Immigration

[Pat Hartman]

I studied both French and Spanish in school. I am certainly not fluent in either but I can read a little and I can bid (remember I play bridge) in French. When I go to areas where they speak French or Spanish (I’m better with Spanish) I make an attempt at the local language as far as I can go. It isn't that Americans are not interested in learning other languages it is the resentment that these people come here illegally and then DEMAND that WE learn Spanish to service them. The Chinese illegals don't DEMAND that WE learn Mandarin to service them. The Chinese illegals don't march in the streets and don't waive Chinese flags. They understand that if they want to live here they have to make the most basic of efforts to not be a burden on society.

The Mexican illegals would garner a lot more sympathy if they made a small effort to adopt American customs and mores. When I lived in Kuwait, I didn't expect to wear shorts or halters in public or swim on a beach within 50 miles of the city. I always covered my arms and legs when I went out even when the temperature was 115F. My husband took care to not cross his legs and show his shoe bottoms to our guests (Arabs find this offensive. I don't know why). We observed Ramadan, in public at least, even though we are not Muslem. We didn't insist that our Indian maid cook us dishes that contained beef. She claimed to be a Catholic but I think she was covering all the bases There are simply things you do as a guest or visitor in a country (even a long term visitor) to fit in. I never threw trash in the streets of Kuwait even though the locals did, nor would I do it in a country like Germany where I felt I could eat off the streets, everything was so clean. The US is somewhere in the middle as far as cleanliness goes thanks to Lady Bird Johnson.

FYI - American Indians are called Indians because when Columbus landed in the islands of the Caribbean, he thought he had landed in the West Indies so he called the indigent people Indians.

Does anyone have any comments on the farm worker wages stats that I posted earlier? It certainly wouldn’t be a burden for me to pay even $100 more per year to guarantee that migrant farm workers were paid living wages, had healthcare, and reasonable living quarters. But just $10 more from each family could increase their wages by 40% - assuming that the farmer and middlemen didn’t snatch it away as profit first

 

[ColinEssex]

Another cultural norm for them, which causes many American women some stress, is their habit of staring at women, and making comments to them on the street. Both my daughter and my girl friend complain of this regularly.

As Rich said, this is normal in Italy and Italian men and the ladies accept it as normal.

Pat has highlighted her Kuwait/Muslim experiences. We travelled extensively in Iran / Afghanistan and other Muslim countries and my wife had to be covered, even the females hair can't be shown. In fact, my wife had long hair and some fell down over her face whilst we were out - she was stopped by an Afghani lady and told to cover it in no uncertain terms! If a bare ankle is accidentally shown, the men are extremely uncomfortable. As for staring, they did this all the time as we were "westerners".

Isn't it odd - the differences I mean - in Spain for example, its acceptable for females to stroll round in a bikini top and "hotpants" should they wish. (and many do )

Col

 

[Len Boorman]

Does anyone have any comments on the farm worker wages stats that I posted earlier? It certainly wouldn’t be a burden for me to pay even $100 more per year to guarantee that migrant farm workers were paid living wages, had healthcare, and reasonable living quarters. But just $10 more from each family could increase their wages by 40% - assuming that the farmer and middlemen didn’t snatch it away as profit first

Pat

Okay I am in UK but $100 would not be a problem for me as then those persons would not be being kept by the state but would actually be contibutors. So I could expect the benefits and services I get from the state to improve.

Except of course we have Blair and Brown

Len

 

[Pat Hartman]

Isn't it odd - the differences I mean - in Spain for example, its acceptable for females to stroll round in a bikini top and "hotpants" should they wish. (and many do )

On our first visit to Spain, I was unpacking our bags and noticed my husband and our 13 year old daughter standing riveted on the balcony. I went to see what they were watching. It was the topless sun bathers by the pool.

