[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Sali's concerns put spotlight on ID cards issued by Mexico

[Andreas Schou]

Donovan --



On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Keely,
>
> Actually, you are either being very cute with us, or are completely ignorant
> of the purpose of the Consulate. As you know, that the Consulate gives ID
> cards to anyone of Hispanic descent, not just its own citizens, as no legal
> identification is needed to get one.

Actualy, this isn't true.

>  Rapists, murderers, child molesters,
> drug dealers, and other criminals escaping US and other law enforcement
> officials for past crimes are able to get these identification cards.

And this is an extrapolation of something that isn't true to begin with.

>  It
> places many innocent people, and police officers, in danger. Illegal labor
> in the country drives down wages, robs from Social Security, local schools,
> and other programs.
>
> As I understand Keely, you are not against placing child molesters, rapists,
> murderers, and other criminals in a position to run free in society. There
> is a reason why we have laws for immigration, part of that is to make sure
> that wages stay fair and criminal behavior does not run rampant in our
> society.

And this is ad hominiem founded on a non sequitur derived entirely
from of right-wing confabulations.

> Mexico, has less than 3% of the world's population, yet receives 40% of the
> places and jobs the United States has to offer. Mexico is the 12th
> wealthiest nation on the planet. Why should the remaining 92% of the
> population, and the other 260+ poorer nations of the planet not be given an
> equal opportunity to have a shot at those jobs and the American dream?

40% of the jobs the United States has to offer, according to the
Department of Labor, is roughly 160 million. This is sixty million
more jobs than Mexico has people.

> You, Keely, as I understand, support an immigration policy that is unfair
> and unjust. You support a policy that is not only a danger to innocents in
> this society, and to others playing by the rules, but you support a policy
> that is even a danger to those you claim to support.

Did you not actually read the last argument we had about this, or is
this another Donovan entirely?

-- ACS