Since the US is losing the war against Mexican illegals wouldn't surrender via a Union be logical?

Question

The US can no longer defend its southern border --- The shame of the US is well known --- They just do not have the political will or the grapes to defend the border

So isn't surrender and concession in order ?

Why not just sign Union into law and admit the US has lost the war and can no longer defend its southern flank

111 million Mexicans --- all want to be Americans and they can not be stopped might as well surrender and discuss terms right ?

Since the US is losing the war against Mexican illegals wouldn't surrender via a Union be logical

Answer 1

If I were you I would be worried about the third world status of Canada via its own insane immigration problems.



Canada Continues Immigration Follies



Canada Increase Immigration Quota



In Canada Immigration is being manipulated to get votes but not in the way you might expect. Canada proposes to increase immigration above it’s already insane levels in order to get attract votes from recent immigrants. It doesn’t take much sense to see where this is headed.



Is this the future of European and US Immigration policies?



The Tory government has set one of the most aggressive immigration targets in the last 15 years in a move that some immigration experts say is carefully designed to woo votes among new Canadians.



In tabling its annual report in Parliament on Tuesday, Citizenship and Immigration Canada said it plans to admit between 240,000 and 265,000 permanent residents in 2007. The target this year is 225,000 to 255,000, and the government expects the final figure will be in the upper end of that range.



The 2007 target represents an increase of 5.2 per cent over this year's target, measured by the change in the midpoint of the range. The highest previous increase in the last 15 years was in 2002, when the target rose 4.7 per cent.



Citizenship and Immigration Minister Monte Solberg said the new targets will help employers looking for workers as well as refugees and immigrant families hoping to reunite.



But Richard Kurland, a lawyer who tracks immigration figures, says the targets should be easy to meet or even exceeded, because the backlog of permanent-residence applications is already running at about 750,000. ''There's no way based on the inventory that they will have any difficulty meeting the target,'' said Kurland. ''Somebody's got their eye on re-election.''



The target, combined with $307 million in settlement funding, will make an attractive platform for the government to argue that it is friendly to immigrants, said Kurland.



The funding, earmarked in this year's budget, will be distributed to the provinces for language training and other services.



''For the first time in many, many years, we're going to be matching the settlement funding with the immigration numbers so that newcomers have a much better chance to succeed and live the Canadian dream,'' said Solberg. He said the government considers labour shortages a priority, and is working on ways to ''re-orient'' immigration policy to meet labour-market needs.



''We've got on the one hand to always protect public security. But we also on the other hand have to address labour-market needs.''



But Olivia Chow, the NDP's deputy immigration critic, said the government is ''continuing the old Liberal tradition'' of failing to set the immigration target at one per cent of the population a figure believed necessary by some to replenish the workforce. She also noted that the proportion of family-class immigrants will drop under the new targets.



''So fewer families are coming over,'' she said.



The government has set a target of 141,000 to 158,000 people in the economy class, and 67,000 to 69,000 newcomers in the family class. Kurland also said the report, like those before it, makes no mention of key issues for immigrants such as improving processing times for permanent-resident applications.



''That's still not even on the radar,'' said Kurland.





Immigrants marrying family to get into Canada



Some immigrants are marrying their own sister -- even their mother -- to get into Canada.



While the majority of these immigrants hail from Africa, some are coming from Europe.



Montreal immigration lawyer Awatif Lakhdar says he is aware of two cases in which bogus couples managed to thwart the law before appearing in his office.



'The first had married his sister, the second his mother. They had managed to slip through the cracks in the system, but eventually they found themselves before the courts,' he said.



People are ready to go to this extreme because it is much quicker to get a spouse into Canada than a sibling or parent.



In addition to presenting forged documents to immigration officials, many also produce phony wedding photos depicting the happy couple kissing.



According Immigration Canada, 70 per cent to 80 per cent of those claiming marital status are accepted on production of documentation only.



Lawyer Patric-Claude Caron, said he knows of at least three cases involving wedded brothers and sisters in recent years which had been foiled.



'They asked me to help them. It didn't take long to figure out they were brothers and sisters,' he said.



The practice is not unheard-of in several ethnic communities of Montreal, including those of Somalis, Congolese and Guineans, and others from countries where it is relatively easy to falsify documents.



