The December 1 issue of LA Youth has a very good first-person story by an undocumented So Cal high school girl who wanted desperately to go to college.
In other words, what happens when a smart girl and good student has no social security number?
Here is how it opens:
A lot of people think undocumented immigrants are a drain on the economy or a danger to the country. Or that they’re criminals, because they’re here illegally. But if this is right, then I’m a criminal, even though I sometimes forget that I’m undocumented.
My mom and I moved here from Peru when I was 5. We came to visit my mom’s family, but my mother decided she would rather have me grow up here and have my sister born here surrounded by my mom’s family. Since then, like any other kid, I’ve gone to school, studied hard to go to college and tried to make my family proud.Around fifth grade I noticed that unlike my classmates, my family never traveled. When I asked if I could go to Arizona with my friend who had invited me, my mom said no at first. I could get deported if I got caught by a border patrol agent since I was an undocumented immigrant. After that I never wanted to ask about my immigration status. It was too depressing.
When I was in eighth grade, I saw Legally Blonde and got inspired. Yes, it’s corny and unrealistic, but the girly main character played by Reese Witherspoon proved people wrong by succeeding at Harvard Law School. I wanted to do that—break the stereotype that Hispanics from Lawndale don’t go to college.
[SNIP]In ninth grade when I started looking into college during my AVID class (a program that helps students go to college), I learned that college applications and financial aid forms require a Social Security number, which as an undocumented immigrant I don’t have. But I didn’t give up. I thought I’d find a way to go to college.
I didn’t ask anyone what to do about not having a Social Security number because I was embarrassed and I didn’t know who to ask. Also, my mom had been trying to get legal residency since a year after we had come to the United States. I prayed my mom’s status would be resolved and I’d be legal by the time I was applying for college. Why tell anyone and potentially put myself at risk of being deported when it might not even matter? There were so many nights when I cried myself to sleep because I was freaking out about how I could make my college dreams come true.
I was working hard without knowing whether it was worth it. Meanwhile, the other students in my honors classes knew that their hard work was going to get them into college. Without a Social Security number or legal residency (or money) I felt like I was faking everything…..
.
Read the rest here.
Photo by Jasper Nahid, 15, New Roads School (Santa Monica)
I am sure this is a sweet smart girl, since she ended up with a full ride scholarship from a LMU (private). She received a LMU Scholarship of $34,730.00+/year paid for by all the middle class families who weren’t illegal and had to pay tuition and rack up big loans.
The sad thing about this story is that a legal kid with a working mother and father in the same financial and scholastic condition would have a harder time getting scholarships that this little girl.
Welcome to the world that ALL the middle class kids have to deal with. NO FINANCIAL AID and rising cost of tuitions.
In these days of unemployment and RED budgets, every dollar that goes to an illegal alien is taken away from somewhere else.
Please tell me which state program you wish to cut by $35,000 per year so this little girl can go to state college? What park should we close? What blind person should we make homeless? What medical care should we take away?
Liberals never seem to have the answer to these questions, and most likely won’t today.
Great article why do we even need or have immigration laws?
Let’s provide a dream for every poor student in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and of course India, China and all the countries of Africa.
Give us your hungry, poor and un-educated, we can take care of them all.
Pokey is so mean.
I sympathize and agree this is a tricky situation – sending such kids “home” e.g. to Peru in this case, when their whole lives (since age 6 for her) have been here in the U.S., would be traumatic, and without active help from the Peruvian gov’t I don’t see how she could acclimate there.
BUT her dilemma started when her mother came on a visitor permit and “she decided she’d rather raise me and my siblings here” (to paraphrase the gist of it), and so her dilemma is clearly of her mother’s doing. One might argue that in fact, the problem was that her family was granted a visitor permit TOO easily compared to how the U. S. treats nationals of other countries. Until very recently (there were some differences before and after 9/11, but there’s been a general toughness for decades – too complicated too go into all the details) until the last year or so when protests became too overwhelming to ignore, people wanting a visitor visa from the former Eastern Europe, like Poland-Hungary-Czech Republic, had to apply in person at the U. S. consulate AND produce bank statements AND other documentation (like proof of a good job or being enrolled in college, close family ties, or owning a business) to prove they wouldn’t be a flight risk if given visitor visas. And these are typically educated people who speak some or good English, usually have a skill or profession, etc. I’ve personally known people who were unable to get visas when it seemed absurd; people in many other parts of the world have similar complaints (unless they’re on a group tour where some agency takes responsibility). Now Central Europeans can apply for visas by mail instead of having to travel to the capitol for a personal interview, and there have been some minor changes. (I’m writing this from memory because I was shocked to read how stringent the requirements were just for a tourist visa.) This has resulted in resentment against the U.S. from people I’ve met from these counties when traveling abroad, people who feel they’re treated like 3rd class citizens compared to how we Americans expect to be treated around the world.
