Saturday, June 30, 2007

Fred Thompson: Cuban "Immigrants" Are Suitcase Bombers

Scratch the surface of any conservative populist and you will find Huey Long, a folksy racist, a flag-waving racist, even an opportunistic (that is, insincere) racist, but a racist withal. The idol of Babalú, whose every pronouncement is trumpetted there, the organic heir and continuator, in their feeble minds, of Ronald Reagan, the actor turned senator turned lobbyist turned presidential candidate Fred Thompson, in a speech delivered on Wednesday, June 27 to the good old boys in the secession state of South Carolina, declared that he opposes the entry into the United of Cuban "immigrants" because "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb." I didn't know the balseros brought luggage with them, much less incendiary devices. It must be a real challenge to keep the powder dry when the whole ocean is beating against your raft and the sharks are creating a whirlwind around you.

The cigar-chomping rube by choice, whom all of crackerdom cheered wildly for equating Cuban refugees (not "immigrants") with terrorists, has a different playbook when dealing with Cuban-Americans, his party's kingmakers in the 2000 elections. His remarks to them are tailored for "American-Cuban" dupes like Henry Gómez, who has announced on repeated occasions on Babalú and over blog radio his support for Thompson while lamenting that he could not support the even bigger career racist Newt Gingrich because of his "baggage" (I wonder if it contains dynamite too?). Of course, Henry is not quite as bad as Babalú's racist-in-residence George Moneo whose fair-haired boy is Tom Tancredo. All this convinces me that Babalú's infirmity is endemic and probably beyond human agency. It has become a covert of racists and propagator of racism in the form of "Know-Nothing" nativism and xenophobia. They don't seem to realize or care that their anti-immigration propaganda, aimed principally at Mexican-Americans, will eventually rebound on us, because Anglos, especially those who live outside Miami -- which is to say, 99 percent of them -- don't make fine distinctions between us and them. In fact, all things considered, that is probably for the best, because they are sure to hate us more for precisely the reasons that Val & Company think make us better.

Thompson has made no attempt to retract, correct or modify his remarks vis-a-vis Cuban "immigrants." On the contrary he has reiterated them in a post on his new website where he seems to imply that Cuban-Americans also regard the balseros as bomb-throwing terrorists sent here by Fidel Castro to wreak chaos on America:

"Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline. Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it’s sponsored by the Castro regime. We know we have a porous southern border in which they can currently slip through easily. Our enemies know it too."

So we are "among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration." Now, we are many things, but I didn't know we were that, too. Obviously, Thompson is pointing out to the racists that Cuban-Americans are racists too so that they'll at least have something to "admire" about us. But not only that, we are, according to Thompson, especially opposed to the "illegal immigration" of our fellow Cuban refugees (or "immigrants," as he would have it). He seems to believe that the balseros are "sponsored by the Castro regime." Sure, they are as much "sponsored by Castro" as they are "sponsored" by President Bush or the U.S. Coast Guard. Finally, Castro's fugitives from injustice are now our "enemies" too.

Has it really come to this? At long last has it really come to this? One Republican candidate (Mitt Romney) shouts "Venceremos, Patria or Muerte" at us and another calls us "suitcase bombers?" What can possibly top this? Well, at least we can be sure something will because the "lazy season" in presidential politics appears to be open season on Cuban-Americans.

58 comments:

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

Can anybody tell me what are Fred Thompson's qualifications to be or president? Why all Buzz about his guy.

Here's is his resume
------------
United States senator from Tennessee, 1994-2003 (chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 1997-2001)
Member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission, 1985-1987
Special counsel, Senate Committee on Intelligence, 1982
Special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1980-1981
Special counsel to Lamar Alexander, governor of Tennessee, 1980
Minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (Watergate Committee"), 1973-1974
Assistant U.S. attorney, 1969-1972
Practiced law, 1967-1969
Feature film and television actor
-----------

From this I conclude that his main qualifcations is that he makes the necons feel good, tobacco somker, man's man type of thing.

I don't think you can compare Thompson to Reagan. Reagan was governor of California that prepared him to be president.

