Minutemen Causing Drop In Illegals Entering Arizona

[Brad'sDad]

Hey if these guys are vigilantes, they are doing a fine job.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/6/213303.shtml

Hear, hear! That's probably what's making liberals bang their heads against the wall!

 

[Dmckay]

It maybe causing a drop in the illegals coming across into Arizona, but the Mexican Government is publishing where it is safe for them to cross and not be reported by the Minutemen. As pourous as our borders are it's surprising that we haven't had more terrorist activity here. Close the borders now.

 

[Brad'sDad]

To take up for illegal aliens to rationalize a 5 cent apple and a clean toilet does not justify the problem. In fact, those taking up for those in that respect are in the same way belittling illegals by saying, "Yeah, come on over so I can get me some cheap apples and my toilets cleaned. I'm real thankful for you! Otherwise, if I followed the law I'd be paying someone what the job was really worth...Thanks, again for that special discount since you really don't belong here! (It's just between you and me)"


(?)

That whole thing about reduced produce costs is just a fallacy. There are no 5 cent apples, even in agricultural states, unless you're buying from a farmer's market or directly from the growers. We visited the midwest this summer, and we were all amazed that supermarket produce prices were cheaper there than in California for the same fruits and vegetables we grow right here. That's because of all the importing we do from Latin America and even other states keeps the prices competitive.

 

[Milla]

Milla, your continued taunts and flames on this thread are unwarranted, and likely will result in the inevitable closure of this thread. I also hold you equally culpable for consistently misrepresenting my views.

Whoa, it's like a courtroom drama! Alas, if only there were an Atticus Finch here to reveal my withered arm! ("To flame with such intensity would require the use of both typing hands, would it not?")

For the second time, I remind you: we have moderators to handle this sort of thing. If you believe you have been flamed, you're to report the post, and not respond, and certainly not escalate the situation by throwing about words such as "buffoonery". And if you have a personal issue with me, feel free to take it to PM.

I also request you edit your post #82 wherein you accused me of being "morally bankrupt."

Oh, I certainly did not call you morally bankrupt. I made an inference* based on your post, wherein you said:

However, in stark contrast, political correctness was not an issue back then, as it is now. So no one really cared that much about what was said, or what names they were called. The real problem then was that these groups weren't being assimilated quickly enough due to their large numbers, not that the bulk of them were sneaking into the country illegally, which is clearly the case at present.

Most importantly, the second wave of immigration in the early 1900s resulted in the floodgates being closed for over 50 years to Italian and Irish immigrants. They were not permitted entry into the U.S. until 1965, because many felt they were coming here in extraordinary numbers. Further, strict immigration quotas were put into force and effect until the great wave could be assimilated.

However, none of these European groups ever alleged discrimination or racism, which is now very much en vogue.

and replied:

Wait...am I understanding you correctly? The discrimination back then wasn't a problem, because people weren't complaining about it? Whereas now it's only a problem because people are making a fuss? So, what, if all the bleeding hearts shut up and let people be exploited in silence, immigration would go fine? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you, because that's both historically inaccurate...and morally bankrupt.

Nowhere did I say that you were morally bankrupt; I said that someone holding the views I had inferred would be holding morally bankrupt views. And I appeal to you to correct my misunderstanding, if it be that I misunderstood!

Now, I would love to hear how my interpretation is wrong, because if it be columny, I would be postively overjoyed to retract my inference of the point you were trying to make. Please, Paula, DO explain why I am wrong, instead of simply repeating that I am wrong.

*inference being one of the English language skills required by the "Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills". The great state apparently considers inference an "essential" part of reading, and who am I to disagree?

 

[AuburnMeg]

Closed for staff review.