NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people seem keen, very keen, on portraying illegal immigration as an invasion.

They make specious comparisons, for example the native americans and the european "illegal immigrants." Do I even have to point out what's wrong with this comparison? Why yes, I do, because people keep relying on it. The Europeans did not come as "immigrants" into Native American tribes or nations. They came as conquerors. They forced the natives off their land and killed them in great numbers. OK? That's invasion.

Illegal Immigrants however, are not armed agents of foreign colonial powers with vastly superior technology and numbers, they aren't killing the US citizens, they aren't forcing anyone off their lands and into reservations, and they aren't mowing us down with military might and committing genocide!

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians. So they just throw around the word "invasion" simply on the basis of there are a lot of immigrants. OHNOES, it must be an INVASION! HALP!

Sigh.

Your thoughts?

I hate doing this but...

in·va·sion/ɪnˈveɪʒən/[in-vey-zhuhn] –noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.
(Dictionary.com BTW)

So let's go by the numbers.

1. Nope, not an army and not particuarly an enemy, unless there's some insidious plot to overthrow the US by cutting its grass and harvesting its fruits.

2. Possible, if you consider them troublesome, except that given US citizens sterling record...

3. I don't see them overunning the US. 12 million out of 300 million... Not a lot of people then.

4. I'll grant this one.

Nope, don't look like an invasion to me.

A lot of people seem keen, very keen, on portraying illegal immigration as an invasion.

They make specious comparisons, for example the native americans and the european "illegal immigrants." Do I even have to point out what's wrong with this comparison? Why yes, I do, because people keep relying on it. The Europeans did not come as "immigrants" into Native American tribes or nations. They came as conquerors. They forced the natives off their land and killed them in great numbers. OK? That's invasion.

Illegal Immigrants however, are not armed agents of foreign colonial powers with vastly superior technology and numbers, they aren't killing the US citizens, they aren't forcing anyone off their lands and into reservations, and they aren't mowing us down with military might and committing genocide!

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians. So they just throw around the word "invasion" simply on the basis of there are a lot of immigrants. OHNOES, it must be an INVASION! HALP!

Sigh.

Your thoughts?

They could also be morons. :)

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians.

As opposed to...?

In my experience, lower to working classes, in general, are far more against immigrants than middle to upper classes. Salt of the earth and all that but close-minded bigots all the same - please note, in general

None have much experience of Iraqi civilians

None have much experience of Iraqi civilians

Which is why there are some still going around cheerfully banging war drums.

Oh for the day people mournfully bang war drums

The idea that a land can be owned by a nation is an illogical and dangerous one that has done nothing but harm since it was first concocted.

I have a laissez fait attitude to immigration.

The idea that a land can be owned by a nation is an illogical and dangerous one that has done nothing but harm since it was first concocted.

I have a laissez fait attitude to immigration.


Gang crackdown raises touchy issue
Questioning suspects' immigration status has been taboo for L.A. police. But the results of jail screenings revive calls to relax that policy.
By Patrick McGreevy, Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2007

A spot check by federal agents has identified 59 street gang members in Southern California jails who are illegal immigrants subject to deportation, sparking a debate about the role of border enforcement in the region's battle against violent gangs.

The initial identification of deportable gang members came during a first-of-its-kind screening of a portion of jail inmates last month.

The review will continue, and officials expect during the first year to identify 700 to 800 gang members who are illegal immigrants, according to Jim Hayes, director of the Los Angeles field office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The results so far have some officials convinced that border enforcement needs to be a big part of combating the gang problem.

"We play a vital role with respect to foreign nationals who are in gangs here," Hayes said.

The focus on immigration status comes as the city of Los Angeles is calling on federal agencies to help it crack down in response to last year's 15.7% increase in gang crime.

Some say it also shows the need for agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, to loosen policies that generally prohibit officers from asking about the immigration status of anyone they question.

"It helps to show that cooperation between the LAPD and immigration officials should help reduce gang violence" if a suspect is ultimately deported, said Paul Orfanedes, litigation director for Judicial Watch.

The Washington, D.C.-based group has sued the LAPD to overturn Special Order 40, the rule that prohibits officers from asking about immigration status, arguing that the department is required to enforce all laws.

The policy has been loosened slightly, allowing gang officers to ask about the immigration status of suspects only when they recognize them as having been previously deported.

As recently as last week, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa rejected the argument that eliminating Special Order 40 would help in the battle against gangs.

"Every police chief since Daryl Gates has supported Special Order 40," Villaraigosa told reporters. "They have because they understand that in a city as under-policed as Los Angeles is, we need to focus on crime. We need to ensure that the victims of crime, the witnesses of crime come forward. We don't want them to believe we're going to report them to ICE when they do come forward and report a crime."

Officials with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund express similar concern. They say they do not oppose the deportation of convicted criminals by federal authorities but believe rescinding Special Order 40 would be a setback because without it some witnesses to gang crimes who are not legally in the country might be unwilling to cooperate with police.