Let's see, Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all governor's. George H. W. Bush was Reagan's VP. The past 3 out of 4 President's have been governor's. I think, rightly so. It saddens me that the top contenders for President are US Senators. My goodness, look at the shape congress is in right now. Why on Earth would we elect one of them to be our new President? I can understand it if they have a governing past of some type...which none of these senator's do. Clinton was 1st lady, Obama was a real-estate agent, Edwards a trial lawyer, Thompson was an actor, Biden has been in the senate forever, Brownback...what else has he ever done?, not sure about Tancredo, but maybe KKK member and Kuicinich...who once lived in a car (doesn't that just make you wanna vote for him) and Gravel...perhaps in a mental health center? Ron Paul he's a congressman a straight talker, McCain and Hunter at least have a military and war background, which provides them critical foreign policy experience the rest of the field lacks. At least and Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee and Richardson at least has something to back up their history of governing and a record of their accomplishments. Romney and Guiliani has a record on a larger scale than does Huckabee and Richardson, but at least all 4 of them have a governing record. This gives them a huge advantage when running for US President, rather than just voting yeah or nay on a bunch of issues, and some of it being for political gain. These governor's can show what they did that worked and would like to implement for the nation to help it work better.

Charlie Bravo said...

The whole Fred Thompson thing will start a carnival of indignities, of which the most grotesque would be silence about the issues, if it were not for the dance of cortortions that more than one will dance to justify their idol. And I pray I am mistaken.

Agustin Farinas said...

Corgiguy and Manuel,
It is really sad that the field of candidates is so poor. I don’t think anyone of those you have mentioned, is qualified for the office of President. I hate to even think that I have to travel over 500 miles by car here where I live to get to the US Embassy and vote for any of these guys. Perhaps only Guiliani might have the experience to govern the nation since he has governed the City of New York, which is almost the equivalent in size of being Governor of any State of the Union and its complexity, but his position on abortion rules him out for me. Thompson latest faux pas only has confirmed what I thought of him before: that he should stay in New York filming Law and Order and stay away from politics. His ignorance on the subject of refugees from Castro’s Cuba is appalling.
My mother, who lives in Union City N.J., will probably vote for Hillary Clinton just because Bob Menendez is running as co-chairman of her campaign and he has Cuban ancestry besides being a local boy who made good. His support for Social Security in the past also has endeared him to her, besides the fact that he speaks against Castro every chance he gets on national TV. During the last campaign for the Senate some of his not so ethical shady deals with a real state property in Union City surfaced, which made me very worried about his ethics but my arguments in the past did not persuade her to withdraw her support. She is a personal friend of the Senator from N.J. since he ran for mayor of Union City so Hillary being also a woman candidate, might get her vote. Since I don’t want to argue with my Mom (she is 84)so I have dropped the subject of her vote for Hillary.
So I am left with no candidate whom I like to vote for and remain hopeful that one enters the field at a later stage that I feel comfortable voting for him. It is reaaly a very sad situation.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Agustín:

Let your mom vote for Hillary if she wishes. Hillary is not any worse in respect to Cuba than any of the Republican candidates. All are salivating at the prospect of being seen as "great statesmen" for "opening" Cuba a la China. The most likely candidate to do so is probably Fred Thompson because he is the most unlikely; so was Nixon. The business interests that control the politicians demand it: it's become too expensive to hire per diem slaves in Vietnam or Cambodia: Cuba is a lot closer and offers better educated wage slaves.

Albert Quiroga said...

Have said it before, will boringly repeat it again: The '08 campaign is going to boil down to voting for "the best of the shit,' or, should the shit be too shitty to tolerate, not voting at all.

Agustin Farinas said...

Manuel,
the scenario that you have spoken about, frightens me. It will only mean that our return to a full fledge democracy will be put on the back burner by the politicians of both parties. We should never accept this state of affairs. If the interests of the USA will be served by a Cuba ala China, then we are in for some troubled times ahead. It will signal a long and painful road ahead for our return to a free Cuba. Once the economic problems are resolved with the China or Vietanm solutions, our hopes for a full democracy with a multiparty society will be dead. The Cubans who have been denied any economic progress in the last 48 years will settle for a betterment of their conditions as the lesser of all evils and their hopes for a democratic society with all the rights of such a scociety will be buried. I tremble at the thought that such a society will emerge with this solution. It may be good for American economic interests in the log run, but dreadful for the Cuban people. I hope that scenario does not come to pass.

Vana said...

Yep, it's open season against us Cubans, don't ya know, we are bomb carriers and messengers of kaggastro? well it's news to me and I'm Cuban damn it, Manuel you say Thompson is Henry's favorite, and Tancredo is the one George wants? oh wait a minute, they are American-Cubans, they should take the Cuban part out of it, here's hoping they learned a lesson with that comment of Thompson's, but I doubt it, thick skulls are heard to break into.
I'm mad as hell about that incensitive comment, any one can insult us, we are fodder for everyone.

CorgiGuy said...

Augustin

The two candidates that i like are Ron Paul and Bill Richardson.

Paul is a liberterian, his politic towards Cuba would be of nonintervention.

