The military detains prisoners of war. We are not at war with Mexico. It is illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The purpose of the military is to defend the US against violent aggressors. Illegal immigrants do not qualify as hostile invaders.
What I am objecting to is O’Reilly’s red meat rhetoric. It is absurd to continually characterize illegal immigrants as “invaders” who need to be met with military force. That is not only inaccurate, it is blatant fear mongering. He’s making it sound like we are under attack, and that we need to attack back.
I don’t think the context of the “wetback” remark matters because, while I think you’re right that he meant to say “coyotes” and got mixed up, I think it betrayed, subconsciously, at least, a contemptuous attitude towards Mexicans. (that’s only MHO, no proof) This is bolstered by the fact that he seemed to feel no need to apologize for his mistake or clarify any distinction between “wetbacks” and Mexicans in general.
Plus you’re right about another thing, I just can’t stand the guy and I see him through shit-colored glasses. I have a visceral loathing for the man which makes me want to pit the smug prick about once every six or eight weeks. You’ve got me there, I admit it.
I stand corrected on the passport issue; thank you for pointing it out. But I think we are coming from different directions over whether the m.c. gives rights to illegal immigrants, and whether it is a substitute for an entry visa.
You give the “official” purpose of the m.c., as stated by the Mexican government. The actual use of this document is somewhat different. For instance, the m.c. is accepted as legal identification by many police departments. This prevents the deportation of illegal immigrants because without identification, the police are required to establish identity, which can lead to the discovery of illegal status. (Of course, since several major police departments such as those of San Francisco, LA, Houston, Chicago, and New York have an official policy of non-cooperation with the INS, maybe it doesn’t matter much anyway.) Also, the m.c. can be used when applying for welfare, enrolling in a public school, and getting state-paid health care, such that the agency providing the benefit need not verify legal residence by means which may reveal illegal immigration status.
When I say that the m.c. is a substitute for a U.S. entry visa, I mean that it may be used by illegals for the same purpose as identification that would have been legally obtained using an entry visa, as I described above. The fact that it is issued by Mexico, not the U.S., makes it all the greater a threat to immigration control and U.S. sovereignty.
Hey, this debate is getting way too civil for the Pit. Shit, felch, squick, balls, etc…
by Rick_Colunga…
**Mexican immigrants proudly do jobs that are below the average American drop-out and for alot less than “Joe Smith dumb-ass” will do it for. I find it hard to believe that America is so bored that is can get all fired up about unskilled jobs being taken away from Americans. As Americans, were given the opportunity to 12 years of free education as well as affordable college education so why are we concerned with ditch-digging jobs going to immigrants. If an Amrerican has to compete against an immigrant to wash dishes for a living, it’s your damn fault you smoked too much shit in school and threw away your chance for an education in the first place. **
You are an asshole. If you hold your fellow citizens in such contempt, maybe you should move to a country where the people all measure up to your standards, which apparently include economic and political passivity and a willingness to mow your lawn for $5.
The hell it is. How hard is it for you to understand that ‘wetback’ is a derogatory term specifically referring to illegal Mexican immigrants who illegally swim/wade/row across the border?
You people spend so much time crying over words. It’s pathetic.
OK, good point. However, I think that O’Reilly is also concerned about hostile terrorist-types slipping over the border too, so that may be how he is justifying the use of the military. And also, no matter how grumpy he is, I can’t believe for a second that he really wants the military (or anyone) to gun down the Mexican immigrants.
Once again, his tone changed considerably after 9/11. Before then, I think many of us thought that the immigration problem was bad (it is, in California and other border states) but hey—we weren’t losing a lot of sleep over it. But after 9/11, when we may inadvertanly let some terrorists in along with the Mexicans who merely want to work here and live a better life (and my heart goes out to them) that seems scary. Real scary. Things are completely different now.
Hmmmm…No, that comment alone isn’t enough. You may feel that way because you despise him already, but on its own, it isn’t enough. If he truly feels that way, other comments and attitudes he’s displayed will give that away. But this wasn’t one of them, IMO. He flubbed and got the wrong slang word. His comment was very specific. He was talking ONLY about those creeps who take advantage of the people who want to get across the border. Just them. But, since you hate him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, you made the most of it.
I saw the same comment you did, and since I have more apathetic feelings towards him, I gave myself a moment to try to figure out what had happened with the slip-up comment. This is not to say that I am absolutely clear-headed about him, just that I don’t see him through rose-colored glasses or shit-colored glasses.
