ALL EUROPEANS ARE ILLEGAL/WHITES GET OUT!THIS IS OUR LAND/THE LATINOS ARE COMING.WE'RE IN A CIVIL WAR.

If you think I'm illegal because because I'M Mexican,learn the true history because I"m in my homeland.

These are some of the signs you would see at the illegal alien rallies around the country. They are giving American citizens a preview of what the future holds for our nation if we don't make a stand today. George Bush and Congress are either too cowardly to act or they have another agenda and it doesn't include us.

Bush, as I have stated before, will not secure the borders. He wants to put in place the North American Community, an economic and political union of America, Canada, and Mexico by 2010. All three leaders were in Cancun this week and the union was a significant part of the talks.

The task force plan is to have open borders so that citizens of all three member states can "live and work" in any member state, eventually. This will continue to drive down wages and benefits. Trade agreements will be the driving force, benefitting multinational corporations [Wal-Mart et al] The goal, if the FTAA is passed, is a regional trading state, consisting of 34 nations of the Western Hemisphere. All 34 nations will no longer be sovereign and independent.

The Mexicans have an agenda, also, and it doesn't include George Bush, Hillary Clinton or corporate CEOs. They want the Southwest United States returned to the "indigenous" bronze people of Aztlan. Most of the 12 to 20 million illegals in our country, plus a number of Mexican/Americans, support this invasion. [They will tell you loudly that this is an invasion and that the gringos must leave, also known as ethnic cleansing.]

Many offices in the Southwest U.S., including Congress, are held by former radical racist MEchA members or supporters. Two prominent Mexican/American mechistas are: Cruz Bustamante, Lt. Governor of California and Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles and a leading player in the Reconquista movement to reconquer the Southwest U.S. and possibly beyond.

Think they're not serious? A quote from Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas, Arlington, founder of the La Raza Unida Party: "We have got to eliminate the gringo [white American], and what I mean by that is that if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

Go to www.wehategringos.com and watch the videos [marches , demonstrations] then check out the signs and listen to what they [men, women, and children] are saying. Reconquista is a hot topic in the Hispanic broadcast and print media. No amount of spin or "interpretation" can make this go away.

The American Southwest "...seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a shot." July 20,1982, Carlos Loret de Mola, The Great Invasion:Mexico Recovers Its Own, Excelsior [newspaper], Mexico City

Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph." Haile Selassie

Well, it seems as though the pro-illegal immigration advocates have some big (and surprising) names on their side:

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/2/120003.shtml

McCain's position is NOT popular in the US

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. John McCain is praising the recent wave of pro-illegal immigration demonstrations, saying that if the protesters hang tough they will succeed in forcing Congress to liberalize immigration laws

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. Say bye-bye to you presidential aspirations, McCain.

How do you react to the argument that Mexican immigrants should be welcomed because they will take the low paid and low status jobs that are spurned by the indigenous population?

Normal redistribution of labor supply. The indigenous population refuses to work at those jobs and then cries foul when those who will work at them want their share of social amenities. Also interesting when a majority of Americans are what, fourth or fifth generation resulting from when the US needed cheap labor to fuel expansion but before their standard of living became government subsidized. Does not play well with other children?

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

If, as I suspect, there is a reservoir of unemployed Americans collecting state benefits who could be earning a wage doing the jobs that illegal immigrants are willing to take on, it could be argued that the presence of 'alien workers' in California is an economic necessity.

Of course, a drastic change in social policy might be effected that compelled the indigenous 'work refuseniks' to trade their doles for low paid employment. Then there might still be an argument for welcoming the Mexican (and other) immigrants on humanitarian grounds.

Your suspicions are confirmed:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tlements_x.htm

As an example, US food stamp enrollment alone is now 25.7-million, 9% of the US population. If there are 8-million illegal immigrants, that's only 3% of the population. Looks like the US has expansion room for illegal immigrants to fill those low-paid jobs as they can't qualify for food stamps.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

Checked the USA Today link which suggests three reasons for expanding welfare programs.

1). Eligibility for state handouts is probably set too low.

2). Easier participation encourages growth in the number of recipients as the government virtually pleads with them to collect their benefits.

3). Welfare reforms are 'topping up' the incomes of people in low wage employment. (Market forces being ignored).

But if US unemployment is supposed to be at a near record low, shouldn't the welfare system be contracting rather than expanding? More people in work should mean less people entitled to benefits.

Also, it seems likely that immigrant labour (illegal or otherwise) becomes indispensable to a growing economy only when unemployment reaches zero. This is no doubt a facile connection, but I can't see what's wrong with it.