Richards resume is full of experience, he's very popular in New Mexico, he speaks spanish fluently, he has a sensible approach toward immigration. He his not take seriously becuase he his Hispanic, his cuba policy is pragmatic/diplomacy.

You can read the Cuban policy stands of the candiates here:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13528/candidates_on_cuba_policy.html

I'be interest you hear your thought on this

Vana said...

I'll say one thing for Gulliani, he took the reigns when they needed taking after 9/11, as Governor of New York he showed his worth to me, I would not mind voting for him, please someone enlighten me more about him, am I wrong?

CorgiGuy said...

Here's what Richardson said when Brian Williams asked him about Cuba on the first democratic debate

-----------------------------------
MR. WILLIAMS: All right, grant you a few more for the answer on Castro.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I believe that what we need to do is find ways to deal with a post-democratic Cuba. It's going to happen. The second thing I would do, Brian, is, I would bring Cuban-Americans in New Jersey and Florida into the dialogue. The third thing is, I would change the Bush administration policy, which is limiting family visits, which is limiting remittances from Cubans into Florida. But the reality is that we should be planning for a post-Castro Cuba, and that means re-evaluating the embargo. That means also finding ways that we ensure that Cuba becomes democratic, with trade unionism, with free elections. And we should be engaged in a policy right now

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

Agustin Farinas said...

Corgiguy,
I like Bill Richardson , I think he is a smart guy, has served his country well, although he is only a Governor of a very small (population wise) state. I believe he doesn't stand a prayer of getting elected to the highest office. Why? In my opinion there are too many people in the US now with very strong xenophobic feelings towards Hispanics. The recent May Day demonstrations with inmigrants with Che Guevara's banners and tee-shirts, Mexican Flags aloft while the US flag was flown upside down, and some organizations calling for the US national anthem being sung in Spanish, certainly do not help either. The average Joe on Main St. will think this guy will allow unchecked inmigration just because he comes from a Hispanic background. We don't need to convince the folks in New York, Florida or California, but the average guy in South Dakota, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennesee etc. These folks area a lot harder to convince that this is a guy who has what it takes to become President. This is just my humble opinion. Also the fact that he served in the Clinton's Administration might be a black mark and unwanted baggage in some people's eyes. I don't know of any skeletons in his coset either up to this point in the campaign.

Agustin Farinas said...

Vana,
Sorry for the correction, but I believe Guiliani has never been the Governor of the state of New York. He was the Mayor of New York City if I remember correctly during the 9/11 attack.

Vana said...

Thank you Agustin, I did mean to say Mayor, guess I was having a bottle blonde moment...lol...

Agustin Farinas said...

Vana,
by the way, I emailed our mutual "friend" Fantomas a picture of a Jeep in Puerto Rico sporting the front license plates of the repressive arm of the regime, the MININT. I asked him to use his famous "cabilla" to put his own backyard in order before enganging in silly arguments on Manuel's and Kill Kastro's blogs. I also emailed the link to an article where the diseases caused by undernourishment and vitamin deficiency in the Cuban diet were detailed, with examples and names for the illnesses. Hopefully he has read it and has been enlightened ,since he claims he never heard of anyone in Cuba being undernourished. He did not even believe my own wife suffers the sequels from a disease called neuropathy, after spending 2 years without eating meat during the early 90's. But then he also said he did not know anything about the wet foot/dry foot policy, so go figure.

CorgiGuy said...

Agustin

You are assesment is totally on it!. When i see the chorus line of candidates richardson experience stands out. I think we need to give him some oxigen.


Check this YOUTUBE out,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YofibCbPcRE

Agustin Farinas said...

Manuel,
any input on the candidacy of Richardson? I am sure you have some relevant information on the candidate that we may not know about and I am curious about your opinion of him. Any thoughts on the guy? Forgive me if I put you on the spot but I will like to hear your opinion of Bill Richardson if you don't mind commenting on him. Thanks.

Agustin Farinas said...

Corgiguy,
I watched the video you linked on your comment. He sounds good and coherent, but on the same page I also saw another video where he supports abortion and as a practicing catholic I do not agree with abortions. That may be old fashioned nowadays, but then I think I am from an older generation than yours. I will have to reserve my opinion on him until I can do a little more research on his candidacy. He is young and it seems he has a lot of foreign policy experience, but is he electable? That is the question.

Vana said...

Agustin:
Thank you for emailing that information to our "fiend" I cannot call him friend, I'm thinking that he must be 12 years old, for he writes like one, or maybe just a plain pig headed MORON, who has never read a book.
I'm sorry Agustin for your wife, and the illness she suffers because of mal nutrition, no one should have to suffer like that, I'm sure that while your wife had no meat to eat, the Cuban regime was living high on the hog, maybe our fiend can learn something from it, but I doubt it, here's hoping your efforts were not in vain.