"We believe on balance it promotes public safety rather than precludes public safety," said Cynthia Valenzuela, national litigation director for MALDEF.

The mayor said it is the federal government's job to enforce immigration laws.

Hayes, the immigration official, agreed that his agency can do more, which is why it has begun determining whether jail inmates red-flagged for immigration violations are gang members.

The Times reported last month that an increase in screeners allowed authorities to question nearly 10,000 of the 170,000 inmates who went through county jails last year about their immigration status.

The number red-flagged — those who face possible deportation once they serve their sentences — went from 3,050 in 2005 to 5,829 last year.

The immigration agency began last month, for the first time, to identify deportable gang members.

For the month of February, 290 inmates at Los Angeles County jails were determined to be in this country illegally, and 24 of those, about 8%, were determined to be associated with street gangs.

A similar survey was done for the 816 inmates red-flagged in jails in the seven Southern California counties served by Hayes' office. That survey, which includes Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, identified 59 gang members, or 7% of those facing deportation.

On any given day, Los Angeles County jails have about 19,500 inmates, including about 4,500 gang members, said Steve Whitmore, a Sheriff's Department spokesman. He said up to 25% of the inmates in the jail are believed to be foreign nationals.

Hayes said those flagged for deportation and identified as gang members may get additional attention to determine whether they had been deported before and returned to the U.S., which could result in federal prosecution and prison time before they are sent out of the country.

Hayes cited as an example the case of Joaquin Gutierrez Payan, a member of the Sureño street gang in Los Angeles.

Payan had been sent to prison for assault with a deadly weapon in a Los Angeles case and was also wanted in Mexico for murder. A native of Juarez, Payan just completed a prison term for the crime here and was turned over to Mexican authorities this week to face allegations that he raped and murdered a cocktail waitress in Juarez more than two years ago.

A check of his immigration status after his conviction for the L.A. crime found that Payan was in the United States after previously being deported to Mexico.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gangs10mar10,0,7829803.story?coll=la-home-headlines

A lot of people seem keen, very keen, on portraying illegal immigration as an invasion.

They make specious comparisons, for example the native americans and the european "illegal immigrants." Do I even have to point out what's wrong with this comparison? Why yes, I do, because people keep relying on it. The Europeans did not come as "immigrants" into Native American tribes or nations. They came as conquerors. They forced the natives off their land and killed them in great numbers. OK? That's invasion.

Illegal Immigrants however, are not armed agents of foreign colonial powers with vastly superior technology and numbers, they aren't killing the US citizens, they aren't forcing anyone off their lands and into reservations, and they aren't mowing us down with military might and committing genocide!

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians. So they just throw around the word "invasion" simply on the basis of there are a lot of immigrants. OHNOES, it must be an INVASION! HALP!

Sigh.

Your thoughts?


Ohhh I love this one, just the job for bringing out the facists.

I would ask this:

Who owns a country and by what right?

immigration mostly sucks, for the immigrants. in our village there was, for a few (+- 5) years, an refugee family. they escaped from their country, albania, because they recieved threats from the maffia. the dad worked with the police and got recognised during a raid.
anyway they were very good integrated, but because there isn't a war in Albania and because they aren't searched by their government they couldn't stay here. there were also a lot of problems because their lawyer made a mistake and because they had to go to a prison-like place for refugees awaiting the decission of the judge. they stayed there for a few months with their 5 children, and it's not really a place where you would want to be, especially not with children.
i guess they are being sent 'home' soon. people in my village raised some funds to pay the lawyer and to help them escape again. i hope they survive.

A lot of people seem keen, very keen, on portraying illegal immigration as an invasion.

They make specious comparisons, for example the native americans and the european "illegal immigrants." Do I even have to point out what's wrong with this comparison? Why yes, I do, because people keep relying on it. The Europeans did not come as "immigrants" into Native American tribes or nations. They came as conquerors. They forced the natives off their land and killed them in great numbers. OK? That's invasion.

Illegal Immigrants however, are not armed agents of foreign colonial powers with vastly superior technology and numbers, they aren't killing the US citizens, they aren't forcing anyone off their lands and into reservations, and they aren't mowing us down with military might and committing genocide!

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians. So they just throw around the word "invasion" simply on the basis of there are a lot of immigrants. OHNOES, it must be an INVASION! HALP!

Sigh.

Your thoughts?

It depends on what the reasons for immigration are. In the case of Palestine the Jewish immigration based on ideology clearly was an invasion with the set aim to create a state in foreign land, no matter what.

Seems like a rather ineffectual method of invasion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gangs10mar10,0,7829803.story?coll=la-home-headlines

You know, if you've actually got something to say, say it. Otherwise don't just spam this thread with copy and pasted articles by other people. You may be too lazy to come up with an argument but I am not going to do it for you.

Seems like a rather ineffectual method of invasion.Is the invasion not changing the country?

It depends on what the reasons for immigration are. In the case of Palestine the Jewish immigration based on ideology clearly was an invasion with the set aim to create a state in foreign land, no matter what.

