77 Comments

• rexnine | Jan 22, 2011, 02:44 AM EST

  I just don't like it when they fly their flag here. And as a carpenter, I resent that I couldn't get a job as a lead man in Arizona for the last 35 years because I don't speak spanish. The republicans here were in the pockets of the developers; there's been no attempt at any real border control. I really like most Mexicans I have ever met, most of them are good Catholic Families. BUt, It's not Mexico anymore. And Mexico is the real problem shuttling all the middle and south Americans Straight to the US BORDER! If It was up to the Democratic party this problem would have been solved years ago!

• seanomelbourne | Jan 15, 2011, 09:09 PM EST

  Doh! homer

• seanomelbourne | Jan 13, 2011, 07:40 PM EST

  The Russian mafia are scarier than a few Mexican peasants.Excuse the use of "peasant" it is not meant to be derogatory.

• maloney | Jan 12, 2011, 08:50 PM EST

  A proud member of the queen berets, seano turned on by pranching men. The best treatment in the world is the smell of gunpowder along with a 16 point buck. America for better or worse no longer belongs to Mexico. Close the borders & return the illegals to whince they came. Anchor babies, as used by illegals, is against the Constitution plain & simple.

• Fastest | Jan 12, 2011, 07:28 PM EST

  re: Immigration. I suspect that many U.S.citizen's are like me in that we welcome all ethnicity's. My mother emigrated from the USSR and learned to speak English in public, obey the law, pay taxes and raise a family. Unfortunately, some of our neighbors to the south bring 'death and destruction' all too often. Of course we had gangs before the current immigration explosion but they did not have the arsenal or the disrespect for life currently displayed by 'ethnics' i.e. West Side Story, Gangs of New York etc. It may sound funny, but when I went to prison in 1972, it was 'fairly' safe; you could actually leave as a better person than the one who entered. I have done years of volunteer work since leaving prison; currently, inmates are lucky to leave with two arms, two legs, etc... Clearly, you shouldn't blame a whole group based on the negative actions of a few, but these few are so dangerous that an entire race suffers. I don't know if there is a solution, but flooding over our borders most certainly isn't it.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 12, 2011, 06:00 PM EST

  Now Mman!! butterfly nets! I'd like to see that Mman,you prancing through Yosemite catching butterflies. Next you'll be telling me your a member of PETA. You forgot about the polo sticks on the rifle rack LOL.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 12, 2011, 05:56 PM EST

  I am trained in the use of firearms I'm just not paranoid,I don't feel the need to carry one around. You're the frightened one Maloney looking over your paranoid shoulder at images that are in your head get some treatment.

• maloney | Jan 12, 2011, 12:12 PM EST

  Monsoon..it's hard to teach gun control to someone who is soiling his pants at the sight of a gun.

• Monsoonman | Jan 11, 2011, 06:12 PM EST

  Lad, you came to the right person to get the unvarnished truth(not yet shellacked). You are correct, Mr. loughner was a registered independent voter,he did however vote for obama. Sorry Lad but haven't noticed very many Tea Party participants brandishing firearms at any of the rallys I have attended and I have been to a few. Care to tell me exactly where this was? As to your comment on why people openly carry firearms? That's an easy one, it is illegal to carry concealed weapons unless you have a permit, so you just saw the visible ones. It could be where you have seen people carrying firearms was at more rural settings where it is customary to carry a firearm. I remember when I lived in more bucolic U.S. locations, I had gun racks mounted in my pick up truck, sometimes with firearms in them, other times with tennis rackets, fishing poles, or butterfly nets, it was a normal thing to do. I will say one thing though Lad, if someone had been armed in that crowd when louchner opened up, he wouldn't have been able to get 30 rounds off. You need to come here to the US for some golf and weapons training. I'll teach you gun control western style: A steady aim.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 11, 2011, 05:38 PM EST

  Mman Loughner was a registered independent.Tell me Mman why do tea party and other r/wingers need to openly display their guns at political rallies.Is it a form of intimidation?

