Commenter Maryst drew our attention to an interesting, very relevant question.For those of you who read a lot about immigration online, you know that the blogosphere and forums often refer to the "ANTIs" and the "PROs".
So we want to know, from you, how you would explain either category. ANTIs: what are you against? PROs: what are you for? And how do you see the opposing group? Alternatively, do you feel you don't fit into either of those categories? Why?
38 comments:
The term Pros is generally a misnomer because those in this fold are more often than not opposed rather than for something. Some are for secure borders but would deny us the tools necessary to achieve them. Some give lip service to the English language but oppose Official English. Some are in favor of employer sanctions but oppose the sanctions against the illegals that would buttress physical barriers at the border. Some oppose the interests of their fellow citizens and the national interest and instead are pro-illegal, favoring foreigners and foreign governments rather than their own country. Many Pros like to use terms like racist, bigot, nativist, and other to describe citizens who disagree with them . Pros like ad hominem arguments because they don't have to think to advance those arguments. There are radical elements on both sides of the issues but the Pros like to lump all citizens into the "Anti" lunatic fringe while saying nothing about the radicals they support like MALDEF, MECHa, La Raza, LULAC and the Atzlanistas. Pros favor legalizing all illegals already here, thereby extending an open invitation for more to come. The Pros have a singular lack of appreciation of the heartfelt concerns of American citizens -- they attribute those concerns all to racism and yet no one has advocated the deportation of anyone except the illegals, regardless of their ethnicity or country of origin.
The Antis have a strong desire to preserve the America we know and love. Some believe that to accomplish this legitimate goals requires a stable population. Some believe strongly in the rule of law and therefore think that most if not all ilegals should be repatriated. Most see support of foreigner and foreign interests as a form of disloyalty. Some believe that the 14th amendment has been regularly abused and therefore needs to be revised or reinterpreted. Some make support of this a test of loyalty. Some see an simple compromise in dealing with the illegals already in this country -- institute a stringent process for determining which of them hold jobs citizens would do if offered a fair wage and a hiring preference. Those who fail this process go to immigration appeals court to state their case for remaining. They must show why they should remain. No one is required to show why they should not. Antis believe strongly in employer sanctions and in the employers' obligations to confirm the immigration status of every existing employee and every new employee and turn those who fail over to the ICE. The Antis believe there is no excuse for hiring an illegal whether or not his document look authentic. Employers msut be held accountable whether they hired them knowingly or unknowingly.
Well actually I consider myself to be a "pro" -- pro-American-sovereignty. The fact that it is considered a "controversy" for us to assert our sovereignty as a nation shows just how much the discourse surrounding this issue has been poisoned by such organizations as Matt, Maldef, La Raza and the others.
And yes, it is the perceived disloyalty of many legal Hispanics and their organizations that is feeding much of the anger amongst us native-born, non-Hispanic Americans.
As long as many legal Hispanics (and the organizations who say they represent them) act in disloyal ways, the anger is not going to go away.
You were willing to sell us down the river for foreigners and a foreign government. You were willing to dilute and disenfranchise our vote for the sake of foreigners and a foreign government. You were willing to bankrupt us for the sake of a foreigners and a foreign government. And we won't forget it.
The Pros vs. The Antis - Part II
The Pros:
(1) The term "Pros" is generally a misnomer because those in this fold are more often than not opposed rather than for something.
(2) Some are for secure borders but would deny our country the tools necessary to achieve that goal.
(3) Some give lip service to the English language but oppose Official English.
(4) Some are in favor of employer sanctions but oppose the sanctions against the illegals that would create the disincentives necessary to buttress the physical barriers at the border.
(5) Some oppose the interests of their fellow citizens and the national interest and, instead, are intensely pro-illegal, favoring foreigners and foreign governments rather than supporting their own country.
(6) Use terms like racist, bigot, nativist, and others to describe citizens who disagree with them.
