What is the Black Position on Illegal Immigration ???

[Great1]

In general, I agree with Brown Pride that there needs to be unity among black and brown people. BUT, if this unity is ever to exist we have to address this issue of respect and partnership.

As a black man, I don't necessarily feel as though there is a level of respect or caring from latinos as it pertains to blacks. Far too often, I have watched the latino community turn a blind eye to serious conditions that effect or directly involve black people, but expect black leadership to understand and visibly support their issues. Take for example this issue of immigration. While I see the strong outcry for advocacy for illegal immigrants from Mexico, I have YET to see strong latino support for Haitians that are getting deported with the swiftness. This happened durring the Elian Gonzales affair.

I also feel that if unity is to exist, we must remove or at least publicly address some of these inherent stereotypes and fears about one another. Now Brown pride, I do not think its right for people to call you wetback, but how is it you find it aceptable to use a word designed to degrabe black people?

Another example is how I hear numerous latinos tell me that the immigrants are taking the jobs other americans don't want. That's a strong slap in the face to
and a real racist statement for poor blacks in this country. That statement makes an implication that we are lazy. Many of these jobs are not taken by poor people is, unlike 3/4 of illegal immigrants, poor people in this country have 33 1/3% of their wages gone due to taxes.

In conclusion, if there is truly to be unity among black and brown, it must start with a mutual respect and a designed partnership. It cannot be based upon apathy for the other's pain and then call upon when convenient.

 

[Temujin]

Well I'm black and I have no problem with illegal immigration by individuals who want to work and have a better life for themselves. Less we forget this country was founded by illegal immigrants. The founding fathers had no right to enter this country and claim the land yet they did. I fellow poster gave a hypothetical situation of someone entering your house and claiming it as theres well the white man did that to the latinos in the begining.

The African American and Latino people of America have to realize that many of us share the same blood. American Indian slaves and African slaves were kept together and many of us have latino roots that we are not aware of. Latinos have never oppressed black people and there culture and our culture both have african roots. We have way more in common then we have differences and our support of latinos should be natural.

White people since they illegally claimed the lands of the latino people have profited off their illegal status. White people tacitlly accept their prescence in America yet profit through lower wages by calling them undocumented.

Many black people for whatever reason disagree with illegal immigrants becoming documented but I have yet to hear a legitimate reason other than "its not fair". To me the moral justification for letting latinos enter America at will is historically clear from their oppresion and exploitation by the U.S. Government and its corporations. To me not letting them in and not allowing them to participate in American society "is not fair"

 

[Great1]

I agree with you. However, what concerns me is the exclusionary aspect of this debate. If we are talking about and including hatians, brazillian, and all other races or is this an "exclusionary" deal for Mexicans. To me, its all or nothing. You can't say, allowing latinos in is OK but not Hatians is absurd. That's my only concern. This debate has only involved latinos.

Well I'm black and I have no problem with illegal immigration by individuals who want to work and have a better life for themselves. Less we forget this country was founded by illegal immigrants. The founding fathers had no right to enter this country and claim the land yet they did. I fellow poster gave a hypothetical situation of someone entering your house and claiming it as theres well the white man did that to the latinos in the begining.

The African American and Latino people of America have to realize that many of us share the same blood. American Indian slaves and African slaves were kept together and many of us have latino roots that we are not aware of. Latinos have never oppressed black people and there culture and our culture both have african roots. We have way more in common then we have differences and our support of latinos should be natural.

White people since they illegally claimed the lands of the latino people have profited off their illegal status. White people tacitlly accept their prescence in America yet profit through lower wages by calling them undocumented.

Many black people for whatever reason disagree with illegal immigrants becoming documented but I have yet to hear a legitimate reason other than "its not fair". To me the moral justification for letting latinos enter America at will is historically clear from their oppresion and exploitation by the U.S. Government and its corporations. To me not letting them in and not allowing them to participate in American society "is not fair"

 

[Temujin]

I agree with you. However, what concerns me is the exclusionary aspect of this debate. If we are talking about and including hatians, brazillian, and all other races or is this an "exclusionary" deal for Mexicans. To me, its all or nothing. You can't say, allowing latinos in is OK but not Hatians is absurd. That's my only concern. This debate has only involved latinos.

Absolutely the debate should be more universal. The problem is clearly the U.S. government has been selective about who they allow to "illegally" immigrate.For whatever reason stoping haitians from entering america is vastly more important to the American government than preventing latinos. Because of that when you talk about illegal immigrants the people you are talking about are predominatly latino.

I feel our immigration policy should be open to allow anyone who demonstrates a desire to live and work in America to do so. Our country was built on immigration from other countries and their should be zero quantity restrictions. I would of course want to see restrictions based on criminal behavior and infectious diseases but other than that let them in. I can't in good conscious support any immigration policy that sets number limits on the amount of people that can be granted citizenship in our country.

If we support the criminalization and mass deportation of latinos we will be complicite in a grave injustice against the latino people.

 

[QueEx]

Absolutely the debate should be more universal. The problem is clearly the U.S. government has been selective about who they allow to "illegally" immigrate.For whatever reason stoping haitians from entering america is vastly more important to the American government than preventing latinos. Because of that when you talk about illegal immigrants the people you are talking about are predominatly latino.

I feel our immigration policy should be open to allow anyone who demonstrates a desire to live and work in America to do so. Our country was built on immigration from other countries and their should be zero quantity restrictions. I would of course want to see restrictions based on criminal behavior and infectious diseases but other than that let them in. I can't in good conscious support any immigration policy that sets number limits on the amount of people that can be granted citizenship in our country.

If we support the criminalization and mass deportation of latinos we will be complicite in a grave injustice against the latino people.

And I say control immigration of every-damn-body !!! There <u>must</u> be restrictions or the whole damn world will settle here. That might be okay with you, but it isn't with me. This country can not support the world. Do you have any idea what the result would be ???

Let's get this straight, I don't have a problem with letting Mexicans in or, for that matter, any other nationality. But immigration has to make some rational sense, unlike many of the ideas I see floating around this board and the public at-large under the guise of benevolence. There should be controls and reasonable numbers of any nationality may be let in - without prejudice against any nationality. Your idea of completely open borders (save those few and paltry restrictions you would put in place) borders on not only on the insane, but is a breach of duty and responsibility to the very people you claim to enamor, namely: African American Citizens and their rights. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

I agree with you. However, what concerns me is the exclusionary aspect of this debate. If we are talking about and including hatians, brazillian, and all other races or is this an "exclusionary" deal for Mexicans. To me, its all or nothing. You can't say, allowing latinos in is OK but not Hatians is absurd. That's my only concern. This debate has only involved latinos.

