Friday, March 10, 2006

Where's Janet Reno when you need her?

My new plan: Insist that the 20 million illegal aliens in this country are six year old children who came from a communist dicatorship. Reno will send it the troops and get them out of this country!

This is how we should deal with illegal aliens! (though not 6 year olds who are fleeing Cuba)


And today it's "don't run them over as they are on their way to DHS."



Watch for crossing illegals!! Watch the hilarious video about the sign!

20 comments:

el razonador said...

So Daniel -- If unauthorized immigrants come fleeing communism we should welcome them, but if they come to escape a poor infrastructure, a public school system that does not extend beyond 8th grade, laws such that consensual sex starts at age 12, and a corrupt governmental and electoral system that is not communist they should be hunted down by the military and removed from the country? Somehow, that logic seems faulty.

I think the agreed upon estimate is 11 million, not 20 million unauthorized. And I'm still waiting to see someone present a plan of how deportation of 11 million is possible.

Sailor Republica said...

Daniel, go look at the news. 100K protesters holding up traffic in Chicago in response to Sensenbrenner's bill.

Daniel said...

Thanks for the tip Sailor.

As for "the plan" I think that I have stated it lot's of times. Here is ONE SUCH TIME.

Anonymous said...

Yes. They have a march in chicago with a lot of people marching. I like those marches. NO SENSENBRENNER!!

BEAR said...

el razonador, are you actually so much of a coward as to compare illegal aliens to refugees from a brutal and murderous dictatorship? If the "culture" of mexico is so wonderful, why don't you scaredy-cats (spelled cucarachas) fix your own mess instead of panhandling our taxpayers, and trying to force your failed "culture" on us? Only mexicans with honor and manhood would work for justice in their own country. Go home.

bjdorr said...

The sign could also interpret "deadbeat dads." (Note the dad fleeing from wife/ex-wife/girlfriend).

Anonymous said...

Bear you are racist!
Saying to go home. You don't know if the person you just replied to is illegal! He could be legal and aren't you against illegal immigration and not immigration? You just told someone to go back to their country without knowing who or where that person comes from.

el razonador said...

Bear -- Soy norte americano. I am home. Calling me a coward doesn't deny the fact that Mexico is still plagued by such things as death squads. Events such as the Aguas Blancas massacre in 1996, in which the governor of the state of Guerrero was clearly involved (but neither President Zedillo nor the U.S. government did a thing about it), are seared into the Mexican national conciousness. To demonize people born into such circumstances and blame them for failing to resurrect a "failed culture" seems a little more cowardly than my simple observation that many illegals are fleeing miserable circumstances.

Your arrogance betrays a dangerous ignorance, and were such an attitude to creep into national policy, the national interest would be threatened. For better or worse, the U.S., Mexico and Canada entered into NAFTA. Those who designed the agreement insisted that it would reduce illegal migration. Tariff-free capital investment in Mexico would create jobs for Mexicans and the need to migrate would go away. Hasn't happened yet, but the U.S. is now heavily invested in Mexico. To kick out all of the illegal Mexicans would be to spit in the face of Mexico, and increase the likelihood that an anti-American Mexican leader would gain popular support, who would in turn kick American business out of Mexico. What we would end up with an unstable Mexican state, cut off from it's remittance revenue, and full of 11 million re-patriated and malcontented proletarians and a sour relationship with our biggest trading partner. Are you saying that this very likely scenario is better than what we have now?

You and Daniel seem to think that in this era of a globalized economy, that a single poor nation can bring itself up to post-industrial speed on its own; that a modern nation can exist in economic solitude. Maybe you should go back to the 1920s.

el razonador said...

Daniel -- I'm no constitutional scholar, but I suspect that some of your steps to "removing" illegals may be deemed as unconstitutional by those pesky liberal activist judges. Furthermore, asking healthcare providers to break the hippocratic oath would bring such a (well-financed) furor from the medical community, that no politician will touch that one with a ten-foot poll.

The weakness of your plan is brought to light when compared to the alternative: regularizing those currently unauthorized. Your plan seems risk. How likely is it to work? How likely are people who walked across the desert or crammed themselves into the trunk of a car to get here to leave just because they can't get driver's license and because you show up to their meetings, take pictures of them and make fun of their flag? I don't think they are much deterred. Furthermore, how do you poice a cash economy in which all participants are anonymous? I think economists and law enforcement officials both would perceive this situation as a total nightmare fiscally, and in terms of policing.

So, you always say you have a plan, but I don't see how it's better than legalization. In fact, it's far riskier.

BEAR said...