While the Taliban still had control of Afganistan, they would stone a woman for wearing bobby socks because they were too sexy? The Kuwaitis were much more moderate. Only the kuwaiti women wore abas, black single piece scarves that covered them from head to toe. I tried one once. I think you have to be born to it. I couldn't keep an aba on if my life depended on it without stapling it to my head. And they rarely wore veils. Foreign women didn't cover their heads but did dress modestly.

 

[dan-cat]

The Mexican illegals would garner a lot more sympathy if they made a small effort to adopt American customs and mores. When I lived in Kuwait, I didn't expect to wear shorts or halters in public or swim on a beach within 50 miles of the city.

I'm sorry - but this just grates me. Singling out Mexicans as the only harmful type of immigrant is just absurd.

What about the NIFC? The American Irish organisation that supports the politicial wing of the IRA. Yep the organisation that blows to pieces women and children in Ireland. They're really conforming to the American ideal aren't they? What a wonderful diplomatic message Mr Clinton sent out when he shook hands with Gerry 'terrorism is alright with me' Adams. They speak English.

What about the organised crime mentality of some of the Italian immigrants. The ones who organise mass importation of drugs and guns into the USA just to make a buck? The ones who don't think twice about chopping somebody to pieces just to make a point about 'respect'. They speak English.

What about the original American immigrants from Europe who branded the natives 'savages' and proceeded to decimate their people and strip their lands from them? Then trafficked slaves in from Africa - treated then as sub-humans until only decades ago until some psychotic let off a bomb in a church and killed some children and they started to actually wake up and realise they were the savages. They spoke English.

What about the 'white' people who live in my neighbourhood who live in trailers surrounded by junked out cars and coke cans, take meth-amphetamines, don't work and live off the state? They speak English.

What about the ones who think wearing a pointy hat is a good idea and somehow think that their souls have been saved by a Jew and yet a Jew's life is worthless at the same time? They speak English.

Then we have the wonderful historical record of the more 'civilised' nations.

The Nazi holocaust.
The Spanish Conquistadors who decimated the Aztec (Mexican, yes MEXICAN) and Inca (Peruvian) populations and gave them the choice between the Catholic church or being garrotted.
The Japanese atrocities in the 2nd World War.
Stalin's red 'Cheka'
The medieval Crusades
The Chinese government that runs students over with tanks and censors google.

etc etc etc...

Have the Mexicans ever attempted genocide, dropped an atomic bomb in anger, murdered millions of its own or foreign population under political/religious motivation, used chemical weapons?

Then you try to paint a picture of the 'Mexicans' being dirty, lecherous and ungrateful and if only they'd learn English - everything would be peachy. Give me a break.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I didn't say Mexican immigrants. I said Mexican Illegals. They are not the same. People who respect the law and come here legally generally make pretty good citizens; often better than the native born. They appreciate what they are getting. The Mexican and other Central American Illegals who are marching in the streets of AMERICA waiving flags of their native country - should go home. They should go home to their own countries where such things are not allowed. Perhaps that would make them appreciate what we have here.

I don't condone the IRA; I don't condone the Mafia; I don't condone the Tongs. They are all problems brought on us by IMMIGRANTS but I'm not saying that we should send home the Irish, the Italians, or the Chinese just because some of their countrymen are bad people. Nor do I believe that all the Mexicans should go home - only the ones who broke the law to get here. By the way, of all the major immigrant groups, only the English actually speak English. The rest spoke something else.

Have the Mexicans ever attempted genocide, dropped an atomic bomb in anger, murdered millions of its own or foreign population under political/religious motivation, used chemical weapons?

Just because Mexicans have never done these things does not mean that I will sit back and let them invade my country. That is what they are doing.

BTW, if you think that we dropped an atomic bomb in anger, you should go back and study your American history. War is hell. By sugar coating it, you let it go on for ever. The bomb was an attempt to stop it in its tracks, and it worked. Yes it was spectacular. Yes it killed a lot of people but no more than would have been killed if the war continued for another year. The first Star Trek series did a great episode on this where Kirk had to destroy the computers that calculated the casualties in order to force the warring planets to make peace.

