Immigration law

[TracyCoxx]

Here's something Obama's news networks won't tell you. Due to our govenrment's negligence, and ultimately BO's negligence (when he canceled construction of the fence that Rachel mentioned) was the straw that broke the camel's back... Not only has our borders been breached, the US has actually lost 3500 acres of land, including an 80 mile section of the border, to Mexico.

This land, which is part of the US, is actually off limits to Americans!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16...der-americans/

McCain and law enforcement there have requested 3000 troops to retake the land and secure the border there.

Again, just going by BO's actions, what is he trying to accomplish? Why would he cancel construction of the fence on what is recognized as the gateway for illegal aliens?

He's trying to change the demographics of the country, and if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Here's something Obama's news networks won't tell you. Due to our govenrment's negligence, and ultimately BO's negligence (when he canceled construction of the fence that Rachel mentioned) was the straw that broke the camel's back... Not only has our borders been breached, the US has actually lost 3500 acres of land, including an 80 mile section of the border, to Mexico.

This land, which is part of the US, is actually off limits to Americans!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16...der-americans/

McCain and law enforcement there have requested 3000 troops to retake the land and secure the border there.

Again, just going by BO's actions, what is he trying to accomplish? Why would he cancel construction of the fence on what is recognized as the gateway for illegal aliens?

He's trying to change the demographics of the country, and if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?

How convenient it must be to forget history so you can make your points and support your positions. Who had that land taken from them in the first place?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

How convenient it must be to forget history so you can make your points and support your positions. Who had that land taken from them in the first place?

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Throughout history, lands have been occupied and overrun by invading populations. Modern humans displaced the Neanderthals in Europe. That's just the way things are. However, it is usually the result of weakness on the part of residents that allow the invaders to succeed.
The situation here is somewhat different but the the effects may be the same. A Latin culture will become predominant while the traditional northern European culture will fade away. Its happening already just look at the ethnic population in the schools. Here in S. Calif. its at least 80% Hispanic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

It's not an intentional strawman argument. I think my problem is I assumed you had a point to make in post 63. I assumed your remark was disagreement in what I had said which I took as agreement with the opposite of what I said. Then you brought up the vexing social problems, which I assumed you thought relevant to this thread and... I assumed, related to what I thought was your disagreement.

Back to your real question: Whether I am willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

Tell me what the vexing social problem is and maybe I can answer your question.