Wayne Boatwright wrote:
On Sat 06 May 2006 05:43:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Joseph
Meehan?

Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along with
them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the US.
IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop
this kind of drug trade.

It would be far simpler to legalize drugs. I doubt it would
significantly increase drug use and it would eliminate a significant
amount of crime. And no, before you ask or assume, I have never been
nor am I presently a drug user.

Funny, we did that once, and according to many authorities drug use
decreased and crime associated with it greatly decreased. We called it the
end of prohibition.


Eliminating the current illegal population is a moot point.
Preventing more from entering the country is possible.

My only objection in the virulent influx of aliens is the changing
culture.

Why do you fear a change in culture?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother swallowing
it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your opinion
and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what percentage of
people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs. So, this entire discussion is
bull****. But, since we're knee-deep in it, we may as well entertain the
only theory that makes sense. If someone is caught coming across, and
they're not wanted for some sort of crime, they're sent back with a slap on
the wrist. They'll try again later, maybe get caught again, or maybe be
successful. To carry drugs, they'd either need one hell of a good plan, or
be extremly stupid, since they lose nothing but time if they caught carrying
nothing.

Some here NEED to believe drugs are a major issue because it's convenient
for them to assign a "stupid" label to illegal immigrants, along with all
the other categories they'd like them to fit into. But, they have no
statistics to back up this belief.

"Wayne Boatwright" wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com wrote in message
8.19...
On Sat 06 May 2006 05:43:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Joseph
Meehan?

Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along with
them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the US.
IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop this
kind of drug trade.

It would be far simpler to legalize drugs. I doubt it would significantly
increase drug use and it would eliminate a significant amount of crime.
And
no, before you ask or assume, I have never been nor am I presently a drug
user.

Eliminating the current illegal population is a moot point. Preventing
more
from entering the country is possible.

My only objection in the virulent influx of aliens is the changing
culture.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬


Do you like Thai food? Chinese? Mexican? Italian? How about Cajun food? That
was barely known outside of the South until Paul Prudhomme popularized it on
TV 25 years ago. Now, it's changed culinary culture all over America. Are
you bothered by ALL changes in culture?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother
swallowing it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your opinion
and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what percentage
of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs. So, this entire
discussion is bull****. But, since we're knee-deep in it, we may as well
entertain the only theory that makes sense. If someone is caught coming
across, and they're not wanted for some sort of crime, they're sent back
with a slap on the wrist. They'll try again later, maybe get caught again,
or maybe be successful. To carry drugs, they'd either need one hell of a
good plan, or be extremly stupid, since they lose nothing but time if they
caught carrying nothing.

Some here NEED to believe drugs are a major issue because it's convenient
for them to assign a "stupid" label to illegal immigrants, along with all
the other categories they'd like them to fit into. But, they have no
statistics to back up this belief.

The global economy is coming... No way to avoid it. If the U.S. were smart,
they'd put the laws in place to control the change of their economy and then
open the borders to all.

Protectionism only works in the short run, and you end up paying double for
it when it fails.

BobK207 wrote:

I grow my own tomatoes (pear, grape, romas & ; buy my strawberries
from road side stands (where they grow "untransportable" berries

What varieties are good? The flattish big ones aren't ever worth
eating, but sometimes you can get good smaller conical berries. My
grandma used to grow small (3/4") round ones that were very good.

The market will deliver that which people are willing to buy.

btw commercial oranges now are pretty tasteless, I doubt the machine
oranges will be much worse. But they'll improve if the market wants
a better one.

Local navels, both commercial and homegrown, are Washingtons. Do you
think they're tasteless?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ==================
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote:

I for one would
pay a little more money to support our own workforce.

But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of the
country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in harvesting
certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of work?

How about the kids who don't have the skills to flip burgers? You'd
rather pay them to hang around recycling centers drinking out of bottles
in paper bags?

Anyone who can't flip a burger should've been evaluated no later than
elementary school.

Apparently a lot of kids have trouble with the concepts of "appropriate
dress" and "appropriate behavior" and "punctuality" and "courtesy." If
you can't meet those standards your ability to flip burgers is irrelevant.

If the schools are incapable of teaching reading to more or less average
students, how on earth can they evaluate the below average students? I
guess maybe they could evaluate them, but there's not much they could do.

They have much deeper problems. I honestly don't know how
society should provide for people like that.

Neither do I, but it obviously involves giving all the teachers a raise.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ==================
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.

