In response to:

Reminder: How Mexico Treats "Undesirable" Foreigners

mschneiter Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 2:55 PM
Why should any sane country "strive" to allow their nation to be flooded with foreigners? It is national suicide.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:19 PM
It is impossible to argue with me when you don't present an argument but instead go off on a hissy fit of posting the same thing over and over and over and over.

I am providing substance. It might not be substance you agree with, but at least I am trying to have a debate instead of acting like a child.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:17 PM
If its a waste of time then why are you wasting your time talking to me?
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:16 PM
If its a waste of time then why are you wasting your time talking to me?
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:14 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:13 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:13 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:13 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:12 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense

NOW it wants to argue the meaning of "IS".Just anoother liberal waste of time on nonsense.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:11 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:11 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:11 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:11 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:10 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:10 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:10 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:10 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:10 PM
Yeah I'm a troll.

First someone ELSE says I don't know the definition between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants.

Then I specifically say the definition of what immigrant means to show the difference between the two.

Then someone asks why I am defining it as if the original person didn't ask if I knew the difference. Then they also ask for me to prove a factual definition.

I provide the DHS definition which confirms my definition.

Then I get called a troll. Give me a break.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:10 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense

PS: Not Crazy, just absolutely stupid and brain dead. You can't "argue with an idiotic leftist troll who is incapable of a coherent thought.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:08 PM

WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:08 PM
WARNING, WARNING, retarded Liberal TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:07 PM
WARNING, WARNING, TROLL SPEW of Nonsense
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:06 PM
Another load of liberal troll stupidity spewed from the brainless one. It has NOTHING to do with the 14th Amendment and anyone with even a single brain cell would know that. People like YOU with a head full of pig sty scrapings have not a clue and should be put where they can't hurt themselves.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 7:04 PM
Oh KNOCK OFF the liberal troll stupidity and BS.
We accept LEGAL immigrants that follow the rules and laws BUT ILLEGAL FELONS should be shipped back to their toilet countries.
Anominus Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 6:26 PM
I did read your post, as well as the one above that, where you made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants - you might have had a leg to stand on if you weren't trying to interject your baseless "definitions" into the debate. Your definitions do not match with any sort of standard or fact, just the opinions which you pull out of your butt.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 6:23 PM
Yes it is better because it is a more accurate description of them. What we call them may not seem like a big deal, and I wish we didn't have to get into a debate about semantics, but it has a bigger effect than I think most people realize.

Like I said before, we don't call them beaners because it dehumanizes them. I prefer to use a neutral term because anyone referring to them through neutrality will not start with a good or bad note.

By associating them as criminals it gives them the context of burglars and thieves, when they could very well be quite productive members of society. Can't argue that they aren't criminals by definition though.
nametabs Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 6:13 PM
How about occupying invaders?
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 6:06 PM
"I don't think liberal is name calling," "So yes, on this site I do believe it is name calling." "There is just as much republican presence in the media as there is liberal."

And there we have it. Exactly what one means by drinking the Kool-Aid.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 6:01 PM
I don't think liberal is name calling, I specifically said that it is used as an offensive term on this website. A wide majority of users on this website are conservative and therefore to be lumped into the liberal side is to be the hated opposition. So yes, on this site I do believe it is name calling.

I can understand the different definitions of the terms being used, but understand that this is the internet and tone can't be described through text so therefore those comments could be easily misconstrued as being hateful.

I also don't believe liberals equalmedia. Rupert Murdoch is republican and owns arguably the largest collection of networks on television. There is just as much republican presence in the media as there is liberal.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:54 PM
"I am not saying "illegal immigrants" are legal immigrants, I am saying that they simply aren't "illegal"."

Fine. Then we'll call them "criminal immigrants." Better?
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:54 PM
Did you read my post? This is what bill posted:

Bill904 Wrote: 2 hours ago (3:19 PM)
Another lib who doesn't understand the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

How do you expect me to debate the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants without first defining what a legal and illegal immigrant is?
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:51 PM
This website isn't the best because you cannot really tell what comments are replies to which comments. I am not saying "illegal immigrants" are legal immigrants, I am saying that they simply aren't "illegal". Definitions do matter because calling them illegal immigrants dehumanizes them. We don't call them beaners, we shouldn't call them illegal either.

