http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=50117

Truculent criminals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Mychal Massie



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The much ballyhooed "day without Mexicans" protests are over. But what was learned by those who took part in them, and by those of us who observed?

The illegals learned that they can arrogantly flaunt and openly break the sovereign laws of our country with impunity – a feat that all legal American citizens who are incarcerated, or on parole or on probation should demand, regardless of their crimes (sarcasm intended).


What Americans learned was that the illegals are not interested in becoming Americans, assimilating into our culture, and abiding by our social constructs. They are interested in anarchy. They have no respect for our laws; ergo, they have no respect for our country; ergo, for those reasons alone they should be denied entry. Unlike legal immigrants who came and still come here, these people are not here to become Americans, they are here to take. Otherwise, they would enter legally.

Their primal cry that "we're not criminals" is ludicrous. A criminal is defined as: "one who has committed a crime." I may not have a doctorate in law, but I got out of first grade. There are codified rules and regulations – i.e., laws – that specifically define legal entry into this country. Illegals willfully, with premeditated intent, knowingly violate these laws. Hence, they are breaking the law and that makes them criminals. There is no gray area.

We learned that they are anarchists. An anarchist is defined as: one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power – one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy. Their demonstrations showed – since they are arrogantly willing to disrupt America's daily routine – the last thing they should be is rewarded with amnesty, which comes with the right to vote.

We risk dismissing them at our own peril. It may have been 1996 when the then Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who is now chair of the L.A. County Supervisors, said: "... we are politicizing every [Latino] of this country ... a lot of [Latinos] are saying, I'm going to go out and vote because I want to pay them back" (Southwestern Voter Registration Project, June 1996).

It may have been 1996 when then Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alatorre said: "Because our numbers are growing ... they're afraid we're going to take over the government institutions and other institutions. They are right – we will take them over ..." (Latino Summit Conference in Los Angeles, September 1996). But is there one reasonable-minded American who thinks they and their kind have changed their positions?

Another thing we learned is that their so-called leaders are dissociative, anti-American sociopaths. Javier Rodriguez is emphatic in his belief that there "should be generous legislation giving all [illegal] Mexican-Latinos the same rights as American citizens, plus have future guest-worker programs."

He and former Democrat Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, from Colorado, argue that Mexican illegals have the right to repopulate the western United States, because "we stole it from the Mexicans." The problem with their sepsis-filled pabulum is it's inexcusably false.

As I shared with my radio audience, a portion of the territory they reference was included in the Louisiana Purchase – a territory purchased by the United States in 1803 from France for $15 million. The other portion of the land referenced was obtained through the Mexican Cession under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, as a condition for ending the Mexican-American War in 1848 – for which the United States also paid $15 million. The rest was later annexed in the Gadsdan Purchase. But why should people, who view dishonesty as a birthright, allow historical fact to interfere with their lies?

We should be aware that politicians, on both sides of the isle, are pandering to these criminals and their communist benefactors. They are searching for a way to deceive us into believing a blanket amnesty is not a blanket amnesty, because they have labeled it something else. We should know that no nation has survived the conflicting loyalties of competing languages and cultures. It is a recipe for disaster.

We should be aware that illegals aren't doing the work Americans won't do. Quite the opposite – they are taking jobs many Americans would gladly do. An illegal appearing on MSNBC boasted of having security clearance to work on nuclear ships in California. I worked on a garbage route and did roofing while in college. Many of my friends did restaurant work. The gentlemen who attend to my property maintenance also have fulltime professional careers in municipal government. Yet these are the jobs we hear Americans won't do.

There are machines that can replace workers in the produce and fruit industries. Using them will increase wages, increase efficiency, while increasing overall savings. But with a ready supply of illegals, there is no incentive for farmers to make the initial investment. (See: "Many Fewer Stop for Pickers – A Leap for Harvestkind?" Emerging Change in Strawberry Harvest Technology; Howard R. Rosenberg).

This isn't about race, color, ethnicity or civil rights. It is about rule of law and what will happen if we allow malefic outsiders to disregard same. It is not anti-immigration or anti-immigrant to demand people immigrate here legally and adopt our culture – it is a practice that has worked well from the beginning.

Finally, Mexican attorney Domingo Garcia should understand, in no uncertain terms, that calling illegal Hispanics illegal immigrants or illegal aliens is not a "racial slur." The person making such a reference is not a "racist" and they are not "calling them derogatory names." It certainly isn't the same as "calling people a ******," as he recently claimed on KLIF Radio's Gregg Knapp show, unless of course, he was referring to Webster's definition of same which is: all people who are left out of the political process, in which case he would be correct. To which I would then add, "not only should they be left out of the political process, they should be left out of the country as well."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mychal Massie is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He is host of the widely popular talk show "Straight Talk." He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. He is a former self-employed business owner of over 30 years and a member of the conservative public policy institute National Center for Public Policy Research-Project 21.