 

[dan-cat]

Just because Mexicans have never done these things does not mean that I will sit back and let them invade my country. That is what they are doing.

Wrong. Mexican illegals are about as illegal and invasive as my left toe.
They are condoned by the US government and they are condoned by US citizens.
We want cheap fruit, vegetables and meat products. The exploitation of cheap labor enables that. The local chicken processing plant is full of illegals. Does the owner get prosecuted, do the INS do a raid and deport them all. Do they hell, otherwise the price of a chicken in Wal-mart would go up and we can't have that can we? Here is an excellent microcosm of this sordid practice and what is actually going on behind the scenes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4851194.stm

They are encouraged by big business America to come over and work for peanuts and they duly oblige. Why would they stay if they weren't given a living?
They have no working rights, no health and safety checks and no health insurance. They work from hand to mouth and it is all condoned and encouraged by the US government.

Then after years of this human trafficking they start to exercise their right to freedom of speech and want to be treated as a human being and promptly get cut down as lecherous and dirty scum-bag criminals.
We moan about how poor and squalid they are yet overlook the fact that profiteering so and so's pay them squat for 12 hours + back-breaking work in the baking sun.
Well I'm afraid that's just too bad. 11 million illegals didn't arrive into the US overnight - it's been caused by greedy so and so's chasing profits for years and US citizens turning their back on the issue in favor of cheap products. Well now there are 11 million of them who want to voice an opinion and I'm afraid we're going to have to listen to what they have to say.

BTW, if you think that we dropped an atomic bomb in anger, you should go back and study your American history.

I'm not really prepared to consider a comparision of wiping out 100,000 citizens in an instant with an episode of Star Trek. But you've exposed your poor frame of reference nicely. Any weapon that is used in the theater of war is made in anger. Regardless of its intent. It was not an act of mercy it was an act of war. Here is why.
The Japanese fire bombings were also acts of war - and were also mass indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations.
These fire bombings occured BEFORE the 2 atomic drops and had brought Japan to its knees so don't start claiming that Truman was some kind of Sister of Mercy.
. Here is a nice little quote from a certain General Eisenhower:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a
weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was
my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking
some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face".
The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude,
almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick
conclusions."

Perhaps you should brush up on your American History, it is actually accepted that Hiroshima was used as a stark warning to the USSR not as a necessary evil to break a dangerous enemy. The Japanese supply lines had been cut and even Gen. Curtis LeMay said that he had run out of targets to bomb.

How do you explain that no chance of Japanese surrender was given between the 2 bombings? The Japanese Prime Minister said this before the bombing of Nagasaki:

"Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative
is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war."

I guess you know more than General Eisenhower or the Japanese Prime Minister huh? McNamara said in the documentary "Fog of War" that if the US had lost the war then we would have been justly accused of war crimes. You still think I need to study my history? I'm not the one relying on Captain Kirk to qualify my argument.

Anyway I digress.


I'd also like to address this fallacy that 'Mexicans' reproduce profusely with malicious intent. This is just bull. They reproduce profusely because they don't use contraception.
They don't use contraception because they are catholic. They are catholic because back in the 1700's the Spanish decided to invade their lands, strip all their wealth and force them to join the catholic church.
The ones who didn't join up were garrotted or burned alive. Hundreds of years later they practically get invited over the border to work for peanuts and get this thrown back into their faces. Why do they have to leave their homeland to search out a better life - because the greedy european colonists stripped out all of its assets some hundred or so years back.
Perhaps you should read up on some Mexican history as well. I'll give you a hint - google 'Cortez', 'Aztec', or 'conquistador'.

I know there is an immigration problem, but when people start trying to bolster their arguments by branding a group of people who can't stand up for themselves with derogatory labels, it just irks me. It's a bad form of argument and it ... irks me.

P.S I never suggested that you condone any terrorist or organised criminal activity. My point was simple. That criminal behaviour is not exclusive to a single group of people. Indeed, the mexican population have actually been on the receiving end of such activity since the arrival of the Spanish.