• donaldcox43 | Jan 11, 2011, 02:06 AM EST

  Wow imagine hearing this kind of rederict from an irishman, the irish were the most protectionist of peoples...were? Were they not the men who stood up for their families and fought for their jobs during the 19th century by killing 2000 chinese laborers who were sent by the railroad to cut their wages, take their jobs and put their families into starvation. I realize that today it is a different world and losing your job will not cause your family to starve, we can get foodstamps and live under the expressway while someone buys our homes in forclosure. When push comes to shove I am very proud of my great-grandfather... he was a railroad worker. We must fight now the same fight he did, just in an acceptable way for the times. We ignored these illegals untill it has began to hurt financially far too many people. When things get bad you have to look out for your own, when you cant afford to pay all your bills you get rid of some.....

• maloney | Jan 09, 2011, 06:45 PM EST

  And who's land are you squating on seano?

• Monsoonman | Jan 09, 2011, 06:23 PM EST

  Sorry Lad, he was a crazy left wing nut who shot a left wing politician. He was NOT a member of the Tea Party, nor was he a republican, or a conservative as the progressive secularists on this editorial staff wanted to infer.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 09, 2011, 05:21 PM EST

  The shooter was a crazy nut who shot a left wing politician. Getting in first Mman?

• Bairbre | Jan 09, 2011, 04:17 PM EST

  How is it that Mexico "OWNED" Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc., when in reality it was the natural territory of the various Native American tribes. A more valid statement is that they "CLAIMED OWNERSHIP" of the territories through butchering and enslaving the population jsut like they wiped out the Aztecs, etc. Destroyed their culture, etc. Yeah, that is to put them on a pedestal over those ugly Americans! There is no record that Mexico, Spain, etc., ever paid the Native Americans for any of the property. They just set foot on a small area and planted a flag, then made claims on thousands of square miles of Indian Territory. Yes, my family is descended from the Tribes. Roberts, please get your facts together and try not to get anyone shot!

• Monsoonman | Jan 09, 2011, 02:26 PM EST

  Enough of the inflammatory hate speech from you Roberts. You are using your bully pulpit/soap box to ignite your fringe into acts of violence. You should be held responsible for what happened in AZ., after all the shooter was a left wing nutcase.

• GeorgeDillon | Jan 08, 2011, 01:08 PM EST

  "For centuries Mexico owned California, most of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and parts of other border states." More nonsense, Roberts. Mexico only "owned" these territories for a few decades, following Mexican independence in, I think, 1821.

• irishwxman | Jan 07, 2011, 12:32 PM EST

  and you base this on what exactly Patrick? Another nonsense liberal rag editorial piece by the liberal rag I.C. by the liberal rag in chief Patrick Roberts. Next time get some facts. How this has anything to do with Ireland or Irish people is beyond me. Idiot.

• joanmoody | Jan 07, 2011, 11:09 AM EST

  I am an Irish American who lives in South Texas and most of my close friends are of Mexican descent and some of them have Irish blood after all the Irish went to Spain and then to Mexico. Part of the problem in Mexico stems from governmental corruption and lack of jobs. Some things do not change there and now the drug cartels are adding to the misery. They look (as do the Irish) on the U.S. as a place where they can get jobs and raise their families despite the risks. After all we are a nation of immigrants!

• Barbaracvm | Jan 07, 2011, 10:54 AM EST

  The state of Texas was a sovereign country for 12 years. First they won their independence from Mexico and then became an independent country. They requested to become a state of the US. Patrick, we paid the Mexican government $35 million for what is now the boarder states.

• seagreen | Jan 07, 2011, 10:11 AM EST

  Defined impenatrable well defended borders are a good thing..

• McNabb1966 | Jan 07, 2011, 05:09 AM EST

  Once again Patrick Roberts builds himself a nifty strawman and then takes a few meaningless whacks at it. My recommendation for Mr. Roberts (other than increasing the dosage of his meds) is to actually study an issue rather than simply regurgitate the latest e-mail bulletin from Talking Points Memo or whatever Leftist propaganda source he relies on. Oh, and a little bit of intellectual honesty goes a long way, my frazzled friend...