Actually, it’s not that good of a point that it’s currently illegal to use the military for border patrol. All that it would take is a change in the law. Such a change would not be unconstitutional.
Wow! What a witty and insightful retort. Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. Your debating skills amaze and astound.
I happen to think that “wetback” is not simply a descriptive term for illegals; it seems clear to me that it has been used as a pejorative to make generalizations about all Hispanics, and therefore could be considered a nasty slur by many.
And quite frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously a thing Joe_Angry and AllLibsAreStupid&Naive Brutus have to say.
If others don’t believe it is the equivalent slur as “nigger”, perhaps “negro” is a better example. Not quite as strong, but still considered in this day and age to be a derogatory term (when used by those other than African-Americans).
Imagine if Bill had “slipped” with that word. Would that be enough to raise your ire and bring your condemnation?
Here’s another viewpoint. For non-Spanish speakers, the English verses will sum things up pretty good. From Molotov’s hit song Frijolero:
Frijolero
Yo ya estoy hasta la madre
de que me pongan sombrero
escucha entonces cuando digo
no me llames frijolero.
Y aunque exista algún respeto
y no metamos las narices
nunca inflamos la moneda
haciendo guerra a otros países
Te pagamos con petróleo
e intereses nuestra deuda
mientras tanto no sabemos
quien se queda con la feria.
Aunque nos hagan la fama
de que somos vendedores
de la droga que sembramos
ustedes son consumidores.
Don’t call me gringo,
You fuckin beaner
stay on your side
of that goddamn river
don’t call me gringo,
You beaner.
No me digas beaner,
Mr. Puñetero
Te sacaré un susto
por racista y culero.
No me llames frijolero,
Pinche gringo puñetero.
Now I wish I had a dime
for every single time
I’ve gotten stared down
For being in the wrong side of town.
And a rich man I’d be
if I had that kind of chips
lately I wanna smack the mouths
of these racists
Podrás imaginarte desde afuera,
ser un Mexicano cruzando la frontera,
pensando en tu familia mientras que pasas,
dejando todo lo que conoces atrás.
Si tuvieras tu que esquivar las balas
de unos cuantos gringos rancheros
Las seguirás diciendo good for nothing wetback?
si tuvieras tu que empezar de cero.
Now why don’t you look down
to where your feet is planted
That U.S. soil that makes you take shit for granted
If not for Santa Ana, just to let you know
That where your feet are planted would be Mexico
Correcto!
I happen to think “The” is not simply a definite article, but a derogatory term for people taller than 7’2". :rolleyes:
It doesn’t matter that you and a few others choose to be offended by a word. That does not affect its meaning. And “wetback”'s meaning is: a Mexican who covertly crossed a water border (Rio Grande) into this country in order to gain entrance illegally. You can compare it to any word you like when constructing your strawman, but that does not change its meaning one bit.
When used in its proper context, “wetback” is a legitimate descriptive term. It can be used offensively only in implying that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. In this case, “wetback” itself is not an insult. Rather, it is in implying that legal Mexican immigrants or Americans of Mexican ancestry are illegal immigrants that it can be an insult.
A better comparison would be a term like “whore,” which has a legitimiate usage - a woman who solicits and performs sex in exchange for money. “Whore” itself is not intrinsically insulting, as there are many people who are, in fact, whores. Calling a woman who does not have sex for money a whore is insulting by implication, not word choice.
Gosh, that was funny! Did you think it up yourself, or did you hire a writer?
only if you can demonstrate that a ‘woman who solicits and performs sex in exchange for money’ doesn’t consider the term ‘whore’ to be insulting.
I believe those in Nevada who do this legally are termed “sex workers” and prefer that term.
Let’s think about the whole ‘is this term insulting’ concept.
Do you object to being referred to as a “Fundie”?? have you in fact heard others object to it? (I have). Yet, the word “Fundie” is simply shortened version of “Fundemental Christian”. By your reasoning (since it’s a technically accurate term), some one shouldn’t feel offended by said term. Yet many do. (there’s been threads on these boards detailing that fact). how do you answer that?
(and no, not all people using the term ‘fundie’ mean it as an insult, that, too was made clear by former threads)
No mention of offensive nature. If Garbage Collectors don’t like being called Garbage Collectors, that doesn’t innately make it offensive. That describes what they do.
