Thread: ILLegal Immigration & America's Future

Originally Posted by Milkman

^ you're asking me to prove it.

I'm asking no such thing. It's not a matter of proving it, I'm saying that you are using a derogatory term in respect of a person that you could not possibly know the actual personal circumstances of. And that tells me all I need to know.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The term 'Anchor Baby' is far from being a derogatory description of what takes place in Mexafornia, Texas etc. Get a grip there, ant...

The term 'Anchor Baby' is exactly a derogatory term. Please give me one example where it is not used in the pejorative?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The term 'Anchor Baby' is far from being a derogatory description of what takes place in Mexafornia, Texas etc. Get a grip there, ant...

The term 'Anchor Baby' is exactly a derogatory term. Please give me one example where it is not used in the pejorative?

Anchor babies are a phenomenon.

A negative one.

It may be pejorative or not. Regardless, it's a problem.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Draining the local treasury and causing shut-downs.

The western world, over small economically unviable hospitals have been closed in favour of large regional centres.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The term 'Anchor Baby' is far from being a derogatory description of what takes place in Mexafornia, Texas etc. Get a grip there, ant...

It couldn't be that the woman is of childbearing age and just happens to be in the US?

Originally Posted by Lily

Originally Posted by Milkman

Draining the local treasury and causing shut-downs.

The western world, over small economically unviable hospitals have been closed in favour of large regional centres.

Apples and oranges.

You can't judge the reasons unless you,

1. research the issue, and

2. live in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Anchor babies are a phenomenon.

A negative one. It may be pejorative or not.

Regardless, it's a problem.

It's a problem in so far as it's a baseless accusation. The "phenomenon" is that people have apparently decided that any/all/the majority of illegal immigrants in the US having babies is with the express intention of furthering their cause to stay there.

A gross generalisation.

Originally Posted by Milkman

You can't judge the reasons unless you, 1. research the issue, and 2. live in the U.S.

Bullshit. You are saying, you are not like me, so you can't play.

Originally Posted by Milkman

You've got to witness it first hand.

I cannot comment on many internal Australian issues, because I've never been to OZ, nor lived nor worked there. (If I'd gone as a tourist/traveler I still couldn't comment on it.)

I disagree. That precludes most everybody from commenting on most anything then.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Milkman

You've got to witness it first hand.

I cannot comment on many internal Australian issues, because I've never been to OZ, nor lived nor worked there. (If I'd gone as a tourist/traveler I still couldn't comment on it.)

I disagree. That precludes most everybody from commenting on most anything then.

I think it depends on the topic in question.

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it depends on the topic in question

How so? Where's the line in the sand? How do you distinguish between commenting on the issue of illegal immigrants in the US and commenting on the Iraq war?

Why does 'living there' qualify you for one and not the other?

Originally Posted by Milkman

Quote: Originally Posted by AntRobertson Quote: Originally Posted by Milkman You've got to witness it first hand. I cannot comment on many internal Australian issues, because I've never been to OZ, nor lived nor worked there. (If I'd gone as a tourist/traveler I still couldn't comment on it.) I disagree. That precludes most everybody from commenting on most anything then. I think it depends on the topic in question.

Agree with that, But it seems to make no difference if some have lived there or not, it just seems natural for them to listen to BBC and then they are well informed, unless they listen, know because they have lived there and know it is faulty info. then they scream about the fuked up media.

Some think that because he saw a NY TIMES that he is an American political expert and really likes to stand in the front lines and run his mouth.

They do not know about the wetback knocked up broads that the last days before she has a kid, sneaks across the border into San Ysidro, Chula Vista to have the kid in a US hospital that can not throw her out because she is having a kid but has no money.
Then will not leave the USA because she has a kid born there and signs up for welfare paid to her for the kids support.

OH But you are very wrong, I live in Thailand now, but have worked and lived all over Mexico, and in the southern US along the border, was married to a mex for a few years, She happens to be an illegal in the US now as we had a citizen born abroad kid and she is using that as an excuse to stay in the states and they can not seem to deport her, Have lived and worked in Irag, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, and have visited Israel on numerous ocassions.
Have you lived or even visited in any of the places that you seem to be such an expert on??

Back on ignore til I open it again to see if I can RED you,, byeeee

Originally Posted by blackgang

Back on ignore til I open it again to see if I can RED you,, byeeee

LOL! Loser. Get a grip you silly old coot. You're not fooling anyone, just making yourself look like a fool.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it depends on the topic in question

How so? Where's the line in the sand? How do you distinguish between commenting on the issue of illegal immigrants in the US and commenting on the Iraq war?

Why does 'living there' qualify you for one and not the other?

Well Ant, we'll have to agree to disagree on the definitions and anaologies, then.

Originally Posted by blackgang

They do not know about the wetback knocked up broads that the last days before she has a kid, sneaks across the border into San Ysidro, Chula Vista to have the kid in a US hospital that can not throw her out because she is having a kid but has no money.
Then will not leave the USA because she has a kid born there and signs up for welfare paid to her for the kids support.

This has been very hard on the State of California.

It also affects school districts, which are financed by property taxes. And I am talking about illegal, yes, illegal students. It's now a law that property owners have to pay for them in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Milkman

I think it depends on the topic in question

How so? Where's the line in the sand? How do you distinguish between commenting on the issue of illegal immigrants in the US and commenting on the Iraq war?

Why does 'living there' qualify you for one and not the other?

Well Ant, we'll have to agree to disagree on the definitions and anaologies, then.

Righto, but I have to say I think that's a bit of a cop-out.

Because without a definition to what you are saying then anyone can merely apply an arbitrary 'you don't live there so you don't/can't know' standard.

But you are just a little wrong the MD.
A lot of em never work, never look for work and would pay no taxes if they did.
There are a lot of them that do work, but the majority do not, altho that do sign up for welfare and aid programs and receive a goodly amount of money, The illegal aliens cost Calif Billions of dollars a year, and that same is true of most states, all states I would say.
A sister of my Mex wife slipped across the border with 3 kids, lived on welfare in the outskirts of Los Angeles for a couple of years, went back to Mexico, got knocked up, went to Calif and had the kid, started drawing welfare on the kid but lived in Mexico on the money,, that happens a lot even tho it is against the law to do it.
The bitch I was married to got a fraud visa to come to Calif, went back and snuck one of her kids in, went on welfare, I was divorced from her, but they could not deport her because she had Catholic charities lawyers and a free immigration lawyer on her side, I pay $750 a month child support for my kid and she has been there since 1997, and they are still saying they will deport her and the lawyers run down and have it set ahead. she is in hock to the ER in the one hospital for $10,000 that they had to eat and all mex do the same thing, most ERs in the hospitals have had to close.
These things are not known to people that do not live in the USA, so as MM said, if you do not live there or have not lived there,, there is just a whole lot that yo do not know.
But you can find out on the net.

Originally Posted by blackgang

These things are not known to people that do not live in the USA, so as MM said, if you do not live there or have not lived there,, there is just a whole lot that yo do not know.

Maybe...maybe not

But you can find out on the net

Do you actually understand anything you write?

Does anyone have any information, from US government sources, on the rights of illegal migrants to claim welfare in the US (no blogs please) and the amount of welfare claimed by such people? "Mexican" bashing may be a mob pleaser for certain politicians but they should look very closely at who mows their lawn or serves their food at fancy restruants.