There is a common red herring analogy about opposing poor, often ignorant, ethnocentric Hispanic ILLEGALS--->

So I am in the wrong for saying illegal immigrants aren't, by law, technically illegal. Yet this guy claims that they are often ignorant and ethnocentric? Thats a huge generalization and obviously meant to be discriminatory against them as you can see by the capital ILLEGALS.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:51 PM
Drinking Kool-Aid means you are swallowing what is put in front of you, in this case by liberals and the media (pretty much one in the same). It does not equate to "crazy." Saying you are making a moronic statement is not the same as calling you a moron. And as I guessed, you think "liberal" is name calling. It's just accurate. Anyone who swallows the "undocumented immigrant" line and chastises people for being against illegal immigrants as if they are against all immigration is using a standard liberal tactic. Ergo, you are most likely a liberal.
Anominus Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:48 PM
"By the way I never brought up the debate that defines what an "illegal immigrant" means."

Lie, lie again, idiot:

(4:56PM) "The definition of immigrant in American law is someone who has rightfully gone through the process of legal immigration.

An illegal immigrant is therefore an oxymoron because they would have had to go through a process to determine them as illegal. The correct label to apply to them is undocumented immigrant."

You did, in fact, present your definitions for the terms, moronic as they are. Maybe you just forgot - in line with my belief that liberals have the memory of a goldfish (when the facts are inconvenient!)? Is there any further reason to wonder whether you are deserving of contempt?
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:43 PM
"My, we have a major Kool-Aid consumer here!"

Drinking Kool-Aid means you are part of a cult and therefore are crazy.

Crazy? No - that would be an excuse for your moronic statements

Moronic statements - calling me a moron.

And pretty much everyone who calls another person liberal on this forum is a form of cursing at them. You have no idea if I am a liberal, you are just assuming I am because my opinion on this doesn't fit with your ideal conservative views. You then group me with the worst-of-the-worst liberals by stating that via generalization.

I have only argued that we should set an example, that our country is the land of immigration, and that immigrants are more vital to this country than many perceive. Not moronic

Anominus Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:38 PM
"More name calling. Nicely done, totally unexpected."

What did you expect when you come here and spew your nonsense? You give no proof of your claims, which are provably inconsistent with reality, and constantly redefine existing terms to fit your foolish opinions. When I see an idiot, I have no problem labeling that person exactly what he is - an idiot.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:38 PM
You lumped illegal immigrants in with legal immigrants, and that's what started it. You spout the lib line that conservatives are against ALL immigration. It's a standard tactic, but it doesn't work here. We know the difference between legal and ILLEGAL.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:36 PM
Please point out the name calling in these posts. To a liberal, facts amount to name calling. Of course, to a liberal the term "liberal" is name calling. You see, we've seen your type before. They come and go, but the party line remains the same. You honestly think you can come on TH an educate people regarding the history of immigration in this country? We know it very well. We also are smart enough not to use terms like undocumented immigrants.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:35 PM
By the way I never brought up the debate that defines what an "illegal immigrant" means. This guy did:

Bill904 Wrote: 2 hours ago (3:19 PM)
Another lib who doesn't understand the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Anominus Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:29 PM
"Yup, call me crazy. That really helps with your argument and the discussion at hand. No way that it isn't just a way to affirm your own opinion without providing substance."

Crazy? No - that would be an excuse for your moronic statements. We have long understood that it's rather pointless to debate facts with liberals - the only appropriate response is to laugh at you. All of your statements have been based on redefinitions of terms, and ignorance of reality. According to your definition of "foreigner," everyone on Earth is a foreigner, including the "native Americans!" Supposedly, we all came from Mesopotamia - should we all just head back there? You have to be willfully ignorant to not know of Aztlan and La Raza.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:20 PM
Actually, Anom, it would be more proper to call them criminal aliens. Wonder if the left likes that term better.
Anominus Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:17 PM
The proper legal term is "illegal alien." The basic definition of "immigrant" is "someone who goes to another country with the intention of living there." An "illegal immigrant" is therefore, someone who enters a country with the intent to live there in violation of the law. Anyone with a brain can understand that, but if you want to try to play semantics, be my guest!
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:13 PM
Telling the truth is name calling? Try this one .... I'm not a vigilante, I'm an undocumented policeman. The way to derail a conversation is to change the language so it doesn't reflect the truth.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:08 PM
Yup, call me crazy. That really helps with your argument and the discussion at hand. No way that it isn't just a way to affirm your own opinion without providing substance.

The amount of name calling on this website is atrocious.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:07 PM
They do have a reason to assimilate, America is the land of opportunity and they cannot receive the same opportunity as they can in Mexico.

