I’ll tell you what, Sikkario, come out to Los Angeles and I’ll just drive you through these neighborhoods and we can knock on some doors and ask people what they think. The Harbor Gateway neighborhood is right next to my work.
Alright, I used to live in Saint Louis and that city is almost entirely black.
Much of the crime is black, and alot of times it was black on white.
That doesn’t mean that is acceptable whenver a crime happens to assume it is only blacks tho.
I think someone would make a big stink.
If a white young man, was killed in West Saint Louis and it was assumed the killing was perpetrated by the Vice Lord Black Gang Bangers w/o anything more than the cursory in spection that, Well, ALL THE GANGS ARE BLACK AND ONLY GANGBANGERS DO THINGS LIKE THIS.
It’s unfair to say point out that these gangbangers were Latinos without having evidence.
Last I checked Might 18s, took members from all races and they are the largest Latino gang in LA.
What if the killer was Puerto Rican, he may be black then and Latino.
Would that change things?
There is a political spin to this whole thing, and I find it offensive.
WHY DO SO MANY MEXICANS BECOME GANG-BANGERS?
I don’t care if the total percentage of Mexicans who become gang-bangers is itself small. It’s large enough that it’s created a huge problem. My barber’s brother’s friend was recently shot dead by members of his own race, and he wasn’t even a gangbanger. Why is there so much of this amongst Mexicans?
The Mexican I used to live next door to complained about this. Everyone on his block in Carson was affiliated.
The amount of Mexicans I actually know is small, yet I still seem to manage to come in contact with many who have been personally affected by gang violence.
I think you should make it your personal crusade to find out WHY?
Make a documentary like Michael Moore does and walk around Carson and ask Latinos why they all love to gang-bang.
You’ll do a service and probably make millions while you’re at it.
You ready?
“HOLA USTEDES, YO SOY UN GABACHO QUE LE GUSTA HACER UNA INVESTIGACION PARA AVERIGUAR PORQUE LOS LATINOS LE GUSTA GANGABANGUEAR TANTISSIMO? K OPINAS DEL ASUNTO SENOR PEPE?”
I think you’re a racist pr cal dude.
WHY DO ALL BLACKS HAVE TO BE GANGBANGERS?
IN STL THEY WERE ALL GANG BANGERS, AND IN PUERTO RICO, IT IS THE BLACK PUERTO RICANS WHO ARE GANG BANGERS TOO?!!??!
I MEAN WHY!?!?!?!?
Like I said, this isn’t about anything but a history of injustice and a burning by the gov’t of the Latinos themselves that has caused this.
I’m not saying there isn’t social responsibility here, but to say MEXICANS JSUT LOVE TO KILL BLAX AND GANGBANG, AND NO MATTER HOW MANY TACOS WE BUY FROM THEIR VANS…THEY JUST WOTN STOP!
Is intentional ignorance getting hinting at some sort of underlying criminal gene in the Latino psyche, perhaps related to the same allele which makes them sleep too much and eat cilantro.
Irish were gangstes, Italians were gangsters, they moved out of that.
Criminal activity has to do with socio-economics before culture.
You know that.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No conspiracy. Just a powerful constituency that doesn’t have the stomach to take the actions necessary to control the border: a wall and militarization. The President and certain elements of the Republican Party, along with just about all of the Democrats, are of this view. Most big businesses support open borders because they supply cheap labor; most “right thinking” liberals support open borders - or at least will wilt if called “racist” once for supporting border enforcement.
The immigration officials have done essentially nothing to enforce immigration laws against employers - a few high profile raids right after the Bush immigration bill failed, but a mere drop in the bucket and nothing since.
There was essentially a populist revolt against President Bush’s amnesty bill, which Congress was pushing through - it didn’t pass, but there’s certainly no stomach amongst the politicians to move toward enforcement. And none of the current presidential candidates would change that.
lixy wrote:
Thanks for replying.
It seems counterintuitive that the majority of Americans can’t be bothered to demand a solution to this problem.[/quote]
It’s not experienced equally by everyone - it’s geographic in concentration, so it affects the border states more. And it affects those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder in terms of obvious costs (e.g., competition for jobs, lower wages for manual labor). People don’t easily comprehend the strain placed on services like emergency health care or the school systems (large influx of low-income people with large families). Quite frankly, in the short run it benefits people with more money - by keeping wages low for menial labor and holding down inflationary pressures.