(7) Like ad hominem arguments because they don't have to think to advance those arguments. They can just appeal to emotion.
(8) There are radical elements on both sides of the issues but the Pros like to lump all "Anti" citizens into the lunatic fringe while saying nothing about the radical organizations they support like MALDEF, MECHa, La Raza, LULAC and the Atzlanistas.
(9) Favor legalizing all illegals already here, thereby extending an open invitation for more to come.
(10) Have a singular lack of appreciation of the heartfelt concerns of American citizens -- they attribute all those concerns to racism or worse and yet no one has advocated the deportation of anyone except the illegals, regardless of their ethnicity or country of origin.
(11) Oppose any approach except comprehensive reform.
(12) Believe Americans do not have a good work ethic and strong families.
(13) Believe assimilation is taking place and everyone is learning English by the second generation.
(14) Believe illegals are needed and can develop the skills and professional knowledge to replace retiring boomers.
(15) They believe the illegals deserve a pathway to citizenship.
(16) They believe most illegals pay all the applicable taxes.
(17) Believe border violations and use of another person's SSN or fraudulent documents are trivial offenses.
(18) Believe in self-deportation so that the those involved can return quickly without the onus of classification as a felon.
The Antis:
(1) Have a strong desire to preserve the America and the quality of life they know and love.
(2) Some believe that to accomplish that legitimate goal requires a stable population.
(3) Some believe strongly in the rule of law and therefore think that most if not all illegals should be repatriated.
(4) Most see support of foreigners and foreign interests as a form of disloyalty.
(5) Some believe that the 14th amendment has been regularly abused and therefore needs to be revised or reinterpreted.
(6) Some would make support of a revision of the 14th a test of loyalty.
(7) Some see a simple compromise for dealing with the illegals already in this country -- institute a stringent process for determining which of them hold jobs citizens would do if offered a fair wage and a hiring preference.
(8) Those who fail this process go to immigration appeals court to state their case for remaining. They must show why they should remain. No one is required to show why they should not.
(9) Most believe strongly in employer sanctions and in the employers' obligations to confirm the immigration status of every existing employee and every new employee.
(10) Most believe those who fail the immigration status test should be turned over to the ICE.
(11) Most believe there is no excuse for hiring an illegal whether or not his documents look authentic. Employers must be held accountable whether they hired them knowingly or unknowingly.
(12) Most believe family separations are caused by the illegals not by the ICE.
(13) Most believe the use of fraudulent documents or a fake SSN or an SSN belonging to someone else should be classified as a felony.
(14) Most believe that some assimilation is taking place but maybe a new trend is taking place in Southern California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico that does not bode well for America.
(15) Many believe that a pathway to citizenship should be reserved for those who were born here or who arrived here legally and that there should be no permanent residency status for anyone else.
(16) Many believe the Pros, despite their protestations to the contrary, want a bilingual nation.
(17) Many believe bilingualism in the individual is good but wasteful as a national policy and that it would weaken national unity.
(18) Many believe that "dual citizenship" is an oxymoron.
(19) Many believe illegals conduct business and are paid on a cash basis with no tax deductions other than perhaps social security on another person's SSN.
(20) Many believe that all repatriations should be involuntary to create a disincentive for repeat offenses. Repeat offenders would be classified as felons and subject to a two year jail term.
(21) Believe there is some middle ground between mass deportations and mass legalization.
(22) Believe that some foreign workers are needed.
(23) Believe that the immigration problem should be addressed on a piecemeal basis, with border security being the first step.
(24) Believe subsequent steps must be triggered by actual results in terms of reduced apprehensions at the border and a reduction in the illegal population.
(25) Agree that illegals should be treated humanely and expeditiously. They should not have to languish for long periods of time in detention facilities pending immigration decisions. Decision should be quick, usually in the same day the case is presented.
(26) Believe that appeals should be based on strong evidence of social integration and cultural and linguistic assimilation.