Agustin Farinas said...

Vana,
thanks for your kind words, they are appreciated. I will relay your words to my wife who just happens to be in bed now with a terrible cold. As you may know,we in the southern hemisphere are now in the middle of winter and is not like California at all. We live in the sierras in a small town so is kind of cold (mid 40's) but nice. LOL. I saw from your comments to Corgiguy that you a dog person too as we are. I have 2 German Shepherds here in Argentina who act as our guardians. They are a necessity here because of the crime and theft. Their names: Tango and Milonga, what else?
Regarding our mutual friend,the "Ghostly one" I doubt if he has even opened the mail I sent him, but I found the picture in another site and it caught my attention. The nerve of this person to parade around in Puerto Rico with a MININT license plate. But if you ever visit Armengol's blog Cuaderno de Cuba or Rui Ferreira Herejias y Capirinhas both Miami Herald blogs, you will see the same pro-communist bull from their commenters. I even asked Manuel to do a review of Armengols' Blog because he had the gall and the audacity to offend Jose Marti in one of his Herald articles and I thought that would get Manuel's attention for a review, him being an excellent Marti scholar. Hopefully he will honor us with a scalding and incisive review of it.

CorgiGuy said...

Augustin

I'm from the cocecha of 1947.

Politicians and Moral Issues Ay!!!!! Let's face it politicians are not paragons of morality. Consider that they have sell their sould to special interest, and then lie and pander to get elected.

Your best hope is to pick the least of all evils. They guy that's going to do the least damage to your pocketbook.

My expectation of politicians is very low, just make the system work for all us, keep the peace, keep my taxes low and use them effetively.

Moral Issues is between me and the Creator.

Vana said...

Oh Agustin, I love dogs, cats, all animals, mostly I feel sorry for them, they don't have a voice to tell us how they feel, once a rat got into our house, because of the guavas my mother in law sent us, my husband wanted to kill it, I wouldn't allow it, instead I continued to feed her guavas...lol...until I found a humane cage to trap her/him, I cannot see anything die, or suffer, it breaks my heart.

CorgiGuy said...

Vana, Agustin

You guys are dog lovers, i posted a poem on my blog, is about a guy's love for a dog. The poem is Billy Collins and poem is called Dharma

http://corgiguyblog.blogspot.com/

I think you'll enjoy it

retire05 said...

What did Thompson do? Did he open up a line of dialog about Cuba that all other candidates have ignored? Was his comment, like the comments of most of those running for office, reduced to one sound bit?
What should bother you is Castro's love fest with those like Chavez and Almondjoyjihad from Iran. How can we ever expect a free Cuba if the torch of communism is going to be passed.
Maybe Thompson misspoke. Maybe his words were taken out of context, but at least he started something that may be necessary; taking about ways to free Cuba from the hands of a dictator and reminding us all that Castro would stop at nothing to pander to his new found friends.
And all this talk of "brown biggotry" is just so much talk put out by groups that want to take back what they think Mexico had stolen from them, i.e., the southwest part of the U.S., all the while Mexico drifts farther and farther into socialism. These groups do not represent Latinos, they represent Mexico and the Mexican government.
Ask Tejanos if they think they are oppressed in Texas. Ask them if they think they are being used as pawns for special interest groups that do not have their interest at heart. You might be surprised at the answer.
Vote for Hillary if you will, but remember, it was during her co-presidency (her own words) that a small boy with no future in Cuba, except for being a poster boy for Castro, was removed from a loving family who would have given him a promising life, by gunpoint. Go to Therealcuba.com and remind yourself of the scenes that took place when he was taken from the arms of those who loved him.
Richardson is no better. Even the Latinos in his own state are fed up with him. He, like Hillary and Obama, only see as far as their own goals, not the goals of a free Cuba.
Cubans have little in common with their brothers from south of our border; Cubans came to escape persection, they came for monitary gain; Cubans made a home, opened businesses and prospered, they come to send money back to a semi-socialist nation that is rife with corruption; Cubans lost everything when they came to their new home, they had nothing to lose but will have plenty to return to via American dollars; Cubans escaped a nation that was lawless with Castro being the only law, they bring lawlessness with them.

When Latinos start thinking out of the box and think of themselves as Americans first, Latino second, it will not matter if your names is Sanchez, Hernandez or McGuire. When a young soldier by the name of Rodriquez marched through the streets of a liberated Paris, he did not think of himself as a Latino, he was an American.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Vic said...