Well chico, all I have to say is......pobrecito! The criminals who enter our country illegally claim to, "only be looking for work," but now you claim you are running like frightened cucarachas from your leaders. Que lastima! Fight your own battles. Don't sneak into my yard and demand that I feed you. To blame a law (nafta) for 'forcing' you to sneak across our borders is intellectually dishonest. You illegals threaten us with economic ruin? Yeah, mexico really has the fate of America in its hands....Bwahaaha. Criminals can call me a racist anytime. I'll consider the source and the self-loathing of your charge. You have given up on your country. Your presence here is proof that you have no pride, national or personal. You imply that mexico can't solve its own problems, admitting you and your country are losers, and so you come to me begging....and threatening....and breaking the laws of this country....and accusing me of being the problem. You call me arrogant and ignorant, but you illegals have the almighty gall to consider your language, culture and politics superior to those of the country into which you sneak as beggars?? Go home illegals, go home.

el razonador said...

Bear -- You seem intent on making this a personal affair. I was born here. I am citizen of this country. I've never received a scrap of public assistance in my life.

I never called you a racist. I never made dramatic claims such that America is to blame for all of Mexico's problems. My intention was to bring to light some of the factors in Mexico that cause people to enter the country surreptitiously. Further, in no way did I imply that Mexico has a hand up politically on the United States. But they do have a hand to play (allowing American capital to flow across the border tariff-free), and immigration policy is closely bound to political relations between the U.S. and Mexico. They are our biggest trading partner and vital to the national interest. Do you deny this? If we cut off remittance revenue from Mexico, they will have no choice but to tax American-based capital to compensate. This would have deleterious economic consequences for major American companies and thus, on the American economy. You obviously have little interest in taking these political realities and their relation to the immigration debate into consideration, and rather prefer virulent rhetoric that ultimately serves little purpose in crafting a sensible policy.

The fact of the matter is this: the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants participate in the labor force at higher rates than natives and their use of public assistance far less as well. There is a wealth of research literature to support this.

el razonador said...

A lucid piece from the New York Times showing the notion of the "immigrant criminal" to be what it really is, a myth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/opinion/11sampson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

BEAR said...

Enough claptrap about how the US will suffer. Extortion and threats are typical of the left. Using the nyt as a source is laughable! BTW, the nyt just announced they are down-sizing ANOTHER 10% of their writing staff. Their baloney (and yours) has resulted in ACTUAL economic harm to themselves. Good. There is no excuse for criminal behavior. Only the anti-american illegals and lefties condone the current invasion. Freedom lovers and achievers and honest people don't carry pictures of che guevarra, or tooky, or shout la raza, or make demands on folks into whose houses they have broken. You're on the wrong side of this issue, and of history. You support professional victims and criminals. No honor there!

el razonador said...

Bear -- despite your empty rhetoric -- you fail repeatedly to address any empirical claim I make -- the political realities I pose are real. I guarantee you that those at the bargaining table do not have pictures of che in their wallets, nor do they have la raza membership cards. Most likely, they are from the monied elite, and they are republicans. What is laughable is your knee-jerk reaction to blaming the whole thing on liberals.

Despite what you think about the source of the publication, Professor Sampon's conclusions are based on scientific analyses, and your patterned failure to address any one of his or my substantive arguments indicate that you lack empirical counterpoints. Empty rhetoric is just that, baseless.

Scottiebill said...

Razonador and Cindy Sheehan should get together. He calls the illegal aliens "refugees" and Sheehan calls the terrorists "freedom fighters". Both should be wrapped up in strait jackets and tossed into a rubber room so they couldn't do harm to themselves or the public.

Scottiebill said...

I almost forgot: Janet Reno is absolutely the very LAST thing we need to hear from about anything.

Scottiebill said...

Razonador: You referred to the New York Times as publishing a "lucid" piece concerning the "illegal criminal" as being a myth. You have not figured out by now that the New York Times publishes very, very little that can be considered "lucid". (Perhaps the NYT Crossword would be considered "lucid", but that is about all). The New York Times has gotten so overbearingly arrogant that it seems to actually think it controls the country and its policies, rather that the administration and Congress. They do not have any thing good to say or print that is positive about the United States, but they do have all kinds of great things to say and print about how great the enemies of our country are. If they truly followed their mantra on the front page to their way of thinking,"All the News Fit to Print", then they would have just a single page printed on one side only, including the crossword.

el razonador said...

Scottiebill -- Thanks for the complement. Means alot.

Regarding the NYT piece. It's an op-ed, written by a sociology professor, so technically, the NYT didn't write it, they just published it. By the way, did you read it? Do you have any counterpoints to the piece?

Apparently not.

Anonymous said...

Hey! Very Nice! Check out this website I found where you can get a FREE
GAME SYSTEM. It's not available everywhere, so go to the site and put
in your zipcode to see if you can get it. I got mine and sold it!



href="http://www.degree-programs-online.info/extramoney.html">http://www.degree-programs-online.info/extramoney.htm

Anonymous said...

Give them a chance.