Replies

• 

  Solarkid June 24, 2014 at 1:52pm

  You guys are not seeing the bigger picture, you are defending the system who is trying to enslave us.
• 

  1 darkstar June 24, 2014 at 12:28am

  Barry:  Are you an illegal alien?
• 

  Pet Rock June 23, 2014 at 1:41pm

  fuck you asshole-go live in mexico-seedass
• This reply was deleted.
  • 

    Pet Rock June 23, 2014 at 1:44pm

    US MEDIA RESTRICTED AT BORDER, FEDERAL AGENT CITES SAFETY CONCERNS

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/21/US-Media-Restri...

    'safety concerns'
• 

  1 darkstar June 23, 2014 at 12:55am

  How is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION "racist"? 
• 

  Malcolm June 22, 2014 at 10:45pm

  And note that if you try to go from the U.S. into Mexico without authorization today, you will get one year in a Mexican jail.  You do that from Mexico to the U.S. without authorization??  You get a FEMA bus voucher to go anywhere in the U.S. you want to go and instructions on how to vote and obtain needed funds at U.S. taxpayer expense
  • 

    Pet Rock > Malcolm June 23, 2014 at 1:41pm

    how dare you tell the truth malcolm
  • 

    Solarkid > Malcolm June 23, 2014 at 2:41am

    Source please.
    In any case, most of the US now is immigrants, they irony is that unless you are a native american, your ancestors are likely to have been immigrants.

    And that seems fair, given that 75% of the immigrants to mexico are from usa.
    
    And actually, the american law, doesn't say anything about a free bus ride anywhere, it says:

    • The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
    
    My country and I think most countries, have similar pennalties for illegal immigration. So why shouldn't Mexico?
    • 

      Malcolm > Solarkid June 23, 2014 at 10:55pm

      SOLARKID:

      Here's the source

      DHS to Pay for Illegal Immigrants to be Escorted into U.S.

      Posted on June 19, 2014 by Paul Joseph Watson

      Minors up to age of 17 to be brought in “with dignity and respect” at taxpayer expense

      

      The Department of Homeland Security is set to pay for illegal minors up to the age of 17 to be escorted into the United States, according to a new solicitation posted at FedBizOpps.

      Entitled ‘Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children’, the solicitation reads;

      ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is seeking the services of a responsible vendor that shares the philosophy of treating all UAC with dignity and respect, while adhering to standard operating procedures and policies that allow for an effective, efficient, and incident free transport. The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air.

      The post does not explain how ICE arrived at the figure of 65,000 children, nor does it clear up why 50% of the illegal minors are arriving via commercial air. The DHS intends to award the chosen vendor(s) 5 year fix priced contracts.

      The program to use taxpayer money to escort illegal minors into the United States dovetails with a recent Infowars exclusive concerning how South Texas Church groups are transporting countless illegals into the United States before letting them go “wherever they want to go.”

      Non-profit groups and churches are chauffeuring illegal immigrants from a bus station in McAllen, Texas before giving them temporary shelter and later releasing them onto the streets.

      Infowars reporters witnessed children and their mothers, primarily consisting of illegals from Guatemala, being picked up throughout the day by vans marked TFC (the Family Church), before being driven to nearby facilities.

      An employee of the organization admitted to Infowars that once the illegals are taken into temporary care, where they enjoy hot showers, food and a place to sleep, they are subsequently released and allowed to go “wherever they want to go.”

      It subsequently emerged that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol was paying for bus tickets and vouchers in order to help the illegals be transported into the country.

      The revelation arrives in the aftermath of reports that the Rio Grande Valley has experienced an “endless surge” of immigrants attempting to illegally cross the border.

      
      
      • 

        Malcolm > Malcolm June 23, 2014 at 11:58pm

        SOLARKID: here's another source.

        Study: Yes, more immigration means more Democratic votes

        posted at 4:01 pm on April 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

        Fascinating, unsurprising, and unlikely to change a single mind on either side of the issue. If you’re a Republican fan of comprehensive immigration reform in the McCain mold who sees amnesty as a “gateway” issue to Latinos, nothing here will give you pause. On the contrary, it’ll prove to you that the situation’s more dire than you thought and that the pandering might have to be kicked up a notch to get immigrants to take a fair-minded look at the GOP agenda.

        But it’s unfair to pick on amnesty fans here. Follow the last link and read through James Gimpel’s summary and you’ll see that the word “illegal” appears only twice. He’s not talking about illegals, he’s talking about immigrants generally, both legal and otherwise — and everyone of note in the GOP, Ted Cruz included, is in favor of robust legal immigration. (Plenty of Republican voters even support granting citizenship to illegals who are already here, contingent upon meeting certain requirements.) If Gimpel’s right, then the country’s going to turn bluer no matter how the immigration passion play in Congress plays out. The only question, depending upon how much new border security we get, is how much.

        Three related findings help explain why immigration reduces the Republican vote:

        Immigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives. As a result, survey data show a two-to-one party identification with Democrats over Republicans.

        By increasing income inequality and adding to the low-income population (e.g. immigrants and their minor children account for one-fourth of those in poverty and one-third of the uninsured) immigration likely makes all voters more supportive of redistributive policies championed by Democrats to support disadvantaged populations.

        There is evidence that immigration may cause more Republican-oriented voters to move away from areas of high immigrant settlement leaving behind a more lopsided Democrat majority.

        It’s not just votes from immigrants themselves, in other words, that are padding Democratic totals on election day. The wider local population is itself more apt to tilt Democratic as the immigrant numbers increase, compounding the electoral effect. And of course, as a jurisdiction comes to be dominated by one party, that in itself produces compounding effects, e.g., more locals gravitate to that party because it opens doors to them to exert influence. Per Gimpel’s statistical analysis of nine separate elections, a one-percent increase in immigration in America’s 100 largest counties produced a 0.59 percent drop in the GOP’s vote share. (Since 1980, the GOP has lost six percent on average across those counties.) Across all American counties, immigration rising by one percent meant Republican vote totals dropping by 0.46 percent. In Texas, which draws more immigrants than the average state, the effect is marginally greater — a 0.51 percent drop for the GOP for every one-percent rise in immigration. If you’re worried about this from the standpoint of presidential elections specifically rather than American elections generally, that’s the number that should stick in your mind. If and when Texas turns blue, Democrats will own the White House for years to come.

        Gimpel’s solution to all of this: There is none, at least not anytime soon. Nominating Latino candidates doesn’t seem to help Republicans (Ted Cruz lost the Latino vote in his Senate race two years ago, even in deep-red Texas), nor does taking different positions on illegal immigration. The only thing to do is … wait.

        Ironically, past Republican votes in Congress in favor of a more generous immigration policy have unquestionably bolstered local Democratic majorities, and succeeded in stamping out Republican prospects in once politically competitive locales. This is because Republicans have not converted the legions of Democratic-leaning Latinos who constitute a large share of the immigrant population. Nor can they be expected to win over many Latinos given their weak institutional presence in the locations where new arrivals typically settle. The hope for Republican success with immigrant voters lies mainly with the upward mobility and prosperity of Latinos, Asians and others, something that will occur only with great difficulty given current levels of low-skill, wage-limiting immigration.

        Wait a generation or two for low-skilled, Democratic-voting immigrants to have kids who grow up to become middle-class independents and then you’ve got a shot. In the meantime, gulp.