Vana, Next time think that the rat name is Castro, It will make all a lot easier.

Vana said...

Vic, if it had been Kaggastro, I would have let my husband kill it....LMAO

Vana said...

Corgiguy:
My internet connection has been down since last night Sunday, just read your message, will go to your site as soon as I'm done here

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Retiree:

First of all, I do not intend to vote for Hillary. I do not intend to vote for any candidate. However, Hillary is no worse than any of the Republican candidates; and, I may add, no better either. As I said, regardless of whomever is elected, business interests in this country have already determined that the trade embargo must go and full diplomatic relations re-established with Cuba. So it's up to you. Do you want Hillary to do that or Fred?

Mexicans have no illusions about reclaiming the land that was stolen from them more than 150 years ago in a war that Lincoln called the most immoral in history. They come here because they want work and they get work because there are jobs that Americans do not want. It really is as simple as that.

If folks in this country were screaming to be lettuce pickers or pool cleaners, there would be no market for their labor and consequently they would not come here. But you would have to convince your fellow Americans that there is dignity in all work and that no honest job is beneath any man and that the most contemptible thing in Nature is a man who is too proud to work.

The browns are the new blacks. What is said about Latinos today would never be said about blacks because it would result in the offending party's expulsion from civil society.

Xenophobia is the oldest American political tradition and it is flourishing today more than at any time in history. You may not see it as a menace but a menace it certainly is. Because most Cuban-Americans can "pass" as white (because they are in fact white) does not mean that we won't also feel the fallout of bigotry directed at Hispanics. As I said, most Anglos do not make the fine distinctions we do. To them we are all "spics" and unworthy to form part of the American family.

Charlie Bravo said...

Actually Manuel and Retire05, both political parties are now advocating for a new slavery: the legalization of border jumpers. They both need pool boys, nannies, drivers, gardeners, potato diggers, orange pickers, and so on and so forth. Cubans don't do that either, so.... the dry foot wet foot will stay in place. no mater who gets elected!

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

What is your position on the border? Should a sovereign nation protect its borders?

Here's my immigration plan

1) control the border, i'm not for the fence,that seems like a big waste of money. add more border officers and national guard presence,

2) improve the social security database system so it can serve as a way of registering workers and detect fradulent use.

3) heavy penalites for business that hire unregistered workers.

4) Eliminate welfare programs. Give anybody that is gainfully employed, legal residency.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguy:

Mexicans are no different from Canadians in that there has never been a single case of a Mexican or a Canadian terrorist wreaking havoc on U.S. soil.

But, of course, now Mexicans are the new bogeymen of terrorism who are principally affected by draconian laws which the U.S. instituted in the wake of 9/11 to protect itself ostensibly against Arab terrorists (although it appears that Fred Thompson wants Cuban refugees to become the new bogeymen instead).

I am glad that you are not for The Wall of Shame because that would label you a hopeless quack. There is as much "protection" in that wall as in the Maginot Line and just as much self-delusion.

Illegal immigrants are not now eligible for any welfare benefits except schooling for their children and emergency medical care. Would you kick their children out of school or deny them basic medical assistance? They do pay takes, you know. In fact, they help to keep social security afloat for American citizens because they contribute just as any other workers to the Social Security Fund but do not collect from it. This has resulted in a $30 billion bonus for the Fund. Take this source of income away and the Fund will be bankrupt.

Illegal workers are necessary workers; indispensable and irreplaceable workers. No fair immigration policy can be formulated until that fact is recognized. Of course, that fact will never be recognized while the debate is mired in nativism and xenophobia.

retire05 said...

manuel a tellechea; no, friend, Mexicans are not the "new" blacks. Mexicans, and all other illegals, have not been brought here against their will, in chains and leg irons, captured in their own native lands to be transported thousands of miles on coffin ships. They have come under their own volition. Therein lies the difference.
As to the stealing of Mexican lands, perhaps you would care to remember two things; lands are gained through wars and the U.S. paid a heafty price for the land known as Tejas. But don't let things like facts get in your way on trying to use falsehoods to make a point.

As to being lettuce pickers (who dreamed that one up? LaRaza?) there is no disgrace in any job when it helps feed your family. But we have taught people that some work is beneath them and it is better to be on welfare and let Uncle Sam take care of you instead of working an honest job.