The debate has the appearance that it does because of the <u>facts</u>. Let us not kid ourselves. This issue arises because of the 5-7 hundred thousand people illegally crossing the Mexican border annually. From what we are being told, and I don't see anyone disputing it, over 90% of those crossing the Mexican border are, Mexicans. I can't blame the rest of Latin America, Haitians or any other group of people for hitching their wagons to this issue, but the real issue is illegal Mexican immigration, isn't it ??? But for Mexicans crossing the border in droves, we probably wouldn't be having this dicussion, would we ???

QueEx

 

[Temujin]

And I say control immigration of every-damn-body !!! There <u>must</u> be restrictions or the whole damn world will settle here. That might be okay with you, but it isn't with me. This country can not support the world. Do you have any idea what the result would be ???

Let's get this straight, I don't have a problem with letting Mexicans in or, for that matter, any other nationality. But immigration has to make some rational sense, unlike many of the ideas I see floating around this board and the public at-large under the guise of benevolence. There should be controls and reasonable numbers of any nationality may be let in - without prejudice against any nationality. Your idea of completely open borders (save those few and paltry restrictions you would put in place) borders on not only on the insane, but is a breach of duty and responsibility to the very people you claim to enamor, namely: African American Citizens and their rights. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

QueEx

There is no way in hell this country would be overrun by people. Have you ever been to montana. Have you ever been to Idaho. This country is decades away from anything even resembling a population problem. Immigration is driven by economics. People come to America to work. If there are no jobs in America and there are jobs in their homeland they will go home.
The only reason America has so many illegal immigrants is because we need them to work. The only reason they come to America is because there are jobs. Jobs are the driving factor of the majority of immigration.

What happens when people come to America and there are no jobs. They will go home. I don't know where this "the sky will fall" idea about immigration comes from. People freely immigrated to America for decades and the country prospered from the diversity and the hard work of immigrants.

If overpopulation is your only argument to an open door policy on immigration then no offense its very weak. Overpopulation is not a legitimate threat to America in any way shape or form. Not all latinos want to come to America many people actually love their own country. The people that come here want to come here.

If massive amounts of people left mexico for example what would happen. The first thing is that mexico's unemployment rate would drop substantially. Competition for workers would increase and wages would increase. When wages increased you would have a migration back to mexico. People have migrated since the dawn of time for food. When an area becomes oversaturated with people they move elsewhere. Overpopulation for an entire country is a myth.

 

[Dolemite]

Show some proof that the ship Hatians to GIMO...............

you cant see those stamps huh pathetic lil bitch

Because most haitians would be automatically granted asylum because of how fucked up shit is in haiti the US government has tried to not let them get hearings for 15 years

you wanted proof you fake ass muthafucka here it is




<IFRAME SRC="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030721/ratner" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030721/ratner">link</A>

</IFRAME>



<IFRAME SRC="http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/nov91.htm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/nov91.htm">link</A>

</IFRAME>

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=383_0_2_0

Haitian Zig-Zags
Print-Friendly Version

The Clinton administration spent the month of July fine-tuning its policy on Haitian refugees. At the end of July, the US was on the verge of obtaining UN Security Council permission to invade Haiti and restore President Aristide to power.

Haitians have been leaving their country in small boats for years. Since 1981, Haiti has allowed the US Coast Guard to stop boats in Haitian and international waters to determine whether they were carrying Haitians to the US.

The US has followed a zig-zag path on its treatment of "Haitian boat people." On June 16, the US announced that henceforth Haitians picked up at sea and seeking asylum would be eligible to present to US asylum officers on board US ships evidence that they face persecution in Haiti. As a result, over 11,627 Haitians were picked up by the US Coast Guard by July 6--many hoped that they would be granted refugee status and allowed to go to the United States. Those turned down, about 70 percent of those requesting asylum, continue to be returned to Haiti.

Clinton changed the policy on July 5. After that date, Haitians picked up at sea were sent to the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to present their case for asylum. If they were deemed in need of safe haven, they were sent to safe haven camps, but not to the US. Most nearby Caribbean nations have refused to provide safe haven for Haitians.

After the Clinton administration stopped shipboard hearings for refugees in mid-July, the number of Haitians picked up by the Coast Guard dramatically dropped. The week of July 16, not a single Haitian was picked up, compared to the 1,340 people picked up the previous weekend. The decline was attributed to a number of factors including choppy seas and soccer's World Cup. Another factor was that word was reaching the interior that refugees intercepted at sea will no longer be able to settle in the US. Members of the clergy and relief organizations also report the Haitian government is attempting to staunch the flow of refugees. The relief workers say that this has meant an increase in repression, especially in the coastal towns from where the refugees leave.

In mid-July, there were 16,500 Haitians at Guantanamo, and a few hundred began to trickle back to Haiti after they learned that, even if they could prove they needed safe haven, they would not be going to the US. Haitians who return to Haiti are interviewed by Haitian immigration authorities and given money to return home by the Haitian Red Cross.

The Clinton Administration is scrambling to find places to house the Haitians who have been deemed in need of safe haven. Panama's President Guillermo Endra first agreed to allow the United States to admit 10,000 Haitian refugees then later rescinded his approval. Panama planned to allow the Haitians to enter Panama on a temporary basis, until a change in the current Haitian government or a time period not to exceed one year, but bowed to internal pressure not to allow any Haitians in the country. On July 25, Honduras announced that it would shelter up to 40,000 Haitians temporarily in exchange for increased US aid.

This zig-zagging Haitian policy prompted a spate of critical reviews of US refugee and asylum policies. Most began with the 22 words in the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees--an alien who can prove that he or she faces "a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" should enjoy nonrefoulement in a safe country--the right not to be returned to danger.

US law applies this standard to two kinds of persons in danger of persecution in their country of citizenship. Refugees are outside the US, and they seek to enter because of the dangers they face at home, and asylum seekers or asylees arrive in the US and ask to stay because of danger at home.

The problem, according to critics, is that the US does not apply these standards consistently. There are about 19 million refugees worldwide, and the US establishes a worldwide limit annually on the number it will accept each year--121,000 in FY94. The distribution of refugees admitted to the US reflects domestic political considerations rather than the worldwide distribution of persons needing safety from persecution. In 1993, 41 percent of the refugees admitted to the US were Jews or Evangelical Christians from the former USSR, and 32 percent were from Vietnam and Laos. Many of these refugees are admitted after they show that they face a lesser "credible" fear of persecution rather than the "well-founded" fear in the Geneva Convention.