(27) Deplore the concepts of anchor babies and chain immigrations.
(28) Believe, that for most illegals the cost during their post-reirement years, will vastly exceed their contributions and taxes.
(29) Believe there is a real danger that Pros and politicians are being extremely shortsighted; that continuation down the present path will lead to Mexico Norte with all the problems of the home country.
Disloyal "Hispanic groups" push to make Santa Ana, California a "sanctuary city" after an ICE sweep that netted 200 criminals. Among the criminals that were apprenehened were a murderer and a child molester. But disloyal "Hispanic groups" don't care -- not one raza gets deported on their watch, even murderers and child molesters.
http://www.fox6.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=41763ae4-a636-4dcb-a2de-a0aa40608c08&rss=801
And they wonder why other Americans are angry at them.
ANTI Comprehensive Immigration Reform: ANTI Profile: American. The majority are Anglos. (Anglos = white, Northern European ethnicity). Viewpoint: The majority advocate Deportation (mass or self) of the illegal immigrants in this country. Anything short of Deportation is termed Amnesty by the ANTIs. Many call for a 2000 mile southern border fence. There are a few legal immigrants and minorities within their groups, but not many. There are a few politicians that support them, not many. There are hundreds of ANTI websites across the internet. There are hundreds of ANTI radio shows across the country. ANTIs tend to be very angry. They try their darndest to get African Americans to join forces with them citing their uncorroborated claim the 12M drag down the minimum wage. The ANTIs tend to forget the deep alliances between the two ethnic groups which were forged over the previous four decades when they marched together for civil rights. Some of the Worst Terms the ANTIs use: 3rd World Country, Mexifornia, return to American Values.
PRO Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
Pro Profile: There are many, many PRO groups. Each group has a different motivation and they rarely rally together. The largest group is Hispanic Americans. The ethnicities vary and include: Mexican, Central and South American, Cuban, Puerto Rican and more. The majority of PROs who post on the internet are from this group. Other Minority groups include Asian, Southern European, Middle Eastern, African. I only see their posts when I search the international sites. Other PRO groups who also rarely post include: Churches and Humanitarian groups, Businesses that prosper from sales to the 12M (e.g. Banks, Insurance Companies, Retail, etc.) Businesses experiencing Labor Shortages that hire the 12M (e.g. Farming, IT, Construction, Contractors, Retail, etc), Politicians with reasons to support the 12M (e.g. enhance Globalization, running for office, etc). And, of course, the illegal immigrants themselves. The majority of PROs who do post tend to have the following views: They advocate secure borders, sanctioning employers and comprehensive immigration reform (because the current program is broken). The biggest difference between the ANTIs and the PROs is, the PROs advocate a path to citizenship for the 12M, particularly since most of the 12M have worked and contributed to this country for +5 – 20 years.
"Majority-Minority" Status and the ANTIs Last Stand
In 2007, the census bureau announced the US population at 300M with 100M consisting of minorities, Hispanic (44M), Black (40M), Asian (15M), Other minorities (5M). Four states and the District of Columbia are “majority-minority.” Hawaii leads (75%), District of Columbia (68%), New Mexico (57%), California (57%) and Texas (42%).
The U.S. Census Bureau predicts in 2050 America will become a “majority-minority” nation.
Numerous ANTI Immigration groups have formed. These groups are fearful, others angry, by the change in demographics in our nation. They say the population shift is caused by public policy. They are particularly upset by the Immigration Act of 1965 and what they term “the collapse of law enforcement against illegal immigration.” They say this has resulted in the destabilization of the U.S. demographic balance. Their statisticians report in 2005 the white population grew by .26%. The minority population grew by 2.42%. They project the “majority-minority” will occur in 2038.
These groups are particularly angry with the rate of Hispanic immigration. Combined with the 12M illegal immigrants said to be in this country, they fear the take-over will occur prior to 2038.
