Sunday, May 20, 2007

Immigration and "families"

Illegal status means high costs
From inside the Malheur County Jail, illegal immigrant Fernando Gordillo said his life was six times more lucrative as a dairy worker in Ontario than as a chauffeur in Chaipas, Mexico.

From... inside... the county jail.

The cost of illegal immigration is evident at the jail. Around 12 percent of the inmate population is being held without bail for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — at a combined cost of $828 per day.

Don't worry amigo, Bush/Kennedy/McCain/other traitors are working hard to make sure your crimes don't really county. They will help you unite with your family...

Gordillo said he and his wife separated following domestic issues. A restraining order prevented Gordillo from being near her and their children.

Yes, "domestic issues." Way to go Tony Snow, these are the family values that will make these criminals vote Republican you traitorous piece of garbage.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Domestic issues" bull shit!

That is Girly Man Talk for "Wife Beating" and its a . . . Problem!

curious said...

I've asked this before, received no answer, so I'll ask again: You use the word "traitor" frequently and easily. The obvious implication is that a traitor is someone who has committed treason. The American Heritage Dictionary, in fact, defines the word as " ...especially one who commits treason." Treason is a crime. So again, I want to know: Do you believe that some sort of action, legal or otherwise, should be taken against those you see as "traitors"? If so, what? Should some enterprising U.S. attorney's office take the initiative and attempt to prosecute and imprison any of these "traitors"?

Patrick Henry said...

If this be treason, make the most of it.

Daniel said...

Treason: In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

I would support impeachment of any politician who votes for this bill as it is so contrary to the interests of this nation, it's laws and the will of it's citizens.

BEAR said...

Hey, curious, you've asked a relevant question. Mr. Daniel has answered it honestly. Your query, "some sort of action, legal or otherwise," prompts me to respond. Legal actions are the ONLY response required of the intellectually honest. Since we are at war against the islamo-fascists, any act which supplants our Constitution, aiding and/or abetting those who would destroy our country (thus weakening our national security), should be considered treasonous. Why our government has failed to arrest or prosecute those who have demonstrated their outright hatred for America and its ideals is certainly a puzzle. Several U.S. Attorneys have been fired due to their reticence re prosecuting election fraud and border violations. The democrat party (of course) sides with the illegals.

curious said...

I appreciate the answer. Bear, your comment is good, too, because it sort of leads into the question that I think Daniel’s answer raises

Treason is not a law that only elected office-holders can break; anyone can commit treason. Consider Christopher Boyce or Andrew Daulton Lee, a couple of college kids at the time when they were selling secrets to the Soviet Union. Or the former FBI agent Robert Hanssen. Those guys weren't elected; they didn't vote for any bill, but they committed treason.

So, getting at what Bear raises, what about someone whose activity is at a different level, not at the level of actually voting on a bill and enacting it into law.

Suppose a person calls up DeFazio and urges him to vote for the bill in its present form. Then he goes to Pioneer Square with a big sign that says "Amnesty now!" Then maybe he writes an guest opinion piece for The Oregonian calling for amnesty. Maybe he even writes a check to PCUN, a personal donation.

Is this someone who ought to be arrested and prosecuted for treason? The guy is lending support to the exact same thing that the “bipartisan” group came up with -- and with the example of a contribution to PCUN, material support, willfully offered to a group that supports amnesty.

Isn’t this person also a traitor? And if so, and if we're talking about equal treatment under the law, isn’t this person also committing treason? What should the government be doing about it? Aren’t there practical limits in prosecuting that stuff?

Eugene Debs said...

I really wish you guys would learn what "fascist" means. You'll notice the powers that be don't say it any more. Someone led Karl Rove to a dictionary apparently. Seriously, it only makes you sound stupid.
More so than usual.

BEAR said...

Hey, curious, I must refer you to your local D.A.'s office for a precise definition re "aiding/ abetting." My understanding is that these terms denote overt, demonstrably intentional acts to mislead law enforcement, or to assist an individual (or group) in evading prosecution for actual crimes. Free speech is clearly not a crime, but activity (including speech), which constitutes betrayal or subjugation (i.e.: inciting the violent overthrow of one's own country) is, in my opinion, actionable. To me, agreeing with the goals and tactics of those who would destroy our country is grounds for a charge of treason, especially in a time of war. If PCUN (or any other organization, such as E.L.F., A.L.F., or Earth First) is officially listed as a terrorist group, then precedent exists to prosecute for "material support" of a terrorist group.