Once admitted to the US, refugees receive public assistance and health care services at rates paid by the state in which they live. States are reimbursed for up to eight months of assistance, even though a majority or e.g., southeast Asian refugees in California, receive public assistance for more than five years.

Asylum policy is even more controversial. In 1993, just over 10,000 asylum applications were filed each month by aliens in the US --113, 290, including 31 percent from Guatemala, 13 percent from El Salvador, and 12 percent from China. Each application can be for a family--the number of persons represented by these applications is almost twice the number of applications. There are over 400,000 asylum cases that have not yet been processed, representing some 700,000 to 800,000 persons, and US courts routinely order the INS to reconsider applications from particular countries because of what the court considers to be "biases" in the consideration of applications.

To apply for asylum, persons fill out an INS form, and then, in most cases, asylum applicants are given work permits and told to keep the INS informed of their current address so that they can be called to an INS hearing to prove to an asylum officer that they face persecution at home. The INS has switched to a last-in , first-out policy--deciding current applications first, but this means that some asylum applications are more than three years old.

Cuba and Haiti represent stark contrasts in US policy. All Cubans who reach the US can become immigrants. On July 1, 1994, a group of 140 Cubans, the largest boatload to arrive in a decade, sailed into Miami Beach. The continuing deterioration of the Cuban economy has caused a dramatic increase in arrivals from Cuba. In June 1994, the US Coast Guard rescued 1,173 Cubans, six times more than they rescued in June, 1993.

Haiti, by contrast, is the only country for which the US insists that persons fleeing persecution apply within the country of persecution. Since February 1992, some 59,000 Haitians filled out preliminary questionnaires for themselves and/or their families. About 17,000 of them were interviewed in Haiti by US asylum officers, and 4,000 were deemed in danger and admitted to the US.


Michael Gordon, "In Policy Shift, US Will Admit No Haitians at Sea," New York Times, July 6, 1994. Roberto Suro, "Different Strokes for Different Refugees," Washington Post Weekly Edition, July 4-10, 1994, 33. "America's Least Wanted," The Economist, July 16, 1994, 23-4. "President Endera agrees to US request to accept 10,000 Haitian refugees; states conditions." BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, July 6, 1994. Kieran Murray, "Haitian-US Tensions rise amid swelling refugee tide," Reuters world service, July 5, 1994. "US notes big increase in urban refugees," Houston chronicle, July 2, 1994. Larry Rohter, "Number of Haitians Fleeing by Sea Drops off Abruptly," New York Times, July 20, 1994.

fake ass spaniard mutts should shut the fuck up about immigration if they don't care enough about immigrants of other nationalities or races to learn about their struggle too especially when it dwarves their own petty bullshit

I havent seen any mexicans eating dirt in any pictures whatsoever
i can post pics of haitians selling dirt pies because people are starvin so badly


a billion super broke chinamen also got you mexicans beat on poverty

i wonder what would happen if poor chinamen tried to immigrate to mexico to take the jobs even you mexicans wont do

 

[VegasGuy]

Many of the polls I've seen are mixed on the issue of Illegal immigration but by and large, Black people, including me resent Mexicans using our struggle for civil rights as the reason Mexicans are doing it. We battled for rights as a result of our slavemasters treatment of us because of our skin. We didn't float willingly across the water to plant or pick shit.

Mexicans were INVITED here to pick our fruit and did not need to acquire citizenship to do what they do. That shit morphed from the fields to building houses to owning storefronts where nobody speaks english. Somehow these folks decided to stay and as long as they didn't massively fuck up, no one said anything but the process and laws on the books to attain legal status did not change. But now with millions of mexicans living in the country now, they want to jump ahead of the line of everybody else waiting to get legal and they think they got RIGHTS because they filled a basket of fuckin peaches.

-VG

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">
I think we should start some letters to the Black Caucus. What do you all think ???

QueEx

</font size>

 

[elexington1989]

<font size="4">
I think we should start some letters to the Black Caucus. What do you all think ???

QueEx

</font size>

That may not work since most of them support the Majority White Democrat Lawmakers which at the sametime most White Democrat Lawmakers favor Illegal Immigration.

 

[Greed]

i think they wouldnt listen. i'm pretty sure i've heard their official position and it's the same as the mexicans.

 

[Dolemite]

<font size="4">
I think we should start some letters to the Black Caucus. What do you all think ???

QueEx

</font size>

the black caucus is incapable of representing the black people of america in any way that would be positive and meaningful to black americans


I would write them a letter but I'm pretty sure that none of them can read.

 

[QueEx]

i think they wouldnt listen. i'm pretty sure i've heard their official position and it's the same as the mexicans.

Of course, your right. I reviewed most of their positions on illegal immigration before I started this thread -- maybe thats why I started the thread. My question is, however, are they "Hearing" anything to the contrary from us? I don't know whether members of the caucus position would be any different, but at least they would hear their masses.

Seriously, I was thinking there must be some gifted IT person frequenting this website who has the capability of setting up some type of online fill-in-the-blank letter mechanism that could be directed to members of the caucus. Of course, a server will be needed to handle it -- and that might not be out of the question either. The easy part would be drafting (writing) the blank letters -- I'll assist anyone interesting in getting that or any other aspect of it done.

Give me some ideas. (anybody)

QueEx

 

[VegasGuy]

<font size="4">
I think we should start some letters to the Black Caucus. What do you all think ???

QueEx

</font size>

I think that unless we tell the Black Caucus what the hell to think about this, they will continue to hide behind whatever has the safest sound to em. Personally, I think it's a great idea.

We can't assume they will automatically will or won't do anything until they get direction from those who have an opinion on this. They are like other politicians; n that they won't go against those who can turn there asses out of the cushy government lifestyle they've been enjoying sucking from the public tit.

-VG

 

[Temujin]

I've heard a lot of anti-mexican rhetoric but I still can't gleam a position from all of ya'll.

I guess you all are against amnesty for illegal immigrants currently in America.

If that is the case do you favor deportation?

What do you suggest we do with the millions of illegal immigrants in America?

Do we spend billions them up in vans and taking them back to mexico just so they can come back?

Do we spend billions creating a huge fence around the border so Mexicans can't come in?

