Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

A Strange Way To Advocate Open Borders

By Greg L | 29 May 2008 | Illegal Aliens, Manassas City | 24 Comments

Charles Reichley makes an interesting observation about the billboard on Prince William street that’s definitely worth taking note of:

The Liberty [street] property represents hope for illegal immigrants, sending the message that borders mean nothing, that people can’t be illegal, that each person has a right to live where they want without regard to laws.

But ironically, the property has posted “no trespassing” signs, and a large chain-link fence.

The owner seems to understand the concept of keeping people from entering HIS land illegally. I wonder what would happen if someone cut through the fence, set up tents, and asked the owner to pay them to mow his lawn.

My guess is he’d have them evicted. As I said, it’s an excellent symbol for the illegal immigration debate.

Good catch.  Putting up a message for open borders behind a fence with no trespassing signs is definitely one of the funniest things I think I’ve heard lately.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Anonymous said on 29 May 2008 at 6:02 am:
    Flag comment

    NO TRESPASSING, that’s rich!

  2. SLB said on 29 May 2008 at 6:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow…he gets it so right. That’s probably the best piece of writing on this topic that I’ve encountered so far…

  3. El Guapo said on 29 May 2008 at 7:07 am:
    Flag comment

    The sign doesn’t advocate open borders

  4. No1Uknow said on 29 May 2008 at 7:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Wonderful example of the hypocrisy of those advocating open immigration to the US when they’re not the ones living with the resulting mess. There’s still lots of homes in Manassas Park now uninhabitable because of flophouse renovations and poor construction.

  5. Rick Bentley said on 29 May 2008 at 7:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg has formed HSM as an entity that follows laws … but it would be fun to start a new “radical” organization more into PR and trouble-raising that would do things like go squat on that property, for publicity. Or loiter in 7-11 parking lots and solicit jobs from passerby. Or spread propoganda in Spanish (”ICE is coming! Here is a list of what to do when they come”).

    Or literally try to go into some pro-amnesty supporter’s house while they are away and claim they now have to let us live there.

  6. freedom said on 29 May 2008 at 7:58 am:
    Flag comment

    The Faisal Gill issue being an exception, Charles NORMALLY gets it right.

  7. John Light said on 29 May 2008 at 4:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ok, let’s test this out. Someone climb the fence and scream “squatters rights” if the owner stops by to “evict.” Good catch, Charles.

  8. Anchor Baby said on 29 May 2008 at 4:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    That is pretty funny [the NO TRESPASSING sign].

    I think the time for the sign has come and gone and it should be taken down. With the resolution focusing on all arested persons; it’s a good compromise and reduces the liklihood of any person being singled out for an ‘immigration/ID check’ based solely on officer disgression.

    I’m surprised I didn’t see anything posted about Farmers Branch, TX today. It’s an interesting read.

  9. The Dude said on 29 May 2008 at 6:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not much interesting in Farmers Branch to discuss I don’t think. Lawsuit was about an ordinance they were no longer using. They crafted an identical measure in a constitutional manner, similar to how PWC has crafted a bullet-proof policy.

    “Farmers Branch has given up requiring landlords to verify immigration status and instead plans to implement a rule that would require prospective tenants to get a rental license from the city, which would then ask the federal government for the applicant’s legal status before approving it.”

    And I think June 2 Stewart will bring back the officer discretion rule if I am not mistaken. He deffered it from the last meeting but claimed he had the votes to pass it and will do sue next week. Thank goodness for Stewart’s diligence on this topic…

  10. Anchor Baby said on 29 May 2008 at 7:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bringing back that part of the resolution is bad mojo. It’s just too ripe for either abuse or a lawsuit. Keeping it where it’s at makes more sense from a force protection issue (officer safety both in terms of physical and liability) and effeciency.

    Processing a person held under reasonable suspicion (which by it’s nature even an illegal can just walk away from [assuming it’s a non-vehicle issue obviously]) just ties up a law enforcement resource for the duration of the encounter and for processing the suspect assuming the person is: 1. illegal 2. waives his/her 4th/5th Amendment protections by speaking to a police officer 3. provides documentation that provides the officer with probable cause that the suspect is an illegal 4. the officer wants to put him/herself out of service for the duration of running the information and taking the person into custody.

    Me? I’d rather just have that unit on patrol.

  11. The Dude said on 29 May 2008 at 7:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    In order to scare off the 20 male illegals living in a once nice single family home, the illegals need to know that pissing outside on their patio while a neighbors 10 year old daughter is playing next door, or playing loud music at 3:00 AM on a weeknight, can potentially lead to an immigration check.

