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

The Price Of Accomodating Illegal Aliens

By Greg L | 24 October 2008 | National Politics, Illegal Aliens | 36 Comments

How well does bending over backwards to accommodate an illegal alien population that demands special privileges? Ask the French.



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.

36 Comments

  1. ben said on 24 Oct 2008 at 5:45 am:
    Flag comment

    keep up the good work. excellent video.

  2. anon said on 24 Oct 2008 at 5:57 am:
    Flag comment

    One word: Culmore

  3. Johnson said on 24 Oct 2008 at 8:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Hope it doesn’t come to that. There will be quite a few casualties among the illegal alien/street gang population. Americans will take only so much.

  4. June_reston said on 24 Oct 2008 at 8:33 am:
    Flag comment

    France and most European countries have little if any regard for illegal aliens. Some do not even provide emergency health care (Note: giving birth in France is not considered an Emergency Health Issue).

    Most European countries also had the foresight to amend their birthright citizenhsip laws, recognizing this would be a major draw for illegal alien free loaders and disrupt their social services programs.

    Even Canada is resvisitng its birthright citizenship laws as more and more US illegal aliens are migrating further north and “encourages” illegal aliens to take their Canadian children with them when deported.

  5. Mando said on 24 Oct 2008 at 8:41 am:
    Flag comment

    With an Obama presidency I fear we will overshadow both France and Canada as a more socialist country/society.

  6. Emma said on 24 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am:
    Flag comment

    You bet, Mando. They’re going to make up for lost time so quickly that your head will spin. What was Clinton’s NUMBER ONE priority after inauguration? Don’t ask, don’t tell. Just wait for the wave of social engineering initiatives that will come too quickly to even remember come 2012 elections.

  7. June_reston said on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:59 am:
    Flag comment

    Obama most likely will be the next president. McCain is on a downward slide and without a minor miracle his numbers aren’t going to turn around in time to give him a win.

    All the more reason why we need to focus on a Republican Congress. As long as there a counter in the Legislative Branch, we can at least minimize the lean to the left.

  8. Johnson said on 24 Oct 2008 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931

    Where there’s smoke, folks…

  9. Love The USA said on 24 Oct 2008 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, will the lawsiut be settled before the election? If not and Obama is elected, what happens?

  10. Johnson said on 24 Oct 2008 at 3:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s my concern as well. If he’s found to be ineligible, how can he legally serve? Biden’s next up?

  11. alleycat said on 24 Oct 2008 at 3:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Obama says he’s going to visit his sick grandma in Hawaii. Could it be that he’s going to “fix” his birth certificate? One must wonder, especially since he is going it alone and not taking his family with him to bid farewell to Granny.

  12. Arlington Minority said on 24 Oct 2008 at 5:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Back on point, the Post reports today that (finally) the Feds are getting serious about the employers of illegals. The article also gives a solid reason to estimate the known illegal work force at 8.7 million, based solely on bogus social security numbers filed by the employers. One might conservatively assume that the off-the-books illegal workforce equals that number.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102303365_pf.html

  13. Emma said on 24 Oct 2008 at 6:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Alleycat, what about Obama’s “carbon footprint” from using his private jet to go to Hawaii? The rest of us have to rely on 13-hour economy class flights, with some scantility discounted “bereavement fare.” Talk about hypocrisy while the media jump all over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe “scandal.”

  14. Tillie said on 24 Oct 2008 at 6:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma,

    The private jet probably uses a lot less fuel than a huge commercial aircraft, don’t you think? If I had access to a private jet for long-distance travel, I sure would use it. Wouldn’t you?

  15. alleycat said on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Emma - AMEN, sister!

  16. AWCheney said on 24 Oct 2008 at 8:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tillie said on 24 Oct 2008 at 6:50 pm:

    Less fuel PER PERSON, Tillie? I doubt it. That said, it is expected that certain perks go along with running as a candidate for national office…it’s the way of things.

  17. ben said on 24 Oct 2008 at 9:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    unemployment is at 6.1% and we’re still okay with illegals being here? arlington minority i tend to agree with you that half as many illegals are getting paid under the table and not paying any taxes.

  18. Bridget said on 24 Oct 2008 at 9:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008

    Far more fascinating than the Palin wardrobe budget - the millions in illegal international campaign contributions to Obama - not to mention the huge voter fraud surrounding his campaign -

    Some dim bulb in my office has amused himself all week by running around yelling “Caribou Barbi”.