Apparently you all are against creating a situation where illegal immigrants can become full members in this society but why?

The only person who gave a rational other then "it ain't fair" was Que and his excuse was a sad "overpopulation" argument. My question is what is the harm. What do we as black people have to gain by this anti-latino stance? Does it better our positon with the white man? Do we not benefit from the white man being the minority in this country?

It's sad to see but I never knew black people were this overtly racist against latinos. I've scene comments about hating their language. Calling them fruit pickers. These are human beings whose ancestors controlled this land before we or the whiteman stepped foot on it. What gives us the right to even claim it. They were slaves just like us. They were victims of genocide just like us. The Black Caucus is 100% correct in supporting Civil Rights for the latino people and ya'll need to ask yourself who put this idea in your heads that the latino is your enemy.

 

[Temujin]

Let me lay out the crystal clear economic and political benefits that we as black people will see from allowing illegal immigrants status as citizens.
I am hoping someone will respond with some crystal clear reasons why allowing illegal immigrants full citizenship will hurt the black people of America.

1. Economic- America is a country of consumers. We consume more than we produce. Most people in America have negative net worths. What this means from an economic standpoint is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Immigrants are producers they produce more than they consume. They have to because they are not citizens they have no acess to loans, credit etc. They cannot fully participate in the American economic system.

If we allow a group of producers to fully participate in the economic system we will see a economic boom. We will see a rise in latino businesses we will see a rise in minority run banks we will see a rise in support services for immigrants. All black owned businesses will now have millions of potential customers. We could see partnerships in developing these communities because I don't know if you noticed but Latino's live where we live.

This is an oppurtonity for the black economic commuinity and the latino community to join forces on a level that could allow us to turn the tables on this white dominated American economic system.

2 - Political - Obviously we will then have a millions of more potential voters. The political scene in California and Texas would change dramatically. The political power of minority dominated states will be amazing. We will see greater enforcement of civil rights. We will see support for political stances that affect poor people ie. minimum wage, national health care. We have to understand that politically we have a whole lot to gain from this. Latinos are just as poor as blacks If we support them and they support us all of us can rise out of this oppresive economic and political system.

We have an opportunity to vocally support our latino brothers. We have an opportunity to show our love. Bottom line is the latino train is coming we can get on board or we can get run over but with the decline of the black family latino's will be the majority in this country in the future. We can be one as minorities in this country now or we can turn our backs on them so they will turn their backs on us in the future.

 

[Agallah005]

I would say, why don't we let the Mexicans go back to Mexico see how it feels without them since Vincent Fox said that Mexicans are better than blacks because they do the jobs that blacks would never do, atleast mexicans work. it was something along the lines of that statement.

Maybe we should ship them back to Mexico and see how the Economy collapses, like the Mexicans keep saying. you know it's funny, they keep saying it but they don't stop going to work.

they should stop going to work to see how much we really need them, if it happens that we dont' need them, then get them the fuck out of here. if we do, then open up discussions on this issue.
we spoiled americans would never do the jobs that they do without benefits like they do. we would never do it for less than mininum wages like they do, but then again, you never know with our jobs being outsourced nowadays and jobs being scarce in America

 

[Temujin]

Here is a study done on the economic and demographic effects of immigration. For those that think massive amnesty or open immigration will crush the economy or cause us to be overpopulated her is some evidence to the contrary.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html

I will copy some key points for those who don't want to read.

The Economic Characteristics of Immigrants

o New immigrants are more concentrated than are natives
in the youthful labor-force ages when people contribute more to
the public coffer than they draw from it; natives are more
concentrated in the childhood and elderly periods of economic
dependence when the net flows are from the public to the
individual. Of all the facts about immigration relevant to its
economic effects, this is the most important, and the one which
is most consistent in all countries, in all decades and
centuries.


The Effects of Immigrants in the Labor Market

o Immigrants do not cause native unemployment, even among
low-paid or minority groups. A spate of respected recent studies,
using a variety of methods, agrees that "there is no empirical
evidence documenting that the displacement effect [of natives
from jobs] is numerically important" (Borjas 1990, 92). The
explanation is that new entrants not only take jobs, they make
jobs. The jobs they create with their purchasing power, and with
the new businesses which they start, are at least as numerous as
the jobs which immigrants fill.

o Re wage effects, one recent summary concludes,
"Immigration has no discernible effect on wages overall...
Wage growth and decline appear to be unrelated to immigration--a
finding that holds for both unskilled and skilled workers" (Fix
and Passel 1994, 48). My interpretation of the literature is
slightly different: a minor negative effect.

o Illegal aliens contribute about as much to the public
coffers in taxes as they receive in benefits. New data suggest
that the undocumented pay about 46 percent as much in taxes as do
natives, but use about 45 percent as much in services.

Immigrants have practically no negative effect in the labor
market on any person except other immigrants. The effect on wages
is modest by any appraisal, and the effect on unemployment
apparently is zero.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imnative.html

To what extent did the influx of immigrants entering Southern
California in the 1970s reduce the jobs available to nonimmigrant
workers? The answer for the 1970s is little if at all. Although
Hispanic workers filled a large proportion of the jobs added
during the decade, particularly in manufacturing, there is no
indication that work opportunities for nonimmigrants lessened.
Despite mass immigration to Southern California, unemployment
rates rose less rapidly there than in the remainder of the
nation. Furthermore, the labor force participation rate (the
proportion of the population in the labor force) did not seem to
be affected. In fact the participation rate for both blacks and
whites was higher in Southern California than elsewhere in the
state and nation. Moreover, the difference in the participation
rate between Southern California and the rest of the country
remains essentially unchanged since 1970, indicating that the
influx of immigrants did not discourage people from seeking
employment (p. 13).


Please brothers read and understand that this stance against the latinos has no economic credence. You will not lose your jobs. This anti-immigrant rhetoric is based on racism. We cannot fall into this trap. Remeber the white man is still telling us to GO BACK TO AFRICA. How can we tell 3.2million illegal immigrants to GO BACK TO MEXICO with a straight face.