 

[Rich]

. Here is a nice little quote from a certain General Eisenhower:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a
weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was
my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking
some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face".
The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude,
almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick
conclusions."

Rubbish, Japan was nothing like defeated at this point, have you never read anything about Okinawa, have you never read or heard about the kamikaze attacks on US ships and men?
Have you never seen pictures of civilians hurling their children and themselves over the cliffs at Okinawa because they'd been brainwashed into thinking that the Americans were evil people who'd ra** and bayonet their children?
Had Japan been invaded the losses on both side would have been horrific.
The Japanese military government at the time had no intention of accepting unconditional surrender; it was the shock value of the damage inflicted by just two bombs that forced the Emperor to intervene.
The myth about using the A bomb to frighten the Russians is speculative nonsense, but hell it sells books

The Japanese Prime Minister said this before the bombing of Nagasaki:

Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative
is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war

You've totally overlooked the fact that he was overuled by the Army, in fact even after the surrender pockets of the Japanese army ignored the Emperor and tried to continue the struggle. The Japanese leadership did not respond to the ultimatum issued at Potsdam, they had every opportunity to surrender.

 

[dan-cat]

You've totally overlooked the fact that he was overuled by the Army, in fact even after the surrender pockets of the Japanese army ignored the Emperor and tried to continue the struggle. The Japanese leadership did not respond to the ultimatum issued at Potsdam, they had every opportunity to surrender.

...and you have ignored the fact that the War Secretary, Stimson, himself said this in his memoirs:

"no effort was made, and none was
seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to
have to use the bomb".

In July, 1945 Japan said this:

"with the sincerity of our desire to
end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end
hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure
and maintain our national existence and honor". This was a coded message to the Soviets which the US had decoded and yet Truman never followed up on it.

Anyway, you are still unaware that the go-ahead for the a-bomb had been issued BEFORE the Potsdam declaration had been issued, so your argument is baseless and you never addressed the issue of why there was no sue for peace between the 2 bombs attacks.

As for the myth regarding the show-piece for the Soviets, Churchill said this:

"Here then was a speedy end to
the Second World War, and perhaps to much
else besides. ... We now had something in our hands which would
redress the balance with the Russians."

He knew full well the global relevance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even if you do not.

 

[Rich]

...and you have ignored the fact that the War Secretary, Stimson, himself said this in his memoirs:

"no effort was made, and none was
seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to
have to use the bomb".

.

Yeah, nothing like controversy to sell a book eh

In July, 1945 Japan said this:

"with the sincerity of our desire to
end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end
hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure
and maintain our national existence and honor". This was a coded message to the Soviets which the US had decoded and yet Truman never followed up on it.

Anyway, you are still unaware that the go-ahead for the a-bomb had been issued BEFORE the Potsdam declaration had been issued, so your argument is baseless and you never addressed the issue of why there was no sue for peace between the 2 bombs attacks.

I've already told you, the Japanese army chiefs had no intention of surrendering

As for the myth regarding the show-piece for the Soviets, Churchill said this:

"Here then was a speedy end to
the Second World War, and perhaps to much
else besides. ... We now had something in our hands which would
redress the balance with the Russians."

He knew full well the global relevance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even if you do not

The key word here is perhaps and in any case it was an added bonus, if you can call it that, the prime aim was to end the war a soon as possible, in any event you've totally overlooked the fact that one firestorm raid on Tokyo killed and maimed more than both the A bombs, those raids did not end the war.

 

[dan-cat]

Yeah, nothing like controversy to sell a book eh

If you're not actually going to believe the word of the main protagonists to this event then there is little point arguing with you.

I've already told you, the Japanese army chiefs had no intention of surrendering

This is complete conjecture. Since Okinawa, Japan had been decimated by months of fire-bombings. The US had gained complete air superiority by July 1945 and could bomb targets at will. I've posted quotes to back-up my claims that the Japaense were looking for a way out of the war - you have just posted your opinion.

