illegal aliens.

We should also instutute some form of punishment that actually discourages
the illegal behavior -- imprisonment should however be reserved for only
the most egregious, perhaps repeat offenders.

Sanctions, such as permanent denial of the desired goal, e.g., residency
and citizenship, offer nothing that is cruel nor unusual and would serve to
give precedence to those who OBEY the law while discouraging those
who break it.

Anyone caught entering illegally, or overstaying a visa (more than some
trivial 7-10 day grace period, should have a permanent ban on both
re-entry and citizenship under all future programs.

Anyone cause committing a felony or serious misdeamor, adjudicated
as a threat to others, adjudicated as spouse or alcohol/drug abuser,
or adjudicated as a (criminal) gang member should also be deported
and banned from future entry permanently.

Practically ALL murderers come from the above categories of felons
and others who show irresponsible behavior -- these are also largely
the categories which are banned from the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

It makes sense that anyone not trustworth enough to be allowed firearms
is certainly not a good candidate for admision or citizenship.


>> Those who will not obey US entry laws have shown they are not
>> deserving of special treatment over those who are completing all
>> the legal requirements to enter the US legally.-
>
> There was no special treatment in the bill. NONE. Quit lying, it makes
> you look desperate.

Of course there was - for people who had broken the law already.

To say there was no special treatment would mean that NEW illegal
aliens could get the same deal.

This would just prove further that this was essentially, if not wholly,
an amnesty bill, and that all pretenses to immigration reform or future
control of the borders were mere window dressing.

Failing to setup deterrents, including physical, legal, security, and
effective just means that this problem will resurface just like it did
since the LAST TIME AMNESTY was granted.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

Herb Martin wrote:
> "Timothy Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1184953704.529719.272450@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 20, 10:42 am, "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>>> "Timothy Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1184942476.692622.114070@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 17, 11:20 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> "TimothyCrowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1184614152.563915.179000@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jul 16, 10:07 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> How about ending illegal immigration and taking away the issue
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> rallying around.-
>>>>>> We had a bill that would have made great strives in doing so. The
>>>>>> anti-
>>>>>> immigration kkkult proved they don't care whether it's legal or
>>>>>> illegal, most of 'em are just filled with hate and fear.
>>>>> The immigration bill?? It wouldn't have done anything except create a
>>>>> huge
>>>>> amnesty incentive
>>>> Actually, there was NO amnesty provision in that bill. Why do you
>>>> lie? Oh, nevermind, we know EXACTLY why you lie.
>>> When the law is changed so that that those who broke it get to keep
>>> doing what they did to break the law that is certainly amnesty.
>> That is not even English.
>
> Your problems with understanding English are not mine.
>
>>> And the claim that paying some (small) fine removes it from the
>>> class of amnesty is wrong since LAW ABIDING PEOPLE (those
>>> who never broke the law) are NOT allowed to just pay that same
>>> fine and get the benefits of breaking that law that the illegal aliens
>>> would get.
>> You seem to have no idea what is in the bill or what the word amnesty
>> means. May I suggest you start with a dictionary and then read the
>> proposed bill?
>
> Both, and since I have offered evidence and you have not that settles
> your attempt to substitute propaganda for facts.
>
>>> It of course was a HUGE amnesty bill.
>>>
>> No, it was not.
>
> Stamping your little metaphorical foot means nothing.
>
> This law allows people to continue doing what they were doing illegally
> and to benefit from the fruits of the illegal behavior.

The bill proposed an amnesty. This is not in serious
dispute by rational, credible people.