[quote]“HOLA USTEDES, YO SOY UN GABACHO QUE LE GUSTA HACER UNA INVESTIGACION PARA AVERIGUAR PORQUE LOS LATINOS LE GUSTA GANGABANGUEAR TANTISSIMO? K OPINAS DEL ASUNTO SENOR PEPE?”
[/quote]
Right. You’re calling me a gabacho but I’m the racist. That didn’t take long.
[quote]WHY DO ALL BLACKS HAVE TO BE GANGBANGERS?
IN STL THEY WERE ALL GANG BANGERS, AND IN PUERTO RICO, IT IS THE BLACK PUERTO RICANS WHO ARE GANG BANGERS TOO?!!??! [/quote]
What was that about racism again?
They were. But not on this scale. No British, French, Swedish, or German-American gangs come to mind either. So something cultural is at work here.
[quote]Criminal activity has to do with socio-economics before culture.
You know that.[/quote]
I’m open to that idea, if you can demonstrate it. The Mexican who did some shooting on my block a few months ago, (immediately after I witnessed him beat up his girlfriend), lived in a good area. He still thought it a good idea to adopt the cholo lifestyle, throw some shoes up on the powerlines, and start a gang. There were no others in the area, and the median home price is around $3/4 a million.
Why should I not believe what I see with my own lying eyes? To paraphrase Mao, “Reality is there, I didn’t create it.”
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Here I’ll just interject that I find it extremely amusing that people can consider a handful of Muslim women asking for a few “women only” hours at a single gym at Harvard to be evidence of the creeping invasion of Islam, and yet view the overt armed invasion of American territory and murder of American citizens by foreign nationals as an “illegal alien problem.” This is normally considered an act of war.
We at least tried to do something about Pancho Villa. Can we not at least try to do something about these vatos?
Thunderbolt? Any ideas? If only the guy on your avatar was alive today, he’d do something about it.
Just checked out this thread.
A modern day Pershing? Modern America has no stomach for such a man.
That said, what to do about it - I concur with Boston about militarizing the border. Guarding and managing the sovereign border is a straightforward national security issue.
The California problem is caused, well, by California - the multicultural guilt trip that passes for politics in a leading “progressive” state acts as an enabler to the violence. Weakness invites aggression. Problem is, there can’t be fair criticism without someone shrieking “racism!”, when it is quite clearly behavior that is the problem. But, California will burn itself into the sea before any decent confrontation of “La Raza”, etc. will take place.
That is one reason why stronger federal gusto is needed at the border. Even if Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico decided to get realistic about border security, California will always be flimsy - stern enforcement might hurt someone’s feelings.
And you better believe as a resident of Northern California…it makes me seethe with anger. I’ve quoted before, ‘a country without borders is not a country’. I was proud when there was outcry from the people and the amnesty didn’t pass. Very proud.
Yet it was too narrow a squeak by for my comfort. As much as the whole world wants to call Ron Paul a quack…I believe he would’ve been our only hope in putting into action a firm stance with regard to this issue.
[/quote]
Are you kidding? The man advocated getting rid of the federal border patrol when he ran for president last time. Do you think he would have taken any action?
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
[/quote]
I don’t want the military there because, as Aaron Zelman put it, it will trap us in!
Get rid of the welfare and free medical care. Get rid of the birdfeeder and the birds will leave. That was Ron Paul’s suggestion.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
I don’t want the military there because, as Aaron Zelman put it, it will trap us in!
Get rid of the welfare and free medical care. Get rid of the birdfeeder and the birds will leave. That was Ron Paul’s suggestion. [/quote]
If you get rid of the birdfeeders without getting rid of the birds first there will still be a bunch of hungry birds hanging around.
They mutate into rats and start sneaking into your house at night.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
[/quote]
They do, on a military base - turn the first mile or so of the border into a continuous military base, and post armed guards. Maybe instead of “continuous base” make it one interrupted by civilian crossing points, and let INS staff those, along with doing border patrol solely around the major metropolitan border areas. There’s got to be a way to do this, and it has had been a traditional military function to guard the border/frontier.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Irish were gangstes, Italians were gangsters, they moved out of that.