One case was cited of a man of Guinean origin arriving at Montreal in 2001. He married his own sister in 2004 after wedding

Answer 2

The pathetic leaders in the past and present would like for you to believe it can't be done, they just use this chicken nut news to tell it a way you'd believe it and you do, or at least you did. The only shame of America is what got elected to president and what the fool put as his administration. The immigration problem takes a back seat to the poor terrorist and all the other BS this stupid fool holds so dear to his heart. Like the safety of us tax paying, hard working Americans. Maybe that's his problem and all the rest of the f--- ups, they never "worked" and have no idea what it must be like. They were taught how oh we poor black folk, and now it pours out to everyone in every nation except here in The United States of America. Logic? hell no, when a "REAL" man gets president this stupid crap about gitmo and illegals will get taken car of, but to surrender is what a ^^%*&^$ sissy would do. No one surrendered to the Native American, they just shot my relatives, so what so special about a w3tb@ck? Nothing it's the "specials elected to run this country into the ground, only because of the color of it's skin, and that my friend is what is sad. WE ALREADY SURRENDERED

Answer 3

No we shouldn't. We need to put a barrier along our borders like almost every other country in the world and ENFORCE OUR BORDERS. Anyone caught illegally entering almost any other country is treated as an invader. I see NOTHING wrong with that.



Who believes that "111 million Mexicans ...want to be Americans"? I sure as heck doubt that very seriously. Don't you think there are any Mexicans who love their country?



As for the statements about "human rights" - "Rights" all come with responsibilities. If you say a person has some "right" to enter the sovereign territory of any nation, what are their "responsibilities"? How about "OBEY THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY YOU ARE ENTERING" including immigration laws?

Answer 4

1. It's not that we can't defend the Southern Border, it's that we won't. And all the expensive projects our politicians throw our money at are fantasies.

2. We could start by denying jobs, loans, homes, and health care to ppl without SSNs, visas, or passports. We would enforce this properly, and employers, lenders, renters, exc. caught breaking this rule would be fined HEAVILY. In this way, the border problem is no longer a tax burden, but contributes something to the treasury.

3. If America firmly offers no opportunities, no one comes.

Peace

Answer 5

We fight until we cannot fight any more. Then, we fight some more. There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the World, but there over 2 billion Christians and 14 million Jews who the Muslims are aligning themselves against. I think it is important for the World to understand that, when you see the Muslims hacking the heads off of Jews and Christians that these two religions are People of the Book and Muslims will show some tolerance toward these people. So if you are not Muslim, they hate you. If you are not Christian or Jewish they hate you more. Islam is a religion of hate but luckily for the civilized portions of the World, the Shia and Sunni hate each other as much, if not more, than they hate you.

Answer 6

No, not at all. There's no war of Mexicans against the US. That's right wing paranoia and xenophobe demagogy



Legal and illegal are arbitrary categories when talking about human beings. Their human rights should come before the cowardly bourgeoisie understanding of legal and illegal



To label some folks 'illegal' in a country based on settler colonialism and responsible for the biggest Holocaust in history against the Native people of North America is more than a little absurd. Open borders is the answer. Laws don't fall out of the sky, they are decided by those with privilege and often to protect that privilege. Mexicans violating the law to come to the US looking for a better job are acting just as 'illegal' as Rosa Parks did when she refused to get up in that bus.



The Socialist Equality Party stands for the unconditional right of workers of every country to live and work where they choose. We call for full democratic and citizenship rights for all immigrants, including the 12 million or more now classified as undocumented or “illegal.” Moreover, the Socialist Equality Party raises with special concern the plight of Native Americans, whose deplorable conditions of life are the legacy of American capitalism’s blood-soaked rise to continental power. Accounts of American democracy that evade the far-reaching implications of the crimes committed against the people already inhabiting the North American continent are shot through with hypocrisy. The social consequences of these crimes - extreme poverty, a life expectancy 20 years below the national average, absence of adequate housing, and general neglect of the social needs of Native American reservations and communities by government agencies - persist to the present day.



EDIT Nationalism is reactionary and actually serves the elite, always does, always will

Answer 7

No. The American people need to vote out the traitors that refuse to secure our borders and enforce our laws.

Answer 8

We haven't been fighting a war,yet.



Would you like for us to start?



RWE

Answer 9

What? And be like France? Run with our tails between our legs?



I DON"T THINK SO!!!

