Mexicans belong in MEXICO!
 

For those unfamiliar with Mexicans they are a land-based species, located south of the American border pictured here:
http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/mexico/i...ags_medium.jpg

They herd in large quantities and are an exceptionally aggresive type, threatening the civilized world for communal change in their favor.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_repor.../dobbs.lou.jpg
Lou Dobbs in a civilized gentleman who purports that Mexicans should be driven to their native country and protest their own respective government. However, the problem with communicating this message falls on deaf ears, for the Mexicans only know consumption and greed. As it stands, Mexicans are costing the American government billions in education programs.

Why do Mexicans want to live in the US anyway?
That place is crazy...

because 10 dollars here gets them alot of pesos there

Shit...If I were them...I'd invade Costa Rica or something...Well, at least until Bush is gone. I am sure Hillary will fix that place up.

we should just take over mexico... then everyone will be happy.

I just saw an add in spanish for Chevy... an American revoultion? that's bullshit.

invade mexico duh. Then it will be ok. Honest.

Either that or build some kind of HUGE wall of death along the border or make Mexicans your scapegoats.

Where you watching a spanish channel?

Interesting . . .
 

Commentary: Minutemen have a right to be idiotic
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- When Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist sent me an angry e-mail calling me a racist a while back, I shrugged it off as a pot-kettle thing.

I'm not the one who formed a gang of misfits who have been labeled "vigilantes" by President Bush and which *******s members of hate groups, according to the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. It's not my posse who has been known to hurl accusations of racism at one another whenever they have a spat and who prowl the U.S.-Mexico border chasing Mexicans -- admittedly, not an easy thing to do when you're carrying a lawn-chair and a cooler of beer.

If that sounds harsh, blame my upbringing. As the son of a retired law enforcement officer, I have little tolerance for wannabes who play cop and even less for those who play with fire by taking up a cause that appeals to nativists and hooligans.

Here you have grown men and women dressing up in fatigues, filling up pick-up trucks and driving to the U.S.-Mexico border from their homes in Iowa, Indiana or Idaho to hunt for illegal immigrants. As if there weren't illegal immigrants in those places, waiting in front of the big-box hardware store for folks to pull up and hire them. These yahoos could save the gas, and just crack down on their friends and neighbors back home.

It's not tough to win an argument with someone like Gilchrist. You just let him talk, and, before long, he'll say something inaccurate, intolerant, or idiotic.

Which is why it's so disappointing to read where protesters at Columbia University last week stormed the stage during a speech that Gilchrist was slated to give at the behest of a group of campus Republicans.

The incident, which was captured on tape and widely viewed on television and the Internet, has sparked a debate over free speech on the Ivy League campus and just how "free" it is.

The protesters admit that they planned to take the stage in a peaceful protest. But, they claim, things got out of hand when they were attacked by a pro-Minutemen contingent.

That's a lame excuse. What these protesters did was wrong, foolish and self-defeating. They could have helped inform the immigration dialogue on campus, but they chose intimidation over information and resorted to a heckler's veto to shut out speech that they found offensive. They forgot the first rule of free expression: that the answer to offensive speech is more speech, not less.

It is the same lesson we all learned in 1977 when a group of Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, a mostly Jewish suburb of Chicago. The question of whether they should be allowed to march split the Jewish community, pitting civil libertarians against community activists. The Nazis won the right to march when the courts held they had a First Amendment right to express their views even if their message was vile and deliberately provocative.

That's a good standard. Good enough for the Nazis, good enough for the Minutemen.


REBUTTAL:



Gilchrist: Don't fall for media's spin about the Minutemen
By Jim Gilchrist
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Jim Gilchrist founded The Minuteman Project in 2004. He is a former newspaper reporter, a retired accountant and a Marine veteran.

ORANGE COUNTY, California (CNN) -- On October 12, Ruben Navarrette Jr. penned a pompous commentary for CNN.com ("Minutemen have a right to be idiotic"). His litany of name-calling and bogus accusations against The Minuteman Project membership places him solidly in the category of propagandist journalists who "spin" their stories to suit their bias -- valid facts and objectivity be damned.

Navarrette is a clever wordsmith. Under the penumbra of supporting free speech, he creates a wholly fictitious connection between The Minuteman Project and the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, in the late 1970s, leading his uncritical readers to false assumptions and conclusions. Navarrette calls The Minuteman Project viewpoint "offensive speech" and says the project promotes inaccuracy, intolerance and idiocy.

Navarrette insults Minuteman Project volunteers by calling them a posse who "prowl the U.S.-Mexico border chasing Mexicans -- admittedly not an easy thing to do when you're carrying a lawn-chair and a cooler of beer." He claims minutemen and women are "hooligans," "yahoos" and "wannabes who play cop."

In fact, Minuteman volunteers only observe and report; they do not chase or confront and they do not drink on duty. There has never been a violent incident initiated by volunteers. By contrast, in the past 18 months, nonviolent Minuteman volunteers nationwide have been victims of more than 50 acts of violence against their property and persons by deviants opposed to freedom of speech. Much of this violence is encouraged by propagandist journalists like Navarrette, whose words inflame readers and foster hostility.

