Here it is folks, the most recent Washington Post article that a couple of posters have been clamoring about!

What struck me about this article was that it sounds like a small group of citizens actively dealt with neighborhood issues.  What I am wondering is this….was it the resolution or their dedicated committment to their neighborhood that fixed the most egregious problems?  Is it a success that now many hispanics have left, were they “illegal” or simply too scared to stay in PWC?  Could these neighborhood issues have been dealt with through better means than HSM?  Could we have formed a community/government task force to promote positive solutions instead of the immigration resolution which has proved to be so divisive?  It sounds like there was an opportunity that was missed, and instead we have the serious repercussions of double the foreclosure rate of surrounding counties and businesses, once thriving,  now struggling under the threat of bankruptcy.


  1. Juturna

    This is not politics….. this is need.

  2. Juturna

    Sorry, broke my own rule of medicalizing bad behaviour….

  3. Ruby

    On a roll today, are ya? 😉

  4. undecided

    Censored bybvbl – Im just one person, and I have made one post to BVBL (funny how you all copied your name, look and feel, but only refer to his site as THE OTHER) – calling him out as well on the amount of true old school racists on the blog. Im not coming here to “have some fun”.
    Just here as I have watched this blog for some time, and feel that those in favor of the resolution are being stereotyped as Nativists. After reading many posts which illustrate this. I felt it necessary to speak out.

  5. undecided

    (funny how you all copied HIS name, look and feel, but only refer to his site as THE OTHER)

  6. undecided

    Maybe, there aren’t as many at the OTHER sand box, and they had to some fun. Yeah, right. Some folks just simply need to grow up and get a life.”

    Perhaps the overall voice of this group should practice what it preaches in the forms of tolerance. Not all people who support the resolution are racists. This group has a serious sterotyping problem, and you all need to be aware of that.
    //not from the other sandbox

  7. Juturna

    Girls just wanna have fun. Some people are just sooooo easy …

  8. Ruby

    I’ve seen my fair share of stereotyping on both sides. Frankly, I’m sick of it all. We all must realize we are facing with serious issues, and we need to take focus on that, and not what others are or are not doing. I am not an active paricipant in this group. Just an acitive citizen. Trust me I have way more tolerance than you could begin to imagine.

  9. undecided

    Wow you ladies are a riot. Bored housewives club cancel their meeting today?

  10. undecided

    Ruby – thank you. seriously. While I do stand for the resolution, I do think that we so desperitly need to allow more people citizenship. Our county is not prepared (with our budget shortfalls) to be dealing with all of this. I guess the question is: How important is it to everyone? To me, it is about my kids education, so yes. I honestly do not mind them here. I will research Elena’s comment about illegal immigration and its effect on education. If I find her comments to be correct – I would be willing to concede my entire effort. Because in the end, I can always shake off the name calling.

  11. Juturna

    Ruby – LOL LOL

  12. Ruby

    Just call me Ruby Stepford from now on. Would ya? 😉

  13. undecided

    I should know better then to mess with women who team up!
    😛 Truce?

  14. Michael

    Firedancer, I did not say or assume “latinos” as you call the (I call them people) are 911 terrorists, but there are definately subversive elements from those nations (south of the border) in out country actively advocating to subvert it and take it over. That is cultural subversion at its very core. If you do not see that you do n ot see the news in those regions, and are again blind to reality.

    Cultural subversives exists in almost every ethnic group entering our country “illegally”. That fact is justification enough to find and deport them. Yes the rest are just families (of all nations, not just latinos as you call them (i call them people) but they are “illegal” people whever any individual regardless of race or ethnic group has broken immigration law, design by and for the people to regulate unreasonable growth. This is something your ethnically focused arguments cannot hold water against, it is a law for a reason.

  15. Michael

    You are absolutely right Firedancer, “latinos” as you call them (I call them people) are not the enemy, nor are Arabs (I call them people too). The enemy is the culturally subversive groups of many different nations, who are trying to undermine national security and border sovereignity.

    The enemy is also any person or “individual” who has come to this country illegally and has bypassed our law. That law was made for a purpose, to control unreasonable growth. The “enemy” is any “individual” who subverts that law and contributes unlawfully to that unreasonable growth. Again your arguments do not hold water against the law and its purpose.

  16. Michael

    Mackie, you don’t understand what I said. I expect “latinos” as you call them (I call them people) to behave the way everyone else does, stop racist behavior, stop ethnic group aligned behavior and stop breaking the law. I expect the same from the anti-immigrant (actually factually called anti-illegal alien) activists attempting to endure our laws are enforced equally and without predjudice on any “individual” who has broken that law. That law applies to every ethnic group in your terms, every “individual” in my terms.

    Mackie, what you don’t understand is that I refuse to let anyone see me as anyone other than a “legal American” I am extremely offended when someone puts a label on me and “latinos” as you call them (I call them people) should be extremely offended when someone puts a label of “latino” on them. The problem they are doing is putting a label on themselves however and self-segragating into another advocating elitist, separatist racial and ethnic group. This is “illegal” also according to the Supreme courts definition of the law and how law is to be applied. Only on individuals.

    The rule of law resolution is targeting only “individuals” and that is where your argument falls flat that they should be justified to act in the way they are acting. Thier acts are illegal. Holding them accountable to the law as “individuals” is not.