  19. concrete4 said on 24 Oct 2008 at 10:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    concrete4 said on 24 Oct 2008 at 9:52 pm: Flag comment
    Check out this video - Howard Stern sends a guy into Harlem to interview people about the election. Damn scary. And this election isn’t about race?

    http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=194983&comments=1

  20. DPortM said on 25 Oct 2008 at 6:47 am:
    Flag comment

    California Appeals Court Rules Against San Francisco Sanctuary Policy!

    “Judicial Watch’s nationwide campaign to abolish illegal alien sanctuary policies got a huge boost this week thanks to a California appellate court.

    On October 22, the First District Court of Appeal for the State of California ruled in our taxpayer lawsuit that the San Francisco Police Department must comply with a state law requiring police officers to notify federal authorities when they arrest a person for various narcotics offenses whom they suspect to be an alien, legal or illegal [Fonseca v. Fong, Case No. A120206].

    With its ruling, the appellate court shot down a lower court ruling that the law in question, Section 11369 of the California Health and Safety Code, was an impermissible invasion of the federal government’s “absolute authority” to regulate immigration. Rejecting this argument, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to make sure the SFPD’s policies comply with Section 11369.

    Here’s an excerpt from the ruling, which can be read in full by clicking here http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/fonseca-v-fong-appeal-decision.pdf:

    “…Section 11369 does not require any state or local law enforcement agency to independently determine whether an arrestee is a citizen of the United States, let alone whether he or she is present in the United States lawfully or unlawfully. Nor does the statute create or authorize the creation of independent criteria by which to classify individuals based on immigration status… All of those determinations, as well as the duty to tell an arrestee who may be in this country unlawfully to either obtain legal status or leave, are left entirely to federal immigration authorities…the statute is therefore not an impermissible state regulation of immigration.”

  21. legal2 said on 25 Oct 2008 at 8:13 am:
    Flag comment

    remember, the polls were down for Reagan in both elections and he won - get your *friends* to the polls on Nov 4th!

  22. Emma said on 25 Oct 2008 at 10:05 am:
    Flag comment

    I can’t get over this. Check out today’s WashPost Style section’s fawning article on Michelle Obama. This little excerpt says it all:

    “Speaking without notes, she traded her favored fireside voice for a more fiery one, calling out to people to vote early, if not often.”

    So the Washington Post is actually endorsing massive voter fraud to get Obama elected. This is probably the most refreshingly honest statement that paper has ever made.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102403721.html

  23. Anon said on 26 Oct 2008 at 10:32 am:
    Flag comment

    One problem with the video that leads this thread is that the riots in France were not by illegal aliens. Most of those rioting were French-born youth whose parents or grandparents were immigrants from France’s former colonies. The bulk of that former immigration was intended as guest workers.

    So what you have here are riots conducted, in the majority, by French citizens. The debate is over their assimilation or acceptance in French society, but they generally weren’t illegal aliens as the video and Greg implies.

  24. Bridget said on 26 Oct 2008 at 2:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon said on 26 Oct 2008 at 10:32 am:

    Lesson #1 … handing out citizenship does not guarantee assimilation. Similar riots occured in Denmark, ….

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover110405.htm

    http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/07/norwegian-government-covering-up.html

    These “French youth” have been acting up since the 1980’s.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html

  25. Johnson said on 26 Oct 2008 at 6:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, Anon, the problem is that they are Muslim thugs, with a carefully orchestrated agenda.

  26. Anon said on 26 Oct 2008 at 6:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s fine Johnson, but then why does the thread say the video shows the consequences of accommodating an illegal alien population? The rioters were not generally illegal aliens, they were French-born citizens.

  27. alleycat said on 26 Oct 2008 at 6:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gee, maybe because they’re (Muslim thugs) sneaking through our southern border, in which case, they’d be illegal aliens. We accomodate illegals all over this country. Look at the economy, the forclosures, most of which were occupied by illegals (in PWC, anyway).

  28. Anon said on 26 Oct 2008 at 7:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    alleycat, the thread was a about a video of riots in France. The video says it will show what happened when France submitted to the demands of illegal aliens. Except illegal aliens were not rioting. Therefore both the video and the thread description are incorrect.

