Los Angeles and the illegal immigration problem (lease, jobs)

[gringo istmeño]

Originally Posted by gfluneedit

You may be dumb enough to go for that game, but not me.

He says he is white as a pass on using racial slurrs against whites.

You must have been born yesterday.

Can you actually see through the monitor? What color am I then? Since you already know I don`t have a college degree. I live in Mexico. I speak Spanish. What color am I? Would it help if I called you an ignorant honky?
I call myself the Gringo Istmeño- isn`t that a slur against white people? (Actually it isn`t)- I couldn`t possibly be white could I? You`ve got it all figured out, don`t you?

[gfluneedit]

Originally Posted by gringo istmeño

Can you actually see through the monitor? What color am I then? Since you already know I don`t have a college degree. I live in Mexico. I speak Spanish. What color am I? Would it help if I called you an ignorant honky?
I call myself the Gringo Istmeño- isn`t that a slur against white people? (Actually it isn`t)- I couldn`t possibly be white could I? You`ve got it all figured out, don`t you?

No you couldn't unless you are in need of psychiatric care related to a identity disorder.

[gringo istmeño]

Originally Posted by gfluneedit

Oh then where are you quoting these percentages from ?

Your a** ?

Just look it up if you don`t believe me. I already told you I studied history, including Mexican history. I live in Mexico. Actually, I just happened to read that mestizo stat online today, but I wasn`t looking for it, so I don`t have the other two stats.

[gringo istmeño]

So I may have low-balled the % of mestizos in Mex- it is between 60-75%. 12% are pure indigenous. That makes about 72-87% of Mexico`s population indigenous or mixed. The rest are Europeans, Africans, and Americans. This is off Wiki- I think reliable enough.

[gfluneedit]

Originally Posted by gringo istmeño

You also have a short attention span, or maybe it is a reading disorder. That would explain a lot actually. Short term memory? Remember when I said it is irrelavent if they walked or boated? That the fact remains, they came from the same place? And that they were first? What difference does it make if they walked over 12,000 years ago or boated over 20,000 years ago? Did you learn that word "rant" from reading people`s responses to your posts?

If you don't know where they came from you obviously don't know they were the first.

Shouting over and over that they were the first doesn't change the fact that you do know the factual history.

A 5 year old says ...it is because I say it is, and because I believe it is, so there now it is.


So you missed the whole crux of what I was trying to teach you and couldn't get through your thick skull .

And again that is this...
If you can't go back in history to say how indians got here , you have no way on Gods earth to know that they were the first.

The earth is billions of years old and archiologists cannot go back much more that 15 k years in america, if even that far.
And when the go back they see that man was here, they dont know when or how he got here or if any other race came before the indians.

In fact they have no clue where human beings came from.

So stop claiming to have knowledge that the rest of the world's archeologists combined do not have.

You don't have a clue.

[gringo istmeño]

Originally Posted by gfluneedit

No you couldn't unless you are in need of psychiatric care related to a identity disorder.

I`m in need of psychiatric care because I`ve been going around in circles with you for the past 3 hours.

[gringo istmeño]

Originally Posted by gfluneedit

Exactly , the law is the one they are breaking.

SO its an unlawful law in their minds.

Otherwise they have no justification for breaking it.

That why they want to rely on this distorted indian logic even when they are not indians.

Right- the logic may be distorted.
Wrong: Because they are Indians. How are they not? Actually, "Indians" is not a very accurate term is it. How are they not indigenous? Why do many speak a native dialect along with or instead of Spanish? Because they are almost all indigenous.

And yes, it is an unlawful law in some people`s opinion. How can a country offer jobs to immigrants, yet at the same time, tell the same immigrants that they can`t be there. It is a double standard, and unfair to those who are in dire economic situations and come here to improve their lives.

[gringo istmeño]

Originally Posted by gfluneedit

If you don't know where they came from you obviously don't know they were the first.

Shouting over and over that they were the first doesn't change the fact that you do know the factual history.

A 5 year old says ...it is because I say it is, and because I believe it is, so there now it is.


So you missed the whole crux of what I was trying to teach you and couldn't get through your thick skull .

And again that is this...
If you can't go back in history to say how indians got here , you have no way on Gods earth to know that they were the first.

The earth is billions of years old and archiologists cannot go back much more that 15 k years in america, if even that far.
And when the go back they see that man was here, they dont know when or how he got here or if any other race came before the indians.

In fact they have no clue where human beings came from.

So stop claiming to have knowledge that the rest of the world's archeologists combined do not have.

You don't have a clue.

I only got to the first line on this one! I know, and everyone knows where they came from- ASIA. Now I will continue reading.

[gfluneedit]

Originally Posted by gringo istmeño

Right- the logic may be distorted.
Wrong: Because they are Indians. How are they not? Actually, "Indians" is not a very accurate term is it. How are they not indigenous? Why do many speak a native dialect along with or instead of Spanish? Because they are almost all indigenous.

And yes, it is an unlawful law in some people`s opinion. How can a country offer jobs to immigrants, yet at the same time, tell the same immigrants that they can`t be there. It is a double standard, and unfair to those who are in dire economic situations and come here to improve their lives.

The country is not offering them jobs.

It is illegal for an employer to hire an illegal, they are breaking the laws.

The country says it is unlawful.

[gfluneedit]

Originally Posted by gringo istmeño

Right- the logic may be distorted.
Wrong: Because they are Indians. How are they not? Actually, "Indians" is not a very accurate term is it. How are they not indigenous? Why do many speak a native dialect along with or instead of Spanish? Because they are almost all indigenous.

And yes, it is an unlawful law in some people`s opinion. How can a country offer jobs to immigrants, yet at the same time, tell the same immigrants that they can`t be there. It is a double standard, and unfair to those who are in dire economic situations and come here to improve their lives.

There are americans in dire economic circumstances and instead of having the money to care for them foreigners are absorbing it by dropping anchor babies in american hospitals that they have no means to support.

They have no concept of birth control , because they are uneducated and they come here and say you pay for it america.

Americans are certainly in line ahead of any foreign illegal that doesnt have a right to be here.