Their sites across the internet are screaming “Stop Immigration Now!” They theorize, if immigration were completely cut off, the date at which minorities would become the U.S. majority would be post-poned to the 22nd century. They also speculate if immigrant birthrates begin to decline to the white rate, the “majority-minority” may never occur at all. That is their hope.
These groups are against any Comprehensive Immigration Reform other than Mass Deportation, for obvious reasons. They are standing hard and strong against it. Many feel this is their last stand.
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html
Amnesty is a general pardon by which a government absolves offenders, presumably without penalty. By pointing to a penalty of any kind, even if it is only a slap on the wrist, the Pros deftly sidestepthe technical issue of amnesty.
Amnesty may require a return to obedience. In the case of the illegals, this would mean returning permanently to their homelands without penalty until they can qualify for legal immigration or other legal status.
Anti's favor the return to obedience and moreover believe that rewarding a person with the object of his illegality, the opportunity to stay in this country and work, is a form of amnesty. This concept does not require the mass deportation of all illegals but rather a process by which their presence is recognized as illegal, all are registered and the repatriation of only those who have displaced American workers or depressed wages. The Pros tend to distort this point of view.
"The majority are Anglos. (Anglos = white, Northern European ethnicity)"
Another less biased way of looking at this would be to say that these folks are the descendents of the founders, explorers, developers and defenders of our nation.
"These groups are fearful, others angry, by the change in demographics in our nation. They say the population shift is caused by public policy. They are particularly upset by the Immigration Act of 1965 and what they term “the collapse of law enforcement against illegal immigration.” They say this has resulted in the destabilization of the U.S. demographic balance. "
It is not just the demographic shift per se that Anti's are concerned about. It is the real and imminent threat that the destabilization of the demographic balance will in fact result in a re-creation of the very conditions the illegals and immigrants left their homelands to escape. How can one look carefully at those countries and those conditions without coming to the same conclusion that too many in a relatively short period of time will mean Mexico Norte, as it has already in in Mexifornia, Mexizona, and Mexas. These terms are merely intended to reflect the facts of life and trends in those states.
Antis see citizens who support foreigners and the interests of foreign governments as member of La Hermanidad de la Raza, not as American citizens.
I love it when an ANTI responds to my posts. They basically corroborate everything I´ve written as you can see by Ultima´s post. Ultima is one of MATT´s most popular ANTI members (more moderate and USUALLY less angry than most ANTIs). If you read what he said in response to my comments and compare it to what I said, you will have a basic definition of an ANTI.
While I have been fair in my critique of ANTIs, they are not fair in their critique of PROs. We are PRO Immigration Reform. Our current process is severely flawed. That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform and some type of path to citizenship for the 12M here.
The ANTI depiction of PROs is illogical. Look at what Ultima said about PROs. He says PROs are Traitors. He is wrong.
This is typical of Dee as a spokesperson for La Hermandad de la Raza. She uses the word "traitor" but attributes to me. I have described in some detail why many Antis think Pro-Illegals are disloyal and that view is one of the reasons we have such great difficulty thinking to together to find solutions. There are many degrees of disloyalty and one can probably be loyal in some respects but not in others. When that degree becomes so great as to warrant the term "traitor" I will leave up to others. I will not use it and it would be helpful if others did not attempt to put words in my mouth.
"if immigration were completely cut off, the date at which minorities would become the U.S. majority"
There are two aspects of this that Dee omits. First, reduced legal immigration would enable us to stabilize our population and preserve the quality of life I'm sure she enjoys. Second, a slowdown in illegal traffic would enable the U.S. to better absorb them and integrate them socially, culturally and linguistically into American society. Seems like worthwhile objectives but only if you place some value on the America we know and love. Mexico Norte is waiting in the wings for Dee to see the light.