>
> An example that would NOT constitute amnesty would be to allow
> them to depart, and thus adjust their status in accords with the laws
> they violated, rather than adjusting the law to accomodate the illegal
> behavior.
>
>>> Anyone who enters illegally should be forever banned from legal
>>> entry and especially from citizenship even if allowed to stay.
>>>
>> That is insane. Do you think that because you sped once, you should
>> never be able to drive again.
>
> No, it is not insane and such characterizations prove you have no facts
> or basis on which to support your opinions and propaganda.
>
> My speeding should NOT give me the right to continue speeding even
> though others who obeyed the law are not allowed this privilege.
>
> The act of breaking the law should not be turned into justification for
> changing the law to allow their behavior to be continued.
>
> This is in fact the meaning of amnesty.
>
>> Sorry, that's not the way we handle
>> justice in the USA. Maybe Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking?
>
> No, in Saudi Arabia they would just execute illegals or turn them out into
> the deserts of neighboring countries.
>
> We should make their leaving as easy and humane as possible, and we
> should fine then arrest any employers who continue to give jobs to
> illegal aliens.
>
> We should also instutute some form of punishment that actually discourages
> the illegal behavior -- imprisonment should however be reserved for only
> the most egregious, perhaps repeat offenders.
>
> Sanctions, such as permanent denial of the desired goal, e.g., residency
> and citizenship, offer nothing that is cruel nor unusual and would serve to
> give precedence to those who OBEY the law while discouraging those
> who break it.
>
> Anyone caught entering illegally, or overstaying a visa (more than some
> trivial 7-10 day grace period, should have a permanent ban on both
> re-entry and citizenship under all future programs.
>
> Anyone cause committing a felony or serious misdeamor, adjudicated
> as a threat to others, adjudicated as spouse or alcohol/drug abuser,
> or adjudicated as a (criminal) gang member should also be deported
> and banned from future entry permanently.
>
> Practically ALL murderers come from the above categories of felons
> and others who show irresponsible behavior -- these are also largely
> the categories which are banned from the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
>
> It makes sense that anyone not trustworth enough to be allowed firearms
> is certainly not a good candidate for admision or citizenship.
>
>
>>> Those who will not obey US entry laws have shown they are not
>>> deserving of special treatment over those who are completing all
>>> the legal requirements to enter the US legally.-
>> There was no special treatment in the bill. NONE. Quit lying, it makes
>> you look desperate.
>
> Of course there was - for people who had broken the law already.
>
> To say there was no special treatment would mean that NEW illegal
> aliens could get the same deal.
>
> This would just prove further that this was essentially, if not wholly,
> an amnesty bill, and that all pretenses to immigration reform or future
> control of the borders were mere window dressing.
>
> Failing to setup deterrents, including physical, legal, security, and
> effective just means that this problem will resurface just like it did
> since the LAST TIME AMNESTY was granted.
>
>
>
>

 

[f. barnes]

On Jul 20, 6:09 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:50 pm, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tancredo down to less then 1% from a high of 1%. hahahahahahahaha.
>
> > > Republicans
> > > July 14, 2007
> > > May 20, 2007
>
> > > F. Thompson
> > > 22% July 14, 2007
> > > 10% May 20, 2007
> > > 7%
>
> > > Giuliani
> > > 21% July 14, 2007
> > > 26% May 20, 2007
> > > 29% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > Romney
> > > 11% July 14, 2007 10%
> > > 9% May 20, 2007
>
> > > McCain
> > > 9% July 14, 2007
> > > 13% May 20, 2007
> > > 20% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > Huckabee
> > > 5% July 14, 2007
> > > 4% May 20, 2007
> > > 7% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > Brownback
> > > 2% July 14, 2007
> > > 3% May 20, 2007
> > > 4% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > Hunter
> > > 1% July 14, 2007
> > > 1% May 20, 2007
> > > 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > Tancredo
> > > Less than 1% July 14, 2007
> > > 1% May 20, 2007
> > > 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > >http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336
>
> > This is a poll of those likely to vote in the Republican primary, 32%
> > of registered voters. It completely ignores the 33% of registered
> > voters who are independent. It could not be more useless for
> > ascertaining what the majority of voters really think or who they will
> > vote for in '08.-
>
> I'm so sorry. You don't understand how our elections work. See
> Tancredo is running as a Republican. The Republican Party is going to
> hold caucus and primarys to choose it's candidate - in order for
> Tancredo to have any chance of getting the nomination, he needs to win
> a bunch of those elections. Soooo, with him getting less than 1% of
> the Republican support, he has ZERO chance of being the Republcan
> nominee and no chance of being President of the USA. Maybe it would
> help if you took a civics class.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Write in.

 

[Timothy Crowley]