But the Jewish settlers to Palestine were there with a set aim to create a state in foreign land. I do not think that illegal immigrants are that organised or homogenous, even with large scale immigration like we see in the southwest USA. There may be small factions within the illegal immigration community, but they would be relatively powerless to defy the USA enough to create an independent state in the USA.

A lot of people seem keen, very keen, on portraying illegal immigration as an invasion.

They make specious comparisons, for example the native americans and the european "illegal immigrants." Do I even have to point out what's wrong with this comparison? Why yes, I do, because people keep relying on it. The Europeans did not come as "immigrants" into Native American tribes or nations. They came as conquerors. They forced the natives off their land and killed them in great numbers. OK? That's invasion.

Illegal Immigrants however, are not armed agents of foreign colonial powers with vastly superior technology and numbers, they aren't killing the US citizens, they aren't forcing anyone off their lands and into reservations, and they aren't mowing us down with military might and committing genocide!

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians. So they just throw around the word "invasion" simply on the basis of there are a lot of immigrants. OHNOES, it must be an INVASION! HALP!

Sigh.

Your thoughts?


I agree with you mostly until you said they are not killing American Citizens. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans that have been killed by immigrants. But nonetheless, I agree that its not an invasion.

After all, we must welcome illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and excessive cultural diversity.:rolleyes:

Duh. Of course it is. Didn't you notice the tanks rolling over the border fence?

After all, we must welcome illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and excessive cultural diversity.:rolleyes:

This makes me curious. What constitutes excessive cultural diversity?

A lot of people seem keen, very keen, on portraying illegal immigration as an invasion.about the same amout that portrays them as "doing nothing wrong."

They make specious comparisons, for example the native americans and the european "illegal immigrants." Do I even have to point out what's wrong with this comparison? Why yes, I do, because people keep relying on it. The Europeans did not come as "immigrants" into Native American tribes or nations. They came as conquerors. They forced the natives off their land and killed them in great numbers. OK? That's invasion.and those conquerors filled out the proper forms, paid the fees when they landed... oh wait...


Illegal Immigrants however, are not armed agents of foreign colonial powers with vastly superior technology and numbers, they aren't killing the US citizens, they aren't forcing anyone off their lands and into reservations, and they aren't mowing us down with military might and committing genocide!they are taking jobs from citizens who could use them. they are allowing employers to keep wages and working conditions at a bare minimum. look at the homeless in your areas. can you honestly say that they could not be doing the jobs those illegals have?

Its my position that people who say illegal immigration is an "invasion" don't know what the fuck an invasion is. They've never been invaded. They are affluent middle or upper class people who don't have the experiences of, for example, Iraqi civilians. So they just throw around the word "invasion" simply on the basis of there are a lot of immigrants. OHNOES, it must be an INVASION! HALP!yep, because to others, INVASION is only done by people with weapons. Just like Polution is only when trash is introduced. :rolleyes:

go ahead. buy an aquarium full of goldfish and let them go in a stream out in the wild. those fish arn't armed, but they will show you what an INVASION really is.

I hate doing this but...

in·va·sion/ɪnˈveɪʒən/[in-vey-zhuhn] –noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.
(Dictionary.com BTW)

So let's go by the numbers.

1. Nope, not an army and not particuarly an enemy, unless there's some insidious plot to overthrow the US by cutting its grass and harvesting its fruits.especially does not mean ONLY. and Enemy is a nebulous terminology.

2. Possible, if you consider them troublesome, except that given US citizens sterling record...except US citizens are duly punished and their crimes recorded. Illegals however...

3. I don't see them overunning the US. 12 million out of 300 million... Not a lot of people then.they displace people. that causes a ripple effect. same as if you introduce an alien species into a balanced ecosystem. (i.e. Kudzu)

4. I'll grant this one.

Nope, don't look like an invasion to me.It's an Invasion... not an Enemy invasion, nor is it a hostile invasion, but it's an invasion.

This makes me curious. What constitutes excessive cultural diversity?
I would guess something like...

"in my country, we have ritual female Genitlila mutilation, it's part of our cultrual religion. so you cannot stop me from performing this ritual on my daughter because you will be restricting our right to practice our religion!"

or

"In my country, women raise children, keep the home clean and cook. they don't need an education."

but that is just a guess...

Any use of we and I mean "we in the west"

and those conquerors filled out the proper forms, paid the fees when they landed... oh wait...

They were conquerors, not illegal immigrants. So the whole form filling, fee paying is all irrelevant (and paying a fee to immigrate? wtf?).

they are taking jobs from citizens who could use them. they are allowing employers to keep wages and working conditions at a bare minimum. look at the homeless in your areas. can you honestly say that they could not be doing the jobs those illegals have?

They are not taking the jobs. Employers are giving them to them. This is the result of a capitalist system.

go ahead. buy an aquarium full of goldfish and let them go in a stream out in the wild. those fish arn't armed, but they will show you what an INVASION really is.