"I love it when an ANTI responds to my posts. They basically corroborate everything I´ve written as you can see by Ultima´s post. Ultima is one of MATT´s most popular ANTI members (more moderate and USUALLY less angry than most ANTIs). If you read what he said in response to my comments and compare it to what I said, you will have a basic definition of an ANTI."
If you think I have in any way corroborated what you have written you continue to delude yourself. If you are referring to Mexifornia, than you are writing about a fact not a corroboration of your disagreement with that terminology.
So we could all understand more precisely what you meant by the quote perhaps you elaborate chapter and verse. It is a little hard to respond with specifics to generalities. It just goes to show that we see what we want to see and make no attempt to understand empathetically the other person's point of view. Instead you just fit it to your point of view, hammer to fit, paint to match as it were.
"While I have been fair in my critique of ANTIs, they are not fair in their critique of PROs."
In what way were we unfair? Details, please. What false statements did I make regarding the Pros? My summary of what I thought your positions wer is a strawman subject to your corrections but not your distortions>
"We are PRO Immigration Reform. Our current process is severely flawed. That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform and some type of path to citizenship for the 12M here."
We know that I believe I listed that among the tenets of the Pros. Our current immigration laws have never been effectively enforced so one cannot state authoritatively that they are severely flawed. Antis are also in favor of immigration reform, stepwise reform building the concrete results from the preceding steps not a monstrous comprehensive bill that no one has read or understoood in its entirety. The dog won't hunt.
"The majority advocate Deportation (mass or self) of the illegal immigrants in this country. Anything short of Deportation is termed Amnesty by the ANTIs."
See my views above regarding deportation and amnesty, especially # 7,8,15,21,22,23 and 24 under Antis above. I guess there must be some authoritative statistics out there that prove I am not in the majority of the Antis.
What part of #9,11 & 15 under Pros above is unfair or inaccurate?
"There are a few politicians that support them, not many."
It turned out that it was the majority of the senators so this statement doesn't hold water. I suspect the House would have been another defeat had the bill gotten that far.
Besides we all know how politicians vote and act -- in the interests of their donors not the American people at large unless they become aroused by an obvious travesty like S.1639.
Why are Pros so adamant about comprehensive reform as opposed to a more measured and logical approach? This has never been explained, perhaps becaue it is inexplicable.
I have no problem calling many "PROs" traitors because that's what they are. They want to advance their "race" at the expense of American taxpayers. They care more about Pedro from Oaxaca than they do about Joe Nextdoor Neighbor, especially if Joe Nextdoor Neighbor is not "Hispanic." The ones who just want to make money off the illegals are also traitors, and many of those are non-Hispanic.
Another thing you could say about the PROs is that none of them want to take on the responsibility of paying for the trillions of dollars in increased welfare, social security, and infrastructure costs that massive amnesty would burden the taxpayers with. They want to force us "ANTIs" to pick up the tab for the "free" meals they want to lavish on their raza. How very, very generous of them.
Now if the "PROs" volunteered to pay for every bit of the increased costs of amnesty themselves, without burdening everybody else, maybe they would get a better hearing from the opposition.
I propose a special "amnesty tax" for all supporters of foreigners over fellow Americans. Real Americans would not have to pay. Any takers?
Great idea MaryST.
(19) Pros have no concern about the effects of population growth on the environment and the extinction of species.
(30) Antis believe Pros should heap their abuse on Carlos Slim and do what they can to increase his concern for the human dignity of Mexican and to obtain his funding and support for obstetrical and triage hospitals at the border crossings in Mexico.
(31) Antis believe in the preservation of the environment and the avoidance of species extinction through world and U.S. population control.
(32) Antis believe that the world cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being.
(33) Antis believe that population growth in the U.S. is solely the result of too many legal immigrants, illegal aliens,anchor babies, chain immigration and the higher fertility rates of foreigners.
(20) Pro's believe in La Hermandad de la Raza is more important than good citizenship, national sovereignty, and loyalty to the U.S. and their fellow citizens.
