Monday, April 10, 2006

But what can I do?

Burning with a deep rage at the audacity of criminals marching in the streets, demanding "rights" while our government sits idly by is not going to accomplish anything.

(Neither is marching in the streets waving Mexican flags and talking about "brown pride" (KPTV 12) but that's ok, it's turning people off)

So what are some steps to take?

*Write/Call/Fax your senator or any senator!

*Get involved with Oregonians for Immigration Reform

*REMINDER: Come to Salem School Board MTG. Tues. 11th @ 6 pm.

*Come to Woodburn on April 22 for a Matricula Consular protest. (more details to follow)

*May 1st is "don't buy anything day" if you are a communist-criminal alien loving moron. Since you are a capitalist who believes that illegal aliens should be deported immediately go buy something on that day.

*We need some people to attend a Town Hall Meeting with Senator Smith in Prineville. Buy yourself a small digital recorder and ask him why he would vote for amnesty.

*Stay posted here.


Anonymous said...

"The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you and thou shalt love him as thyself" -- LEVITICUS

Daniel said...

I don't hate illegal aliens as people. I expect them to follow the law and respect the government and authority like the Bible says to.

TheDuncan said...

Where is the School Board Meeting?

Anonymous said...

Nazis were the law and it was illegal for German citizens to harbor Jews. Were those who turned Jews in acting in accordance with the Bible?

el razonador said...

Daniel -- I think it's time to move beyond this childish fixation on the notion of legality. Laws exist within contextual circumstances. Our immigration laws -- visa allotment, quotas, etc. -- are out of sorts with the current social and economic realities of our nation, and have become dead letter for all intents and purposes.

You say, "but we have laws, we just need to enforce them". But that's just it: socioeconomic forces trump legality ten times over in this case. Not one nativist senator, talk-radio host, or blogger has made the empirical case that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are not contributing positively economically (and from my humble perspective, culturally) to the country with labor force pariticipation rates that far surpass native born levels.

Selectively chosen pictures, urban myths, and quotes from fringe la Raza websites are nothing more than non-generalizable anecdote. There's no fact there.

Denise said...

I am just furious! Thanks Daniel for the information so that I can DO something about this situation.

Anonymous said...

"has made the empirical case that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are not contributing positively economically (and from my humble perspective, culturally)"

Please make the "empirical case" and list specific "cultural" contributions. Inquiring minds really want to know. No sarcasm intended. I really would like to know your thoughts.

el razonador said...

As Jeffrey Passel has estimated in a March 2006 Pew Report, 94% of unauthorized male migrants are in the labor force compared with 86% of legal immigrants and 83% of native-born men. Clearly they are here to work. Unauthorized women are more likely to be engaged in home production (less likely to be in the labor force) but it does not follow that these women and their children are a drain on resources, which is largely a myth, since illegal immigrants are inelligible for most services ( A recent USC study debunked the notion that immigrants use emergency rooms for primary care, poor natives were most likely to do this.

Insightful studies regarding the long-term effect of low-skilled immigration on the U.S. economy include a book published in 1997 by the National Research Council edited by Smith and Edmonston. Another is "Help or Hindrance", published by Russel Sage in 1998, edited by Frank Bean and Daniel Hammermesh. General conclusions are that the long-term impacts of immigration on the economy (even the illegal kind) have been positive. Most consistently, researchers have found that regional economic growth (Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta, The Research Triangle in North Carolina, Silicon Valley, etc.) could not have occurred without the presence of a large, low-skilled (and largely undocumented) pool of workers. These growing regional markets are the life-blood of American global economic competitiveness. Small local economies, such as those in the midwest, that experienced net population loss for most of the post-WWII era are seeing a renewal in economic activity due to the growing presence of Hispanic workers in local industries.

Culturally, I make no claim that there is universal appeal; obviously, for nativists, there is none. It is merely my personal taste. I think it is good for Americans to be reminded that they do not live on an island, by living amongst diverse groups of people; this is the reality of the world. All one needs to do is visit San Antonio or Miami to see first hand how festive the diverse cultures that comprise the broad pan-Ethnic term Hispanic are. Cities like Los Angeles and New York are a multi-ethnic mosaic that I personally enjoy.

Without intending to peddle more stereotypes, it is worth mentioning some cultural attributes that might more appeal to the tastes of bloggers here. Mexicans, in particular, are on average, intensely devoted to family, with low divorce rates and low rates of single-parent households. They are more traditional when it comes to gender roles than are typical Americans or Westerners, and far less secular in their thinking. Many churches see the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. as vital to their future.

Daniel argues that illegals are a cultural scourge, based on his experiences. My anecdotal cultural evidence points in the opposite direction. The undocumented families that I know are simple, and dignified people, concerned with making a living, and providing a safe and better future for their children. Quite frankly, I find their outlook to be a breath of fresh air as compared with the trivial concerns that seem to prevail in the average American consciousness.

Anonymous said...

Hey Denise -- I'm furious that I had to pay for Daniel's appeals that he was unjustly arrested, all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court, but you don't see me asking that he be punished for it. But then again, Daniel, did you serve any time? If not, maybe you should. A little of Bubba's tenderness would do you well. Pay your debt!

Liberty44 said...