    Those are non arrestable offenses and are what are destroying neighborhoods. Bringing back the officer discretion will scare away these lawbreakers once and for all. Don’t feel sorry for them, Fairfax and Arlington want them…

  12. Anchor Baby said on 29 May 2008 at 9:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m not scared for them. I’m scared for us. Once we’re able to alienate one class of person it becomes easier for the state to alienate others and finally all of us.

    Those activities by themselves are infractions and can be enforced. Why also include a citizenship check? But, wait. Since those infractions occured outside of the view of a police officer and the officer doesn’t have probable cause to arrest (only reasonable suspicion) any person with any sense would refuse the officers questions and just go back inside the home - hopefully without the public urination or loud music.

    So, the citizenship check would be almost universally unenforceable to anyone that doesn’t want to undergo the check (or just would rather exert their rights) and would only effect those that either 1. don’t care about the state exerting intimidation powers over the citizenry (e.g. UK, China, Russia) 2. don’t know/understand basic civics.

    Also, if you are concerned about public urination I’d recommend staying away from any apartment building near a college campus. In my younger days it was very common to see many legal citizens consuming massive quantities of alcohol and watering the lawns in that special way. I will admit, it was funny at the time but now that I’m older and wiser I can see the error of there way.

  13. The Dude said on 29 May 2008 at 9:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Your arguments are laughable:

    1) “Once we’re able to alienate one class of person it becomes easier to alienate others”

    Well, I’m glad you at least used the term alien, but you forgot illegal. And what you really should have said is “Once we’re able to enforce the laws on one class of lawbreakers it will be easier to enforce the laws on other classes of lawbreakers” I agree with that one.

    2) “Those activities by themselves are infractions and can be enforced”

    No they can’t. That is what brought this issue to a head: overcrowded houses full of illegals destroying communities. Nobody able to enforce anything because all of these offenses aren’t arrestable. Just ask anybody who lived next to one of those houses and complained endlessly to no avail.

    3) “Any person with any sense”

    Well, what person with any sense rents a 3 foot space on the floor in a house full of 20 other illegals? I’m betting most don’t have all that much sense. If they do, they will move to Fairfax or Arlington where they are welcome.

    4) “The citizen check would be almost universally unenforceable”

    Just the threat of it will scare away plenty of illegals. Just like when a robber walks up to a home and sees a security system. Sure, it isn’t infallible but might as well rob the neighbors house. instead Let Fairfax and Arlington get robbed not us.

    5) “If you are concerned about public urination stay away from college campus”

    The old fallacy that if you can’t solve the entire problem (e.g., college students pissing) then don’t solve any of the problem (e.g., illegals pissing).

    To be honest, most of us are tired of these overused arguments. Will adding the police discretion back solve all our problems? No. But they will scare away more illegals to neighboring counties which is good for us.

  14. Red, White and Blue said on 30 May 2008 at 12:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Anchor and Dude:

    I agree more with you Dude. No one is coming after all of us. Discretion is just that. Most cops are going to issue a ticket, ask them to turn the music down, or do alittle talking and leave. However, if the offending parties continue on, then “discretion” becomes an option. Most cops are not going to make discretionary arrest. Anchor you are correct about wasting time and the possibility of the usually overused term of “profiling” but that is OK. The cops know this and very few if any would arrest just to make a case resulting in a lawsuit that would stick. Sueing is easy; making the case is not.

    Besides, discretion applies across the board including those in their present college days when they come home, not just illegals. No discretion there.

  15. Bryanna said on 30 May 2008 at 2:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    I really enjoy reading Charles Reichley’s column in the Potomac News and Manassas Journal Messenger.

    According to Bob Marshall’s campaign, Gilmore is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. CFR has taken a position in support of open borders.

  16. Sara said on 30 May 2008 at 4:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does anyone who reads and posts on this blog know what a parallel analogy is? Comparing a fence in surrounding a vacant lot to a national border is not analogous. Of course, knowing something like this would presume a level of literacy that is not evident by the readers of this blog, and apparently, few who have posted here has actually read the sign.

    I stopped by to read the sign yesterday, and there is not one word about an open border, but it does call for an end to bigotry, you know, such as evidenced by this site.

    But obviously, what is actually on the sign doesn’t matter, just like the facts about immigration and immigrants don’t matter to many of the readers or posters here.