Strangely no one on the "PRO" side likes my idea of an "amnesty tax." I wonder why?
Issue Pros Antis
Population Stabilization no yes
Pathway to citizenship for 12 M illegals yes no
Legalize all 12 million yes no
Comprehensive reform yes no
Stepwise reform no yes
Deport all 12 million no no
Employer required to prove need no yes
Illegals displace American workers no yes
Illegals depress wages no yes
Official English no yes
Modify 14th amendment no yes
Pros are disloyal to the U.S. yes no
Pros are loyal to La Hermandad de la Raza no yes
Ethnic political forums yes no
Fraudulent SSNs and docs as felonies no yes
Repeat border violations as felonies no yes
Display of foreign flag without a permit yes no
Trend toward Mexifonia & Mexico Norte? no yes
Viva Carlos Slim yes no
Viva Calderon yes no
Viva Bush no no
Viva U.S.Senate Re: S.1639 no yes
Viva National Sovereignty no yes
Preserve envmnt by controlling population no yes
Stop extinction of species no yes
Roy Beck for Executive Director of INS no yes
Bi-lingual state yes no
Welfare for illegals incl. obstetrical services yes no
Employer responsibility for health care no yes
Huge net post-retirement costs of illegals no yes
Illegals pay all taxes yes no
Reduce legal immigration to 200k/year total no yes
Fences, barriers, surveillance no yes
More Border patrol agents no yes
National Guard at the borders no yes
Detain illegals without bail no yes
Support illegal foreigners yes no
Anchor babies yes no
Chain immigrations yes no
The Gumball Illustration is correct no yes
Antis are bigots yes no
Pros are bigots no yes
Use ad hominen arguments yes no
Antis are radicals yes no
Amnesty would be an open invitation no yes
S.1639 provided an amnesty no yes
Believe in Southwest assimilation yes no
Illegals prefer soc. Integ. to ethnic enclaves yes no
Illegals are tolerant of anglos yes no
Anglos are tolerant of Illegals no no
MALDEF, MECHa, LULAC, etc. are racist no yes
Antis seek to turn Blacks against Hispanics yes no
Blacks oppose illegal aliens no yes
Immigration law work if enforced no yes
Easier legal immigration and citizenship yes no
Border security and results first no yes
Match labor supply with jobs yes yes
Specifiy type of work authorized on ID no yes
Trivial offenses yes no
Self-deportation yes no
Dual citizenship yes no
Quality of life reduced by population growth no yes
The limit of finite resources/population = 0 no yes
The carrying cap. of the land is threatened no yes
Preserve the America we know and love no yes
Rule of law no yes
Pathway to citizenship no yes
Middle ground no yes
Pros and politicians are shortsighted no yes
Ulty,
Mr.Ulty, the most normal of all the ANTIs, what you are NOT getting is each of your posts corroborates everything I have written.
Read them for yourselves.
You call PROs disloyal for believing in CIS. (Comp Immigration Reform)
ANTIs believing anything short of Deportation is Amnesty for the 12M.
ANTIs use of terms like "Miami is a 3rd world country." Your use of terms like "Mexifornia for California, Mexus for Texas," etc. et. You have corroborated and confirmed these are your quotes.
Ulty, my friend, you are the best of the ANTIs and even you are blatant in your recommendations.
At least you are honest. At least now, all of America sees ANTIs for who they are.
Ulty,
Mr.Ulty, the most normal of all the ANTIs, what you are NOT getting is each of your posts corroborates everything I have written.
Read them for yourselves.
You call PROs disloyal for believing in CIS. (Comp Immigration Reform)
ANTIs believing anything short of Deportation is Amnesty for the 12M.
ANTIs use of terms like "Miami is a 3rd world country." Your use of terms like "Mexifornia for California, Mexus for Texas," etc. et. You have corroborated and confirmed these are your quotes.
Ulty, my friend, you are the best of the ANTIs and even you are blatant in your recommendations.
