So Who Is REALLY Responsible For The Illegal Mexican Invasion? (Reed, Americans)

[andreabeth]

Originally Posted by Mach50

2. invasion: encroachment, intrusion into any entry into an area not previously occupied

But US does occupy it???

The definition does not imply that the area must be totally unoccupied. When someone talks about an invasion of tourists, they mean multitudes of tourists have come to a seaside resort or such. The resort is already occupied by residents. The invasion consists of tourists flooding into an area that has previously not had lots of them. The area being invaded does not have to be barren of inhabitants or claimed by no one.
On Halloween one's neighborhood is often invaded by small creatures dressed as princesses, Kermit the Frog, cowboys, Batman and Hannah Montana. Or Justin Timberlake. After the 1 millionth time they have banged on the door or leaned on the doorbell- ding! ding! ding! ding!- I may think of this as an invasion. Albeit a friendly one.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Mach50

2. invasion: encroachment, intrusion into any entry into an area not previously occupied

But US does occupy it???

I'm not getting involved in the "invasion" debate....IMHO, it's kind of silly. But I MUST say, the definition of "invasion" as being done in "an area not previously occupied" does raise some questions. That one seems WRONG to me. Are we SURE someone didn't mis-read this? Didn't Hitler "invade" Europe....as did Ghengis Khan? Didn't the Spaniards "invade" Mexico, and didn't the Allies in WWII participate in the "invasion" of Normandy, and more recently, didn't the US "invade" Iraq? I certainly THOUGHT so..and ALL of these areas certainly WERE previously occupied...which, in MY view, is why it was called "invasion"..After all, we don't talk about the "invasion" of Antarctica, do we? That's because, when it was discovered, in recent centuries, it was unoccupied. There was nobody there to invade!...Similarly, we don't talk about the Indians "invading" the Americas...or the Vikings "invading" Iceland. They got there FIRST....so, no invasion.

As to the current illegal crisis...call it an "invasion" if you like....or insist that it's NOT. The facts remain unchangd. But I DO wonder about the 'unoccupied" part of that definition...

[Exedous]

Originally Posted by macmeal

I'm not getting involved in the "invasion" debate....IMHO, it's kind of silly. But I MUST say, the definition of "invasion" as being done in "an area not previously occupied" does raise some questions. That one seems WRONG to me. Are we SURE someone didn't mis-read this? Didn't Hitler "invade" Europe....as did Ghengis Khan? Didn't the Spaniards "invade" Mexico, and didn't the Allies in WWII participate in the "invasion" of Normandy, and more recently, didn't the US "invade" Iraq? I certainly THOUGHT so..and ALL of these areas certainly WERE previously occupied...which, in MY view, is why it was called "invasion"..After all, we don't talk about the "invasion" of Antarctica, do we? That's because, when it was discovered, in recent centuries, it was unoccupied. There was nobody there to invade!...Similarly, we don't talk about the Indians "invading" the Americas...or the Vikings "invading" Iceland. They got there FIRST....so, no invasion.

Duing

As to the current illegal crisis...call it an "invasion" if you like....or insist that it's NOT. The facts remain unchangd. But I DO wonder about the 'unoccupied" part of that definition...

During the Mexican-American war, didn't the U.S invade Mexico? Didn't the first settlers invade the eastern territory?

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Exedous

During the Mexican-American war, didn't the U.S invade Mexico? Didn't the first settlers invade the eastern territory?

And France invaded/controlled Mexico ca. 1864 after the Mexican-American War.

Mexican has only been truly 'sovereign' since 1867.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Exedous

During the Mexican-American war, didn't the U.S invade Mexico? Didn't the first settlers invade the eastern territory?

I sure always thought so....and these areas WERE previously occupied.