I have known several people who tried to fight deportation orders after overstaying tourist visas, and it’s nearly impossible – their best bet is, as in this case, to drag it out so long that they can argue that they have established too much of a life here and have too few roots left “at home” to return. Supposedly liberal Canada and other countries are the same or worse, when it comes to forcing visitors who overstayed their visas to go home. (Precisely the “arguments” those stringest application interviews are designed to prevent.)
So while I sympathize with the children caught in these situations, and agree that kids like this deserve some sort of legalization instead of deportation, do we give the mom a free pass – and is it fair that siblings born here have all the benefits of citizen children, while she pays for not being born here? I honestly don’t know where to draw the line – we simply can’t treat the southern hemisphere with a unique favoritism and even support, as some argue for, open borders. When people who obey the law are subjected to such stringent regulations, what DO we do with people who simply “decide” on their own they’d rather just move here? It would be nice to have this discussion with all points of view, nationals of all countries, taken into account, without all the xenophobia which makes it impossible mention the word “illegal” or even your “undocumented” which “sucks the air out of the room,” as you eloquently said. So we just don’t deal with it at all.
All three of you have good points. (And I figured this post might get everybody off the football post, but no luck.)
I don’t know the solution either. I do feel we need comprehensive immigration reform. Yet Congress has not had the will to do it.
So we have situations like this one.
Every quarter in my UCI classes, at least one student writes about some aspect of the immigration dilemma simply because each of them has more than just a few friends caught in some version of story told by this girl, but usually with less happy endings.
Yet, as WBC said, it seems very hard to have a good faith discussion with an eye toward real problem solving on this issue.
When I was part of a border fellowship program that educated journalists on the immigration issue, myself included, it simply made me appreciate how complex the problem was, and that posturing on any side of the matter got us nowhere.
In any case, I appreciate the comments.
Oh, and about the wording, my way out this time was to use “undocumented” in the text, and “illegal” in the headline. I’ve come to the point that I don’t like either word. I want a third term that takes into account the whole of the matter.
I agree that immigration issues are tough, but one thing we know with certainty is that educated immigrants are, economically speaking, preferable to uneducated immigrants. From a cost-benefit standpoint (leaving out the moral calculus), if we aren’t going to deport her, we should educate her.
Secondly, we should note that her parents have likely paid whatever taxes they’ve owed, as they are trying to get citizenship.
Like WBC says, it’s complicated.
(also, should the anonymous author stop by, congrats!)
Why are we supposed to feel bad that an illegal can’t access the very best (and expensive) of what our country has to offer? I am the last demographic anyone wants to hear from: middle-class, white male. My all four of my great grandparents immigrated here (at least one pair definitely came through Ellis Island, the other probably did as well). Both sides of my family at that generation were poor. One of my grandfathers was a small dairy farmer (he was born and died in the same house, his wife, my grandmother, had no electricity until she married) and my other grandfather was a garbage man. My parents worked hard to put themselves through state schools and secure stable careers. My Dad always picked up extra money by mowing lawns and plowing snow on the side. They never made a ton of money, but were always frugal. My parents were able to send both of their children to private colleges. Generations of hard work and sacrifice led to my opportunity to go to a great college.
On the other hand, this girl’s parents moved into the country illegally and she feels cheated because she MIGHT not be able to go to the best schools in the most expensive cities on tax dollars.
If she really wants to be a US citizen and get great college benefits, all she has to do is get with the Obama (Big WAR President) program and spend a 4 years in the sandbox (Afghanistan)
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/citizenship.htm
“Liberals never seem to have the answer to these questions, and most likely won’t today.” Blah, blah, blah. Translation: “Liberals stink and I’m a self-righteous horse’s ass.” Now, if you pardon me I’ll step back into the real world…
Since illegal immigration has been reduced by the staggering US unemployment figures, we shoujld know what the solution to this problem over the long term is. In the age of ATM cards and credit cards, no one could argue that we can’t put an electronic social security card in place that would make hiring illegal immigrants on anything other than a cash basis impossible. And anyone hired on a cash basis, for tasks like yard work, child care or washing dishes isn’t contributing to any substantial problem. This is an overblown “problem” that’s quite easily solved without building walls or drastically increasing policiing. But obviously there are lots of interests “on both sides of the aisle” that don’t want it solve. My guess is that ethnic groups like LULAC aren’t the ones that are politically decisive so much as employers who make a ton of money off of the current arrangements.