The key word here is perhaps and in any case it was an added bonus, if you can call it that, the prime aim was to end the war a soon as possible, in any event you've totally overlooked the fact that one firestorm raid on Tokyo killed and maimed more than both the A bombs, those raids did not end the war.

No I haven't. The original point brought up by Pat was that the a-bomb attacks were not used in anger. This is bull. The attacks were confirmed BEFORE the Potsdam declaration was made. No sue for peace was made by the US before or in between the a-bomb attacks. The Potsdam declaration demanded unconditional surrender AFTER the use of the atomic bombs. This means that they were used in anger to batter the enemy into submission. No quarter was given, this is the definition of using something in anger.

PS: Do you really think Churchill made this comment without trying to make a point?

 

[Len Boorman]

Puting history aside for a moment has anybody considered that

At some time some bugger was going to use an Atomic Bomb. The lesson learned was that this is a hugely destructive weapon even in its crude state of 1945 and that it should never be used again.

The progress made in the destructive potential of the weapons available today is to awesome to even consider using, except of course to some total nutter.

L

 

[dan-cat]

At some time some bugger was going to use an Atomic Bomb. The lesson learned was that this is a hugely destructive weapon even in its crude state of 1945 and that it should never be used again.

Yes I agree. I know this has nothing to do with Mexican illegals, I just don't like being told that my knowledge of American history is inadequate. The 'bugger' you refer to was Stimson the war secretary at the time. The inclusion of the term 'unconditional' was completely intentional in the Potsdam declaration. There was no room for negotiation. Stimson knew this and knew it would be rejected thus clearing the way to show off his multi-billion dollar project. Several of his high-ranking officers disagreed with his policy. The fact that he gave the the go-ahead for its use before they even released the declaration confirms this. He admitted the facts later on himself.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Has anybody ever considered that these "illegal" Mexican immigrants are part of a cunning plan for Mexico to recover the lands lost to America during America's expansion from "Sea to shining sea" to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny" ?


Brian

 

[ColinEssex]

Why not invade Mexico and have it as the 52nd state (after the UK) then there'll be no need for Mexicans to move north because they'll be in the USA anyway.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

Has anybody ever considered that these "illegal" Mexican immigrants are part of a cunning plan for Mexico to recover the lands lost to America during America's expansion from "Sea to shining sea" to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny" ?


Brian

No Bri, remember they're not that smart. They're a lecherous, unclean people unworthy of anything but picking the 'maters for my lunchtime sub.

 

[Rich]

If you're not actually going to believe the word of the main protagonists to this event then there is little point arguing with you.

You've only quoted a couple of opinions, and one of them was a weak general.

This is complete conjecture. Since Okinawa, Japan had been decimated by months of fire-bombings. The US had gained complete air superiority by July 1945 and could bomb targets at will. I've posted quotes to back-up my claims that the Japaense were looking for a way out of the war - you have just posted your opinion.

It's no more conjecture than yours, you've just conjured up a couple of opinions to support your own opinion, try doing some actual unbiased reading on the events.
I've based my statements on history books, try reading some of them yourself.

The Potsdam declaration demanded unconditional surrender AFTER the use of the atomic bombs. This means that they were used in anger to batter the enemy into submission. No quarter was given, this is the definition of using something in anger.

That's not true, the demand for uncontional surrender was made at Potsdam, although no mention was made of the A bombs Japan was left in no doubt that it would suffer prompt and utter destruction unless it accepted unconditional surrender.

 

[dan-cat]

You've only quoted a couple of opinions, and one of them was a weak general.

McNamara, Eisenhower and Stimson. You have quoted nothing. Would you like more?

It's no more conjecture than yours, you've just conjured up a couple of opinions to support your own opinion, try doing some actual unbiased reading on the events.
I've based my statements on history books, try reading some of them yourself.

Is there anything I have said that didn't happen? Have I misquoted anybody?
By the way Okinawa occurred in April 1945. Three months before the US had finished burning Japan to the ground. Perhaps it is you would needs to hit the history books and get your timelines straight.