Criminal activity has to do with socio-economics before culture.
You know that.[/quote]
I’m not sure if Socio-economics and culture can be separated.
Culture often determines socio-economic status.
For example: A kid who grows up in a white trash trailor park culture with no work ethic or moral values around him will almost certainly grow up to be poor and likely criminal. Have kids at a young age and repeat the cycle.
Occasionally, a rare gem will be able to bootstrap his way out.
Back to the original topic - the violent and criminal culture of these gangsters must change before they will be able to attain a legitimate socio-economic status. Drug and gang-related wealth are not legitimate.
[quote]
PRCalDude wrote:
I don’t want the military there because, as Aaron Zelman put it, it will trap us in!
Get rid of the welfare and free medical care. Get rid of the birdfeeder and the birds will leave. That was Ron Paul’s suggestion.
new2training wrote:
If you get rid of the birdfeeders without getting rid of the birds first there will still be a bunch of hungry birds hanging around.
They mutate into rats and start sneaking into your house at night.[/quote]
I don’t think you need to necessarily engage in a mass deportation (though they should surely deport any illegal convicted of any other felony). We do need to severely restrict the flow of unskilled, uneducated immigrants who don’t speak English.
Firstly, enforcement of existing laws against employers would take care of a lot of the problem, and would cause some reverse migration. Secondly, what we really need is for the newly immigrated to get a chance to assimilate into American culture - historically, this happened because immigrants came in waves. There were a bunch of immigrants from a country, then at some point the spigot was turned off or way down and they assimilated.
What we’ve been getting for the past few decades is a constant flow of immigrants, and they have been slower to assimilate - and in some areas, they aren’t assimilating but are installing their home culture and language. Thirdly, we need to give our infrastructure a chance to catch up to all of the poor immigrants who require services.
Stop giving them jobs and cut them out of the infastructure. They’ll self deport.
Aside from that I have come to the conclusion that L.A. is hopeless. Nobody is really ready to do what it takes to fix their issues.\
Wall’em off and write them off…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
[/quote]
No, it’s a bad idea…Arrest the assholes who give these wetbacks jobs and you will see the number plummet.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Paul’s suggestion.
new2training wrote:
If you get rid of the birdfeeders without getting rid of the birds first there will still be a bunch of hungry birds hanging around.
They mutate into rats and start sneaking into your house at night.
I don’t think you need to necessarily engage in a mass deportation (though they should surely deport any illegal convicted of any other felony). We do need to severely restrict the flow of unskilled, uneducated immigrants who don’t speak English.
[/quote]
You’re right, I got carried away with my metaphor. We just need to get rid of the birds who aren’t willing to feed themselves.
I’m also up for an exchange program. For every hard-working, law-abiding hispanic that wants to come in, we will give back 5 worthless POS U.S. citizens.
Meaning we need to start throwing rich whites in jail. I wholeheartedly agree. However these same people spend the money to put the politicians in office…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
[/quote]
Aren’t they basically arresting people in Iraq and Afghanistan?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
They do, on a military base - turn the first mile or so of the border into a continuous military base, and post armed guards. Maybe instead of “continuous base” make it one interrupted by civilian crossing points, and let INS staff those, along with doing border patrol solely around the major metropolitan border areas. There’s got to be a way to do this, and it has had been a traditional military function to guard the border/frontier.[/quote]
They tried that in East Germany.
[quote]new2training wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Do any of you seriously believe the military is the best solution? It doesn’t fit with their current missions at all.
They do not have the power to arrest. Having them handle the border is a very risky proposition.
I don’t want the military there because, as Aaron Zelman put it, it will trap us in!
Get rid of the welfare and free medical care. Get rid of the birdfeeder and the birds will leave. That was Ron Paul’s suggestion.
If you get rid of the birdfeeders without getting rid of the birds first there will still be a bunch of hungry birds hanging around.
They mutate into rats and start sneaking into your house at night.[/quote]
Birds fly south when food is scarce.