• Monsoonman | Jan 06, 2011, 08:43 PM EST

  The editorial political bozos who run this site, conveniently forgot to mention the peaceful shift of power that just occurred in the U.S. Without a shot being fired a major political revolution took place when Nancy Pelosi and the liberals were replaced by conservatives. I think every column was devoted to fawning over obama and nancy pelosi when they took power 2 years ago. No wonder there is so much ignorance when the press has an agenda.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 06, 2011, 06:19 PM EST

  GeoegeDillon don't get your knickers in a knot it was a tongue in cheek comment,BUT not without a modicum of truth.2Bornot2Bis correct the wealthy Mexicans ran their "rancheros"like little fiefdoms.Then the Americans "liberated"" Texas and supplanted the "rancheros" with robber cattle barons and ran the open range like private little "fiefdoms", are you missing something here 2Bornot2B?

• kell7757 | Jan 06, 2011, 03:26 PM EST

  How do you propose dismantling the global system of having countries with defined borders which has evolved over thousand of years? Will we need to go back to the days when barbarians poured into italy and barbary pirates raided britain for slaves or the days when vikings invaded france, britain and then ireland. When there are no borders, how will laws be enforced and which legal system will protect the law abiding citizens. Do you know anything about history, the rise of the nation state? It may not be perfect, but it was a heck of a lot better than what went on before.

• hardtruth | Jan 06, 2011, 01:50 PM EST

  What gives one man the right to put up a border to keep other fellow man in poverty on the planet we were all brought in to. Greed rules the minds of our governments across the oceans wide

• jamieLM | Jan 06, 2011, 10:49 AM EST

  Another article full of nonsense and misinformation. 2BorNot2B and GeorgeD have a better grasp of Irish and U.S. history that's accurate. Good posts, Gaelicpiper and katiemac.

• GeorgeDillon | Jan 06, 2011, 03:25 AM EST

  seanomelbourne: "All you European Americans go back to where you came from.You Celto/anglo's are living in occupied Mexico..." What utter nonsense. Do you want the Spaniards to leave Mexico too? Most modern Mexicans are descended from the intermingling of Spaniards and Indians. Why else do they bear names like Suarez, Gonzalez etc? Why do most of them speak Spanish? And what about all the other nationalities that sent settlers to Mexico? And even the Aztecs are supposed to have come down into central Mexico from what is now the Rio Grande area! Utter nonsense, melbourne.

• GeorgeDillon | Jan 06, 2011, 03:20 AM EST

  CLoghry1938 -- Your claim that the Catholic Church enslaved people in the Americas shows your utter ignorance of history. The Catholic Church's record in the Spanish Conquest was quite good. Numerous Catholic priests and friars, the most famous being Las Casas, campaigned for human rights for the Indians. Other Catholic priests (e.g Acosta) studied the culture and languages of the native Americans and left invaluable accounts of Indian society in Mexico and Peru. In this, incidentally, the Spanish priests offer a vivid contrast to the Protestant Church in Ireland around the same time. There is NOT ONE record of a Protestant cleric calling for the protection of the human rights (including right to life) of Irish Catholics, NOT ONE Protestant cleric around the Elizabethan era sought to preserve or even respect the native Gaelic culture that his government was set on wiping out. Learn something about a topic before publishing nonsense on it, CLoghry1938.