Many of these immigrants are hard working and do more labor than two Americans combined. We should feel compelled to help instead of hinder. The more that we try to hinder them, the more hatred they will have towards America. The more we help them, the more they will like America and the more they will try to help it prosper.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:04 PM
"The correct label to apply to them is undocumented immigrant. "

My, we have a major Kool-Aid consumer here!
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 5:03 PM
Why should any sane country "strive" to allow their nation to be flooded with foreigners? It is national suicide.

That is the quote I was discussing. I was not saying that there shouldn't be methods put in place to prevent those not willing to help our country in at least minimal ways. However our country is literally 100% immigrants. Therefore the notion that it is suicide is wrong, because we have become the greatest nation ever created specifically through immigration.

Also I completely disagree with the idea that an immigrant would want anything close to a "reconquista". If the ones that want it are as stupid and ignorant as you claim, they would be lucky to not trip over their shoelace during the reconquista.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 4:58 PM
I agree it should be sped up dramatically, the current process takes a multitude of years to get through. In the meantime if you are stuck in the drug war ravaged mexico, I would rather take my chances as an undocumented immigrant in the USA than to live there, which is what I believe to be the reason for the dramatic population of mexican immigrants.
Allonsy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 4:56 PM
The definition of immigrant in American law is someone who has rightfully gone through the process of legal immigration.

An illegal immigrant is therefore an oxymoron because they would have had to go through a process to determine them as illegal. The correct label to apply to them is undocumented immigrant.

Calling them an illegal immigrant is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, which affirms that neither the federal government nor state governments may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." An undocumented immigrant has violated immigration requirements, but is still a legal person under the law, as is anyone under the jurisdiction of the law.
mschneiter Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 4:14 PM
Comparing today's illegal immigrants to the immigrants of yesteryear is a flawed analogy. First, up until recently there was no welfare, no free schooling, no medicare, no food stamps. The people who came to America before then came to work or to starve, there were no "welfare queens". Secondly, previous waves of immigrants were made up of people who came from many different places, many different cultures and spoke many different languages. This forced them to assimilate into the common culture. The immigration from Mexico/Central America is totally different, they all come from a common culture (Hispanic), speak a common language (Spanish) and come across a common 3000 mile long border. They have no reason to assimilate.
loadstar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 3:42 PM
of the U.S. rightly belongs to Mexico, and should be taken back via a Reconquista

4) We have a PC welfare state now; ILLEGALS take to that like ducks to water...but we cannot afford the "Po' People" we already have

5) I am NOT an ethnocentric, isolationist, American chauvinist. I would attach green cards to all graduate diplomas we grant to foreigners who currently go home to compete with us. BUT, I believe that tolerating and even embracing ignorant, poor, low aptitude Hispanics is a ticking time bomb for socio-economic disaster!
loadstar Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 3:42 PM
There is a common red herring analogy about opposing poor, often ignorant, ethnocentric Hispanic ILLEGALS--->

"Hey, they said the same things about the poor Irish and Italians and Jews 100 years ago!"

There are several HUGE differences...

1) America itself is much different-- we are now an "advanced service economy" where education & communications skills are essential to advance

2) Hispanics are usually very low aptitude-- average I.Q. < 90...and often undereducated. That low innate aptitude was NOT true of European or Asian immigrants

3) When they crossed the pond, Euro's WANTED to become Americans; Hispanics want Reconquista...it is taught in socialist-bent Mexican schools...Mexicans are also taught, erroneously, that much...
The Original Alice Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 3:24 PM
Weren't the immigrants to Ellis Island legal immigrants?
Didn't they have to go through a process to be allowed to enter this country?

Why do those calling for amnesty etc. not see the difference?
I am for legal immigration, absolutely.
We need more educated, hard-working, skilled, willing-to-learn-English-and-become-American immigrants.
We do not need more uneducated, unskilled, willing-to-break-the-laws immigrants.
There are many of the former kind, waiting in their countries on proper, legal waiting lists.
They should be let in first.
And the process should be WAY sped up to let them in.
rightmostofthetime Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 3:19 PM
Another lib who doesn't understand the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
American politicians in both parties are stampeding all over themselves to pander to Mexico and adopt mass illegal alien amnesty schemes. But while the Mexican government lobbies for more "humane" treatment of illegal border crossers from their country into ours, Mexico remains notoriously restrictionist toward "undesirable" foreigners who break their laws or threaten their security.

Despite widely touted immigration "reforms" adopted in 2011, Mexico still puts Mexico first -- as any country that is serious about protecting its sovereignty should and would.

Article 33 of Mexico's constitution establishes the right of the president to detain and deport "any foreigner" and prohibits foreigners from...