Answer 10

Actually their is no War. 2nd It was the United States that invaded Mexico and took away Tejas or Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah and California away from Mexico. Anglos flooded into Tejas and out numbered Mexicans 10 to 1 to take over Texas. They convinced the Tejanos to revolt against Mexico and join them so they would have better lives but they ended up being treated like 2nd class citizens. Look at Latino in America. Juan Seguin had to flee to Mexico after he help win the war for Texas to become an independent country.



Also majority of Mexicans live in Mexico and have no desire to come live in the United States. There is 118 Million Mexicans and less than 5% of Mexico's population is trying to live in the United States by entering illegally. Their has been more action come from Central America of late.



Did you know that until 1848 California, New Mexico and other portions of the Southwest were internationally recognized provinces of free Mexico, until the U.S. decided it wanted those provinces, declared war on Mexico, and stole them? Read on for the chronology of these events, and then ask yourself : "Who are the real illegal in California?"

Prior to 1822 What is today Mexico, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California are all Spanish colonies.

1822 Mexican colonists, following the American revolution, rebel against Spain and win their own revolutionary war, making Mexico a free nation just like America.

1844 James Polk campaigns for the U.S. presidency, supporting expansion of U.S. territories into Mexico.

February, 1845 James Polk, on his inagauguration night, confides to his Secretary of the Navy that a principal objective of his presidency is the acquisition of California, which Mexico had been refusing to sell to the U.S. at any price.

Early 1845 The Washington Union, expressing the position of James Polk, writes: "...who can arrest the torrent that will pour onward to the West? The road to California will be open to us. Who will stay the march...?" "A corps of properly organized volunteers...would invade, overrun, and occupy Mexico. They would enable us not only to take California, but to keep it."

Early 1845 John O'Sullivan, editor of the Democratic review writes it is "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent ...for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."

Early 1845 James Polk promises Texas he will support moving the historical Texas/Mexico border at the Nueces river 150 miles south to the Rio Grande provided Texas agrees to join the union. "The traditional border between Texas and Mexico had been the Nueces River...and both the United States and Mexico had recognized that as the border." (Zinn, p. 148)

June 30, 1845 James Polk orders troops to march south of the traditional Texas/Mexico border into Mexican inhabited territory, causing Mexicans to flee their villages and abandon their crops in terror.



"Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation." (Zinn, p. 148)



"President Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans." (John Schroeder , "Mr. Polk's War")

Early 1846 Colonel Hitchcock, commander of the 3rd Infantry regiment, writes in his diary: "...the United States are the aggressors....We have not one particle of right to be here....It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses....My heart is not in this business."

May 9, 1846 President Polk tells his cabinet: "...up to this time...we have heard of no open aggression by the Mexican Army."

May 10, 1846 Violence erupts between Mexican and American troops south of the Nueces River. Of course Polk claims Mexicans had fired the first shot, but in his famous "spot resolutions" congressman Abraham Lincoln repeatedly challenges president Polk to name the exact "spot" where Mexicans first attacked American troops. Polk never met the challenge.

May 11, 1846 President Polk urges congress to declare war on Mexico.

May 12, 1846 : Horace Greeley writes in the New York Tribune: "We can easily defeat the armies of Mexico, slaughter them by thousands, and pursue them perhaps to their capital; we can conquer and "annex" their territory; but what then? Who believes that a score of victories over Mexico, the "annexation" of half of her provinces, will give us more Liberty, a purer Morality, a more prosperous Industry...?

1846 Congressman Abraham Lincoln, speaking in a session of congress "...the president unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced a war with Mexico....The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, un- provoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us."

after war is underway, the American press comments:



February 11, 1847. The "Congressional Globe" reports: "...We must march from ocean to ocean....We must march from Texas straight to the Pacific ocean....It is the destiny of the white race, it is the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon Race."



The New York Herald: "The universal Yankee Nation can regenerate and disenthrall the people of Mexico in a few years; and we believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."



American Review writes of Mexicans "yielding to a superior population, insensibly oozing into her territories, changing her customs, and out-living, exterminating her weaker blood."

1846-1848 U.S. Army battles Mexico, not just enforcing the new Texas border at the Rio Grande but capturing Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and California (as well as marching as far south as Mexico City).

1848 Mexico surrenders on U.S. terms (U.S. takes over ownership of New Mexico, California, an expanded Texas, and more, for a token payment of $15 million, which leads the Whig Intelligencer to report: "We take nothing by conquest....Thank God").

(date unknown) General Ulysses S. Grant calls the Mexican War "the most unjust war ever undertaken by a stronger nation against a weaker one."