Why do you keep picking on Daniel? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you have to constantly downgrade someone who has turned his life around? I love most of the comments here, but yours should be banned as not even having anything to do with the subject of the current blog.

Anonymous said...

To Liberty44,

Maybe if he explains what gives him the right to call people criminals, without looking at himself as one (especially a violent felon), then we will keep on mentioning that.

Why does he dodge the question? Before he goes and points finger, he should look in the mirror (pinhead and moustache) and see himself for who he really is.

boo hoo, please don't ban me, my life revolves around the whole issue of making Daniel look bad.

/end sarcasm
//Funny seeing how the rednecks in here have so many empty headed idiotic arguments. All the lefties who read this blog, do so out as a form of comedy relief. This is what happens when you give rednecks a broadband internet connection, total comedy!

Anonymous said...

All I'm saying is that if I have to be bent over in order, as a taxpayer, to subsidize his ridiculous criminal appeals, he should, by his own vindictive logic, have to be bent over by Bubba as resitution. What's wrong with that? Completely on topic...

MAX Redline said...

Try reporting illegals:

Daniel said...

Anonymous, I believe I covered my past in this post.

I'm not a felon.

I definitely believe that the practice of having automatic appeals should be stopped. As I have previously indicated I was not aware of the appeals until I received a letter at which point I stopped all further action.

You can continue to beat this dead horse but no one seems to care but you.

Scottiebill said...

Thiscountry does not need any more immigration laws any more than we need more gun control laws. What this country needs is to enforce the laws already on the books. There is one law on the books now that says essentially that people who enter this country are doing so illegally and are considered to be felons. This is part of the INS laws controlling immigration. This is aconcept that is absolutely and completely foreign (pun not intended) to people like razonador, roger doger, anonymous the ultra-liberal pontificator, and others of their negative mindset.

All Congress is doing in bringing out their inane amnesty bills is to waste time, the taxpayer's money, and to try to justify their existence for being in D.C. in the first place.

Calhoun said...

El Razonador, in your post above, you said many nice things about Latinos/Hispanics/Mexicans.

I just wish you could say that they're honest.

But they're not. They break the law. They break the law every day. They break the law for money. They teach their children it's good to break the law (which shows them to be bad parents).

Not the kind of people I'd want living next door.

Khaldun said...

El Razonador, in your post above, you said many nice things about Latinos/Hispanics/Mexicans.

I just wish you could say that they're honest.

Best be careful - Daniel's wife may not agree...

fish_on said...

Illegals' Amnesty Could Cost $60 Billion a Year, Group Says
By Randy Hall Staff Writer/Editor
April 11, 2006

( - If an illegal immigrant amnesty or guest worker program similar to the ones being contemplated by the U.S. Senate and supported by President Bush were enacted, the cost to state and local governments would be staggering, an immigration reform group charged Tuesday.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that state and local costs associated with illegal immigration for public education, health care and incarceration, now about $36 billion a year, would balloon to $61.5 billion by 2010 -- a 70 percent increase -- and increase to $106.3 billion by 2020.

As a result of an amnesty and a vastly expanded guest worker program, millions of current illegal aliens would gain legal access to government programs and services, a FAIR analysis states.

Moreover, newly legalized aliens would be allowed to bring their dependents to this country, adding to the burdens on schools and public health care. Similarly, state and local governments would have to provide for the education and health care of the dependents of the 400,000 new guest workers called for in the Senate proposal.

"From every possible angle, an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program would be a fiscal and administrative nightmare," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Never mind the fact that an illegal alien amnesty is a moral betrayal of the American public and immigrants who played by the rules.

"It would be an unfunded federal mandate that will bankrupt states, counties and cities all across the United States," Stein added.

Contrary to claims by proponents of amnesty, the tax contributions of newly legalized illegal aliens would not offset the additional costs, he stated. The estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. are overwhelmingly poorly educated and low skilled.

Even with legalization, their earning potential would be very limited, Stein noted. With the ability to legitimately claim dependents on their returns, their tax contributions would be negligible at best, and with programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, many will actually get more back than they pay in.

None of the federal or local costs associated with an illegal alien amnesty or a massive guest worker program has even been considered as part of the Senate's deliberations, he said.

When asked point blank about the ramifications of their proposed legislation, Senate amnesty and guest worker supporters admitted that they have not been worked out. "The devil is in the details," said the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

"'The devil is in the details' is an utterly reckless and irresponsible way to conduct public policy," responded Stein. "The fiscal, social, environmental and demographic consequences of what the Senate is proposing would be staggering.

"In an effort to respond to special interest pressure, the Senate and the Bush administration seem prepared to rush forward without any rational assessment of what it would mean for the future of the nation," he noted.

"We have seen where the 'devil is in the details' approach has gotten us in Iraq. The president and others pushing amnesty and guest workers have an obligation to think this one all the way through before acting," Stein concluded.

A breakdown of the calculation of amnesty costs and a state by state impact analysis can be found at FAIR's website.

Scott Arthur Edwards said...

As a special token of my appreciation for all your kind help and the wonderful business you have sent my way---I want to give you a free gift.
It is called the "$25000.00 Idea". It will help you in all your endeavors.
Click here: FREE GIFT