Animals typically have the effect of taking away limited resources. Other, less capable compared to the newcomer, animals tend to die off as a result.

However, this would only be relevant if we had a resource shortage of some kind. Last time I checked, we don't and on the contrary, we overuse.

except US citizens are duly punished and their crimes recorded. Illegals however...

Assuming they are caught. What, do US criminals really walk up and admit all their crimes blatantly? I don't think so.

Either side needs to be caught first. Illegals tend to be treated more harshly by the law and by public opinion.

they displace people. that causes a ripple effect. same as if you introduce an alien species into a balanced ecosystem. (i.e. Kudzu)

Illegal immigrants displace people? Seriously, if they cause any sort of ripple effect or displacement, they are likely to get noticed and then either:

a) The law enforces itself and kicks them out.

b) The law doesn't enforce itself and this leads to the idea that maybe, illegal immigration isn't a crime after all.

Other stuff

I didn't feel like answering everything, meh.

I would guess something like...

"in my country, we have ritual female Genitlila mutilation, it's part of our cultrual religion. so you cannot stop me from performing this ritual on my daughter because you will be restricting our right to practice our religion!"

or

"In my country, women raise children, keep the home clean and cook. they don't need an education."

but that is just a guess...

Oh, thats a good one. I'm sure someone will say "They can be culturally diverse, as long as they obey the laws." But then, they are not being fully culturally diverse. So does that mean we should give up law to be diverse? :eek:

about the same amout that portrays them as "doing nothing wrong."

I don't remember anyone ever saying that illegal immigrants do nothing wrong. In fact, I think most people who support the rights of immigrants would argue that immigrants are more likely to lead a criminal life.

and those conquerors filled out the proper forms, paid the fees when they landed... oh wait...

The OP is arguing that illegal immigration is not an invasion. With this comment, you are apparently arguing that since the Conquistadors did not legally immigrate (though laws concrerning immigration probably did not exist at the time), all conquests must be illegal immigration. And I assume you are then going to assume the inverse: all illegal immigration is a conquest. Am I understanding you correctly?

they are taking jobs from citizens who could use them. they are allowing employers to keep wages and working conditions at a bare minimum. look at the homeless in your areas. can you honestly say that they could not be doing the jobs those illegals have?

I do not see how providing a competitive labour force is related to invasion. You may have a good argument against illegal immigration, but I don't think this qualifies as an invasion.

yep, because to others, INVASION is only done by people with weapons. Just like Polution is only when trash is introduced. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by 'invasion'. I think you and the OP are working with different definitions.

go ahead. buy an aquarium full of goldfish and let them go in a stream out in the wild. those fish arn't armed, but they will show you what an INVASION really is.

You do realise that US citizens and Mexicans are of the same species and fill the same ecological niches? Your ecological analogies are irrelevant.

especially does not mean ONLY. and Enemy is a nebulous terminology.

This is why you should clarify what you mean by invasion.

except US citizens are duly punished and their crimes recorded. Illegals however...

...are also punished with incarceration or deportation.

they displace people. that causes a ripple effect. same as if you introduce an alien species into a balanced ecosystem. (i.e. Kudzu)

Mexicans are not an alien species. I believe US citizens can even interbreed with them and have viable offspring.

It's an Invasion... not an Enemy invasion, nor is it a hostile invasion, but it's an invasion.

Then what sort of invasion is it? A helpful, friendly invasion?

Oh, thats a good one. I'm sure someone will say "They can be culturally diverse, as long as they obey the laws." But then, they are not being fully culturally diverse. So does that mean we should give up law to be diverse? :eek:"de longer you live here, deverse it gets." :D

Any use of we and I mean "we in the west"



They were conquerors, not illegal immigrants. So the whole form filling, fee paying is all irrelevant (and paying a fee to immigrate? wtf?).the pilgrims were not. in fact, the natives helped the pilgrims settle in and survive their first winter.

as for no fees... well if the natives had shoddy immigration polices... :p


They are not taking the jobs. Employers are giving them to them. This is the result of a capitalist system.and the employers give it to them knowing they'll take it. yes it is part of the capitalist system. which is why the government is also hitting those employing illegals.

Animals typically have the effect of taking away limited resources. Other, less capable compared to the newcomer, animals tend to die off as a result.

However, this would only be relevant if we had a resource shortage of some kind. Last time I checked, we don't and on the contrary, we overuse.
Jobs are not Limited resources? homes and Land are not either? you mean you have no homeless nor unemployed where you live?

and while animals tend to die off, humans are a bit more stubborn, we tend to try to help the less fortunate, and also try to take advantage of those wanting to help.

Assuming they are caught. What, do US criminals really walk up and admit all their crimes blatantly? I don't think so.

Either side needs to be caught first. Illegals tend to be treated more harshly by the law and by public opinion.do Illegals proudly proclaim that they are illegal? no. so what's your point about catching US criminals.