 

[peterpiper1978]

Ju got it mi hermano..........All of the indigenous people have been talking about it for years,we should be able to travel this whole continent because it was ours in the first place.The real illegals came from across the pond and cris colon was the first boat jumper.

you said the key words, "it was ours." It's nobody's fault that your country sold half of mexico for about 13 million dollars. Thats just like me saying I can go get my car i sold to someone and drive it when i want because it was my car. besides, I hope brothers won't ride for the mexicans. I live in Long Beach and mexicans don't like blacks. The y act like they are better than us, they chicks act like they got gold in their ass. This shit used to hurt my feelings when i first moved here from the south. That is until a homey made me realize that when you look at the living environment, they are really not better than anyone. Most Mexicans have a bunch of kids (nothing wrong with that at all). The bad part is that these kids are so disrespectful and destructive that it makes me wonder wtf their parents are doing. For instance in my alley, on any given night you can go outside at 11 or 12 (at night) and see these kids throwing rocks and bottles and cursing loud. They also have the never to jump and play on people's cars. To sum it up, I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If you are an illiegal immigrant, raise your kids properly before you try to complain and get all the rights of a citizen. THat way you can be looked at along with your family as a valued part of society.

thats my 2cents

 

[peterpiper1978]

Many of the polls I've seen are mixed on the issue of Illegal immigration but by and large, Black people, including me resent Mexicans using our struggle for civil rights as the reason Mexicans are doing it. We battled for rights as a result of our slavemasters treatment of us because of our skin. We didn't float willingly across the water to plant or pick shit.

Mexicans were INVITED here to pick our fruit and did not need to acquire citizenship to do what they do. That shit morphed from the fields to building houses to owning storefronts where nobody speaks english. Somehow these folks decided to stay and as long as they didn't massively fuck up, no one said anything but the process and laws on the books to attain legal status did not change. But now with millions of mexicans living in the country now, they want to jump ahead of the line of everybody else waiting to get legal and they think they got RIGHTS because they filled a basket of fuckin peaches.

-VG

good shit my man. Besides, don't come to another country and peotest for rights. go to your own fucked up country and protest like our forefathers did during civil rights. If enough of you protest then maybe yall can fix that sick ass country and come up. that takes alot of nerve to immigrate illegally then demand rights. like me driving with no liscence, getting pulled over, then demanding the right to drive when i go to court.

the arguments for the shit make no sense. And please stop disrepecting the civil rights movement by comparing it to the mexican movement because all mexicans came here willingly, unlike our black forefathers so we had the right to protest.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Here is a study done on the economic and demographic effects of immigration. For those that think massive amnesty or open immigration will crush the economy or cause us to be overpopulated her is some evidence to the contrary.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html

I will copy some key points for those who don't want to read.

The Economic Characteristics of Immigrants

o New immigrants are more concentrated than are natives
in the youthful labor-force ages when people contribute more to
the public coffer than they draw from it; natives are more
concentrated in the childhood and elderly periods of economic
dependence when the net flows are from the public to the
individual. Of all the facts about immigration relevant to its
economic effects, this is the most important, and the one which
is most consistent in all countries, in all decades and
centuries.


The Effects of Immigrants in the Labor Market

o Immigrants do not cause native unemployment, even among
low-paid or minority groups. A spate of respected recent studies,
using a variety of methods, agrees that "there is no empirical
evidence documenting that the displacement effect [of natives
from jobs] is numerically important" (Borjas 1990, 92). The
explanation is that new entrants not only take jobs, they make
jobs. The jobs they create with their purchasing power, and with
the new businesses which they start, are at least as numerous as
the jobs which immigrants fill.

o Re wage effects, one recent summary concludes,
"Immigration has no discernible effect on wages overall...
Wage growth and decline appear to be unrelated to immigration--a
finding that holds for both unskilled and skilled workers" (Fix
and Passel 1994, 48). My interpretation of the literature is
slightly different: a minor negative effect.

o Illegal aliens contribute about as much to the public
coffers in taxes as they receive in benefits. New data suggest
that the undocumented pay about 46 percent as much in taxes as do
natives, but use about 45 percent as much in services.

Immigrants have practically no negative effect in the labor
market on any person except other immigrants. The effect on wages
is modest by any appraisal, and the effect on unemployment
apparently is zero.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imnative.html

To what extent did the influx of immigrants entering Southern
California in the 1970s reduce the jobs available to nonimmigrant
workers? The answer for the 1970s is little if at all. Although
Hispanic workers filled a large proportion of the jobs added
during the decade, particularly in manufacturing, there is no
indication that work opportunities for nonimmigrants lessened.
Despite mass immigration to Southern California, unemployment
rates rose less rapidly there than in the remainder of the
nation. Furthermore, the labor force participation rate (the
proportion of the population in the labor force) did not seem to
be affected. In fact the participation rate for both blacks and
whites was higher in Southern California than elsewhere in the
state and nation. Moreover, the difference in the participation
rate between Southern California and the rest of the country
remains essentially unchanged since 1970, indicating that the
influx of immigrants did not discourage people from seeking
employment (p. 13).


Please brothers read and understand that this stance against the latinos has no economic credence. You will not lose your jobs. This anti-immigrant rhetoric is based on racism. We cannot fall into this trap. Remeber the white man is still telling us to GO BACK TO AFRICA. How can we tell 3.2million illegal immigrants to GO BACK TO MEXICO with a straight face.

Good arguement. I'm surprised to see you quote the Cato Institute, as they are a libertarian organization. However, I still disagree, even though I am a libertarian. Here is why:

1. There is (and will not be) any wall built around the welfare state for Illegals, or any other immigrants for that matter. Therefore, there is a TREMENDOUS incentive for illegals to come into this country and drop a kid or two. At that point, the kid can receive a free (for them) education and health care. Not bad considering that Mexico's school and health care systems are both jokes in comparison. And that is just one example of why you cannot have both open borders and a welfare state, as the Cato Institute points out as well.

2. It is a universally agreed upon point that a country has a right to it's sovereignty. One of the cornerstones of that sovereignty is the ability to filter those who they wish to be in thier country and those they do not. You may say it's nothing but a cover for racisim, but I say that's the typical PC bullshit that is meant to shame others into silence instead of having a logical and reasoned discussion. How much of a right do I have to go to Mexico or any other country for that matter without thier permission. How much of a right do I have to say "since I've been here for a while, I am entitled to stay and avail myself of whatever you give me or I can take". NONE.

3. The poor suffer the most from the influx of those who directly compete for the same pool of jobs. Therefore, the law of supply and demand dictates that wages will be lower. Also, there is a dillution of social services as well. Because there are more people needing social services, there is less to go around. Now you might say that since the Illegals pay into Social Security and do not get anything back because they were using bogus numbers, therefore they buttressing the system, I say bullshit. Even though they may not be able to avail themselves of Social Security, it is more than absorbed by the Medicaid funding, education and other public services that they are not paying for, and would not be paying for even if they were legal because the people in that income bracket has a very low tax obligation anyway.