• 2BorNot2B | Jan 06, 2011, 03:18 AM EST

  Roberts, you should not embarrass yourself posing as a "reporter" and much less as a "historian"! Where exactly did you learn that "For centuries Mexico owned California, most of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and parts of other border states." --- Mexico in fact was owned for centuries by the Spaniards who colonized it. They then moved up the coast to Calif. and parts of Oregon, Utah, and Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. -- It was not until 1810 that a Spanish priest, Miguel Hidalgo, sought independence from Spain, which was not even recognized until 1821. Meanwhile, Texas was won from Mexico in 1836 and California not until 1847! --- Further, even after their independence from Spain these northern territories were largely a neglected backwater for the Mex government who did not have either man-power or resources to care for them. They were largely ran by rich 'hacendados' as fiefdoms. For that reason, the Mex government offered American settlers land in order to populate the hinterlands. Once gold was discovered in Calif, however, the US, which had more wealth, weapons and something called 'Manifest Destiny' decided to increase its territories by several thousand square miles and move its boundaries South. -- To say that Mexicans at any time controlled or governed the territories they lost to the US is a myth created and exploited by the goons of the so called 'Aztlan Movement' These are a band of quasi-communist agitators with a definite chip on their shoulder and an ambitious agenda. -- Were they to achieve their ends, all the border states would immediately look like the dilapidated Mexican cities across the border, and Mexicans would still be slipping into the US, except they'd have to travel farther to cross into Washington, parts of Colorado, and so on.

• kell7757 | Jan 05, 2011, 11:44 PM EST

  This drivel is so scripted and shows no intellectual rigor or independent thought. It's the same liberal script being repeated over and over again like a mindless mantra.

• MikeyMurphs | Jan 05, 2011, 09:15 PM EST

  google Operation Wetback... hopefully history repeats itself because these Mexicans suck and are ruining everything! Every job that goes non union is thanks to them an greedy contractor company owners, otherwise we would all get a fair piece of the pie!

• dwyerda | Jan 05, 2011, 08:46 PM EST

  The Vikings invaded the Emerald Isle. Do they get Irish citizenship?

• DanCinTX | Jan 05, 2011, 08:29 PM EST

  Here's the short version Patrick - We have a system in place that naturalized 1 million or so new citizens in the past year. My guess is that a great many of those folks of Mexican origin. The difference is, those folks played by the rules, as opposed to those that crossed over illegally. The bigger problem is corruption in our country - the developers, builders, chicken processors and other enablers that thrive on cheap labor haven't had the hammer dropped on them yet. Until we start laying some heavy sanctions on these enablers, nothings going to change. We need to get serious about addressing issues like resource depletion, urban sprawl, and environmental degradation. Taking care of the anchor baby problem is a good place to start.

• kell7757 | Jan 05, 2011, 08:25 PM EST

  Why don't you go visit a Mexican factory and check their wages before you talk about Mexico being opposed to slavery. I would happily let Mexico take California everything south of San Francisco. But that is not really what they want and we all know it. It's not the land they want, it's not about land.

• Pittsburghkid | Jan 05, 2011, 08:16 PM EST

  So your arguement is that American should grant Amnesty, because Mexicans have a right to the Southwest of U.S.A. Your arguement is the reason that Amnesty is not going to happen. Americans are not going to give up the Southwest, because the Mexicans could not hold on to the Southwest. This is just another version of White Guilt. During the Civil Rights Era, Americans were victimizied by White Guilt. Americans are cured of White Guilt.

• Pittsburghkid | Jan 05, 2011, 07:42 PM EST

  No country in the world has a law where a baby born of illegal aliens is a citizens. Talk about Racial Prejudice. I have to list myself a member of the WHITE RACE, in order to apply for a job. I have been discrimated against because I am WHITE. Now isn't that Racial. I had to list myself as White since 1970. I guess it is alright for me to be discriminate against because I am white. As for the Mexican, when Amnesty is granted, they will get racial preference over Whites. Whites have good reason not to let racially preferred people into the country. I did not creat this racial conscience country, but Whites have to survive.

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 07:09 PM EST

  There ya go with the illegal alien thing again.If ET and co landed here for a bit of r and r and then some of them jumped ship.Don't ya think its gonna mess up the paperwork?What with ET having two heads and a Mexican only one.,and ye probably need seperate vehicles too less the Mexicans eat them.