When Illegals are caught they are treated more harshly. why? their being in the country illegally is their first offence. add to that what ever crime they did when they did get caught. then you factor in the fact that Illegals who are deported sneak back in, making them repeat offenders.

you have any other criminal repeating their crime and I'll bet you would be the first calling for harsher penalties. but illegals? nah, we have to reward them with citizenship...

Illegal immigrants displace people? Seriously, if they cause any sort of ripple effect or displacement, they are likely to get noticed and then either:

a) The law enforces itself and kicks them out.and they come back in.

b) The law doesn't enforce itself and this leads to the idea that maybe, illegal immigration isn't a crime after all.which still displaces people... doesn't solve the problem.

I didn't feel like answering everything, meh.no problem. after all, this is something we can discuss but untill one of us gets INTO office... *echoes meh.*

Oh, thats a good one. I'm sure someone will say "They can be culturally diverse, as long as they obey the laws." But then, they are not being fully culturally diverse. So does that mean we should give up law to be diverse? :eek:

A multicultural society needs to have limitations on cultural diversity. If not, human sacrifice, ritual rape, and all other sorts of atrocities would occur. However, this does not mean that multiculturalism itself is worthless.

about the same amout that portrays them as "doing nothing wrong."

I don't agree. I haven't seen very many arguments in which illegal immigration is portrayed as "nothing wrong," however I've seen many articles and positions that blow this up to be an invasion.

and those conquerors filled out the proper forms, paid the fees when they landed... oh wait...

Did the conquerors come to live in Native American societies? You know - immigrating into their nations? No? Again, this is a specious comparison designed to demonize illegal immigrants.

they are taking jobs from citizens who could use them.

Nope. A job is yours if you have it, otherwise it's not. You seem to think being a citizen means jobs in your country are "yours" and if anyone who isn't a citizen gets that job, it has been "taken" from you.

This same stupid reasoning can and has been used against all immigrants to date. Wahh, the Irish. Wah, those Germans. Wah.

look at the homeless in your areas. can you honestly say that they could not be doing the jobs those illegals have?

Yep, most are homeless due to mental conditions which prohibits them from functioning effectively.

But I suppose you would have me believe they were all hard working Americans who got conquered by the ebil Mexican immigrants.

yep, because to others, INVASION is only done by people with weapons. Just like Polution is only when trash is introduced. :rolleyes:


...what?


go ahead. buy an aquarium full of goldfish and let them go in a stream out in the wild. those fish arn't armed, but they will show you what an INVASION really is.

If you think that is "really" an invasion, you have no idea. No idea. I repeat - no idea.

So go to Iraq. Come back to me after you've been bombed and had your wife killed and your daughter raped. Or better yet, why don't you find me one person - one person, anywhere - who has lived through an invasion, and agrees that illegal immigrants are an invasion.

I don't remember anyone ever saying that illegal immigrants do nothing wrong. In fact, I think most people who support the rights of immigrants would argue that immigrants are more likely to lead a criminal life.you must not have been here long.
The OP is arguing that illegal immigration is not an invasion. With this comment, you are apparently arguing that since the Conquistadors did not legally immigrate (though laws concrerning immigration probably did not exist at the time), all conquests must be illegal immigration. And I assume you are then going to assume the inverse: all illegal immigration is a conquest. Am I understanding you correctly?no you are not.

I do not see how providing a competitive labour force is related to invasion. You may have a good argument against illegal immigration, but I don't think this qualifies as an invasion.

Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by 'invasion'. I think you and the OP are working with different definitions.

This is why you should clarify what you mean by invasion.

Invasion isn't just armed or hostile. invasion is any form of encrochment. Your neighbor slowly moving his fenceline can be an invasion even if you and him are great buds.

You do realise that US citizens and Mexicans are of the same species and fill the same ecological niches? Your ecological analogies are irrelevant.ever hear of the term overpopulation? It doesn't just mean on a global scale. it can work on a town or city or state scale also. Here in Hawaii, it's not uncommon to see 20+ people living in a two bedroom house.

you also know that Resources doesn't only mean natural ones? Populations can outgrow the infrastructure at a dangourous rate.

...are also punished with incarceration or deportation. Incarcerations tricky since they are not citizens. also deportation works... untill they sneak back in. which means they are given another free trip home, where they sneak back in... makes the punishment useless ya? so what... ignore this form of international tresspass?


Then what sort of invasion is it? A helpful, friendly invasion?a NON-Hostile invasion.
Non-Hostile does not mean friendly. it just means no hostility.

think of it as relatives who come to stay over at your place... INDEFINATELY.

think of it as relatives who come to stay over at your place... INDEFINATELY.


oh trust me, that could be very hostile! Especially with my family.

I don't agree. I haven't seen very many arguments in which illegal immigration is portrayed as "nothing wrong," however I've seen many articles and positions that blow this up to be an invasion.just wait... they'll come.