On Jul 20, 5:21 pm, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 6:09 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 2:50 pm, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, Timothy Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Tancredo down to less then 1% from a high of 1%. hahahahahahahaha.
>
> > > > Republicans
> > > > July 14, 2007
> > > > May 20, 2007
>
> > > > F. Thompson
> > > > 22% July 14, 2007
> > > > 10% May 20, 2007
> > > > 7%
>
> > > > Giuliani
> > > > 21% July 14, 2007
> > > > 26% May 20, 2007
> > > > 29% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > > Romney
> > > > 11% July 14, 2007 10%
> > > > 9% May 20, 2007
>
> > > > McCain
> > > > 9% July 14, 2007
> > > > 13% May 20, 2007
> > > > 20% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > > Huckabee
> > > > 5% July 14, 2007
> > > > 4% May 20, 2007
> > > > 7% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > > Brownback
> > > > 2% July 14, 2007
> > > > 3% May 20, 2007
> > > > 4% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > > Hunter
> > > > 1% July 14, 2007
> > > > 1% May 20, 2007
> > > > 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > > Tancredo
> > > > Less than 1% July 14, 2007
> > > > 1% May 20, 2007
> > > > 1% Feb. 26, 2007
>
> > > >http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1336
>
> > > This is a poll of those likely to vote in the Republican primary, 32%
> > > of registered voters. It completely ignores the 33% of registered
> > > voters who are independent. It could not be more useless for
> > > ascertaining what the majority of voters really think or who they will
> > > vote for in '08.-
>
> > I'm so sorry. You don't understand how our elections work. See
> > Tancredo is running as a Republican. The Republican Party is going to
> > hold caucus and primarys to choose it's candidate - in order for
> > Tancredo to have any chance of getting the nomination, he needs to win
> > a bunch of those elections. Soooo, with him getting less than 1% of
> > the Republican support, he has ZERO chance of being the Republcan
> > nominee and no chance of being President of the USA. Maybe it would
> > help if you took a civics class.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Write in.-

Buahahahahahahahaha. tha's funny. The fact is Barnes, that Tancredo
has no support. 1%. That represents the support your kkkult has. 1%.
The vast majority of Americans reject your sick hatred. Deal, you're
in a tiny minority.

You can even read the links the nutcase Rudy has been sending

"Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who have a good
employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as
the bill proposes: by
paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a renewable
four-year visa. "

TWO THIRDS.

Americans have always, in the end rejected hate and your KKKult is
always marginalized, you make a buncha noise, people see you for what
you are and you go back in hiding. Good luck in your future
endeavors.

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:a0aoi.9186$tj6.5471@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> news:2p8oi.9892$Od7.6774@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:sR6oi.8783$rR.6379@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>> the liar timmmmmmie crawley lied:
>>>>>> On Jul 17, 11:20 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "TimothyCrowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:1184614152.563915.179000@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 10:07 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How about ending illegal immigration and taking away the issue
>>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>>> rallying around.-
>>>>>>>> We had a bill that would have made great strives in doing so. The
>>>>>>>> anti-
>>>>>>>> immigration kkkult proved they don't care whether it's legal or
>>>>>>>> illegal, most of 'em are just filled with hate and fear.
>>>>>>> The immigration bill?? It wouldn't have done anything except create
>>>>>>> a huge
>>>>>>> amnesty incentive
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, there was NO amnesty provision in that bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was an amnesty bill. It removed all criminal penalties for the
>>>>> crime the illegal immigrants committed when they came here. That is
>>>>> amnesty.
>>>>
>>>> So what? We have somewhere around 20 million illegals in this country.
>>>> You cannot come up with a scheme to get rid of them all, so live with
>>>> the fact that they will be here as long as they want to be here, and
>>>> they are not caught.
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to be that way, but that's not my point. My point is to
>>> demonstrate that the failed immigration "reform" bill was, indeed, an
>>> amnesty bill.
>>
>> Big deal. It solves nothing.....
>
> Recognizing that it was an amnesty will have implications for future
> efforts. Americans do not want a blatant amnesty.

A phony argument. It does not matter whether it was "amnesty" or it was not
"amesty". the simple fact is there are some 20 million of them in this
country, with more coming every day. You either figure out a way to get rid
of them (a mission impossible task in itself), or you learn to live with the
fact that they are here, and the odds are they are here as long as they want
to be here.