Tell me, manuel,what happens when the farm industry becomes modernized? When the bracero program ended, tomato farmers screamed how the tomatoes would rot in the fields and the price would wind up $10 a pound. But instead of that happening, the tomato harvester was invented, it required less workers and, forty years later, the price of tomatoes are still cheap. Don't believe me? Research it. There are now harvesters that pick other vegtables; cucumbers, tomatoes, etc.
You say that illegal workers are necessary. Then explain to me how the Swift plants, that lost many, many workers to the recent raids, managed to post record profits the last quarter even though they had filled those jobs with LEGAL workers? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

You throw out terms like nativism and xenophobia. Funny how people who have no answer to facts seem to do that. If you have to play the race card, it means you are holding only jokers. But go ahead, perhaps you can fatten your checking account the same way Jesse Jackson has fattened his on the backs of those he claims to fight for.
Immigration, for any nation, is designed to benefit the host nation, not the immigrant or a citizens of another nation.
What part of that do you not understand? Perhaps you should reseach Mexico's policy in dealing with illegals; first offense, two years imprisonment; second offense, ten years. Naturalized citizens in Mexico are not allowed to hold office, become clergy and have basically no property rights. Immigrants in Mexico caught protesting against the Mexican government will be sent to prison. And the Mexican government retains the right to expell any immigrant without due process of law.
Pan-American nations, as a rule, are socialist in political beliefs and oppressed in policy. And you will not change the political opinons of those who come here illegally by making them legal.

You have no idea of the color of my skin, yet you throw up xenophobia to me.
I will tell you this much, I am an American first. And my heritage has nothing to do with that.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Retiree:

Blacks were captured by other blacks and sold to the slavers. The braceros perform the same service with Mexicants migrants many of whom die or are killed here in their middle passage. Once in America, they are parcelled out to their new "masters" who use and abuse them as they please. And, yes, they too have been constrained, help hostage and even chained by their Anglo employers. It is not institutionalized slavery; but is is in every practical sense slavery. Even if a man more or less voluntarily enters into slavery to feed his starving family that fact does not make him any less a slave or his exploitation any less damnable.

By siding with racists who wish to make their lives harder, not easier, you are in fact condoning and worsening the very conditions you deny.

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

You want to pay welfare to illegals. You need to explain to reasoning ?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguy:

Illegal immigrants do not cease to be human beings upon crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. Of course, I favor benefits for them. Even black slaves were provided with medical care by their masters (not so much from compassion as to protect their investment).

Illegal immigrants are not only assessed a variety of taxes, but underwrite the foodstuffs on our tables and the roofs under our heads with their slave labor — shouldn't they be entitled to medical care and an education for their children (most of whom are American citizens)? This is the very least they should expect.

If you saw a wounded animal on the road, wouldn't you obtain assistance for it? Are Mexicans beneath animals?

retire05 said...

manuel, no, illegals are not the same as were African slaves. No one is capturing them. No one is forcing them to cross our border. No one is making them stay here in the U.S. And the bracero program ended in the '60's. So you are very ill informed.
If a person does not want to be mistreated by a dishonest employer in the U.S., they have the option of leaving and returning to their native land the same way they got here.
Are you even aware, manuel, that Mexico is the richest Spanish speaking nation in the world? No, I didn't think you did. Are you aware that Carlos Slim, the second richest man in the world, is Mexican? No, I didn't think you did.
There is no reason that Mexicans cannot make a living in Mexico except for the corruption that is rampant. That corruption is not for us to change, it is for the Mexican citizens to rise up against.
You want to make this a racial issue. It is not. It is a legal issue. It is a case of respecting the laws of another nation, a nation that you want to be allowed to work in.
Stop with your rants. You give law abiding Latinos a bad name.

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

Couple of days ago you got down me for Healthcare, and wanting to make it affordable for all of us, i think you even call me the "L" word.

Now you are telling me that you want to give welfare to illegals. Have you flipped are you going socialist on me? What i'm missing?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Retiree:

There is nothing that you "are aware of" that I am not aware of and a great deal that I am aware of that you have no clue about.

Bill Gates is the 2nd richest man in the world. Has that fact personally enriched you?

Yes, there are many rich people Mexicans (most of whom also choose to live in the U.S.). What does that have to do with the plight of poor Mexicans?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguy:

I did presume that you were a liberal because you wanted to "fix" something that wasn't broken — the U.S. health care system.

I now I find that you are a conservative instead because you would deny Mexican migrants even the right to be seen in an American emergency room, one of the only protections they enjoy in this country; and their children (most of whom are American citizens by birth) the right to attend school here.

I can at least distinguish between the Mexican government — which I despise — and the Mexican people whom I don't despise.

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

First of all ilegal doesn't mean mexican. I have nothing against mexicans, i live amongst them. Illegals are of diffrent nationalities.

Immigration has to be orderly, if we need migrant workers there has to be a process in place, where they are registered and given the proper papers, so they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers.