Did the conquerors come to live in Native American societies? You know - immigrating into their nations? No? Again, this is a specious comparison designed to demonize illegal immigrants.nice how you specify Conquerors.

Nope. A job is yours if you have it, otherwise it's not. You seem to think being a citizen means jobs in your country are "yours" and if anyone who isn't a citizen gets that job, it has been "taken" from you.ok, who would you hire. a person willing to work for minimum wage, no benefits no union. or one who requires benefits, insurance, and healthcare?

This same stupid reasoning can and has been used against all immigrants to date. Wahh, the Irish. Wah, those Germans. Wah.It's one I apply to all who are here illegally. not just Mexican, but Philipinos, Koreans, etc... so what?

Yep, most are homeless due to mental conditions which prohibits them from functioning effectively. gee, first you accuse me of calling illegals conquorors, and you turn around and call homeless Mentally deficient. :rolleyes:

But I suppose you would have me believe they were all hard working Americans who got conquered by the ebil Mexican immigrants.where did *I* specify Mexcians... or are *YOU* saying that only the mexicans are here ILLEGALLY. I haven't and I don't.

man, you accuse me of being narrow minded, yet apparently to you Illegal Immigrants=Mexicans.


...what?here's something to think about. get one pint of oil, and one pint of water. pour the pints into a gallon of the other liquid. pint of oil goes into a gallon of water and vice versa. which is more polluted?

answer: they are both equally polluted. the gallon of Oil is polluted with a pint of water. the most common perception is that only the pure, clean items can get polluted.

just like to you, an INVASION is only done with weapons and violence... as noted below...

If you think that is "really" an invasion, you have no idea. No idea. I repeat - no idea.

So go to Iraq. Come back to me after you've been bombed and had your wife killed and your daughter raped. Or better yet, why don't you find me one person - one person, anywhere - who has lived through an invasion, and agrees that illegal immigrants are an invasion.see. to you an Invasion is only done with violence. :rolleyes:

What was done to the Native Americans (and Native Hawaiians) started long before the guns were pointed at them. people fail to realize that. the invasion of the Native American lands began with the pilgrims. as they slowly built their towns and move westward.

oh trust me, that could be very hostile! Especially with my family.

...

ok... but you gotta admit, for most families, it won't be hostile. :cool:

you must not have been here long.

Well, if it occurs so regularly, I am sure you have a quote at your virtual fingertips.

no you are not.

Then perhaps you should clarify your position with regards to your comment.

Invasion isn't just armed or hostile. invasion is any form of encrochment. Your neighbor slowly moving his fenceline can be an invasion even if you and him are great buds.

My daughters were playing in the tub last night. One put some toy on theother girl's half of the tub. You should have heard the tears and tribulations. But I guess it was justified, since it was apparently an invasion. I suggest you clarify exactly what you mean by 'invasion'. "Invasion is any form of encroachment" is a little vague.

ever hear of the term overpopulation? It doesn't just mean on a global scale. it can work on a town or city or state scale also. Here in Hawaii, it's not uncommon to see 20+ people living in a two bedroom house.

you also know that Resources doesn't only mean natural ones? Populations can outgrow the infrastructure at a dangourous rate.

Are you saying that any mass migration that overwhelms existing resources is an invasion? So the displaced refugees in Sudan and Iraq are therefore invaders when they reach the refugee camps? Are babies invaders when they are born into dense populations, like India? How about those people who arrive and work on the infrastructure to expand it? Would those illegal immigrants be anti-invaders?

Incarcerations tricky since they are not citizens. also deportation works... untill they sneak back in. which means they are given another free trip home, where they sneak back in... makes the punishment useless ya? so what... ignore this form of international tresspass?

The USA reserves the right to indefinitely incarcerate non-citizens without a trial. How is this tricky?

a NON-Hostile invasion.
Non-Hostile does not mean friendly. it just means no hostility.

think of it as relatives who come to stay over at your place... INDEFINATELY.

Well, that's the thing. If it's not hostile, I do not define it as an invasion. And I would love to have my relatives over.

A few days ago I dropped a pen, it rolled down carpet a little ways and into someone elses office, I stepped in, grabbed it, and left. Apparently I invaded the poor woman's office.

I have since annexed her desk. She can keep the faux leather chair, I want the garbage can.

Faux leather doesn't breathe well. You need to let your skin breathe when you're invading. Reduces chafing, you know.

My daughters were playing in the tub last night. One put some toy on theother girl's half of the tub. You should have heard the tears and tribulations. But I guess it was justified, since it was apparently an invasion. I suggest you clarify exactly what you mean by 'invasion'. "Invasion is any form of encroachment" is a little vague.

A few days ago I dropped a pen, it rolled down carpet a little ways and into someone elses office, I stepped in, grabbed it, and left. Apparently I invaded the poor woman's office.

I have since annexed her desk. She can keep the faux leather chair, I want the garbage can.

...So, when I take a dump, my feces are "invading" the toilet?

Well, if it occurs so regularly, I am sure you have a quote at your virtual fingertips.go look up the last couple Illegal Immigration threads.