Keith Williams wrote:

says...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
KC wrote:

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.

They're immigrants from Asia. You think they grew from seed?

Well, yes. Didn't you? ;-)

Point taken! Still, land belongs to whoever owns it at the moment.
Right now it's people like Us. Sooner or later it will be owned by
people like Them.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ==================
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.

Ernie Klein wrote:

wrote:
Ernie Klein wrote:

I find it interesting that the same liberals who love unions also love
the immigrants.

I guess I must really confuse you.

I am not confused and I was not assuming that you were a liberal. I
turned your statement around because I am amused that union loving
liberals embrace illegal immigrants instead of being offended by them
because they are undercutting the unions the liberals love so dearly.

The unions underwrote a lot of the May 1 demonstrations. The purpose of
a union is to increase its membership. Illegals can become union
members. Is further explanation needed?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ==================
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.

wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:43:23 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


Of course, English is the de facto official language of the WORLD, most
specifically including the United States of America. Why would someone
immigrate to the United States expecting to have to speak French?

Hint to the clueless . . . some things are so obvious that they don't need
to be written down somewhere. Speak English, or go home. -Dave



I suppose I just want the Mexicans to get the same consideration we
give Cubans. If you think Cubans "learn the language" it is obvious
you have never been to Miami. When they enter the country on a raft
"illegally" we let them stay with virtually no questions asked as long
as their feet are on dry ground when INS finds them. Castro does not
respond to"background checks", nor do we ask.


GREAT ANSWER.

Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants , by and large seeking
refuge from horrific economic conditions (and sometimes political
problems exist too) should not get better or worse treatment than Cubans
who are fleeing both political and economic nightmares

The Real Bev wrote:
BobK207 wrote:

I grow my own tomatoes (pear, grape, romas & ; buy my strawberries
from road side stands (where they grow "untransportable" berries

What varieties are good? The flattish big ones aren't ever worth
eating, but sometimes you can get good smaller conical berries. My
grandma used to grow small (3/4") round ones that were very good.

The market will deliver that which people are willing to buy.

btw commercial oranges now are pretty tasteless, I doubt the machine
oranges will be much worse. But they'll improve if the market wants
a better one.

Local navels, both commercial and homegrown, are Washingtons. Do you
think they're tasteless?

Much of the fruit at the grocery stores is to be avoided if it is
labeled to be of California origin. Generally tasteless and often dry
almost to the point of being inedible. Florida fruit and South texas
fruit are generally to be chosen over California as being both more
flavorful and juicier.

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:%7w7g.136209$7a.19691@pd7tw1no...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother
swallowing it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your
opinion and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what percentage
of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs. So, this entire
discussion is bull****. But, since we're knee-deep in it, we may as well
entertain the only theory that makes sense. If someone is caught coming
across, and they're not wanted for some sort of crime, they're sent back
with a slap on the wrist. They'll try again later, maybe get caught
again, or maybe be successful. To carry drugs, they'd either need one
hell of a good plan, or be extremly stupid, since they lose nothing but
time if they caught carrying nothing.

Some here NEED to believe drugs are a major issue because it's convenient
for them to assign a "stupid" label to illegal immigrants, along with all
the other categories they'd like them to fit into. But, they have no
statistics to back up this belief.

The global economy is coming... No way to avoid it. If the U.S. were
smart, they'd put the laws in place to control the change of their economy
and then open the borders to all.

Protectionism only works in the short run, and you end up paying double
for it when it fails.


True, but I think this is racism as much as protectionism.

"BobK207" wrote in message
ups.com...

btw commercial oranges now are pretty tasteless, I doubt the machine
oranges will be much worse. But they'll improve if the market wants a
better one.


How do you define a "commercial orange"?

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote:

I for one would
pay a little more money to support our own workforce.

But, who would get this extra money if we kicked all illegals out of
the country? Have you ever seen the backbreaking work involved in
harvesting certain crops? Would you want your kids to do that kind of
work?

How about the kids who don't have the skills to flip burgers? You'd
rather pay them to hang around recycling centers drinking out of bottles
in paper bags?

Anyone who can't flip a burger should've been evaluated no later than
elementary school.

Apparently a lot of kids have trouble with the concepts of "appropriate
dress" and "appropriate behavior" and "punctuality" and "courtesy." If
you can't meet those standards your ability to flip burgers is irrelevant.