As for folks who are already here and have family roots, legalizing them in trade for putting in place an effective computerized, instantly linkable electronic Social Security card data base that would make it impossible to employ people who were here without any legal status strikes me as a good, humane solution to a problem that would subsequently be reduced to a very minor issue. Of course it’s “unfair” that we have higher living standards than people in Mexico on some level of perfect justice, but political and economic systems are hard enough pressed to come even remotely close to “perfecting” social justice within their own borders, much less globally. The reality is that countries with disproportionate numbers of illegal immigrants to the US are being robbed of their own human resources over the long term. The US economy may serve as an artificial safety valve for a remarkably corrupt and unfair social system south of the border, but it’s never going to be the solution.
We should have very liberal legal immigration policies because as a large country with a growing economy (in good times) we can, but the current system is broken. And there’s no “fairness” in someone who lives in close proximity to El Paso being able to slip over the border while some poor bastard in Somalia can’t. Illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants first and foremost by over-stressing under-funded social services, heightening racial and ethnic resentments – especially in tough economic times – and keeping the bottom rung on the pay ladder always at the lowest point possible. I believe, for example, that were it not for illegal immigration farmworkers would have had more long-term leverage in their labor market and would be better organized and better paid by now. As it stands most of the UFW gains of the ’60s have been lost.
“My guess is that ethnic groups like LULAC aren’t the ones that are politically decisive so much as employers who make a ton of money off of the current arrangements.”
No kidding. A private conversation with Bill Clinton’s former Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (whose name slips my mind at the moment), made that very, very clear.
That group—which reaches to both sides of the aisle—not only made immigration reform impossible, they make enforcement impossible—then and now.
She made it her goal to hold at least one big company legally responsible for their employment practices. One. In order to demonstrate—Look, here! We’re a country of laws. Seems reasonable.
The company she figured she had the best shot with was Tyson as their employment of undocumented workers was so, so over the top.
And how well did she do? She failed utterly. And not because the proof wasn’t there. The political pressure marshaled against her came in tsunami strength.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe anyone has tried any kind of substantive enforcement since.
Instead we build walls, and keep sad families in detention centers.
It’s hypocrisy of the highest order.
I also have to say that while my grandparents and greatgrandparents are also immigrants and came through Ellis Island and worked hard and my family was frugal, etc. etc. , it sort of makes me sick to read that smug shit in response to this girl’s plight. The fact is that, however problematic their status, illegal immigrants are working harder and getting less in return than anyone else in the country. That’s a bullshit rap. I have a close friend who came here as a teenager to be with her mother who was here on a green card but couldn’t get legal status for her kids. This person has achieved more than almost anyone else I know and is a stellar citizen. I don’t think the present situation is tenable – both in terms of lack of a legal path for folks already here or continuing to allow lax workplace enforcement as a magnet – but the truth is that the people who comprise today’s “illegal immigrants” are not very different from our grandparents and great-grandparents. And of course, European forebears were allowed in while Asians were systematically excluded. Ironically, the last group to be hit with immigration controls were people from Latin America – even when quotas were set on Europeans in 1921. There’s no particular moral high ground here, just steps toward more rational public policy. I’m not a believer in “free markets uber alles” like libertarians and corporate opportunists, nor am I moved politically by some notion of “internationalism” from the Purist Left perspective. I simply believe we need some pragmatic controls and regulation to protect labor markets and reduce the pressure on urban social services. But this notion that there was some Golden Era of “legitimate” versus “illegal” immigration and that hardworking, thrifty Europeans did it “right” while freeloading “others” are doing it “wrong” is dubious and ahistorical at best. Tell it to the Indians…
Reg,
How can you possibly claim that illegals are “working harder and getting less than anyone else in this country”? Where has it ever been quantified that illegals are working harder than the rest of us? I admit that doing manual labor for low wages is a tough life, but there are plenty of citizens doing the same thing. As for “getting less in return,” I would point out that illegals are draining billions out of our funds through the free public education, emergency room care and other public resources they are guaranteed.