At least you are honest. At least now, all of America sees ANTIs for who they are.
Just as everyone sees the PROs for who they are.
"You call PROs disloyal for believing in CIS. (Comp Immigration Reform)"
Actually, no. Although I prefer stepwise immigration reform, CIS is not the reason for suggesting some Pros might be guilty of disloyalty.
My main bone of contention is that regard is their preference for supporting La Hermandas de la Raza instead of their fellow citizens, the national interest and the national sovereignty. This is an important distinction. It is almost as if we are asking, "Whose side are you on anyway, the side of foreigner and foreign governments or that of your fellow citizens and our government?"
"ANTIs believing anything short of Deportation is Amnesty for the 12M."
But I didn't say that. Some may believe that the rule of law should be paramount. Let's not be too hard on them. From at least that perspective and perhaps others, they are right. My personal view is a little more on the practical side, recognizing that some foreign labor is needed and that some appeals of deportation should be successful but that others should be unsuccessful and their removal should always be involuntary to avoid repeat offenses without penalty.
"ANTIs believe anything short of Deportation is Amnesty for the 12M."
It is true that some not all Antis believe anything short of deportation is amnesty because it rewards the illegals with the object of their crime, a chance to stay in this country and work.
Although not in accord with the legal definition of amnesty, this is a reasonable 2nd definition. As I have suggested from time to time the idea of a "return to obedience" is another element of amnesty. This must be understood as a return to one's homeland permanently or until one can qualify for legal admission as a legal immigrant or a guest worker.
The question is how can we handle this problem in a way that will satisfy both sides. One way to begin is to simply title any new immigration bill that advocates legalization of most illegals as "The Immigration Amnesty Bill of 2009". This admits this quarrelsome aspect right up front and enables us to move on to more substantive matters while at the same time taking into account what is being proposed is really a form of amnesty. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it might lead to other compromises that enable others to see the merit of a process that enables those foreign workers we need to remain and those who are scheduled for removal to have an expedited immigration appeal and a quick decision. There is some middle ground here and it might facilitate matters if we simply were able to agree that mass legalization is a form of amnesty.
"ANTIs use of terms like "Miami is a 3rd world country." Your use of terms like "Mexifornia for California, Mexus for Texas," etc. et."
Yes, those are my terms and there is a rational for them.. The evidence is there for those who wish to see it. Sgt. Foucault provided some insights in that regard for San Diego -- and by extention for all of Southern California if not the entire state. If the term is not 100% appropriate now, it will be shortly.
In Texas the D Magazine article provided plenty of support for Mexus title, if not today, before very long. It's the trend I am speaking of, one you often boast about.
There appears to be some unrecognized nuances here, the most important one relates to disloyalty: can loyalty to La Hermandad de la Raza be consistent with loyalty to the U.S.. I don't believe so. To qualify as a loyal citizen one must always place the U.S. ahead of race, or raging ethnic politics.
"Joel and I come from the people. We worked hard all of our lives. We are not like you at all. We picked ourselves up by our bootstraps, became educated, and made our way in the world. Nothing was ever handed to us. We relate to the new Immigrants (legal and illegal). We, like them, have been treated as second class citizens. Now, we stand up for our beliefs"
By doing so you have essentially admitted your disloyalty and complicity. La Hermandad dela Raza first, the U.S. second. Case closed.
For more insight into dee's mindset, check out her hateful posts in this thread:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6308434
Her hatred towards Anglo-Americans is not only blatant, but she also throws racist remarks at black posters who disagree with her on immigration("Stepin Fetchit") and at Hispanic-American posters who put loyalty to our country ahead of loyalty to "la raza" (she calls them "traitors" and "wannabe white" etc.)
Even though I know that Dee is a certified "raza, raza uber alles" type, even I was shocked by the nature of the deranged racial and ideological hatreds she exhibited in these posts. This is one sick lady.
Post a Comment