If the schools are incapable of teaching reading to more or less average
students, how on earth can they evaluate the below average students? I
guess maybe they could evaluate them, but there's not much they could do.

They have much deeper problems. I honestly don't know how society should
provide for people like that.

Neither do I, but it obviously involves giving all the teachers a raise.


Does getting a raise really make teachers more willing to beat up kids a
little more, to get them to do the right thing? I don't know the answer,
really. I had a Latin teacher who, in his previous life was a US Marine
drill sergeant. If one of us was looking out the window & daydreaming, he'd
get right in our faces and yell loud enough to blow our hair off.
Daydreaming ceased to be an issue in his classes.

I had the same biology teacher for 10th grade bio, and then AP bio two years
later. In Spring, she held review sessions for regents exams or SATs. She
called them voluntary, but if you didn't show up, she'd be on the phone with
your parents, even if it took until 10:00 PM to track them down. She
expected us to type our notes every night. Without any warning, she'd
collect our notebooks, and they counted for 30% of the grade. The didn't cut
any slack for anybody, ever. Here's what's interesting, though: Parents
would begin shmoozing the principal and pulling strings and hounding people
6 months ahead of time to make sure their kids got her instead of the other
bio teacher.

I don't know if these people were highly paid. I think it's a difference in
what's expected and accepted. My son's a junior, and he's had some top-notch
teachers, but their classes have been very difficult. When he comes home and
comments on this, we say "It's good for you. Let us know if you need help".
Based on what I see in the newsgroups, it's obvious this is not the case
with all parents.

His first grade teacher was a 40 year veteran of the same school. I spent
some time in her classes as a volunteer. That was like watching a master
potter turn a lump of clay into a vase effortlessly. During one of the
school budget battles, some group of yahoos published a list of teachers
whose salaries were "too darned high". This teacher was making $90,000.00,
and these people thought this was a crime or something. 40 years in the same
job, her students turn out to be better readers than their parents in many
cases, and that's too much money?

This is what we're up against.

"Robert Gammon" wrote in message
. net...
wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 18:43:23 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


Of course, English is the de facto official language of the WORLD, most
specifically including the United States of America. Why would someone
immigrate to the United States expecting to have to speak French?

Hint to the clueless . . . some things are so obvious that they don't
need to be written down somewhere. Speak English, or go home. -Dave


I suppose I just want the Mexicans to get the same consideration we
give Cubans. If you think Cubans "learn the language" it is obvious
you have never been to Miami. When they enter the country on a raft
"illegally" we let them stay with virtually no questions asked as long
as their feet are on dry ground when INS finds them. Castro does not
respond to"background checks", nor do we ask.


GREAT ANSWER.
Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants , by and large seeking
refuge from horrific economic conditions (and sometimes political problems
exist too) should not get better or worse treatment than Cubans who are
fleeing both political and economic nightmares

Ah...but the Cubans are a special case. The reason for their special
treatment is rather circular. The person they're fleeing is an ***EVIL
COMMUNIST*** (everybody say "booooo"). By standing between these special
immigrants and the law, politicians gain votes. These immigrants can vote
because in many cases, when they arrive, they drop right into a much
stronger support system than people streaming over the Mexican border. By
support system, I mean friends & family, and perhaps a job. Therefore, they
have the advantage of immersion, which is the best way to learn a new
language and assimilate in other ways. It also helps one gain citizenship
more quickly. Become a citizen, and you can vote for the person who helped
you stay here. And, you can make sure Cuba retains is special evil status
for as long as it takes for the rest of your family & friends to come here.

What Mexicans need is an evil leader with a special label like "Communist".
Unfortunately for them, there are no evil leaders with similar special
status.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
odigy.com...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along
with them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into
the US. IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could
stop this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs
across to pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily
-- continue to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money
instead of having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased*
incentive to smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity*
to do so. Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can
do to stop them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a
supply. Prohibition didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly
idea that open borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of
course you're right that the "sar on drugs" isn't working, and for
exactly the same reason that Prohibition didn't.


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally
"obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is one more
datapoint proving otherwise.


Maybe you should define WHAT TYPE of illegals you're talking about.
Certainly, you'd agree that the largest sheer numbers consist of
people coming over the border with Mexico, looking for work.

And committing all sorts of crimes besides illegal entry.
(the drugs are allegedly carried as part-payment for the smuggler's
guidance in getting to the US undetected)
Jim Yanik

So what? Deal with the demand, not the supply. I can get heroin, pot,
meth and anything else I want, any time I want. I choose not to. Write
to your erected slobs and tell them to legalize drugs. Then, we'll all
have no choice but to speak to our children honestly about ALL
substance abuse. Oh my. What a concept.