Then perhaps you should clarify your position with regards to your comment.Conquorors were there Illegally, but that doesn't mean that All Illegals are Conquorors. but that doesn't mean that illegals are NOT an invasion. it's comparing apples and cucumbers.

My daughters were playing in the tub last night. One put some toy on theother girl's half of the tub. You should have heard the tears and tribulations. But I guess it was justified, since it was apparently an invasion. I suggest you clarify exactly what you mean by 'invasion'. "Invasion is any form of encroachment" is a little vague.why, you just gave a perfect example of invasion. Invasion is a vague action. one daughters toys was placed on the other's side of the tub. that is an invasion. and one done without weapons... well, spashing each other can count as weapons...

Are you saying that any mass migration that overwhelms existing resources is an invasion? yes.
So the displaced refugees in Sudan and Iraq are therefore invaders when they reach the refugee camps? YesAre babies invaders when they are born into dense populations, like India?no, because the babies are allowed to be born. thus the babies are "invited."
How about those people who arrive and work on the infrastructure to expand it? what about it? ever heard of any infrastructure project completed in time? Would those illegal immigrants be anti-invaders? nope.



The USA reserves the right to indefinitely incarcerate non-citizens without a trial. How is this tricky?no it doesn't. illegal Enemy Combatant yes. non-citizen? no.

Well, that's the thing. If it's not hostile, I do not define it as an invasion. And I would love to have my relatives over.fine. that's YOUR opinion as my views are MINE. we can discuss them, which we are doing.

and I notice you didn't say Indefinately... ;) That means, when you move, they move... and I mean ALL your relatives. cousins, second cousins, forth cousins, etc... every year, a new family arrives and stays... INDEFINATELY.

A few days ago I dropped a pen, it rolled down carpet a little ways and into someone elses office, I stepped in, grabbed it, and left. Apparently I invaded the poor woman's office.yes you did. however you didn't stay. ;)

...and if I place cabbage rolls inside my toaster oven, are they invading my kitchen appliances? Or am I the one invading the appliance, just indirectly?

nice how you specify Conquerors.

That's what they are. Calling them "immigrants" when they did not immigrate into any other nation is disingenuous. Using troops to claim another territory for your home country is conquest, not immigration.

ok, who would you hire. a person willing to work for minimum wage, no benefits no union. or one who requires benefits, insurance, and healthcare?

Depends on the job. And whether I want to risk jailtime.

It's one I apply to all who are here illegally.

Why not to the legal ones? After all, the legal immigrants "take" "our" jobs too.

gee, first you accuse me of calling illegals conquorors, and you turn around and call homeless Mentally deficient.

Illegal. Immigrants. Are. Not. Conquerors.

On the other hand, I have scholarly research backing my position that yes, mental illness DOES correlate to homelessness.

http://www.calpsych.org/publications/access/homelessness.html

"Although less than 5% of the population suffers from severe mental illness, they comprise an estimated 20-40% of the homeless population"

This is nowhere near as ridiculous as your exagerrations about illegal immigrants "invading."

where did *I* specify Mexcians... or are *YOU* saying that only the mexicans are here ILLEGALLY. I haven't and I don't.

I don't care. Ebil Guatamalans, ebil Nicaraguans... they're all here to take our jobs and INVADE.

man, you accuse me of being narrow minded, yet apparently to you Illegal Immigrants=Mexicans.

Oh please. They're the ones you - by which I mean xenophobic conservatives - always complain about. Where's the Patriot Guard on the Canadian border? Where's the talk about how Canadian illegals are "taking our jobs?"


here's something to think about. get one pint of oil, and one pint of water. pour the pints into a gallon of the other liquid. pint of oil goes into a gallon of water and vice versa. which is more polluted?

answer:they are both equally polluted. the gallon of Oil is polluted with a pint of water. the most common perception is that only the pure, clean items can get polluted.[/COLOR]

Is your irrelevant babbling about purity supposed to make me believe your position is not based on bigotry? Cuz if it is... damn, talk about backfire.

see. to you an Invasion is only done with violence. :rolleyes:

You may as well call it "genocide." I mean hey, genocide can be done without violence. Abortion is genocide! Why, immigration is genocide! See what happens when we stop being so picky about defining words in a real context?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the fact that you and others like you seem to NEED to call it "invasion" means your argument against illegal immigration is founded on this hyperbole.

What was done to the Native Americans (and Native Hawaiians) started long before the guns were pointed at them. people fail to realize that. the invasion of the Native American lands began with the pilgrims. as they slowly built their towns and move westward.

No, the invasion of the Native American lands began with Christofer Colombus Here's some choice quotes from his logs about the Arawaks.

"They would make fine servants... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

"As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts."

That was the beginning of the INVASION by European colonial powers getting slaves and mining gold for the glory of European nation-states, of which the Americas were annexed into. Saying this is "illegal immigration" is not only factually incorrect (because Colombus did not "immigrate" into native tribe-states) but fucking disgustingly offensive.