  17. Valley Girl

    Michael – you are a bit over the top son. I think I understand where you are coming from with some of your points, however poorly articulated they may be, but for every two steps forward you take ten steps back with your interpretation of our current and historical immigration law. I am also losing you with your “cultural subversion” thing. I encourage you to take some time to study the evolution of US immigration law, from the time that immigration was first regulated, and to then ask yourself what it has been based on as it has evolved, and then to defend it’s merits as rigorously as you are right now. I am a “rule of law” person, however, I love this country because we can fix broken laws and broken systems.
    Although I may lose popularity points with this, I have always been a conservative in part because I am a firm believer in pulling one up by one’s bootstraps, given equal opportunities, and I feel that many liberals diminish the impetus to do with a condescending “father or mother knows best” attitude. I think that there is almost no group that best reflects the American Dream of success against all odds and through hard work than undocumented/illegal immigrants. Who is the United States? Is it our government? Is it “We the People”, is it our businesses, our economy? We have given a very mixed message over the past twenty years. There has been opportunity and then some for illegal immigrants. Our very governemnt has thrown the law to the wind by intentionally negleting enforcement for so long. Are we not all conpirators in your definition of “cultural subversion”. Don’t confuse a very far left elitist led (mislead) organization confused with the milliions of hard working and yes, illegal immigrants.

  18. elvis

    what? the illegals just want to work? check this out!

    I guess they dont shy away from some work do they? check out the 17-year old pimp too, nice….

  19. A PW County Resident

    Valley Girl, I have seen this statement before about the origins of immigration law. I have taken the time to study as much as I can as well.

    Although I grant you that immigration law may have been made out of fear and prejudice, and there have been many times that it has been amended to keep out specific nationalities of people like people from Asia, I am not sure I can agree that current immigration law was cut from the same cloth. The most major change occured in 1996, was passed by both House and Senate, and included in the omnibus appropriation act signed by President Clinton.

    So when people say, like I do, that the law is intended to limit entry to a specific number to permit orderly assimilation into society, they are talking about current law. I cannot buy the argument that because control of national sovereignty was based racially in its origins, it is forever tainted with that brush. If I did buy the argument, then I would have to buy that the House, Senate and President were racially motivated in 1996 or else they would have repealed all immigration laws. As a side note, the title of the law in question contains the term “illegal immigrant”.

    Valley Girl, I hope you know that I am in no way attacking what you said, I am merely pointing out that I think there is a differing point of view about the meaning of the regulation of immigration.

  20. A PW County Resident

    Of course, I would like to amend my post and say that the title of the 1996 law contains the term “illegal immigration” not immigrant. Immigrant appears later in the title.

  21. Valley Girl

    No – that is not what I am arguing. At times immigration law has been racially motivated, certainly. My arguament is that not that current immigration law is racist or discriminatory, though its based on other legitimate limitations. My argument is that how those limitations are decided upon is not always in the best interest of the nation and our economy. I say that the decision of how many people are granted legal entry in any given year is more often than not based on political whims, bargins, etc. or a misguided fear of immigration by some segments of the population. It is not decided by a team of multidisclipanry experts and it is not revisited enough.
    Again, the rate of immigartion today, even allowing for illegal immigration, is less than it was pre-Depression. In addition, immigrants in general are assimilating at the same rate as immigrants throughout history, with the same generational patterns. The main difference is where they are arriving and settleing, which makes their recentness and all that comes with it much more visble and unsetteling to some.

  22. A PW County Resident

    I don’t argue with you. I guess when I saw your post it reminded me of others that questioned people’s opinions that the law is intended to provide for orderly assimilation. I am not expert to know how much is too much or too little. So are the number right now or predepression? I hope minds better than mine can come up with the answer.

    The other side of the argument is that (and I am not sure I would agree totally with this) is that the pre-depression times and assimilation were not exactly orderly. I say that with some trepidation as at least one branch of my family arrived around 1900. The other branches have been here since the 1600’s. I am sure I would not be here except for the number of immigrants allowed in 1900 that permitted my grandparents on that side to arrive. 🙂

  23. Michael

    Valley girl you bring up very good points. I agree that PW has identifyied the more relevant point in your convictions that our concern is about recent immigration law being the baseline we are all talking about. And there is truth in that the law in not uniformaally applied or to our recent detriment not applied where it should be. The law as written was written for a legal and just purpose and should be enforced until we change it. How to change it and what to allow as reasonable growth is a different debate.

    So I can assume we both agree there is a need for immigration law and there is a need for control of unreasonable numbers and a certain need to enforce the law once made and enacted into law, otherwise we are a lawless nation. I also understand and agree there is a need to have a means to adjust the business baseline to match the business need. However uncontrolled entry into this country denies our nation the right to select the group(s) most needed for this business base. What we end of getting “illegally” is the lower tier that significantly harms our business base, economic growth, prosperity and stability of neighborhoods and economic growth. Where I do not agree with you or others on this particular blog, is that we need to allow the current group of lawbreakers to continue breaking the law, or to allow them to simply stay after they have broken the law. for all the reasons I mentioned previously, however convoluted you claim it to be. (It is not convoluted to me) These cause and effect relationships do exist, not as absolutes or extremes but as real problems that have varying degrees of negative impact and national security risk on the nation. Your and your peers recommendations to allow the current “illegals” to just stay removes the very tools we need to locate and identify the people who truly intend to harm the nation and to culturally subvert it (definition given previously). It also removes the tools we need to be able to choose those individuals most needed. Those here “illegally” are not contributing much, are destroying lots and consuming lots. That impact (no choice but to deal with it) is not in any of our best intrests.

    This is a simple argument of enforcing our law, and not enforcing our law. I am for enforcing it, and then arguing later about how to change the definition of “unreasonable” to “reasonable” to suit the impact of that change on the entire nation, nit just some special interest groups and “group rights” activists. It is in that desire for social engineering concepts and how they are applied that I am in most disagreement with here. I think the current social engineering “path” advocated by many here will cause deep destruction of our country’s economic, cultural, ethnic blending capability, stability and social viability, even its very existence as a nation in the next 50-100 years, based on what I have learned about nation decay in history studies.

  24. Blowjob….


Comments are closed.