I too believe drugs should be decriminalized,but AT THE PRESENT TIME,they
ARE illegal,and the illegal "immigrants" are at this time,breaking our
laws.That is the point you and others seem to be missing.

It seems you are saying that because foreigners break our laws,we need to
change our laws,get rid of them,or ignore them.
That's NOT the way it works.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Squanklin" wrote in
oups.com:

posted: "all immigrants to stay here should pay taxes
and be required tom learn
english, the official us language.. "


This has probably been covered already, but English is not the official
language of the USA. We have no "official" language.


We overthrew the BRITISH (English-speakers) to form the United States.
The original 13 colonies were all English-speaking.
Thus,we ARE officially an English-speaking country.
All our official documents are in English,our legislation is done in
English.If not "official",then DEFACTO.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
news
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can
he put in the trunk of his car?
The wetback is in the trunk, along with 20 other guys. Not much room
for drugs. These folks usually walk and carry as much WATER as they
can, again not much room for drugs.



http://www.usbc.org/media/pr9708.htm
says otherwise.
Jim Yanik


Nice comment in that article:

"These diplomats are well aware of the fact that their citizens are
being exploited, robbed and even murdered by the coyotes who smuggle
them into our country. They are aware that many are carrying drugs
into America that will wind up in the veins of American children."

I wonder if Mr. Nelson would like to volunteer some of his officers to
crack down on liquor stores that sell booze to minors.




Again,the argument that because another problem exists,we should do nothing
about this unrelated problem.Also,one is an internal affair,and the other
an external affair.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Robert Gammon wrote in
. com:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in
:


On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much
can he put in the trunk of his car?

The wetback is in the trunk, along with 20 other guys. Not much
room for drugs. These folks usually walk and carry as much WATER as
they can, again not much room for drugs.


http://www.usbc.org/media/pr9708.htm
says otherwise.
Jim Yanik



Nice comment in that article:

"These diplomats are well aware of the fact that their citizens are
being exploited, robbed and even murdered by the coyotes who smuggle
them into our country. They are aware that many are carrying drugs
into America that will wind up in the veins of American children."

I wonder if Mr. Nelson would like to volunteer some of his officers
to crack down on liquor stores that sell booze to minors.



We can agree that the coyote abuse the HELL out of their customers in
all sorts of ways. Well publicized case here in South texas where a
18 wheeler driver walked away from a rig in 90+ degree heat leaving 20
some odd Hispanic refugees to nearly all die in the heat last year.

However, the quantity of heroin and other controlled drugs sold in the
USA cannot be accounted for solely by the actions of mules. Yes,
there are drug mules, but I doubt that the folks who crontrol the bulk
of the narcotics trade use mules to move their product. Yes Jamacians
use mules to move drugs into Europe. I have doubts that the massive
cocaine production in South America, the massive poppy fields across
Asia move into the markets of the USA and Europe to any significant
degree in the guts of mules. Its hundreds of tons of this stuff
consumed each year, it can't all be coming in the guts of mules, only
a very very minor portion can be accounted for in this manner.

Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that it's illegal and illegal
"immigrants" are the ones committing the felonies by being drug mules.
How much doesn't matter,it's STILL a felony crime.This is just WEASELLING
AWAY from the claim that Mexican illegals don't commit crimes when coming
to the US.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother
swallowing
it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your
opinion
and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what
percentage of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs.

Percentage or amoiunt of drugs carried does not MATTER;it's still Mexican
illegals committing crimes.

So, this
entire discussion is bull****.

The weaselling around the crime facts is BS.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Noozer" wrote in message
news:%7w7g.136209$7a.19691@pd7tw1no...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother
swallowing it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your
opinion and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what
percentage of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs. So, this
entire discussion is bull****. But, since we're knee-deep in it, we
may as well entertain the only theory that makes sense. If someone
is caught coming across, and they're not wanted for some sort of
crime, they're sent back with a slap on the wrist. They'll try again
later, maybe get caught again, or maybe be successful. To carry
drugs, they'd either need one hell of a good plan, or be extremly
stupid, since they lose nothing but time if they caught carrying
nothing.

Some here NEED to believe drugs are a major issue because it's
convenient for them to assign a "stupid" label to illegal
immigrants, along with all the other categories they'd like them to
fit into. But, they have no statistics to back up this belief.