That's not true, the demand for uncontional surrender was made at Potsdam, although no mention was made of the A bombs Japan was left in no doubt that it would suffer prompt and utter destruction unless it accepted unconditional surrender.

The order had been confirmed BEFORE the declaration. The Potsdam declaraton had nothing to do with the use of atomic weaponry. The weapons were to be used anyway. Demanding complete surrender is not a negotiation that the Japanese were going to accept immediately. The US knew this. That is why the use of the a-bombs were a foregone conclusion. That is why the order was confirmed before the declaration. That is why the US didn't detail what was to come.

They could have left out the term 'unconditional' to spark diplomacy.
They could have detailed what an a-bomb actually was.
They could have sued for peace in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They could have delayed the order until after the Japanese response to the declaration.

The US did none of these things. This isn't conjecture - this is fact.

 

[Rich]

McNamara, Eisenhower and Stimson. You have quoted nothing. Would you like more?
.

Yep, where's Trumans version, where's Churchills version, where's Stalins?
and in any event I've already told you Eisenhowers opinion is irrelevant, the guys ineptitude prolonged the war against Germany.

By the way Okinawa occurred in April 1945. Three months before the US had finished burning Japan to the ground. Perhaps it is you would needs to hit the history books and get your timelines straight.

What are you babbling on about, Okinawa was cited to demonstrate Japans fanatic resistance, as for burning Japan to the ground you've totally overlooked the fact that Britain couldn't be brought to its knees by aerial bombardment, neither could Germany, neither could Japan

Demanding complete surrender is not a negotiation that the Japanese were going to accept immediately. The US knew this. That is why the use of the a-bombs were a foregone conclusion. That is why the order was confirmed before the declaration. That is why the US didn't detail what was to come.

Again you're missing the point and I'll ask you again, what's the difference between the one nights firestorm raid on Tokyo and two A bombs?
The Japanese could not be brought to their knees by conventional bombing despite Le-Mays claims to the contrary.

They could have left out the term 'unconditional' to spark diplomacy.
They could have detailed what an a-bomb actually was.
They could have sued for peace in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They could have delayed the order until after the Japanese response to the declaration.

Why should they have, they didn't offer the Germans anything different and in any case the terms of surrender were drawn up by the Allies, not just the U.S.

 

[dan-cat]

and in any event I've already told you Eisenhowers opinion is irrelevant, the guys ineptitude prolonged the war against Germany.

You thinking that Eisenhower's opinion is irrelevant doesn't mean that it is.
I guess Gen. Hap Arnold, Adm. Ernest King, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. William Leahy's opinions all don't matter either. Each one of these officers disagreed with Stimson's policy at the time.

What are you babbling on about, Okinawa was cited to demonstrate Japans fanatic resistance, as for burning Japan to the ground you've totally overlooked the fact that Britain couldn't be brought to its knees by aerial bombardment, neither could Germany, neither could Japan

Unlike the UK or Germany, Japan was made out of wood. From April 1945 to July 1945 the fire bombings broke most resistance. The allies had gained complete air superiority and had broken all supply links with its naval blockade.
It was simply a matter of time before Japan would fold.

Again you're missing the point and I'll ask you again, what's the difference between the one nights firestorm raid on Tokyo and two A bombs?
The Japanese could not be brought to their knees by conventional bombing despite Le-Mays claims to the contrary.

Nothing. They were acts of war. I was arguing the point that Pat raised that the atomic bombs were not used in anger. However as you have so nicely illustrated - they were. I guess we'll add Le-Mays to the long list of protagonists who you think have worthless opinions. You're quite the war strategist aren't you?

Why should they have, they didn't offer the Germans anything different and in any case the terms of surrender were drawn up by the Allies, not just the U.S.

The US was the sole administration who decided the use of the atomic bomb. The Russians didn't even know of its existance. They weren't even signatories of the Potsdam declaration! Have you ever considered why an atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin? Hmmm - the close proximity of allied countries perhaps?