    There is no indication that a majority of foreclosures in the United States are of homes purchased by illegal aliens. If you think that is true in PWC, present evidence. Proof means more than Spanish surnames on foreclosure announcements since clearly having a Spanish surname does not make someone an illegal immigrant.

  29. Bridget said on 26 Oct 2008 at 7:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon - illegal aliens did indeed riot in France - along with visa holding resident aliens -as well as citizens not of French origin. Many from the first two groups were deported … and the rest should have had their citizenship revoked.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4422422.stm

  30. Anon said on 26 Oct 2008 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bridget, Most of those who rioted were youths born in France with backgrounds from France’s former colonies. In fact, in France, the whole issue is how to deal with these youth who are in a legal sense French, as in citizens, but who have not assimilated to the society or been accepted by it.

    While certainly there were illegal aliens who participated, there is no indication that they were anything but a small fraction of the rioters. The article you flag even indicates that given the tiny number mentioned who were being deported. These riots involved thousands of people.

  31. Greg L said on 26 Oct 2008 at 9:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    More relevant to this discussion is that radicals affiliated with the EZLN’s “other campaign” played a part in these riots. Regardless of what the internal dynamics in France might be, this is a pretty clear demonstration that this “other campaign” is not the warm and fuzzy thing the illegal alien apologists make it out to be. Who in their right mind would be so proud of the destruction in the Paris suburbs that they’d issue statements in support of this destruction and happily feature photos of that destruction on their website? No one who wants to be responsible, at least.

    The adherents of this “other campaign” are in numerous other countries, including the United States. Based on their past behavior, these organizations post a national security threat and bear close watching lest the “other campaign” start engaging in acts of violence in the United States.

  32. Bridget said on 26 Oct 2008 at 10:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, anon, it is not the “whole” issue.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/3241685/Illegal-migrant-to-be-charged-with-student-rape.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3246036/Riot-police-clear-Calais-migrant-camps.html

    The French neither assimilated to the societies of Algeria, Morocco, West Africa or it’s other colonies - nor were they accepted - they were booted out.

    And there were no protest cries of Diversity being a strength or Multiculturalism being a blessing …

    http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-debate/350816-unreported-race-riot-france.html

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47236

  33. Johnson said on 27 Oct 2008 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    I sincerely hope that anyone considering similar acts of violence in the U.S. give it some thought. Anyone that I see propegating such acts will be met with overwhelming force. That sort of indisciminate violence and hatred is inexcusable. We cannot allow it here.

  34. Anon said on 27 Oct 2008 at 11:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bridget, yes, the French were kicked out of their former colonies. In Algeria, they lost a very bloody war. Europeans being kicked out of colonies wasn’t exactly unusual after WWII. However the French in need of labor invited guest workers from the North African colonies in the postwar era. Most of the North African presence in France is there as a result of that decision and is a legacy of the colonial connections.

  35. Bridget said on 29 Oct 2008 at 7:17 am:
    Flag comment

    You omit some crucial details.

    North Africans are in France due to:

    A situation created as a matter of industrial policy by the state.

    Deliberate political decisions made by ethnic French political leaders AND the efforts of political bodies from the former French colonies to lobby France to allow their citizens access to work in France.

    A failure of the French political classes to consider the long-term social ramifications.

    When the low-skilled industry jobs dried up, the “guest workers” and, by the by, the term guest worker is not used in France, resisted repatriation programs, prefering to stay on the dole in France than return home.

  36. bonscott1976 said on 2 Nov 2008 at 1:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    after nov. 4th i’m telling you all it’s going to amount to nothing less than a “civil war”. one person here says they hope it doesn’t come to that and i too as well. but i have my little 9mm ready just in case.

    i think it is a fine thing that a person of color has the oppurtunity to run for president and have a chance to win (which *gulps* he probably will) the office.

    it’s also a fine thing for people to be stupid, and that’s exactly what they are voting for obama. no one seems able to see through the “smoke and mirrors” around him. it’s almost like he’s the political anti-christ or the pied piper of hamlin leading us (them) down a road to socialism and economic ruin. with his choice words and slick demeanor. thank god i and most if not all the people here can see through his sorcery.

    if we all pray to whatever gods and goddesses we hold dear, this s.o.b. won’t win….

Comments are closed.


Views: 2044