The global economy is coming... No way to avoid it. If the U.S. were
smart, they'd put the laws in place to control the change of their
economy and then open the borders to all.

Protectionism only works in the short run, and you end up paying
double for it when it fails.


True, but I think this is racism as much as protectionism.



It's anti-CRIME.
You folks seem to want to excuse it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

The Real Bev wrote in
:

Keith Williams wrote:

says...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
KC wrote:

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.

They're immigrants from Asia. You think they grew from seed?

Well, yes. Didn't you? ;-)

Point taken! Still, land belongs to whoever owns it at the moment.
Right now it's people like Us. Sooner or later it will be owned by
people like Them.


Only if we let Them.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

The Real Bev wrote in
:

Keith Williams wrote:

says...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
KC wrote:

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.

They're immigrants from Asia. You think they grew from seed?

Well, yes. Didn't you? ;-)

Point taken! Still, land belongs to whoever owns it at the moment.
Right now it's people like Us. Sooner or later it will be owned by
people like Them.


To add to my last comment;if we choose to not defend the US against
invasion(and that is what it is),somebody else WILL own the US.

That is what it's about;border control. **OUR** borders.
Claiming it's "racism" is a stale,old,invalid tactic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
rodigy.com...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along
with them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into
the US. IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could
stop this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs
across to pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily
-- continue to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money
instead of having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased*
incentive to smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity*
to do so. Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can
do to stop them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a
supply. Prohibition didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly
idea that open borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of
course you're right that the "sar on drugs" isn't working, and for
exactly the same reason that Prohibition didn't.


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally
"obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is one more
datapoint proving otherwise.


Maybe you should define WHAT TYPE of illegals you're talking about.
Certainly, you'd agree that the largest sheer numbers consist of
people coming over the border with Mexico, looking for work.

And committing all sorts of crimes besides illegal entry.
(the drugs are allegedly carried as part-payment for the smuggler's
guidance in getting to the US undetected)
Jim Yanik

So what? Deal with the demand, not the supply. I can get heroin, pot,
meth and anything else I want, any time I want. I choose not to. Write
to your erected slobs and tell them to legalize drugs. Then, we'll all
have no choice but to speak to our children honestly about ALL
substance abuse. Oh my. What a concept.


I too believe drugs should be decriminalized,but AT THE PRESENT TIME,they
ARE illegal,and the illegal "immigrants" are at this time,breaking our
laws.That is the point you and others seem to be missing.

It seems you are saying that because foreigners break our laws,we need to
change our laws,get rid of them,or ignore them.
That's NOT the way it works.
Jim Yanik

No. I'm saying to focus on what's important. If the drug laws vanished, a
major part of your argument here would turn to vapor. Matter of fact, it's
ALREADY vapor. You have no statistics to indicate how prevalent drug
smuggling is among people crossing the border from Mexico.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
news
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can
he put in the trunk of his car?
The wetback is in the trunk, along with 20 other guys. Not much room
for drugs. These folks usually walk and carry as much WATER as they
can, again not much room for drugs.



http://www.usbc.org/media/pr9708.htm
says otherwise.
Jim Yanik


Nice comment in that article:

"These diplomats are well aware of the fact that their citizens are
being exploited, robbed and even murdered by the coyotes who smuggle
them into our country. They are aware that many are carrying drugs
into America that will wind up in the veins of American children."

I wonder if Mr. Nelson would like to volunteer some of his officers to
crack down on liquor stores that sell booze to minors.




Again,the argument that because another problem exists,we should do
nothing
about this unrelated problem.Also,one is an internal affair,and the other
an external affair.
Jim Yanik

I'll bet you'd be the first to say that it's best to let consumer demand
determine market changes instead of letting the government stick its nose
into our affairs.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

We can agree that the coyote abuse the HELL out of their customers in
all sorts of ways. Well publicized case here in South texas where a
18 wheeler driver walked away from a rig in 90+ degree heat leaving 20
some odd Hispanic refugees to nearly all die in the heat last year.

However, the quantity of heroin and other controlled drugs sold in the
USA cannot be accounted for solely by the actions of mules. Yes,
there are drug mules, but I doubt that the folks who crontrol the bulk
of the narcotics trade use mules to move their product. Yes Jamacians
use mules to move drugs into Europe. I have doubts that the massive
cocaine production in South America, the massive poppy fields across
Asia move into the markets of the USA and Europe to any significant
degree in the guts of mules. Its hundreds of tons of this stuff
consumed each year, it can't all be coming in the guts of mules, only
a very very minor portion can be accounted for in this manner.

Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that it's illegal and illegal
"immigrants" are the ones committing the felonies by being drug mules.
How much doesn't matter,it's STILL a felony crime.This is just WEASELLING
AWAY from the claim that Mexican illegals don't commit crimes when coming
to the US.
Jim Yanik


How many do this, Jim? We really need to know. Got a phone? Why don't you
call INS? Tell them you're a freelance writer, and you're interested in
statistics. I'm sure they'll give you the information, although it may take
a few phonecalls or e-mails.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Noozer" wrote in message
news:%7w7g.136209$7a.19691@pd7tw1no...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother
swallowing it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your
opinion and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what
percentage of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs. So, this
entire discussion is bull****. But, since we're knee-deep in it, we
may as well entertain the only theory that makes sense. If someone
is caught coming across, and they're not wanted for some sort of
crime, they're sent back with a slap on the wrist. They'll try again
later, maybe get caught again, or maybe be successful. To carry
drugs, they'd either need one hell of a good plan, or be extremly
stupid, since they lose nothing but time if they caught carrying
nothing.

Some here NEED to believe drugs are a major issue because it's
convenient for them to assign a "stupid" label to illegal
immigrants, along with all the other categories they'd like them to
fit into. But, they have no statistics to back up this belief.

The global economy is coming... No way to avoid it. If the U.S. were
smart, they'd put the laws in place to control the change of their
economy and then open the borders to all.

Protectionism only works in the short run, and you end up paying
double for it when it fails.


True, but I think this is racism as much as protectionism.



It's anti-CRIME.
You folks seem to want to excuse it.
Jim Yanik


No. We agree that crossing the border illegally is a crime. However, some
here (maybe you) have assigned all sorts of other sins to these people. So
far, I've seen drug smuggling, spreading disease, and bad driving. Since we
have no stats on any of these, I'm assuming they're fictional until proven
otherwise. And, if you choose to find stats, you'll also needs stats
indicating that legal residents are NOT responsible for the same sins.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:
..

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

...


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother
swallowing
it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your
opinion
and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit



First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what
percentage of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs.

Percentage or amoiunt of drugs carried does not MATTER;it's still Mexican
illegals committing crimes.

So, this
entire discussion is bull****.

The weaselling around the crime facts is BS.
Jim Yanik

So, if 10,000 cross the border, and 39 carry drugs, you think the drugs are
a big issue?

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
The Real Bev wrote in
:

Keith Williams wrote:

says...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
KC wrote:

I wonder.. Considering all but the Native Americans are illegal
immigrants or decedents of them I suspect it would be rather quiet.

They're immigrants from Asia. You think they grew from seed?

Well, yes. Didn't you? ;-)

Point taken! Still, land belongs to whoever owns it at the moment.
Right now it's people like Us. Sooner or later it will be owned by
people like Them.


To add to my last comment;if we choose to not defend the US against
invasion(and that is what it is),somebody else WILL own the US.

That is what it's about;border control. **OUR** borders.
Claiming it's "racism" is a stale,old,invalid tactic.
Jim Yanik

Where did your ancestors come from, and when?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 May 2006 10:32:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How do you define a "commercial orange"?

A mass produced hybrid, grown on lots of pesticides and chemicals,
with a perfect skin that is designed to transport well. They are
usually picked green and dyed "orange".
If you live near a place where homegrown oranges are popular you know
the difference.
This is basically the same thing as the difference between grocery
store tomatoes and homegrown.

The Florida ones *do* taste much richer. Unfortunately, I don't see them in
stores much any more. I've found them online at a price that ends up being
like $2.00 each.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:02:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Therefore, they
have the advantage of immersion, which is the best way to learn a new
language and assimilate in other ways

Now I know you have never been to Miami.


I was about to ask "What do you mean?", but I'll guess:

1) They cluster in their own neighborhoods.

2) They don't speak English.

How many points do I get?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:12:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

have the advantage of immersion, which is the best way to learn a new
language and assimilate in other ways

Now I know you have never been to Miami.


I was about to ask "What do you mean?", but I'll guess:

1) They cluster in their own neighborhoods.

2) They don't speak English.

How many points do I get?