4. The "Indegenous people" arguement. More bullshit. When the US won the Mexican-American war, there was NO widespread expulsion of Indians. It was the Spanish rulers that were given the boot. The Mexicans became Americans by virtue of the border moving. That's why Texas, the four corners states and Cali have ALWAYS had sizeable Chicano populations. And it's funny that people would complain about a group of Anglos "taking" thier land when it was another group of Anglos (the Spanish) who ruled over them prior to that. And if you wanted to go back to pre-colonial days, you try rolling into some other tribes land because you were "indigenous". You would likely get your ass handed to you far quicker than anything La Migra is authorized to do. SMH, folks acting like all Indians were peaceful, when ALL of the Meso-American empires celebrated the deaths of others, even making religeous cerimonies around carving the heart out of folks in order to get rain or steal thier power. Puhleeze.

Enough for now. Holla.

 

[Temujin]

you said the key words, "it was ours." It's nobody's fault that your country sold half of mexico for about 13 million dollars. Thats just like me saying I can go get my car i sold to someone and drive it when i want because it was my car. besides, I hope brothers won't ride for the mexicans. I live in Long Beach and mexicans don't like blacks. The y act like they are better than us, they chicks act like they got gold in their ass. This shit used to hurt my feelings when i first moved here from the south. That is until a homey made me realize that when you look at the living environment, they are really not better than anyone. Most Mexicans have a bunch of kids (nothing wrong with that at all). The bad part is that these kids are so disrespectful and destructive that it makes me wonder wtf their parents are doing. For instance in my alley, on any given night you can go outside at 11 or 12 (at night) and see these kids throwing rocks and bottles and cursing loud. They also have the never to jump and play on people's cars. To sum it up, I don't have a problem with legal immigration. If you are an illiegal immigrant, raise your kids properly before you try to complain and get all the rights of a citizen. THat way you can be looked at along with your family as a valued part of society.

thats my 2cents

First my brother learn your history. Way before it got to the point of selling a piece of mexico you had white people illegally immigrating all the way across the damn country. Forcing the mexicans out one by one. I don't know if know much about the Mexican American war but let me give you an example. You have a car I want your car but you won't sell it to me. When you ain't around I take your car. You try to get it back but I kick your ass. Since the police are hounding me I force you to sell me your car (even though I already have it) for little or nothing. That is how we got texas and california.

Secondly
When you base your opinion on an entire race of people on what you see in one alley in long beach what you are doing is called STEREOTYPING. It is a technique often used by WHITE PEOPLE to justify their racist treatment of black people.

So your stereotypical racist comments about latinos are disrespectful to them as well as yourself since as a victim of racism you should be aware of the irony of your own racism.

 

[Temujin]

Good arguement. I'm surprised to see you quote the Cato Institute, as they are a libertarian organization. However, I still disagree, even though I am a libertarian. Here is why:

1. There is (and will not be) any wall built around the welfare state for Illegals, or any other immigrants for that matter. Therefore, there is a TREMENDOUS incentive for illegals to come into this country and drop a kid or two. At that point, the kid can receive a free (for them) education and health care. Not bad considering that Mexico's school and health care systems are both jokes in comparison. And that is just one example of why you cannot have both open borders and a welfare state, as the Cato Institute points out as well.

2. It is a universally agreed upon point that a country has a right to it's sovereignty. One of the cornerstones of that sovereignty is the ability to filter those who they wish to be in thier country and those they do not. You may say it's nothing but a cover for racisim, but I say that's the typical PC bullshit that is meant to shame others into silence instead of having a logical and reasoned discussion. How much of a right do I have to go to Mexico or any other country for that matter without thier permission. How much of a right do I have to say "since I've been here for a while, I am entitled to stay and avail myself of whatever you give me or I can take". NONE.

3. The poor suffer the most from the influx of those who directly compete for the same pool of jobs. Therefore, the law of supply and demand dictates that wages will be lower. Also, there is a dillution of social services as well. Because there are more people needing social services, there is less to go around. Now you might say that since the Illegals pay into Social Security and do not get anything back because they were using bogus numbers, therefore they buttressing the system, I say bullshit. Even though they may not be able to avail themselves of Social Security, it is more than absorbed by the Medicaid funding, education and other public services that they are not paying for, and would not be paying for even if they were legal because the people in that income bracket has a very low tax obligation anyway.

4. The "Indegenous people" arguement. More bullshit. When the US won the Mexican-American war, there was NO widespread expulsion of Indians. It was the Spanish rulers that were given the boot. The Mexicans became Americans by virtue of the border moving. That's why Texas, the four corners states and Cali have ALWAYS had sizeable Chicano populations. And it's funny that people would complain about a group of Anglos "taking" thier land when it was another group of Anglos (the Spanish) who ruled over them prior to that. And if you wanted to go back to pre-colonial days, you try rolling into some other tribes land because you were "indigenous". You would likely get your ass handed to you far quicker than anything La Migra is authorized to do. SMH, folks acting like all Indians were peaceful, when ALL of the Meso-American empires celebrated the deaths of others, even making religeous cerimonies around carving the heart out of folks in order to get rain or steal thier power. Puhleeze.

Enough for now. Holla.

Apparently you did not read the report from your very own esteemed Cato institute.

1. Totally off topic (I don't know why you try to tie everything to welfare)
But I'm glad you agree that a fence is unfeasible.

2. Absolutely a country has a right to its soverignty and the right to set standards on citizenship. I have clearly laid out my proposed standards. I hope to hear yours. Bottom line is if Mexico was not enforcing its immigration laws and their corporations allowed you to work there for years and beneifited off your labor why is it wrong for you now to demand rights as a citizen.

3. Go back to the study. The idea that immigration hurts unskilled workers is a myth. What hurts unskilled workers is their undocumented status yet tacit acceptance of illegals. Mass amnesty would help these workers because now all these illegal immigrants must make minimum wage. Now you have a fair competition between equally skilled workers. If you read the study you would clearly see that the economic arguments against immigration are unsupported.

4. I can't believe you are totally glossing over the Indian holocost. I can't believe you are actually saying that Indians had rights post Mexican American war. Are you saying Indians were considered American citizens? Just so you can brush up on your history. The mexican american war happened in 1848. American Indians were not granted citizenship by Congress until 1924. All states did not allow Indians to vote until 1948. so minus citizenship and property rights for 100 years what happened to the Indian. They were brutally oppressed.

