[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Greg in LA

The Mexicans in the America were lied too and used, and a lot of them know it. They are lied too and used by the Republicans too. All I can say to them is welcome to America!

Illegals are the most used group people in the US:

They are pandered to as future voters by the Democrat party, who are looking for a political majority for an agenda they can't achieve with mainstream America.

Despite all the noise, The Republican party hasn't moved to compel deportation because they desire a non voting slave class - which has bitten them hard on the ass in Catch -22 fashion (children of illegals who are natural born American citizens and old enough to vote).

American brown supremacists want their children for demographic change and to be "educated" in co-opted schools dispensing brown racist propaganda.

Churches, foremost the Catholic Church, seek to fill the collection plate in the midst of declining membership and acquire sufficient bodies to meddle in political affairs.

They are used by business to beat down wages and legally mandated working conditions.

Foreign governments, most notably the Mexican government, seek national income through remittances rather than trade and use emigration as a social safety valve as well as to distract public attention from real governmental reform.

As for Naverette. He is a White guy, trying to make money as a brown race hustler.

Navarette isn't a white poser. He does make money on his commentary, which - whether I agree with him or not - I believe he is sincere about.

He throws barbs at the hard core "Chicano" bunch from time to time for their nuttiness and hypocrisy, and they assail him in turn as not being "brown enough" in his published views - I don't believe there is a lot of "like" between them. He recently did a piece which was mostly about "I'm more authentic than you" Latinos (posing), something he said he had participated in during his college years http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/feb/...other/?print=1.

Behind the rhetoric he does come up with some valid, truthful points, which get lost in the rant. I think he is far more concerned with the notion of white discrimination and white hypocrisy rather than an amnesty for illegals, but that again gets lost in the rant. I also think he does try to be fair in his criticisms, but his own bias as well as reader bias (interpretation of commentary from all sides of the issues) often defeats the effort.

I'm ambivalent about Navarette. His rants will piss me off, then he comes up with something I can like him for, in turn the rant begins anew.