The only thing about it is "their neighborhood" is most of Miami west
of Biscane Bay and Spanish is the primary language, even in large
chain stores. English is the one in small print on the signs.
I don't think Miami has had a non-hispanic mayor for 3 decades.

So? If a town hadn't had a republican mayor for 3 decades, wouldn't it mean
that not enough people voted for the other parties? This isn't evil you're
talking about here. The Cubans have governor Bush in their pockets, and he's
pulling his brother's strings. No different than any other influential group
in this country.

Jim Yanik wrote:
...

No he hasn't;look at how many people swallow several or more condoms
filled with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US,at the
request of foreign drug cartels.One can probably carry more drugs
externally than internally.


OK, why would a illegal Immigrant "swallow several or more condoms
filled with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US" when they
are entering illegally. Why not just stick them bag and carry them?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jim Yanik wrote:

.....

It's anti-CRIME.
You folks seem to want to excuse it.

Please excuse me if you have already answered this, I have not finished
reading all the response, but have you ever broken the law?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Doug Kanter wrote:
...

True, but I think this is racism as much as protectionism.

So it appears. Why else would so many of the same people complain of a
language issue.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jim Yanik wrote:
...
First of all, nobody here, including Yanik, has ANY idea what
percentage of people coming from Mexico are carrying drugs.

Percentage or amoiunt of drugs carried does not MATTER;it's still
Mexican illegals committing crimes.


Have you ever broken an law. Do you have any information indicating
that illegal immigrants commit more crimes and more serious crimes than US
citizens?


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Yanik wrote:

....

It's anti-CRIME.
You folks seem to want to excuse it.

Please excuse me if you have already answered this, I have not finished
reading all the response, but have you ever broken the law?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


Mind if I define your question, in case "someone" tries to slither past it?
Doing 36 mph in a 35 mph speed zone is breaking the law.

Jim Yanik wrote:
....

People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally "obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is
one more datapoint proving otherwise.

So what percentage of illegal immigrants smuggle drugs?

Without the facts, your claims are no more than your opinions based on
????


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Doug Miller wrote:
...

Of course that is a diversion from the real question. Do you
believe that shopping centers should be allowed to prevent access by
anyone who can not prove the have never been charged with a crime?

No, but rather the converse: they should be allowed to prevent access
by
anyone that *they* can prove *has* been convicted of one.

So why not have everyone who is convicted of a crime be branded on their
forehead with a "C" to make it easier.





I am only asking. So how about answering the question. Do you
consider (or let me add) do you believe the government should
consider all those wishing to enter the US guilty until they prove
they are not.

Further, would you extend that to citizens of Canada, England etc.

Entering the United States, or any nation, is a privilege, not a
universal
right. Any nation has the right to control who it allows to come in,
and who
it decides to keep out.

Sure the government has the legal right, it rights the laws, but the
question was

" Do you consider (or let me add) do you believe the government should
consider all those wishing to enter the US guilty until they prove they are
not?"


....


I'm saying that we have the right to exclude anyone with a criminal
history.

Or anyone named Fred, but should we?

....
I guess I just
agree with being innocent until proven guilty

So on that basis, do you also object to an employer performing
criminal
background checks on prospective employees? Should a bank, for
example, not be
allowed to find out if an applicant has prior convictions for theft
or embezzlement before deciding to hire that person? Innocent until
proven
guilty, remember.

Frankly I have some reservations about it. I certainly don't
think it is appropriate for many jobs.

Answer the question. Should a bank not be allowed to find out if an
applicant has prior convictions for theft or embezzlement?

Same answer. I really don't know.

....
You have not provided evidence that undocumented immigrants
with the type of real crimes we worry about.

And you're not paying attention to what's going on around you. It
must be nice to live in such a sheltered world.

Where is your evidence?

Again, where is your evidence?

I see it all around me. Open your eyes.

Really. Can you quantify that? Can you back it up with some impartial
evidence? I have seen no such thing, we where are we to go with this until
there is some impartial evidence?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jim Yanik wrote:
Robert Gammon wrote in
. com:

We can agree that the coyote abuse the HELL out of their customers in
all sorts of ways. Well publicized case here in South texas where a
18 wheeler driver walked away from a rig in 90+ degree heat leaving 20
some odd Hispanic refugees to nearly all die in the heat last year.