I won't even entertain your last stereotypical racist comment because they use to say black people were cannibals and savages when they were justifying slavery. Sad that you would now use that type of analogy to justify the stealing of America.

So minus any viable economic reason. I go back to my original question which is how does the criminalization and mass deportation of illegal immigrants help black people in America. I've explained how amnesty will help us politically and economically but no one has explained why we should not support it other then "its not fair." And to that I say what the American government did to the Indians was not fair.

 

[peterpiper1978]

First my brother learn your history. Way before it got to the point of selling a piece of mexico you had white people illegally immigrating all the way across the damn country. Forcing the mexicans out one by one. I don't know if know much about the Mexican American war but let me give you an example. You have a car I want your car but you won't sell it to me. When you ain't around I take your car. You try to get it back but I kick your ass. Since the police are hounding me I force you to sell me your car (even though I already have it) for little or nothing. That is how we got texas and california.

Secondly
When you base your opinion on an entire race of people on what you see in one alley in long beach what you are doing is called STEREOTYPING. It is a technique often used by WHITE PEOPLE to justify their racist treatment of black people.

So your stereotypical racist comments about latinos are disrespectful to them as well as yourself since as a victim of racism you should be aware of the irony of your own racism.

the story about my alley is just one of the many things. Dude i ain't racist but like i said latinos dont like blacks so why should we ride for them. look at all the blacks they killed this year in the prison riots in n. cali. and yeah it was started by the latinos and they way outnumbered the blacks. but like i said. mexico shouldn't have sold their country. bottom line

 

[Dolemite]

why should hispanic federal law breakers get a pass? FUCK THEM
ARREST THEM ALL AND HAVE THEM WORK AS PRISONERS THEN DEPORT THEM ALL

Please tell me again why they have the right to break federal laws while a tax paying citizen like me doesn't.


I know there are many illegal immigrants of african descent but they are a mere fraction of the latinos and they can get the same incarceration and deportation.

Mexicans have no special rights to enter this nation or evade its laws. Was Georgia won in the Mexican American war? There are plenty of illegals here do they have these special rights some of you speak of?


Enslave all illegal aliens. I bet them muthafuckas flood back accross the border.

 

[Dolemite]

temujin- how the fuck does a speedier political and population status demise help the position of blacks in America?

 

[QueEx]

... for Temujin

 

[Temujin]

temujin- how the fuck does a speedier political and population status demise help the position of blacks in America?

1. The white corporations in America can no longer make billions of dollars exploiting latino labor. When you can no longer pay mexicans less then similarly situated black workers now the black workers have equal footing when it comes to employment.

2. Political Power - You will have 3 - 12 million new voters once this goes into effect you will have a significant change in the political landscapes of at least California and Florida. What will this mean? Lets look at the demographics of these people they are prodominatly poor , predominatly low educated, non-white. There demographics are very close to African American demographics thus we have the same interests. Minimum wage, Health insurance, public education. We could achieve drastic improvements in these areas with the help of a strong latino community.

To me its simple we gain a whole of hell let more by teaming with the latinos then we do by fighting them. FIghting them gets us no where.

 

[Temujin]

... for Temujin

I'm glad you hear me Que. I didn't think you were deaf.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Dude, why do you so often go left field on me. Any way, let me clear it up again.

1. Totally off topic (I don't know why you try to tie everything to welfare)
But I'm glad you agree that a fence is unfeasible.

What I meant was that the Government would not erect a fence around the access to "public Welfare" programs. I actually think a fence may be feasable, especially considering that where they are up, the importations have gone down. And I don't tie everything to welfare, just where it pops up. If you look at the amount of money spent in unreimbursed hospital care ion the SE, especially San Diego, you would see what I am talking about.

2. Absolutely a country has a right to its soverignty and the right to set standards on citizenship. I have clearly laid out my proposed standards. I hope to hear yours. Bottom line is if Mexico was not enforcing its immigration laws and their corporations allowed you to work there for years and beneifited off your labor why is it wrong for you now to demand rights as a citizen.

It is wrong because I did not ask permission of them to be in thier country, then I committed more crimes by fraudulently obtainig whtever I needed to work, then conspired with others to continue to break the law by securing employment, and evaded the efforts of the government to keep track of who comes into thier country. If I took your ring, and you knew it was gone, how long a period of time goes by that I can then say it is mine? The law of adverse possession only works when the sovreign allows. Period. The is no entitlement to something you did not supposed to have in the first place, no matter how long you fake it.

3. Go back to the study. The idea that immigration hurts unskilled workers is a myth. What hurts unskilled workers is their undocumented status yet tacit acceptance of illegals. Mass amnesty would help these workers because now all these illegal immigrants must make minimum wage. Now you have a fair competition between equally skilled workers. If you read the study you would clearly see that the economic arguments against immigration are unsupported.

That assumes that you are only talking about unskilled labor. i am not. Many illegals are at least marinally skilled in some type of trade, for even picking fruit has a technique. What about the construction trades, and other marginally skilled manual laborers ?

4. I can't believe you are totally glossing over the Indian holocost. I can't believe you are actually saying that Indians had rights post Mexican American war. Are you saying Indians were considered American citizens? Just so you can brush up on your history. The mexican american war happened in 1848. American Indians were not granted citizenship by Congress until 1924. All states did not allow Indians to vote until 1948. so minus citizenship and property rights for 100 years what happened to the Indian. They were brutally oppressed.

Stop being hysterical (if possible). Of course I know that Indians were oppressed. But A: Prior to them having citizenship status, they were covered under treaties (which were often ignored, but not because they were Mexican) and B: They were oppressed because they were Indians, not because they were Mexican. An Iriquois from Long Island was treated the same way a Ute from Utah was treated, and for the same reason. I never said, nor inferred anything different. You and folks like Brown Pride do. So stop it. Come to think of it, I only stated that they were not expelled, that is all. You are the one that came from left field (again).

I won't even entertain your last stereotypical racist comment because they use to say black people were cannibals and savages when they were justifying slavery. Sad that you would now use that type of analogy to justify the stealing of America.

This is a perfect example of the PC bullshit I was talking about. Do just a little bit of research. The Incas, Toltecs, Olmecs, all had elaborate ceremonies around the slaughter of others. It is an irrefutable archeological fact. And how come you don't mention the Spanish in the "Stealing of America". Who do think the Americans went to war with?

