Change the laws, don’t break them.
Your belief that working hard and obeying the law is somehow a panacea for all that ails us is ridiculous in the extreme. And your strawman would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that you actually believe it.
You were born into the right circumstances that when combined with hard work brought you to where you were. But I can guarantee you that all the hard work in the world isn’t going to take you anywhere if you have to work in sweatshop in indonesia for 5 cents an hour.
Cut out the fucking hubris and stop your fucking strawman, you fucking fuck.
A check of CCAP
reveals that Mr. Porras (the illegal in question) may also have a crminal record. It looks like this guy may not be the wonderful, hard working illegal some of you folks dream about. Depending on which Angel Porras he is (there were a couple, all from Whitewater, which is where the article said he was from) maybe he should be deported just for being a shit head!
a) No-one made any comment about whether or not this particular individual was a good person. Nor has anyone in this thread suggested that illegal immigrants can do no wrong.
b) It is possible that he is none of the Angel Porrases on that website.
c) If being a shithead is grounds for deportation, i hope you have your bags packed.
Or he may not. So fucking what? How is that relevant to anything?
I don’t remember anyone saying anything about this guy in particular but having a “criminal record” (which can mean just about fucking anything from littering to murder) does not mean a person cannot be both wonderful and hard working. Beyond that the status of one individual proves exactly dick about any other workers or about any of the pro-immigrant points that have been raised in this thread.
So you actually have no idea if this guy has a criminal record. He just has the same name as somebody who may have a “criminal record.” Nice work, Columbo.
Naw…too easy.
Fair statement. However, my father, who was himself quite conservative, had an upbringing that was very comparable to growing up dirt poor in El Salvador: to wit, he grew up dirt poor in El Salvador. So forget MY circumstances; let’s take his. HE grew up dirt poor in El Salvador, and turned down at least one chance to come to the United States illegally. He preferred to secure his presence here legally, which, ultimately, he did. And he was a CONSERVATIVE. He supported Nixon, although he couldn’t vote until 1975, when he was naturalized. He proudly cast his first presidential vote for Gerald Ford. He never, to my knowledge, voted for a Democrat in his life.
Guin: in my father’s view, the problems in El Salvador were the fault of the leftists. Just so you know. And again, he held this view while HE WAS DIRT-POOR, himself, living in a corrugated tin shack with a dirt floor. He was literally dirt-poor.
So what’s your answer to THAT inexplicable conundrum? How could an actual Salvadoran, living in dirt poor Third World conditions, be conservative? How is such a thing even possible?
How was your observation possibly cogent if I have REFUTED it?!? Do you even know what ‘cogent’ means?
Except that, as I just pointed out, before my father came here, he WAS sitting down in El Salvador, waiting for a chance to develop to come here legally… so, yeah, I’m guessing that’s what he would have done. Since, you know, he did it.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. You’re right that people hiring illegals are given shut-eye connivance from the authorities more often than not.
The solution is to expand the possibilities available to workers to live and work here legally. If there is a true need for them - as is obvious - let’s reform the law to let them earn a living here legally.
Fine, but until then let’s not pass moral judgement on what they have to do to feed their families in the meanwhile.
I said he MAY have a criminal record. Seeing that he claimed to live in Whitewater (a rather small city) the odds that one of those is him seem high to me.
Being an illegal, and committing criminal acts seem like pretty good grounds for deportation.
mhendo, sorry, I failed to explain that “shithead” is slang around here for a street thug.
Of which I am not. So I’ll keep my bags unpacked, thank you.
Oh, wait a minute. We’re leaving for vacation on Monday. Guess I’ll keep them packed.
What’s your evidence that this guy is a street thug?
I’m not at all convinced it’s “obvious” there’s a need. Certainly, companies can save money by paying immigrants less then native Americans will accept, but I don’t think they “need” to do that, any more then they “need” to, say, pay less in taxes.
Perhaps. But it wasn’t the leftists who were passing out leaflets saying, “Be a Patriot! Kill a Priest!” It wasn’t the leftists who killed an Archbishop while he was right in the middle of saying the Eucharist.
Bishop Romero was killed in 1980, well after my dad left. I know he did not support the violence that the right wingers were using at that stage… but he did point out that the leftists were the first to arm guerilla squads and terrorize the countryside, following the exile of Duarte. And my dad was not a fan of Duarte at all; he worked a construction job for a company owned by Duarte’s family and had a very low opinion of Duarte’s ethics. My dad was here when Durate was part of the attempted coup against Molina, but he said at the time that he was not surprised.
Bricker, I am always amazed, and a little ashamed this time, that you are able to stay above the shit throwing. I apologize for mine.