Too bad Odinsgaard isn't here to wage his little crusade. :D

This makes me curious. What constitutes excessive cultural diversity?

Judging by other posts of his, a society that isn't 100% WASP.

That's what they are. Calling them "immigrants" when they did not immigrate into any other nation is disingenuous. Using troops to claim another territory for your home country is conquest, not immigration.we're not talking troops, but people. and the tag of Illegal IMMIGRATION indicates a move from one nation to another.

Depends on the job. And whether I want to risk jailtime.which is more consideration than most employers give.

Why not to the legal ones? After all, the legal immigrants "take" "our" jobs too.ah, but the legal ones are here legally, thus entitled to the same chances as our citizens.

Illegal. Immigrants. Are. Not. Conquerors.I never said they were.

On the other hand, I have scholarly research backing my position that yes, mental illness DOES correlate to homelessness.

http://www.calpsych.org/publications/access/homelessness.html

"Although less than 5% of the population suffers from severe mental illness, they comprise an estimated 20-40% of the homeless population"

This is nowhere near as ridiculous as your exagerrations about illegal immigrants "invading."20%-40% |= most of the homeless.

Yep, most are homeless due to mental conditions which prohibits them from functioning effectively.

I don't care. Ebil Guatamalans, ebil Nicaraguans... they're all here to take our jobs and INVADE.as long as we are not focusing on one nationality... :p

Oh please. They're the ones you - by which I mean xenophobic conservatives - always complain about. Where's the Patriot Guard on the Canadian border? Where's the talk about how Canadian illegals are "taking our jobs?"dunno. I'm more concerned bout those sneaking into Hawaii than from Mexico. While it's harder do to so, it's not impossible. but I am not only focused on Mexico as some people think I am.

Is your irrelevant babbling about purity supposed to make me believe your position is not based on bigotry? Cuz if it is... damn, talk about backfire.it's not. read the example. I say BOTH are polluted. but people will only think one is.

I'm not focused on Mexicans as some people on this thread are.

You may as well call it "genocide." I mean hey, genocide can be done without violence. Abortion is genocide! Why, immigration is genocide! See what happens when we stop being so picky about defining words in a real context?abortion is Genocide if you consisider unborn infants a group. now support the view that Immigration is Genocide to support your claim.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the fact that you and others like you seem to NEED to call it "invasion" means your argument against illegal immigration is founded on this hyperbole.and the fact that you are Narrowing the definitions only shows your narrowmindedness. the need to smoothly compartmentalize everything.

and I have no NEED to call it an invasion. I just say it does fit the definition of invasion.

No, the invasion of the Native American lands began with Christofer Colombus Here's some choice quotes from his logs about the Arawaks.

That was the beginning of the INVASION by European colonial powers getting slaves and mining gold for the glory of European nation-states, of which the Americas were annexed into. Saying this is "illegal immigration" is not only factually incorrect (because Colombus did not "immigrate" into native tribe-states) but fucking disgustingly offensive.
Err... the mining camps could be considered colonies since they were under their respective crowns. thus it was immigration of a sort.

ah, but the legal ones are here legally, thus entitled to the same chances as our citizens.

What does the law have to do with anything?

Ohhh I love this one, just the job for bringing out the facists.

I would ask this:

Who owns a country and by what right?

oo i know this one! As a tenant of Capitalism and Western ideology, private ownership is a right of the individuals. Those inidividuals in western society then come together and often create nations... and (through a process of building legitmacy) become recognized as states, who by tradition of international order have the right of sovergnity. So provided a country is democratic... her citizens own the country, and give themselves the right to own it. If your not a citizen, your technically a guest of the country.. nothing more.

To deny the right of immigration control, is to move against ideas of statehood, citizenship, capitalism... basically the entire social, political, and economic structures the world community has adpoted.

It's a passive invasion. It is a solid theory to say they are trying to get the land "back", even though we paid for it.

It is a solid theory to say they are trying to get the land "back", even though we paid for it.

Yeah, a solidly bullshit theory. Color me impressed. ZOMG ITS AN IVNASION.

Ohhh I love this one, just the job for bringing out the facists.

I would ask this:

Who owns a country and by what right?

I'ld say the right is that our ancestors fought and died to keep it our country... wouldn't you? Though your classification of people who don't like people breaking the laws as fascists... So you see the people who arrest murderers and phsycopaths as fascists (granted most illegal aliens will never committ such a drastic crime they are still committing a crime by illegally coming into and "INVADING" america") ... though people who argue that we need to seal the border w/mexico because of a terrorist threat ignore the fact that NO KNOWN TERRORISTS HAVE EVER ENTERED AMERICA FROM MEXICO! Instead we should be cracking down on immigration from Canada considering Canada is much like a safehouse for terrorists... as one Russian security officer once said "Canada is the land of trusting fools"

I totally invaded my toilet when I got home from work. That'll teach that self-righteous porcelain a lesson.