So minus any viable economic reason. I go back to my original question which is how does the criminalization and mass deportation of illegal immigrants help black people in America. I've explained how amnesty will help us politically and economically but no one has explained why we should not support it other then "its not fair." And to that I say what the American government did to the Indians was not fair

Such "Guns, Germs & Steel" bullshit. Did you know that the conquering of America was not always the one-sided aggression you and your ilk make it out to be. Many of Americas early settlements were attacked and destroyed by Indians (not that I blame them). This was a war, fair and square. Africans did it. The Indians themselves did it. To think that Indians were nothing but a bunch of pious hunter-gatherers dehumanizes them and denies thier full heritage. You are the one who is racist, not me. It's not like we created crime by saying what was once legal is now illegal. It has always been this way. The reason ferrying people became such big business is because of the last amnesty back in the 80's. and also, why not put pressure on Mexico to do better by thier citizens instead of making it oure problem. And if it wansn't economically beneficial to employers, they would not employ them, especially considering the risk they take in doing so. And by the way, "it's not fair" is a good arguement on it's own. You use it quite often in justifying abbhorent behavior among black people.

 

[Dolemite]

1. The white corporations in America can no longer make billions of dollars exploiting latino labor. When you can no longer pay mexicans less then similarly situated black workers now the black workers have equal footing when it comes to employment.

First of all an increased labor pool means increased competition. More competition cannot be seen as an aid to similarly situated black workers.

A business that could afford 10 below legal wage workers will not be able to magically afford that amount of legal wage earners.
Just because some of the formerly illegal workers become legal does not mean all will be. None of the current laws proposed offer amnesty to all illegals and that leaves millions of undocumented illegal aliens to carry on with current trends in the wage scale while rewarding millions of other law breakers.

I personally cannot see how increasing labor costs accross the nation for predominately small and medium business owners can help the economy. I could see the benefit if this increased cost was accross the board but its not but I'm not an economist break it down for us.

2. Political Power - You will have 3 - 12 million new voters once this goes into effect you will have a significant change in the political landscapes of at least California and Florida. What will this mean? Lets look at the demographics of these people they are prodominatly poor , predominatly low educated, non-white. There demographics are very close to African American demographics thus we have the same interests.

Bullshit. Very weak assumption. I'm from California. That argument does not hold up. California is predominately hispanic now and african americans are doing worse their than in any other state both economically and politically.
Hispanics in California do better than us there and do not align themselves with african americans other than on general party lines.
Appalachian whites are from a similar economic background to other poor people from other ethnic groups and there is no magical solidarity there either. Perhaps you would be correct if MLK and Cesar Chavez were running the show or had been around longer but they didnt and arent and you are dead wrong.

Minimum wage, Health insurance, public education. We could achieve drastic improvements in these areas with the help of a strong latino community.

To me its simple we gain a whole of hell let more by teaming with the latinos then we do by fighting them. FIghting them gets us no where.

Show me one area in the US where the latino majority have teamed up with african americans to the benefit of african americans.

Bullshit

Please tell me again why they have the right to break federal laws while a tax paying citizen like me doesn't.

care to touch on this one?


Providing amnesty to millions of criminals while our people sit incarcerated for economic crimes as well is a slap in the face to all poor black people.

Poor blacks commit crimes and are punished. Poor hispanics commit crimes and are rewarded?

No other race has more right to enjoy the benefits of this nation than those who built it from the ground up and made it wealthy- African Americans. To grant the benefit of being a member of our nation to anyone with the ability to climb a fence is an afront to everything our people have contributed to this country. I may not like many of the people who control politics in this nation but I'll be damned if I sit idly by to see deceived people like you give away what my people and others bled for.

You justify the cowardess of millions of criminals who are too fearful to stay in their own nations and work for a better society.

 

[Greed]

the government granted amnesty in the 80's. is the argument that blacks are in a stronger position today 20 years later.

 

[peterpiper1978]

i agree, latinos don't side with blacks on anything else so why should we side with them on this issue. I encourage them to rally and protest in mexico to have changes made to their corrupt government. I've been to mexico. its a beautiful place and has the potential to be a very strong country. don't be lazy and come to america instead of staying home and fighting to make positive changes in your mother land. Its no excuse for this when you don see mexicans walking through mexico protesting treatment. Yall need to man up and address that shit the right way instead of coming to america to settle for less and have to worry about an INS raid. real shit. What tripped me out about the rallies is the way it was done. Out here in LA, you got kids who should be at school on the news throwing up gang signs, blocking the freeway and what not. It is so stupid and wrong to protest for positive changes in this way. First of all, the parents should have encouraged them to go to school and protested themselves like adults do. secondly their parents should have educated them to the fact that the eyes of the nation were on them and that you dont get your stupid asses on tv throwing gang signs, knocking over garbage cans, and blocking traffic on the freeway (i can maybe understand blocking traffic on regular streets) and expect sympathy from anyone. I dont agree with whitey about too many things in life, but i have to side with them on this issue. Bottom line, get in line and immigrate legally and if you dont understand that concept, you probably dont need to be here because it is a stupid mentality to think you should be rewarded for breaking the law. If that was the case, it wouldn't be nearly as many blacks in prison as it is.

 

[peterpiper1978]

i agree, latinos don't side with blacks on anything else so why should we side with them on this issue. I encourage them to rally and protest in mexico to have changes made to their corrupt government. I've been to mexico. its a beautiful place and has the potential to be a very trong country. don't be lazy and come to america instead of stsaying home and fighting to make positive changes in your mother land. Its no excuse for this when you don see mexicans walking through mexico protesting treatment. Yall need to man up and address that shit the right way instead of coming to america to settle for less and have to worry about an INS raid. real shit. What tripped me out about the rallies is the way it was done. Out here in LA, you got kids who should be at school on the news throwing up gang signs, blocking the freeway and what not. It is so stupid and wrong to protest for positive changes in this way. First of all, the parents should have encouraged them to go to school and protested themselves like adults do. secondly their parents should have educated them to the fact that the eyes of the nation were on them and that you dont get your stupid asses on tv throwing gang signs, knocking over garbage cans, and blocking traffic on the freeway (i can maybe understand blocking traffic on regular streets) and expect sympathy from anyone. I dont agree with witey about too many things in life, but i have to side with them on this issue. Bottom line, get in line and immigrate legally and if you dont understand that concept, you probably dont need to be here because it is a stupid mentality to think you should be rewarded for breaking the law. If that was the case, it wouldn't be nearly as many blacks in prison as it is.