Anecdotal stories do not prove a point. Yes, this girl sounds smart and hard-working. Sure, your friend sounds great. That doesn’t mean that all illegals have gotten a raw deal. How about the guy I know who is here illegally sleeping with his brother’s wife while his family is abandoned back in Mexico? How about the many cases of the police playing catch and release with illegal criminals they get in custody time and time again? The Jamiel Shaw and Bologna family murders come to mind. Even among the ones that aren’t committing violent felonies there are many who are regularly committing smaller crimes everyday by doing things like driving without a license or insurance. Do you really think this is good for our communities?
I agree that we need pragmatic solutions to this problem. However, I believe that the flow of people coming across the border must be controlled. If we had immigration under control and there was a need in the economy for more people to come in it would absolutely make sense to increase the number we allow, but saying that anyone who manages to physically get in should automatically become a citizen.
It’s going to be a long, long time (never?) before some of the major political players make an honest assessment of the immigration hypocrisy in this country. We’ve failed at both ends: stemming the flow of the undocumented into the U.S., but also shutting off the spigot from the companies (big and small) that are all too eager to wink and look the other way (at minimum–with the larger players, there’s also heavy legislative and non-legislative lobbying involved, to go along with the illegal hiring). The Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck crowd love to focus on the former, but hardly the latter. Simple economics will tell you that cheap labor and cheap-labor-desiring employers will always seek each other out, regardless of the legality of their actions. That’s not surprising: poor foreigners hunger for work and companies hungry for cheap labor that allows them to avoid those pesky labor laws. I’m not judging that: businesses exist to make profits, and if the laws are either weak or not enforced, why should they follow them? But that’s why we need laws and regulations that are enforced.
And that’s why we need to be serious about solving the problem from both ends. Make laws with teeth or enforce the ones already on the books, and continue to enforce border laws. I’m dubious about the latter, and interestingly, I think a struggling U.S. economy has been more effective at reducing border crossings than stepped-up border enforcement. Nevertheless, unless you’re a no-borders advocate (which I am not), if we don’t more seriously address the abuse from the employers’ side, you won’t see any change. That’s simple market logic.
Saywhaaaa – I can say it because it’s so obviously true. These people tend, overwhelmingly, to have the shittiest jobs at the lowest wages. That’s the underpinning of the entire influx of illegal immigrants. “Anecdotal stories do not prove a point” but you go on to cite the “guy I know who is here illegally sleeping with his brother’s wife.” Get your argumentation straight, for starters. And you obviously didn’t read my other comment on how this can be controlled.
I agree that its a difficult problem. However, I do not believe this girl should have gotten financial aid that could have gone to someone else whose parents were law abiding.
Better would be for her to serve in the armed forces and earn her aid (two years isn’t enough, btw). It would have been a good experience for her, made her more mature and ready for college (which is always useful), demonstrated for sure her commitment to America, and earned her scholarship.
There are too many people who claim to love America, but really only enjoy it. Let’s make sure that those we bestow benefits on from foreign countries are the ones who will love it for real.
I have a few more thoughts on this. The severity of the crime committed by our young college student is essentially nil. She was brought here as a child and had no say in the matter. I’d argue (though I know some would disagree) the crime her parents committed is also fairly minor as crimes go. Regardless, no one here thinks kids should be punished for their parents’ crimes, right?
The issue is that she and her parents represent a policy problem. There are too many immigrants and not enough jobs and services to go around. What we need is a policy solution -a real one- not one that denies services to kids or medical care to the sick. A real policy solution might have cross-party support. A “solution” designed to inflict maximum damage on people who arrived illegally is destined to be just a right wing hobbyhorse.
Mavis, this issue isn’t the child’s crime (which is none). We have a policy problem that requires a solution, and that solution needs to be equitable. Giving aid to that child, rather than to a legal citizen, is not equitable – at least if citizenship is to mean anything other than taxpayer.
A good policy solution is to greatly reduce the number of immigrants. That may require policies which are painful to individual, innocent immigrants. But you know what… there are billions of potential immigrants out there who would come here in a flash if they could get away with it, and could afford it. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Amen, Mavis.
John Moore, my response is that there are policy solutions (including what Reg suggested and there are others) that don’t primarily penalize totally innocent kids. Those are the policies I’m interested in. The other stuff, well, I’m out.
Here is another anecdotal stories about securing the border and those hard working folks from across the border.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/24/drug-seizures-at-us-mexico-ports-up-20-percent/
SAN DIEGO — More than 145 tons of narcotics were seized at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry in San Diego and Imperial counties during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, a 20 percent increase from the previous fiscal year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said Tuesday.