However, the quantity of heroin and other controlled drugs sold in the
USA cannot be accounted for solely by the actions of mules. Yes,
there are drug mules, but I doubt that the folks who crontrol the bulk
of the narcotics trade use mules to move their product. Yes Jamacians
use mules to move drugs into Europe. I have doubts that the massive
cocaine production in South America, the massive poppy fields across
Asia move into the markets of the USA and Europe to any significant
degree in the guts of mules. Its hundreds of tons of this stuff
consumed each year, it can't all be coming in the guts of mules, only
a very very minor portion can be accounted for in this manner.


Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that it's illegal and illegal
"immigrants" are the ones committing the felonies by being drug mules.
How much doesn't matter,it's STILL a felony crime.This is just WEASELLING
AWAY from the claim that Mexican illegals don't commit crimes when coming
to the US.




We can both agree that crossing any of the borders of the USA without
permission is a violation of US Immigration Law, and we SHOULD not treat
violators of this law any differently than violators of any other law.
However, we do treat them differently than other criminals. Police
forces (state and local) are not on the lookout to arrest them, neither
are National Guard, or the FBI. Their faces and names are not posted in
Post Offices and Police Stations. We only have the US Border Patrol (on
land) and their bosses at the INS to enforce this law, and they do not
have the resources to shutdown illegal immigration. Heck the INS cannot
detect when a student overstays their visa to study at one of our
universities.

But to suggest that the heart of our drug problems would be solved by
getting rid of illegal immigrants who are being used as drug mules is
LUDICROUS!!! We cannot possibly attribute illegals who act as mules for
the TONS of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, hashish, etc that flow from the
Third World nations to other parts of the world, USA included. Yes,
Columbia uses Mexico as a path to the USA. They also use Florida, and
most of the Gulf Coast states to move their product into our system. If
drug mules were eliminated, the drug lords would find some other method
to get the product in. Heck, it would only make a difference to the
marginal distributor one who only needed to move modest amounts of
product anyway.

"Robert Gammon" wrote in message
om...
Jim Yanik wrote:
Robert Gammon wrote in
. com:
We can agree that the coyote abuse the HELL out of their customers in
all sorts of ways. Well publicized case here in South texas where a
18 wheeler driver walked away from a rig in 90+ degree heat leaving 20
some odd Hispanic refugees to nearly all die in the heat last year.

However, the quantity of heroin and other controlled drugs sold in the
USA cannot be accounted for solely by the actions of mules. Yes,
there are drug mules, but I doubt that the folks who crontrol the bulk
of the narcotics trade use mules to move their product. Yes Jamacians
use mules to move drugs into Europe. I have doubts that the massive
cocaine production in South America, the massive poppy fields across
Asia move into the markets of the USA and Europe to any significant
degree in the guts of mules. Its hundreds of tons of this stuff
consumed each year, it can't all be coming in the guts of mules, only
a very very minor portion can be accounted for in this manner.


Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that it's illegal and illegal
"immigrants" are the ones committing the felonies by being drug mules.
How much doesn't matter,it's STILL a felony crime.This is just WEASELLING
AWAY from the claim that Mexican illegals don't commit crimes when coming
to the US.




We can both agree that crossing any of the borders of the USA without
permission is a violation of US Immigration Law, and we SHOULD not treat
violators of this law any differently than violators of any other law.
However, we do treat them differently than other criminals. Police
forces (state and local) are not on the lookout to arrest them, neither
are National Guard, or the FBI. Their faces and names are not posted in
Post Offices and Police Stations. We only have the US Border Patrol (on
land) and their bosses at the INS to enforce this law, and they do not
have the resources to shutdown illegal immigration. Heck the INS cannot
detect when a student overstays their visa to study at one of our
universities.

But to suggest that the heart of our drug problems would be solved by
getting rid of illegal immigrants who are being used as drug mules is
LUDICROUS!!! We cannot possibly attribute illegals who act as mules for
the TONS of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, hashish, etc that flow from the
Third World nations to other parts of the world, USA included. Yes,
Columbia uses Mexico as a path to the USA. They also use Florida, and
most of the Gulf Coast states to move their product into our system. If
drug mules were eliminated, the drug lords would find some other method to
get the product in. Heck, it would only make a difference to the marginal
distributor one who only needed to move modest amounts of product anyway.


Drugs are also coming over land borders with Canada, and even by canoe in a
few places, according to an interesting news story I saw a couple of years
back. And, the Coast Guard has stated clearly that there's no way they can
track every single pleasure boat that crosses the Great Lakes or the St.
Lawrence River.