[sassyone]

Originally Posted by Nea1

You , give it a rest already. The hate card is old and tired and frankly it makes you look like you have nothing else constructive to say. Have you lost your job or business to illegals? Was your son beaten and put in the hospital by two illegal boys? Have you had to work with them everyday for 15 years and take the comments and harassment for being the only (american)woman on the job site from them? Well I have. SO I have plenty of reasons to be angry, but by no definition does that mean I hate Hispanics. [Moderator Cut:inappropriate comments]

I see a lot of pent up anger in your post, I don't have a hate card that I'm playing. Just because we don't agree it does not mean hate. No, I have not lost a job due to Illegals, we owned our own businesses and we did not hire Illegas either. If you have been working with them for 15 years, why did you not turn them in? My children have not been beaten up by them either, so we are really coming from different issues. I have ONLY had positive experiences with them, legal and illegal, but in any case I see them as people in a very hard predicament, that I lay on the feet of our government, not the people of Mexico.

[andreabeth]

Originally Posted by sassyone

I see a lot of pent up anger in your post, I don't have a hate card that I'm playing. Just because we don't agree it does not mean hate. No, I have not lost a job due to Illegals, we owned our own businesses and we did not hire Illegas either. If you have been working with them for 15 years, why did you not turn them in? My children have not been beaten up by them either, so we are really coming from different issues. I have ONLY had positive experiences with them, legal and illegal, but in any case I see them as people in a very hard predicament, that I lay on the feet of our government, not the people of Mexico.

You know, in civilized societies adults are held responsible for their behavior. There are a few specific exceptions. A person who is mentally deficient (low IQ) cannot be held responsible because he cannot fully comprehend that his actions have consequences. A person who is so mentally ill that they are incapable of telling right from wrong also cannot be held to the same standards as a sane person.
I lay the blame at the feet of the illegals themselves. Those very same feet that knowingly crossed the US border in violation of our laws. Why should illegal aliens not be held responsible for their actions? I don't give a darn what their story is. That does not give them the right to break US law and not be held responsible. Unless they happen to fit into one of the two groups mentioned above.

[malamute]

And many of us would even say that crossing the border illegally is in itself not the crime of the century, it doesn't involve life in prison, or the death penalty. The penalty should suit the crime -- deportation -- which is also not the punishment of the century.

You come here illegally, you get sent back home. If you are found here illegally, you should be barred from legal reentry for a period of time, 10 years is about right.

[NotanArrogantAmerican]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

Here is the definition of invasion - you are wrong with your assertation above. We are indeed speaking of an invasion.

invasion

noun
1. the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder
2. any entry into an area not previously occupied; "an invasion of tourists"; "an invasion of locusts"

I'd like to remind you that that area was previously occupied... and so i guess its not an invasion... more a re-occupation--hows that?

[Nea1]

Originally Posted by sassyone

I see a lot of pent up anger in your post, I don't have a hate card that I'm playing. Just because we don't agree it does not mean hate. No, I have not lost a job due to Illegals, we owned our own businesses and we did not hire Illegas either. If you have been working with them for 15 years, why did you not turn them in? My children have not been beaten up by them either, so we are really coming from different issues. I have ONLY had positive experiences with them, legal and illegal, but in any case I see them as people in a very hard predicament, that I lay on the feet of our government, not the people of Mexico.

Damn right I am angry!! And you do throw out the hate card, you even agreed with another poster that because we want the illegals gone, we must hate them. So don't go there with me. And I have turned them in, why do you assume I haven't? And yes we come from two different issues, so what makes your's any more valid than mine? Yes they are people, no one has stated otherwise, but why should they take more importance than our own who are in tough circumstances? What because they come from another country they are more worthy? I lay it at their feet, they know what they are doing, I have heard their ideas and plans, thats how I have informed my opinions. I have learned that far too many see us as nothing more than a free ride, and have no issue or after thought about what it does to us, they tell you what you want to hear and then laugh that we can be played so easily. Yes there are some honest and hard working ones, but sorry doesnt make what they do any more Ok. One plan must work for all, cant weed out the good ones, some Americans let their bleeding hearts rule and the illegals know it.