  17. es_la_ley said on 30 May 2008 at 7:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sara said on 30 May 2008 at 4:42 pm:

    Of course, knowing something like this would presume a level of literacy that is not evident by the readers of this blog, and apparently, few who have posted here has actually read the sign.

    Wow! Another one flying in with guns blazing!

    You’ll probably feel more at home at the anti site.

  18. El Guapo said on 30 May 2008 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bravo Sara. You’re absolutely correct. There is not one word about an open border on the sign. There never was.

  19. Anonymous said on 30 May 2008 at 8:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    EG: And your point would be?

    The crowd this guy associates with, “mexicans without borders,” speaks volumes….and then to place a “no trespassing” sign on the fence surrounding that piece of crap…..
    Need I say more? Do you get it yet? GEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZ

  20. El Guapo said on 30 May 2008 at 8:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    The sign doesn’t advocate open borders!!!!!!!

  21. es_la_ley said on 30 May 2008 at 9:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    # El Guapo said on 30 May 2008 at 8:43 pm:

    The sign doesn’t advocate open borders!!!!!!!

    But the folks that erected the sign do. N’est-ce pas?

  22. El Guapo said on 30 May 2008 at 9:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Putting up a message for open borders behind a fence with no trespassing signs is definitely one of the funniest things I think I’ve heard lately.”


    And I can’t speak for Sr. Fernandez, but I’ve never heard him advocate open borders either.

  23. americangal4ever said on 31 May 2008 at 3:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Myth Of The Mexican Super Worker
    By Digger

    Many who support illegal aliens in this country tout their super human work ethic and productivity. From the corrupt businesses that hire them to the politicians that pander to them to the groups with ulterior motives who exploit them for racial purposes (i.e. La Raza, MALDEF).

    It’s funny though that when this myth is put to the test and a business from America moves to Mexico and hires Mexicans there, the myth goes out the window. Take for instance the case of VegPacker, a California and Guanajuato-based company that grows lettuce, celery, cauliflower and other vegetables. VegPacker invested millions of dollars in moving its business to Mexico to cut costs and avoid the issue of hiring illegal aliens in the United States.

    Since moving there VegPacker has seen productivity go down by 40% and also faces the problem of ensuring that U.S. food-safety standards are met.

    The Mexican “Super Worker”?


    As the United States heads into a recession, more native-born workers might consider agricultural work if wages were high enough, said Harley Shaiken, director of the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies.

    “Labor shortage always is a question of at what pay rate,” Shaiken said. “Very often, if the wages are artificially low, it will be very difficult to find a work force.”

    But Steve Scaroni said he did offer higher wages and still couldn’t find a steady work force in the U.S. Scaroni owns VegPacker, a California and Guanajuato-based company that grows lettuce, celery, cauliflower and other vegetables. VegPacker has struggled after forking out millions of dollars to launch its Mexico division two years ago.

    The problem is that cheaper labor in Mexico often is offset by lower productivity and high training costs, especially when it comes to enforcing U.S. food-safety standards.

    “The only thing that’s cheaper down here is diesel fuel and the labor per day,” Scaroni said. “My productivity is down 40 percent” from U.S. levels.

    Something tells me that Scaroni didn’t offer a good enough pay package to attract US workers and legal workers. I find it simply impossible to believe that he could not find workers here if he offered good pay and benefits. The mindset of most of these businesses is to wring ever profitable dollar out of their business even if that takes exploiting illegal labor and breaking the law.

    Scaroni thought he’d beat the system by just taking his business south, Scaroni bet wrong. When you have to play on a legal and equal playing field with other businesses - something many of these businesses have not done in decades through the hiring of illegal aliens - miraculously these business men aren’t as good as they think they are. And that is exactly why they donate millions every year to lobbying groups to continue to fight against enforcing our immigration laws

    Tipped by: Freedom Folks

  24. charles said on 2 Jun 2008 at 2:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Someone told me Greg had a thread about my column.

    I know this is old now, but i just wanted to note for the record that I did not use the term “open borders” in my column.

    I said that the sign sent the message “that borders mean nothing”.

    This was true of the original sign, and the current sign, which includes a reference that the current crackdown on illegal immigrants targets “Native Americans”.

    Now, I understand the argument that the “Americas” are much greater than just the United States. But what is clear is that, in order to use the term “Native American” to cover illegal immigrants, one must ignore the United State’s claim to it’s own borders.

    Hence my assertion.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2215