‘Rape Tree’ Found Near Texas-Mexico Border

I understand the desire to pay someone pennies on the dollar, but I'd rather our immigration laws be enforced. The cost to country is too great to justify you saving a few dollars. Sorry.

Not a very strong point. Since an anchor baby becomes a US citizen by being born here, he can reproduce with an illegal alien and it would fulfill the legal citizen statistic you are citing.

Whether that was their intended purpose or not is unknown. What we know is that the parents who had them immediately get protection from deportation.

I showed that the Hispanic population increased significantly after the establishment of welfare policies and the changing of our immigration policies. You're free to conclude that it is just a wild coincidence, because your ideology has already pointed you in that direction.

And of course border crossings increase as a result of our policies, including talk of amnesty.

We have a welfare state. You're in favor of illegal immigration (clearly), knowing full well that illegals use welfare at a disproportionately high level relative to the general population. What's the plan? Eventually get rid of the welfare state, but in the meantime let's be compassionate and let every 3rd worlder who wants to come here entry?

 

Care to quote what is says right under Ineligible countries?

 

I've read it. Care to quote where you think the problem is? Are you going to continue conflating unskilled workers and skilled workers in order to make your point?

- - - Updated - - -

Since you have repeatedly misrepresented my views after being repeatedly corrected, we are done here. You obviously prefer your straw man. Have fun.

 

You might have read it but you dont seem to understand it.

 

I have a feeling I already know the part you are referring to -- and it involves making the same conflation I've mentioned multiple times now. Do you have a specific issue, or are you going to keep being vague?

 

I asked to quote something specific and you have a feeling what it says? Damn man did you read your own source?

 

So no. You want to keep being vague. You and I both have access to the page. If you actually have a point, then make it. I've read the source multiple times. Have you?

 

I asked so you would be forced to atleast look at it something you seem to refuse to do... Just another back and forth troll wasting my time.

 

Pot . . . kettle . . .

Anyway, on the off chance you actually want to discuss this, here's the section that you needlessly wanted quoted. The text can't be highlighted, so I'm having to do it as an image. Now. What's your point? And again, I eagerly anticipate you making the conflation that I've mentioned several times now between skilled and unskilled workers.

http://postimg.org/image/qaut2expr/0b2ba916/

I suspect you are talking about sentence 1 . . . while ignoring paragraph 4, which explicitly states that the conflation I was talking about is being made . . . and even more things are being conflated on top of that.

 

So you can see why they are not eligible.. Laws are laws for a reason. Btw is conflate your favorite word?

 

Can you see why they aren't eligible? And what makes you think the reason is a good one? Do you realize when those quotas were produced? And why should the quotas be based on country of origin?

"I'm sorry, based on our 20-year-old estimates of business labor needs, too many people from your country came here for skilled labor, so we can't accept you for unskilled labor . . . even though there is an undeniable demand for your labor . . . all because of 'diversity quotas' that anti-immigration conservaties would scream about in any other context." Yeah . . . "reason" . . . that's the word for it.

And yes. "Conflate" is one of my new favorite words. Because it is accurate and people don't seem to understand what it means, so I keep having to repeat myself. The fourth paragraph tells you where that number comes from. It is a combination of employer-based immigration (there's that conflation of skilled and unskilled labor I was talking about) and (here's another conflation) marriage-based immigration.

Returning to my original point, which you keep trying to escape from: there is no reasonable path to citizenship for unskilled Mexican workers.

 

And i will point out again "reasonable" is based on your opinion which

1) I could care less about
2) See number 1

 

In your opinion, this is reasonable?

"I'm sorry, based on our 20-year-old estimates of business labor needs, too many people from your country came here for skilled labor, so we can't accept you for unskilled labor . . . even though there is an undeniable demand for your labor . . . all because of 'diversity quotas' that anti-immigration conservaties would scream about in any other context."

You really expect me to believe that?

 

So you have favorite words which you over use and you do not know what quotation marks are for.

 

Are any of the words inaccurate? And quotation marks are frequently used in this fashion. If your argument boils down to nothing more than punctuation and word choice, and you have no rational defense for this sort of nonsense, then I guess we are done. It isn't rational to base business needs on 20 year old data. It isn't rational to base business needs on arbitrary country-of-original quotas. It isn't rational to base labor quotas on a conflation of different types of labor. Xenophobia is a poor foundation for policy creation.

 

I have no interest in debating your opinion ( we have been through this).

I have no interest in debating made up quotes or strawmen.

You dont know what Xenophobia means either. Typical...

 

The quote is the direct logic used for the quotas. If there were any inaccuracies, you would be able to point them out.

Fact: The quotas are based on 20 year old business needs
Fact: The quotas are "diversity quotas" based on country of origin
Fact: The quotas are tallied by an arbitrary combination of any and all methods of immigration, from marriage to skilled labor to unskilled labor. Hence they can't possibly satisfy our economic needs.

The motivation is not economical. It is nationalistic and collectivist. People are excluded, not because of any merit of their own, but simply because of where they are from. Hence, xenophobia.

It's a sad day when collectivist, nationalistic senses of entitlement trump our actual economic needs and the rights of people to freely move about without big government telling them what to do for (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor reasons.

 

Again your thoughts on the quotas are..... Your opinion... *gasp* Now what did I say about your opinion? Oh thats right... I dont give a damn about it.

 

Each and everyone of those is a fact. The last two are right there in the source I gave you. I'll dig up info on the first one, but it obviously won't matter. We have the government itself saying that these are diversity quotas and that the numbers involve the addition of all employer-based immigrants and marriage-based immigrants.

If you had bothered to actually read through the link I gave you, you wouldn't have seen that this lottery is repeatedly referred to as a diversity program. Open the link, do a ctrl+f and see for yourself. DV stands for Diversity Visa.

The link also says that countries were made ineligible because of the number of "people who immigrated via the family based . . . or employment-based categories". Even a baseline knowledge of the immigration process would tell you that unskilled labor is one of these employment-based categories, and skilled labor is another.

If you still think these are opinions, when we have the government expressly saying this stuff in their own words, then it must also be my opinion that our solar system only has one sun and our planet only one moon.

 

There are probably four times as many Mexican rape trees today from Brownsville to TJ. There are hundreds of them.

Some of you "Politico Refuges" may remember back in 2010 when I started a thread on the old Politico.com Community Forum titled "Mexican Rape Trees." I posted a couple dozen photos of 24 diffrent Mexican rape trees on the USA side of the border. Burritos were flying out of Univision's butt and they demanded that the Politico scrub my thread. The Politic sided on my side when I pointed out that some of the photos of the rape trees came from Univision.

 

It's time to wake up people this is the kind of thing that's going on right now in our neighborhoods.

It's a sick and twisted world.

But I have no idea what we can realistically do to stop it?

 

If they take that risk, they will be met by the US National Guard. For America is no longer the country of handouts. I know, your hearts and minds bleed at the prospect of their poverty but me? I don't lose any sleep. It's better them than me. It's better them, than American children. We must protect the US Border at any and all impervatives. It's a position our Founders had, so to use your words I'm on the "right side of history".

I will protect the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will use my political career to protect this Nation.

 

Since when have rapists needed trees to hang undergarments on while they rape their victims? Is the tree supposed to provide some form of privacy for the couple?

Or maybe I'm just not all that familiar with the technicalities of rape, but it seems to me that if you're worried enough about the girl's underwear to hang them in a place where they don't get stickers, then it might not be rape.

 

Border patrols on in the US have also been doing some of the raping. A fact that was conveniently ignored.

 

Please show your source for that statement.