Welfare means socialism to me. Tell me if someone breaks into your house and demands you to give them food and shelter, what would you do? Would you let them sleep in your bedroom?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguy:

Have any illegal aliens broken into your home to ask for food and shelter? Or do you mean that they took shelter in an abandoned woodshed on your property and re-built it for you and made the land flourish around it?

We can play this metaphor game forever and I will always win.

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

You are being a bit generous with my tax dollars.

Ok i'll go along with your revised metaphor. Whether they sleep in my bedroom or my backyard is my property. I didn't ask them to rebuild my woodshed, i like the old the woodshed the way it was.

Immigration needs to be orderly. Welfare attracts those that want a handout.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguy:

If you didn't want them on your property, you should have evicted them when they first settled there. But you didn't have the guts to do that then or now, so, instead, you have tolerated their presence to the point that you have invested the squatters with the right to be on your property. Their work, in fact, is now indispensable to you. Without it you would lose your farm because your sons consider themselves too good to do the work you once did yourself. You still hate them, of course (the migrants, not your sons), but you can't enjoy the quality of life to which you've become accustumed without exploiting them, which you have no qualms about doing.

After they are no longer of any use to you, you'll call Homeland Security and have them carted away without paying their back wages.

As I said, no one can win the metaphor game when I am playing but me.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

P.S.: Your tax dollars don't go to illegal immigrants who are barred from participation in all social programs. Their tax dollars do underwrite your benefits, because they are obliged to pay but do get to collect from the system.

I suggest that you turn your righteous ire to the Iraq War. For a fraction of what has been spent in prosecuting that war every uninsured American could have been provided with medical insurance.

That is what you want, isn't it?

How does the war against illegal immigrants get you that or anything else?

retire05 said...

manuel, you win nothing. The argument you are using is moot. You are saying that because someone comes on my farm without my permission and I don't evict them, then I must allow them to stay? How so? I thought the argument was that the illegals were in the shadows (unseen) so how would I know they were squatting on my farm if I was unaware of their existance?

You say that illegals are not entitled to any social services except an education and emergency medical care. How wrong you are. Some received TANF, AFDC, WIC, food stamps (or a state's method of providing a credit card type system for food), public housing, free school breakfasts and lunches and subsidized utilities.
And you fail to recognize the fact that illegal immigration hurts (drum roll,please) the illegals that came before them, as well as legal immigrants, because as Pew Hispanic Research Center has pointed out, the more illegals, the more it reduces the wages of those who came before them as the competition to get a job grows.

American needs, and welcomes, immigrants. Those who respect the very nation they want to make their lives better by doing so legally. But those who come simply to send their American earned dollars back to their native lands so they can return and live like gentry, are only using the system and not putting anything into the system in return. Their goals are not to make a better life in the U.S., their goal is to make a better life in their native land.

Tell us, manuel, how many tax dollars are paid by those illegals who work under the table (farm hands, ranch hands, carpenters, plumber helpers, day laborers)? Most construction crews are paid under the table with nothing taken out from their paychecks. And how much in taxes does someone pay when they claim 10 dependents? And yeah, you can claim 10 dependents on your W-2. The proof comes when you file your taxes, which they do not do. I know. I kept books for a man who hired up to 20 workers from Mexico. They all claimed 10 dependents and never filed income tax. They would work for 8 months, go back home and return with a different name and different Social Security number.

You are a radical, manuel. Someone who thinks that a nation does not have a right to know who enters and who leaves. Your argument is rife with emotion, not reality and that is why you, and your ilk, lost your cause. You subscribe to the belief that because a criminal (bank robber say) eludes the police for a certain length of time, he should be beyond prosecution. How convenient that thinking would be for bank robbers. I am sure that most criminals, drug dealers, bank robbers, murderers, would like your rules. But you are wrong. Because one manages to evade the law doesn't absolve them from responsibility of having broken the law.

So while nations demand that the U.S. allow their citizens free reign in the U.S. those same nations import workers from other nations. Why? Well, let's take Mexico as an example. Mexico imports workers from Central and South America because they work for less than Mexican citizens. They Mexicans, who demand better wages are ignored and encouraged to migrate, illegally, to the U.S.
Mexico, and all other nations, are responsible for their own citizens. Not the U.S. Those governments should provide stable working conditions for their citizens. Not the U.S. And it is the responsibility of those citizens to rise up against corrupt governments to better their own lives. But they don't.

So don't say that you have won the metaphor argument. You haven't. All you have shown is rash emotionalism.

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

War against illegal immigrants? Righteouts IRE?