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:i2aoi.9187$tj6.3177@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "f. barnes" <fredlb@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>> news:1184962572.061607.186300@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jul 20, 2:25 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:sR6oi.8783$rR.6379@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > the liar timmmmmmie crawley lied:
>>>> >> On Jul 17, 11:20 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> "TimothyCrowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> >>>news:1184614152.563915.179000@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> >>>> On Jul 16, 10:07 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> How about ending illegal immigration and taking away the issue
>>>> they
>>>> >>>>> are
>>>> >>>>> rallying around.-
>>>> >>>> We had a bill that would have made great strives in doing so.
>>>> The >>>> anti-
>>>> >>>> immigration kkkult proved they don't care whether it's legal or
>>>> >>>> illegal, most of 'em are just filled with hate and fear.
>>>> >>> The immigration bill?? It wouldn't have done anything except
>>>> create a
>>>> >>> huge
>>>> >>> amnesty incentive
>>>>
>>>> >> Actually, there was NO amnesty provision in that bill.
>>>>
>>>> > It was an amnesty bill. It removed all criminal penalties for the
>>>> > crime
>>>> > the illegal immigrants committed when they came here. That is
>>>> amnesty.
>>>>
>>>> So what? We have somewhere around 20 million illegals in this country.
>>>> You
>>>> cannot come up with a scheme to get rid of them all, so live with the
>>>> fact
>>>> that they will be here as long as they want to be here, and they are
>>>> not
>>>> caught.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> Anti-illegal groups are growing and growing. And so long as those
>>> illegals are here, and keep coming, more and more people will join
>>> those groups, or start their own. Eventually a critical mass will be
>>> reached. Guess what happens then?
>>>
>> What happens then?
>
> Use your imagination, jerry. Oh, wait...you haven't any.

Oh my!!! The response of last resort, hurl personal insults. The advantage
of that tactic, is it gives you a way not to have to answer the question.

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:O_9oi.9184$tj6.5294@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> timmmmmmmie crawley wrote a meaningless load of ****:
>
> [snip timmmmmmmmie's meaningless ****]
>
> Try this instead, timmmmmmmmie:
>
> Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans
> want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain
> legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor
> demand, the poll found.
>
> At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about whether the recent
> wave of immigration has been beneficial to the country, the survey found,
> and they are sharply divided over how open the United States should be to
> future immigrants.
>
> Half of all Americans say they are ready to transform the process for
> selecting new immigrants as proposed in the bill, giving priority to job
> skills and education levels over family ties to the United States, which
> have been the foundation of the immigration system for four decades.
>
> [...]
>
> Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who have a good
> employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the
> bill proposes: by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a
> renewable four-year visa.
>
> [...]
>
> Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants should eventually be
> allowed to apply to become American citizens. But 59 percent said that
> former illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship only after
> legal immigrants who have played by the rules.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/u...tml?ex=1185076800&en=5cc5fe3620f64eb1&ei=5070
>
>
> So, it is, of course, not as clear cut as the liar timmmmmmmmmie crawley
> wants to pretend. The key element in the Times's story is that Americans
> DO NOT want family reunification to be the goal of immigration laws, which
> means that unskilled Juan who manages to gain citizenship (because of
> amnesty) can now easily bring in Pedro and Lupe. Instead, Americans want
> the value of potential immigrants TO AMERICA to be the primary
> consideration.
>
> In addition, while a majority of Americans want to be fair and generous
> with those illegal immigrants already here, they do NOT intend for the
> amnesty to cause the flood to continue. Generosity toward those already
> here; SLAM THE DOOR on those who might attempt to enter illegally in
> future.
>
> You are wrong, timmmmmmmmmie - Americans DO NOT WANT illegal immigration
> to continue as it has been.

This is real simple to understand. People come to this country because they
think they have a shot at a better life in the United States vs. the country
of their birth. No society has been able to figure out a way to prevent
people from doing what they want to do.

 

[Herb Martin]

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46a1709b$0$12248$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:a0aoi.9186$tj6.5471@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2p8oi.9892$Od7.6774@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:sR6oi.8783$rR.6379@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>> the liar timmmmmmie crawley lied:
>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 11:20 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TimothyCrowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> news:1184614152.563915.179000@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 10:07 am, "Steve" <st...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> How about ending illegal immigration and taking away the issue
>>>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>>>> rallying around.-
>>>>>>>>> We had a bill that would have made great strives in doing so. The
>>>>>>>>> anti-
>>>>>>>>> immigration kkkult proved they don't care whether it's legal or
>>>>>>>>> illegal, most of 'em are just filled with hate and fear.
>>>>>>>> The immigration bill?? It wouldn't have done anything except create
>>>>>>>> a huge
>>>>>>>> amnesty incentive
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, there was NO amnesty provision in that bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was an amnesty bill. It removed all criminal penalties for the
>>>>>> crime the illegal immigrants committed when they came here. That is
>>>>>> amnesty.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? We have somewhere around 20 million illegals in this
>>>>> country. You cannot come up with a scheme to get rid of them all, so
>>>>> live with the fact that they will be here as long as they want to be
>>>>> here, and they are not caught.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to be that way, but that's not my point. My point is
>>>> to demonstrate that the failed immigration "reform" bill was, indeed,
>>>> an amnesty bill.
>>>
>>> Big deal. It solves nothing.....
>>
>> Recognizing that it was an amnesty will have implications for future
>> efforts. Americans do not want a blatant amnesty.
>
> A phony argument. It does not matter whether it was "amnesty" or it was
> not "amesty". the simple fact is there are some 20 million of them in
> this country, with more coming every day. You either figure out a way to
> get rid of them (a mission impossible task in itself), or you learn to
> live with the fact that they are here, and the odds are they are here as
> long as they want to be here.