The drugs were confiscated at border checkpoints at San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, Tecate, Calexico and Andrade, said Angelica De Cima, a CBP spokeswoman.
Methamphetamine seizures increased by 82 percent; followed by heroin seizures at 51 percent and marijuana seizures at 21 percent. Cocaine seizures decreased by 13 percent.
The drugs seized at the California border checkpoints accounted for 40 percent of the marijuana and 71 percent of the methamphetamine confiscated at ports of entry nationwide, the CBP said.
More than $1.46 million in currency was confiscated, an increase of 108 percent, and more than 42,000 immigration violators were apprehended.
What’s wrong with her attending school in her native country?
And what would those be (I don’t usually read Reg’s rants… too high a BS to noise ratio)? That innocent girl got her scholarship at the expense of some other innocent kid. That’s how it works.
Mavis, you said “She was brought here as a child and had no say in the matter. I’d argue (though I know some would disagree) the crime her parents committed is also fairly minor as crimes go”.
I’d agree with how you feel about the child but when millions of others do the exact same thing her parents did that “minor” crime becomes this national probelm we’re faced with.
There’s nothing minor about it.
# saywhaaaaaa Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am
“I am the last demographic anyone wants to hear from: middle-class, white male.”
…………….
Sure, because poor minorities are in high demand on cable news channels, AM radio shows, and in Washington. Call that whaaaaaaambulance back. We’ve got another one down.
The Mexican American war was an unjust land grab, and a violent crusade by a blood thirsty President Polk. The interests of national security were not in mind. It was a cruel campaign, motivated by nothing more than power and greed. I support all amnesty laws, and all laws that would make it easier for Mexicans to become US citizens. As it stands, it’s actually harder for Mexicans to become legal US citizens than it is for Europeans. If you need any more proof that our Mexican immigration policy is racist…
“And what would those (solutions) be…don’t read Reg…blah blah….”
I suggested that John Moore stand at the border with his guns….that’ll do the trick.
And let us never forget that John Moore once called for New York Times reporters to be hung and called out Walter Cronkite as a traitor. Which are key reasons why when folks trying to slip over the border are confronted with his hardened , uncompromising, uber-patriotic visage, armed to the teeth, locked and loaded, they’ll turn tail and run back to Mexico. This is a Surefire solution to an intractable problem.
Rob Thomas,
That is the most absurd argument. Over 150 years ago the US won a war and secured territory as a result. Now, out of guilt that none of us had anything to do with, we are supposed to let the losers have some special deal?
John, if it’s such an absurd argument, why didn’t you respond directly to any points I made?
Again, the Mexican-American war was unjust, unnecessary, and did not have the interests of national security in mind. It was barbaric and cold blooded. It was terrorism, and nothing short of it.
And, talk about absurd points, you say you had nothing to do with the Mexican-American war, then in the very same sentence, claim the land won in the war as your own, and insist that Mexicans should not benefit from it in any way. The truth is, I feel the war has nothing to do with me, because I don’t believe the United States should have ever been in it. This is precisely why I support all legal avenues for amnesty and to make citizenship easier for Mexicans. Your stance on immigration automatically condones the war that you claim you had nothing to do with. Are you kidding me? Your goal is to enforce one of the very objectives of that war, to occupy what is now considered the Southwest United States. That war, its motives, it’s barbarianism, and it’s terrorism, has everything to do with you and your politics on immigration. You are at one with it. You live it and breathe it. I choose not to. I support all laws allowing Mexicans easier citizenship, and feel America was wrong in that war. What you call guilt, I call morals.
And where did the mexicans get the land from?
Let’s say I just give you all those points (not interested in nit-picking and you are somewhat right)…
SO WHAT?
That was 150 years ago.
Just when exactly do we set the statute of limitations? For which country?
Shall we redraw the world map to be that off 150 years ago? Shall we allow any group whose ancestors’ ancestors’ ancestors’ were harmed by any other group to claim special grievances?
If we are going to do this for the Mexicans, clearly we need to give the whole country back to the Indians, because our war against them was terribly worse than what we did to Mexico. But then, we have to make various tribes give penance or whatever to various other tribes, because there was a lot of blood-letting and unfairness before Europe ever came to the Americas.
Obviously the Irish part of my ancestry needs to get something special from the Scotch part, and the Indian part needs to get something special from both, and the German part needs to do penance to all sorts of folks, and most of my ancestry (except for the Indian part) was oppressed by the Romans once upon a time.