Navarrette implies racism, but never says exactly which of The Minuteman Project volunteers is racist. Could it be the African-American members? Or the Asians or Hispanics? Perhaps he refers to the Native American Indian members? Maybe Navarrette means the Jewish members of The Minuteman Project?

Of course, there are European-Caucasian members. Ah-hah! In the twisted perception of the propagandist journalist, any organization with at least one white person must be, ipso facto, a racist organization.

In fact, The Minuteman Project is a multiethnic, pro-legal immigration, law enforcement advocacy group. Minuteman volunteers are teachers, college professors, taxi drivers, truckers, construction laborers, lawyers, college students, CPAs, surgeons and physicians, retired police officers, veterans, homemakers, authors, PhDs, politicians, grandparents, and naturalized citizens -- Americans who simply want to help protect their country from the problems of illegal immigration.

One would be hard pressed to find another national fraternity with a more diverse membership of race, color, creed, age, or vocation. Membership is about 25 percent non-whites and 55 percent women. The board of directors *******s women and a black American with a master's degree from the University of Southern California.

If Navarrette truly wants to expose obstructionist groups, he should focus on some of what I consider real threats to civility, like Columbia University's Chicano Caucus and the International Socialist Organization, the two extremist elements that conspired in an effort to stamp out freedom of speech at Columbia University during a speech The Minuteman Project was invited to give on October 4, 2006.

The hope and belief of Navarrette and his fellow propagandist journalists, along with anti-American groups like those that disrupted my speech, is that readers are so simple-minded they cannot distinguish between truth and fiction. One can only hope that CNN.com readers are not so easily fooled.

When all the illegal immigrants rallied together in California i was so fucking pissed. those dirty son of a bitches aren't even supposed to fucking be here and they rally together as if what they are doing is legal. they should all be shot.

i must say i was annoyed when they disrupted my commute. traffic's bad enough.

Mexicans ARE the new Jews.

My favorite is that they were carrying Mexican flags. No better way to convince Americans that they should be able to stay than by waving Mexican flags angrily.

Building a huge fence along the border is stupid and a waste of money. People are still going to find a way to cross over. Whether it be bribing more agents at the border to let them sneak through or building tunnels or moving to areas that will be left unfenced. A fence isn't going to fix a damn thing. It's the Republican's sorry excuse for a solution to the problem. You don't fix the problem if you go after a mere symptom and not the root of the problem itself. The United States government should work with Mexico's government to find ways to keep Mexicans wanting to live in Mexico. That involves the bettering of Mexico's economy. Only when that happens, Mexicans won't want to come over here. Do you think these people really want to leave their homes and families and come to a distant land where they are most often alone? No. It's only because they know that they can earn much higher wages over here than they can then over there. It's about pure survival and trying to give their families the best oppurtunities they can. If you were in their position you'd do the same thing. The stupidest comments about the whole immigration debate are the "OMG THERE MIGHT BE TERRORIST COMING THROUGH MEXICO!" comments. We have two borders but Canada always seems to get ignored. Terrorists could easily come through the Canadian border just as well. The fact that Canada gets ignored so much makes me believe that this whole issue is just xenophobia against Mexicans dressed up in legislation.

And a lot of yall's (fuck yall I'm from Texas) comments are so fucking stupid and childish. Boohoo they blocked my commute. Oh and JokeyLoki...a lot of those people were carrying both Mexican & American flags.

An immigrants right rally isnt simply comprised of illegal aliens.

Now this I agree with, However the ones in chicago were fairly even.

I Agree, it was a pretty dumb statement :eek:

Ah. The rally I saw on the local news only showed the Mexican flags, and I only saw pictures of the Mexican flags... but, well, that's the media for you.

Regardless, it's still kinda retarded.

I was making a joke. However, I was annoyed - it could've been people protesting against gay rights or whatever, I still would've been annoyed.

What no one ever seems to get around to addressing in this debate over immigration is whether or not the US has a bad immigration policy, and if it does what a good immigration policy would look like.

Does anyone actually think that we should just open our borders carte blanche? Even if we were to put a system in place that weeded out criminals and vagrants, does anyone actually think we should let everyone else in?

I've mentioned before that I sympathize with the reasons why someone would enter this country illegally, but that, in and of itself, is not enough reason to change a law. Sometimes there are good reasons to break the rules, but that does not absolve one of dealing with the consequences of their actions.

I tend to think that there are enough immigrants in this country to create a pretty decent lobby for immigration reform – but there really isn’t one. If the laws were changed in some kind of responsible way that did not exploit the immigrant and also involved better job placement and education than exists today, I might be for it – but there really isn’t a comprehensive pro or con plan; it’s essentially a bunch of knee jerk bitching by people who aren’t taking a rational approach to what is probably a solvable issue.