Fearing the shirts "could" incite violence, school administrators ordered Mexican-American students to remove their message shirts or face suspension -- but then reversed themselves and allowed the shirts after all.
The message: "They can't deport us all." Yep: what if a school ended up expelling all of their students? Would the administrators then be out of a job?
Discuss
Add this link to...
Bury
The message: "They can't deport us all." Yep: what if a school ended up expelling all of their students? Would the administrators then be out of a job?
Discuss
Add this link to...
Bury
Groxx -- a play on "It Rocks!" and "I Grok" -- is a link sharing and voting site on the theme of "weird" news.
Hmm.. more such story at http://basek.cn...This was told here, already: If the Lord didn't want us to eat animals, He shouldn't have made them out...I don't think he got the message.......From the article: "In a brief response Tuesday, McIver said he and...The man had a rifle in a gun case. That's not a concealed weapon, that's...read more
Comments
"They can't deport us all." Let them wear their shirts on their way back to their country...I say: "Report and Deport all the illegals...NOW!"
Yeah! I think all non-native people should be shipped back to their country of origin! I assume by your post you're Native American right? I'm boned though, I have German and Norwegian roots. I bet I will be one of the last to go though, since I'm not that scary brown color. Wait. Aren't Native Americans brown too? Oooooh... I bet you mean white people. You must be so proud.
Cerulean - has anyone ever told you what a hugely fantastic gift you have for conflating statements beyond reason?
If not, please allow me to be the first to do so and offer this nickel's worth of free advice.
When you wish to present an argument, you really should stick to the issues as raised by your opponent. For instance, in the statement above, cosmicfroggie plainly, unambiguously and quite categorically states (in quotes no less) that he (or she) says "Report and Deport all the illegals...NOW!"
Please note that nowhere in his (or her) statement does he (or she) broach the subjects of "NON-NATIVE", LEGAL US CITIZENS WHO HAVE IMMIGRATED HERE FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES PROSCRIBED BY US LAW, "Scary Brown" people, "Native Americans" or "White People" (he/she did not even hint at these).
You have taken a quantum leap into the illogical when you equate or conflate the correctly used term "ILLEGAL" with any of the above and only give all who read your poorly framed rant a glimpse into the true scope of your lack of understanding of the core issues involved.
Couple this with your juvenile attempt at sarcasm (the "Oooooh.... I bet you mean white people - blah-blah-blah...) and you not only lose your argument, you absolutely throw it away! Hello! This is contrary to your goal here bud (or babe)!
Few things in this world are ever black and white (please excuse that term - I mean nothing racial by it whatsoever, I assure you) - but, when we speak of "illegals" we are speaking of people who are NOT U.S. Citizens, who did NOT enter this country "Legally" (hence the term's origin), who have NO RIGHT to be here (not because they are not wonderful, kind, hard-working, loyal, yada-yada-yada, ad nauseum...) but simply because they BROKE OUR LAWS TO COME HERE!
In short, the ‘argument’ stops at the border here. If they have indeed entered into this country by any means other than a lawful manner, they are DISQUALIFIED FROM and DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO any protections, rights, services, perks or privileges that United States Citizens (immigrant or not) have the LAWFUL rights to have.
They are to be (and should be) sent back to their COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP! (That’s because that is where they are legally supposed to live! This is also where they are supposed to be – unless they APPLY FOR A LEGAL ENTRY INTO THIS (or any other) COUNTRY!!!
It really isn’t all that hard to wrap your head around. You do need to disconnect the emotional knee-jerk mechanism in order to do this however. This is the true nature of this entire argument and where people making many of the same (well worn out) remarks that you made above.
You want to help these ‘nice people’ who are ‘so helpful’ and ‘such hard workers’ and who ‘do the jobs Americans won’t do’ (if you believe that, you need to go to another country and try to get a job – for added realism, sneak in – IF you don’t get shot outright, when you get out (IF you get out) of prison there, see how many real citizens of your country of choice (it really doesn’t matter what country you go to this way either) come to your defense.
Better still, grab yourself an American flag and parade down the street with it demanding that you get equal rights to whatever their citizens have. See how far you get before you are run down by a motorist, jailed by the police or just shot to death in the street instead. I am betting it will be less than three blocks in most countries.
If you are going to share your view of an argument with the world as you have chosen to do, choose an argument where the basis for your view has at least some minute foundation in fact – yours here regarding these criminals has no such foundation and furthermore as it is flawed on its face, is not in any true sense of the term an ‘argument’ at all.
Pappawoody, you must be the grand master of the conflating gift you describe.
Cosmicfroggie's comment makes assumptions too. Such as, that the students wearing the T-shirts with the slogan are illegals. Why do you not take issue there? Or is it that you too are racist?
In my opinion, the school is well within its rights to ask the students not to wear the T-shirts identifying themselves as a group. The students deny being a group, yet in Carillo's (one of the students) own words: “They’re just trying to break us up”. If they're not a group then how could the school authorities break anything up?
Soutpiel, I conflated nothing in my response.