In other words, your argument is absurd because:
1) It is historically extremely selective
2) The values implied in it require actions which would totally upend the modern world
3) It has no end… injustice is transitive and the values in your argument don’t say when that terminates.
QED
I have to agree with Moore on this point of his, that arguing that because some war was “unjust” and trying to negate victories of 150 years ago, would be and HAS BEEN one of the major causes of continuing unrest and wars. Looking at it from its most unlikely consequence, it could mean a renewal of the Franco-German wars over Alsace-Lorraine; the wars between Austria and Italy over Northern Italy, the Milan-Venice region (just arguing over whether the same dish should be called “Veal Milanese” or “Schnitzel” is still a political act), and as Moore says, there are still unsettled disputes in Great Britain. But recently we’ve seen what happens when the indeed unjust and arbitary boundaries imposes after Versailles were “redrawn” in WWII, the Yugoslavian conflicts, Romania vs. Hungary, India vs. Pakistan and Bangladesh (very much alive in Kashmir and even Afghanistan/Iraq, etc.), of course, the middle East, etc.
Only in the luckiest case do we see something like the peaceful split of Czechs and Slovaks back to their respective countries (a trend we’re seeing even in Belgium, where the dual French-Dutch language/culture nation is seeing its citizens separate more forcefully along those lines0: BUT this hasn’t solved the continuing problem of “minorities” which are created when a boundary is redrawn and some people wake up being forced to give allegiance to another nation and language – which may actually be antithetical to them – or else. That’s very much a problem in Central Europe and elsewhere.
Wars are different from lopsided invasions, as in China vs. the Tibetans or Uighurs (or ANY non-Han nation or minority), where a powerful, and/or more populous military nation simply crushes another against its will. There are ENOUGH of these which require our urgent attention, without resorting to the stupidity and Pandora’s Box of invalidating the boundaries redrawn in some ancient war – whether it’s Mexicans yearning for a mythical “Aztlan” as an excuse to “reclaim” the American midwest, or Egypt or Jordan “reclaiming” the Sinai or East Jerusalem. (If Israel gives up those regions to rid itself of terrorism, it will be precisely to PREVENT the problems posed by open borders where its national identity and security would be undermined.)
— For the record, I’m NOT making any sort of direct analogy between the “threat of invasion” from our southern border with what Israel is facing from avowed terrorists, but just pointing out that trying to invalidate the outcome of declared wars by sheer population transfer would set a very bad precedent around the world – for every single part of the globe.) And yes, I know this leaves open the fact that whether something is considered a declared war to set and preserve boundaries for future security, or just an invasion or land-grab, isn’t always clearcut and can depend on which side you ask.
# roy Says:
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
And where did the mexicans get the land from?
………..
What business is it of the United States?
John Moore, sure, the war was 150 years ago. But you’re making the choice to reinforce at least one of the very objectives of that war. You say you have no connection to the war, it’s not your fault, etc. But if you’re going to uphold the very objectives of that war, even make it a major political position of yours, when you have the option of being more compassionate toward Mexican immigrants and supporting laws that would make it easier for them to become citizens, you sure put yourself as close to being responsible for the war as you can possibly be, don’t you? 150 years is a long time. But it’s not a thousand years ago. And I think the demographics of southern California in itself serves as the writing on the wall that not only was this war not very long ago historically speaking, but is also going to wind up being a failure, as today the corporate class, which has the strongest lobby in Washington, is dependent on the labor provided by Mexican immigrants, documented or not.
Hey, Rob, I’m making the choice to preserve the greatest country ever created. It has nothing to do with some ancient war and everything to do with what we have created.
The Hispanics in the Southwest (where I have lived almost all my life) are almost all immigrants. We didn’t take any land from them. They came here because the countries they left (which in your wonderful world would also run California, AZ, etc) are incompetent at producing economic progress.
If you want to argue immigration policy, forget the stupid war and argue today’s policies.
Otherwise, everyone will consider you a nut-case, just like I have come to.
“If you want to argue immigration policy, forget the stupid war and argue today’s policies.
Otherwise, everyone will consider you a nut-case, just like I have come to.”
**************************
Some of us already know Rob is a nut-case, Rob compares today’s LAPD to Nazis and George Bush and “republicans” to Hitler.
Rob thinks the mexican drug cartels can run a country better than the “republicans”, he often rants about his conspiracy theories, we already know he is a nut-case and a jack-ass.
What business is it of the United States?
only focus on what fits your agenda.