You misconstrued my metaphor but that's ok. The point is my property and i have the right to manage the way i see fit.

Like i said welfare is socialism, Immigration should be an orderly process.

By the way i'm against the war in IRAQ

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Retiree:

You were obviously asleep when Newt Gingrich rammed the
"Contract on America" through Congress and Bill Clinton signed it into law. This law denied all social benefits to both illegal and and legal immigrants.

Everything that you claim in that respect is incorrect. Illegal immigrants enjoy no safety net in this country. Neither, for that matter, do legal immigrants who always played by the rules.

The SSA admits that it is thanks to a surplus of $30 billion in social security taxes paid by illegal immigrants (who are ineligible for benefits) that the system is still solvent.

If you get to collect social security some day, it will be because the sweat of illegal immigrants made it possible. You will literally be eating from their brows. Isn't that a pleasant notion for you?

Why aren't you honest with us: Why not just say that you dislike Mexicans and don't want them here. I would respect your honesty much more than your groundless arguments.

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

P.S.

"How so?"

Because of the legal principle of squatters' rights.

If you voluntarily allow squatters on your land, over time they acquire a claim to be there.

retire05 said...

manuel, are you trying to tell me that the millions of illegal immigrants in California are not collecting welfare payments for food stamps, WIC, TANF, and AFDC?

Man, are you totally insane?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Retiree:

That is exactly what I am telling you unless California is contraventing the laws of the United States.

Would you be more favorably disposed to them if they did not consume social benefits?

Certainly not.

You would still object to them but without that excuse.

retire05 said...

manuel, who do you think covers the bulk portion of benefits paid to welfare receivers? It is the state, not the federal government. States have given billions of dollars in welfare benefits to illegals with children. Deny that, if you can, and give me proof that illegals do not collect welfare payments in the form of food stamps, public housing, WIC, TANF.

You can't.

I am favorably disposed to any immigrant who enters our nation, legally. I am not favorably disposed to those who break the law, and according to Pew Hispanic Research Center, most illegals are aware that it is illegal to enter the United States without permission.

But that is not good enough for you, a hyphenated person.

CorgiGuy said...

Retiree

Well said!

Do you live in california?

retire05 said...

corgiguy, no, I live in Texas where my property taxes have doubled (not the value of my home, just the tax base) in the last four years. I live in a small town (4,000) that is fortunate enough to have a hosptial that is now considering closing because it seems that because the hospital is in an out of the way town, the ER treated 6,000 non-paying people last year. My friend, who happens also to be a Tejano, workes the ER and said that most of the ER patients were non-English speaking. Coming from a community with a good percentage with Hispanic heritage, she was shocked at the numbers because anyone who has grown up in our little town of the same heritage can speak great English.
She is now very resentful that if our hospital has to close, the nearest ER will be 45 miles away in Austin.
The cost to my state for illegal immigration last year was $3.7 billion, AFTER the deduction for sales tax paid by illegals (we don't have income tax in Texas). My school district ran out of money last year because of the need for new class rooms (in the form of portable buildings).

As I have said, I believe in immigration for those who want to become Americans and contribute to our society. I do not support those who come here for no other reason that to take jobs that could be done by Americans if the wages were respectable just so they can send those wages back to help support another nation's economy.

CorgiGuy said...

Retiree

I live in calirfonia, i know exactly what you are talking about.

All of the western border states ( CA,AZ,NM,TX ) have the same challenges.

Here the city of burbank passed a law forcing home depot to provide facilities and services to day laborers, imagine that

check it out
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286944,00.html

Does this sound like socialism or what?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguy:

No, it doesn't sound like socialism at all. It sounds like a small community wants a company based there to provide its workers with a minimum of human dignity. So what's wrong with that?

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

Retiree:

The children of illegal immigrants were in most cases born here and are American citizens entitled to all the rights under the Constitution that you are.

CorgiGuy said...

Manuel

This are not workers of home depot. These are migrant that stand in the home depot parking lot, looking for work, most of them are illegal immigrant, the city is basically holding a business responsible to provide social services, they are passing the buck, becuase they are not able to enforce the immigration laws. Better read the article again.

Welfare State = Socialism

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Manuel A.Tellechea said...

corgiguY;

I did not read the article in the first place. I relied on your original presentation of the facts which did seem to indicate that Home Depot was their employer.

If Home Depot has no connection to the migrants other than the fact they moor in their parking lot, then it doesn't have any special obligations to them. That would be the case even if they were citizens.

Emmly said...

According to the speech delivered by Fred Thomson at south Carolina,he openly delivered that he opposes the "immigrants" from Cuban.
--------
Julissa
http://www.cigarsdirect.com