That would be true if the population stayed the same, but I could see why welfare may be expanding if the population is also at an all time high (with regard to funds) and services if most of those newer jobs are nearer the bottom rungs of the ladder rather than higher up and don't really earn enough for what would be considered basic requirements (thinking health insurance mainly here).
Of course there is also an idiocy factor where its just expansion for expansions sake as a vote winner (or poorly thought out solution to some problem)

That is because "supposed to be" is the operative term here. The numbers have been juggled. WE now count "discouragd workers", people who have been unable to find a job for a year or more even if they are looking, as out of the work force and drop them form our unemployment figures. This is why we keep seeing odd shifts in the unemployment numbers at predictable times.

It also becomes indespensible when when your social benifits become attractive enough to discourage people from taking low paying jobs. In many cases (just over half) in the US, welfare recipients would essentially take a pay cut if they accept a job that pays less than $7 per hour.

We have to get you dirty brits off the forum before you start giving Americans lofty ideas about what basic requirements are. In the US, basic requiremetns are food and water. Health care is essentially a luxury good, and one that a rapidly expanding percentage of the American public cannot afford. Unfortunatly our health care industry has enough lobbying power that this will probably not change.

__________________
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

Virtually every state follows federal policy for welfare programs. That's due to the feds picking up the tab through reimbursement for the big pieces as part of revenue sharing with states. Medicare, I think, being the largest single expenditure.

As federal demand for funding to service debt and military expansion increases at what's becoming a scary ride, revenue sharing is being reduced to satisfy those perceived priorities. The down side is states are burdened with compliance to federal social legislation on their own dollar, which is often tied to other federal revenue sharing programs, such as the fuel tax, a former trust fund now considered the largest pork bowl served up by the public for congressional feeding frenzies.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

We have no shortage of rats, pigeons and stray cats here, it also rains a lot. No matter how bad things get you will not starve in the UK or US, if you obviously needed it and asked for it rather than money, I would expect that you would be able to get enough food to live from begging, let alone charities or even the police if you are pleading with a store owner for scraps and he calls them.
If you are forced to live like this, you will get ill though. The homeless don't die of thirst or hunger, they die from disease, exposure and human causes (homicide, suicide, drug overdose, traffic accidents etc).

We can't do much about the latter ones, but the other two are more what I would say are basic rights that the government should try to provide for (medicine and shelter). Charities and the people themselves can handle providing food at lot easier than they can antibiotics. On top of that, its in societies' best interest to try to keep them as disease free as possible with vaccinations as it improves the overall health and effectiveness of vaccinations for those who would otherwise afford it.

I don't disagree with you on this. The problem as I see it in the US is that our government screws up everything they touch. We are in the process of spending several trillion dollars on a prescription drug program that has increased the price of drugs for many participants. Until our politicians are ready to go head to head with the medical industry, there is virtually nothing that can be done here.

__________________
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

This is a sample of pure American social sentiment that I thought had died out. Here's a rather muddled commentary on that sentiment.

Here in the UK, we have a crude media myth about American society that paints a grim picture of the poor falling through an inadequate welfare safety net and ending up in line for a pitiful allocation of food stamps. (If the federal government ran a trapeze show, millions would be sueing it for failing to maintain a net without holes).

America should be notorious for NOT providing a feather bed for those citizens who would rather collect benefits than maintain self respect and take a low paid job. You're running a watered down version of social democracy over there.

The immigrants from Mexico are probably nearer to the old American ideal of making your own way without state assistance than the people who are complaining about their 'exploitation'.

There is no easy answer. We live in a consumer society, so people expect to consume; all the time. If they can't afford to consume all the things they want, then why shouldn't the state assist them? We have a cradle to grave expectation of the state - that it should befriend and look after us every step of the way.

How many of you visited the www.wehategringos.com site? It appears that no one did.

You've missed the point. The Mexicans are in the process of taking over a large part of America through Reconquista, planned demographic dominance provided by illegal aliens. You will see references to this by Mexicans in the video tapes of the pro- illegal immigration demonstrations, including the 1848 defeat of Mexico and the resulting loss of the Southwest U.S. to America. There is also a continuing hatred of gringos [white folks] because of the lack of "respect" shown to Mexicans by the Norteamericanos, again found throughout the demonstrations and marches.

In 2002, there was a Reconquista convention in Mexico City, with representatives from the United States as well as from Mexico.

The Mexicans are shouting in your face about how they feel and what they want to do. And you either ignore the threats and successes of the movement or change the subject. Temporary farm workers from Mexico is a side topic. Massive illegal immigration [invasion supported by Vicente Fox and "Mexican/American" leaders in the U.S] is the most serious threat to the continued existence of America.

Because when brown faces outnumber white faces what happens?

__________________
"I am to eliminate all free radicals."
- James Bond