It would be fairly straight forward to stop this and to arrange for them to
self-deport
in 90% of the cases.

Make it impossible for them to get a job or to get ANY services beyond
immediate (medical) emergencies services.

Provide transportation for those who cannot afford to leave.

 

[Herb Martin]

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46a17182$0$12190$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:O_9oi.9184$tj6.5294@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> timmmmmmmie crawley wrote a meaningless load of ****:
>>
>> [snip timmmmmmmmie's meaningless ****]
>>
>> Try this instead, timmmmmmmmie:
>>
>> Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of
>> Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants
>> to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet
>> future labor demand, the poll found.
>>
>> At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about whether the recent
>> wave of immigration has been beneficial to the country, the survey found,
>> and they are sharply divided over how open the United States should be to
>> future immigrants.
>>
>> Half of all Americans say they are ready to transform the process for
>> selecting new immigrants as proposed in the bill, giving priority to job
>> skills and education levels over family ties to the United States, which
>> have been the foundation of the immigration system for four decades.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who have a good
>> employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the
>> bill proposes: by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving
>> a renewable four-year visa.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants should eventually be
>> allowed to apply to become American citizens. But 59 percent said that
>> former illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship only after
>> legal immigrants who have played by the rules.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/u...tml?ex=1185076800&en=5cc5fe3620f64eb1&ei=5070
>>
>>
>> So, it is, of course, not as clear cut as the liar timmmmmmmmmie crawley
>> wants to pretend. The key element in the Times's story is that Americans
>> DO NOT want family reunification to be the goal of immigration laws,
>> which means that unskilled Juan who manages to gain citizenship (because
>> of amnesty) can now easily bring in Pedro and Lupe. Instead, Americans
>> want the value of potential immigrants TO AMERICA to be the primary
>> consideration.
>>
>> In addition, while a majority of Americans want to be fair and generous
>> with those illegal immigrants already here, they do NOT intend for the
>> amnesty to cause the flood to continue. Generosity toward those already
>> here; SLAM THE DOOR on those who might attempt to enter illegally in
>> future.
>>
>> You are wrong, timmmmmmmmmie - Americans DO NOT WANT illegal immigration
>> to continue as it has been.
>
> This is real simple to understand. People come to this country because
> they think they have a shot at a better life in the United States vs. the
> country of their birth. No society has been able to figure out a way to
> prevent people from doing what they want to do.

Make what "they want to do" more expensive than the benefit.

Remove the attraction (no jobs or services.)

Remove the automatic citizenship for children born of those not legally
in the US (i.e., not under the authority of the US.)

 

[lorad474@cs.com]

On Jul 17, 11:11 pm, "ClassWarz"
<NoObedienceSki...@WorkingClassHero.Progressivism> wrote:
> "Herb Martin" <n...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
>
> news:469c71bc$0$16529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> |
> | "ClassWarz" <NoObedienceSki...@WorkingClassHero.Progressivism> wrote in
> | messagenewsXXmi.91$BJ1.49@newsfe03.lga...
> | >
> |
> | > | Legal Immigrants -- YES
> | > |
> | > | Illegal Aliens -- NO
> | >
> | > They're all just Immigrants.
> |
> | Not if they are ILLEGAL ALIENS and DEPORTED they aren't.
> |
> | In that case they are just passing through.
> |
> | > The U.S. is blowing 15 billion a month in Iraq, yet I always hear
> | > anti-immigrant types screaming
> |
> | Legal Immigrants -- YES
> |
> | Illegal Aliens -- NO
> |
> |
> | If your first act on US soil is to break the law then you have proven
> | you should NEVER be allowed to stay.
>
> I don't see border-bigots acting so punctilious about the law when it comes to
> speeding, Bush's lying, or their own drunk driving...no, the border-bigots use
> that law complaint as cover for their underlying racism...I'm not fooled.
> ClassWarz

No need to be 'fooled', warz..
You're already there.