As to your last post, I don’t think you’ve refuted anything, honestly. I have a lot of respect for your dad’s story. My dad is first-generation, and his parents worked like dogs, in a foundry and as tenant farmers at the same time, never learned the language so well, and so on, so I have at least some understanding of what an immigrant’s life is like.
But I wasn’t talking about your dad, I was talking about you. I’m sure that you know a very great deal more about El Salvador and its politics, conditions, etc., than I do. But I have to imagine, and of course I may be wrong, that things were different back in his day. For one, the wealth of America wasn’t flaunted in his face the way it is these days, with TV and all. When you can see it, I’m imagining and it’s been written about as well, it must be that much harder to look around you and accept things as they are.
But that is besides the point. I don’t think it is acceptable for you to point to your dad’s experience and claim it as your own. So your dad was a conservative while being poor. That’s fine. I wish to repeat that those days were different, and as well that nowhere did I state that people of color aren’t allowed to be conservative. I posited that you yourself would not be conservative, whatever that means in this context, if you were dirt poor in today’s El Salvador and watching your arable land dry up and blow away, and your fuel supply dwindle to nothing, so that you couldn’t feed yourself and your family. It was a supposition, and we will never know who’s wrong and who’s right.
Lastly, you seem to be stating that you are for opening up the borders and letting more folks in, for giving more people more opportunity to be here legally. I admire that position. But it’s difficult for me to accept your black and white view of illegal immigration, and to hear you speak of those that despise the people who come here illegally in search of a better life. Who are we to judge?
I brought up your conservativeness simply because of what I could remember of your stance on Walmart et al, and I wished to point out the double standard of benefiting from the labor of illegals, and denouncing and despising them at the same time. To me, that’s having your cake and eating it too. Walk the walk, is what I say. If the illegals bother you so much, try as hard as you can to not use those things that are cheaper because of their labor, and to fight for the kind of distinctly nonconservative legislation that would hit the bosses and fat cats in the wallet.
Again, I apologize for my nastiness and I admire your ability to stay civil.
The leftists were the first to start the violence? Who was responsible for La Matanza?
The right.
But the events constituting La Matanza were during the 1980s. The leftists had started guerilla violence after Duarte’s exile, in 1973.
As I mentioned above.
That was a bit too cryptic: The point I was trying to make was that the reason they hire illegal immigrants is because they can pay less money for them (NOT “pay them less money”–it’s not just a matter of lower wages, it’s a matter of not having to deal with taxes and other administrative expenses). Unless it can be shown that our economy will come to a screeching halt in the absence of immigrants, I don’t think that we need them.
Saying “Companies hire illegals, so they obviously need immigrants” doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s just not that simple: if you have a job opening, and you can either pay $10/hour for a native American or $3.75/hour for an immigrant who MUST have a job or risk going back to a third-world shithole and is willing to settle for a far lower standard of living then the native, you’re obviously gonna go with the immigrant. The net result is that you (“general you”–the employing entity), who are already well-off, become even more well-off and the employee lives in property. If the employer can’t choose the illegal, he’ll still be well off, and the employee can have a better standard of living.
Using corporate profit margins to decide immigration policies and neglecting to consider social justice is scary.
I’m pro-“open borders” but for humanitarian reasons–poverty in America beats the hell out of poverty in a lot of other countries.
Uh, no, actuall the event I’m referring to took place in 1932, where 30,000 were slaughtered by the government of Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez who claimed the victims were all communists. This was in response to a peasant uprising, true, but Hernandez Martinez was far from a socialist-he was, in fact, a fascist sympathizer who had ousted the “mildly socialistic” Arturo Araujo in December of 1931.
I’ve never heard of an event in 1932 being called “La Matanza.”
Cite?
If that was the situation, we’d ALL get tossed out, every last one of us.
Maybe it’s time to re-examine the laws and re-write them. Apparently, these laws are not doing whatever they were supposed to do. Why?
Some people come here to find work that they can’t get elsewhere. Some come here to escape a war. Some come to escape an oppressive regime or famine. And, some do come to pursue criminal “careers”, or thinking they can game the system.
A part of the crime problem in the Los Angeles area is, criminals can skip back and forth across the border at will. They know they can go south and disappear until the heat is off. Then they can come back and pick up where they left off.
How do you put the screws to them, without ruining the others, who only want to make a life? If I had the answers, I’d be in Washington instead of blathering here.
I’m all for making it easier for the good ones, and for making it miserable for the bad ones. But, how do you do it? It isn’t a numbers or quota problem.
Here ya go. It’s only a Wiki stub article but it does confirm the details you requested. Unfortunately 99% of the cites google turned up were in Spanish and the remaining 1% were somewhat off topic, so that’s the best I could do.