Quite the contrary, I clearly delineated which statements were made by Cerulean which were conflations and spoke to those statements. I then pointed out the fatal flaws in the arguments made by Cerulean and of all those favoring allowing criminals amnesty.
If I am a 'master' of anything to do with conflating issues, it is that I do fully understand the concept, the components which conflation is comprised of and have the capacity to articulate them to any reasoning person in a way that they should be clearly understood.
Of course, the school is within their rights to ask the students not to wear the T-shirts. This falls in line with most accepted 'gang' apparel prohibitions and is 100% justifiable. You have raised and answered your own argument here and unless I missed something in the exchanges have raised a new issue not yet broached by anyone.
You believe that Cosmicfroggie's comments make assumptions pertaining to whether the students wearing the shirts are illegals. That is only partially true. If they ARE illegals as the shirt's slogan would logically imply ("They can't deport us all.") where the word "US" is the operative and would serve to identify the wearer as an 'illegal' then his 'assumption' here is correct. If they are legal, U.S. Citizens and they choose to wear these shirts, they are misrepresenting themselves as illegals for the purpose of showing solidarity with and declaring they are willing to aid and abet known criminals. Either way, there is no issue to take with what CF states as in the former condition, these people are indeed at risk of deportation and in the latter, they are (intentionally or not) making themselves at risk for prosecution should they follow through with their stated intentions and actually aid and abet them.
The only difference in the latter situation where the shirt wearer is a U.S. Citizen, they would not be at risk for deportation but as they are misrepresenting themselves as being at risk (and as illegals) as the shirt would imply, should expect people to make the logical assumption that CF made.
As to your flippant and totally unwarranted use of the 'racist' remark - please, give me a break! Have you lowered yourself so far as to now be in the 'racist club' yourself? People who do the 'knee-jerk' emotionalist response thing, I spoke of in my response to Cerulean often misuse this as a last resort. It has been used so often now that it has become nothing more than a simplistic intimidation tactic without the facts to support the claim (which you do not have - btw). This designation is inflammatory at best and libelous at its worst. Please use it when and where appropriate - and then, don't use it because it is rarely if ever appropriate.
I will tell you a bit about myself here not because it is any of your business but only so you (and anyone else prone to use this BS in this way who reads this) might possibly see your way clear to step back and look very carefully at what you are mistakenly tempted to call racism next time.
I am a father of seven - grandfather of six. I live in a culturally mixed area, my children have always been allowed to 'mix' and be friends with absolutely anyone they choose to. They have Latino, Black and Asian schoolmates and friends who are welcome in our home to play or stay and our children are welcome in their homes to play and stay as well.
One of my oldest and dearest friends is a devout Muslim who came to the US from Saudi Arabia back in the '60s. My wife and I have socialized with him and his (US born - devout Catholic) wife for more than 30 years.
I was raised in a republican household but, in my life have never, voted straight republican ticket. I have and always will vote independent based on the merits of the candidates. I am a heterosexual but nonetheless also a vocal proponent of LGBT rights, a member of Move-On, and for Pro-Choice. I differ with most liberals when it comes to issues such as the so-called ‘immigration crisis’ however.
There is more but I hope you get the picture now about how far off the mark, you were and how wrong throwing the racist comment out there was without any basis in either fact or truth.
I stand by everything I said and unless and until someone comes up with a valid argument or explanation as to why we, as a nation, should allow more than 20 million criminals to not only stay here illegally but reward them with rights, social services and privileges paid by, reserved for and meant to help LEGAL U.S. Citizens, I (like the majority of Americans) say - enforce existing laws, close down the borders and deport them as they find them.
The mechanisms and laws are and have been in place for decades to deal with every facet of this issue. What the spinmeisters in DC and within the pro-illegal groups have done is to confuse (and yes - conflate) the issues to bring them far away from a rational argument to one based (as is yours) on knee jerk, emotionalism.
The US has a process for legal immigration into this country. I have NO problem with that process and submit that the 3+ million that enter this country each year legally is fine even after you add to that the other 2 million who enter under Student and HB visas. This keeps our numbers manageable and reasonable.
The so-called “anchor baby issue’ is no exception. As our laws state, if an illegal has a child while on US soil, that child MAY, upon reaching the age of majority, CHOOSE the country they wish to be considered a citizen of. This in NO WAY confers any ‘right or privilege’ to the child to remain inside this country – period. The argument that we must ‘consider the rights of the children’ does not exist and is not valid as it is addressed within our existing law.
Consequently, if an illegal is deported and chooses to abandon their child here in the U.S, then it should be treated as a criminal case of child abandonment as that is what it is. The proper course of action is for the child to remain with the parent (in their parent’s country when deported back to it) and then petition for re-entry upon reaching majority age.
Sound harsh? Maybe, but then we are only enforcing the laws that these people broke using the mechanisms proscribed by law. It was their actions and their choice to break those laws - not ours.
If we had followed our laws for the past 3 decades or so, we would not be having any of this 'discussion' such as it is, now.