Posted on 08/13/2007 1:35:22 PM PDT by 3AngelaD
You have a funny way of defining "garbage." But garbage is as garbage does -- and your post seems to indicate that you know garbage first hand.
Perhaps you should try to answer it instead: do you assume she's an illegal? And if so, on what basis do you make your claim?
Who can blame them? The media tries very hard to mislead about the legal/illegal status of people. They have an agenda and they push it, facts be damned.
Could she have been made legal in Reagan’s amnesty? I can’t off the top of my head remember the date of that.
susie
So one of the criminals is an illegal alien and the other is an anchor baby?
How much do you want to bet that her green card stems from the 16-year-old anchor baby/MS-13 member?
LOL! Yeah, like the FR "assume illegality" choir doesn't match that description to a T.
Who can blame them?
I can blame them, and I do. For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the MSM failing to look at facts, some FReepers seem awfully willing to dispense with facts as well, when it suits their agenda to do so. This thread appears to be one such case: what facts we do have seem to support the fact that she's here legally. For example, she apparently successfully went through Customs when she returned from Nicaragua -- which is an indication that her papers were at least in order.
Could she have been made legal in Reagans amnesty? I cant off the top of my head remember the date of that.
Reagan signed the immigration reform bill in 1986. However, Ms. Gomez hails from Nicaragua, and at the time she left there she was automatically eligible for political asylum in the US, so I don't think the '86 amnesty had much to do with her status.
Just heard that the cretin adult son was caught.
You seem kinda angry. I recommend a nice latte with a shot of bourbon.
susie
LOL! I’m not naive — I simply prefer base my comments on facts rather than personal biases. The only facts available from this story, seem to suggest that she’s legal.
No, not angry. Really disgusted, yes. Pitying of those who suffer from FR immigration lemming complex, yes. But not angry.
Hadn’t thought of that.
Truthfully, when the media doesn’t explicitly state that an immigrant is here legally, I assume they are not. This may make some people angry, but it’s the result of a media that tries to hide the truth to push their agenda.
susie
If it bothers you, perhaps along with the latte you might avoid threads like this. Just a thought. It might do your blood pressure good.
susie
Cute, susie. But not very impressive. Do YOU have any factual basis for assuming she’s illegal?
Classic! Thanks for posting! lol
Whether she is legal or not remains to be seen. As to that funny way of defining garbage, what’s funny about it? Behavior tells what we need to know; thoughts and even words are often God’s business to interpret, but behavior is our business, and we are fit to judge on that basis.
As the article is murky on that topic I can only glean as you did. She came here in 1987, thru Mexico. This is typical for illegal aliens, so that could lead one to believe she was one at least when she came over. She brought her 4 year old son, who did not become a legal permanent resident until 2001. I’m not positive what that means, but it sounds like he was not legally here. If she was, why wasn’t he?
At any rate, I never made any definitive statement about her status, so I’m not sure why you chose me to address. Maybe because everyone else is ignoring you.
susie
First generation works incredibly hard, trying to make a better life for their families. Much of the second generation feels entitled to a good life without the hard work. We are heading for some really difficult times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.