• CLoghry1938 | Jan 05, 2011, 07:01 PM EST

  The Spanish and the Catholic Church made slaves of the native people of all the lands they conquered in the western hemisphere making them mine for gold. So how do you get off saying thry were oppoesed to slavery? You should check your facts before you start condemning my country. If you don't love it leave it.

• AWard04 | Jan 05, 2011, 06:58 PM EST

  I lived on the border for a few years. When you see a pregnant woman risking her life and the baby's in order to make it across the border to give birth, you understand that to remove the incentive to do this is in the interests of the women and children. Until you've seen what I've seen, you won't understand how bad this situation can get. IIRC, the old president of Mexico used to empty the jails from time to time and tell the prisoners that if they make it to the US they're free. So, we would also end up with a large amount of dangerous criminals. Take a look at the frequency of rape and murder on border areas...oh, have you heard of the Mexican Mafia? There's a lot more to the illegal alien question than you have included in your emotional piece.

• CLoghry1938 | Jan 05, 2011, 06:48 PM EST

  As far as I am concarned any person wanting to come to the U.S. and is willing to do it legally is welcome,but when these people sneak into this country uninvited and expect to receive free medical care and welfare they are not welcome. I worked for over 40 years in ordewr to get social security but you and our liberal politicians want me now to support peoplke who do not belong in this country. Try going into mexico and demanding legal documents written in English or that you get free mesical care and public assistance.

• seanomelbourne | Jan 05, 2011, 06:30 PM EST

  All you European Americans go back to where you came from.You Celto/anglo's are living in occupied Mexico. vincem13 in quoting article 14 agrees that those born in the U.S. are citizens or to use racist phrase anchor babies.Maybe the so called illegal migrants should refuse to recognise U.S. law after all you stole the land from the Mexico.

• snuffey | Jan 05, 2011, 05:49 PM EST

  Patrick Roberts The law that gives the USA the right to annex the land once partially occupied by México is the Law of conquest, which trumps all other LAWS. We also were fulfilling the USA’s Manifest Density.

• vincem13 | Jan 05, 2011, 05:36 PM EST

  Dear Mr. Roberts: Unlike you, I actually went back and READ the 14th Amendment. Here is what the first sentence of Section one says:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Unfortunately for your argument, Since Illegal Immigrants have not placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States (which they would have done by entering legally), they are still under the jurisdiction of the country of their birth, and by extension, so are any children they may have here. All we need to do is clarify the Amendment.

• kell7757 | Jan 05, 2011, 05:23 PM EST

  I know from working in busines the lack of rights that Mexicans have in the workplace. Mexico has a corruption problem and it doesn't afford basic rights to it's workers or a minimally acceptable social service net. Because corruption is siphoning the wealth into the pockets of white collar criminals. We know this is what is going on there, everyone knows this is the truth. And now the US taxpayer is being strong armed into being the enabler of this behavior, because it's too hard to stand up to the corruption in Mexico, and the democrats want the votes. And liberals like Roberts want to dumb us down, and make us back down because we are supposed to be afraid of the R word, and learn to shut whenever anyone speaks the R word. Stop the name calling and put forth a logical argument.

• snuffey | Jan 05, 2011, 04:48 PM EST

  It is not ignorance of the Mexicans. It is living near a house that has five Mexican families in it, and no furniture! America doesn’t want to become a third world nation.

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 04:09 PM EST

  The Irish are not travelling 3000 miles to draw the dole.To sponge off America.They go there to work and they contribute towards society,,fecks sake reading another article it sounds like you lot need some Irish cops.

• nidonnabain | Jan 05, 2011, 03:03 PM EST

  The wealthy of Mexico needed the unhappy and poor to be able to leave to avoid revolution against their corruption. The meatpackers of the Great Plains, the construction industry in the South, Midwest, and West of the U.S. wanted cheap employees, with no health benefits (go to the ER.) This has been going on for decades and is a fait accompli, too late for last-ditch efforts sponsored by the same politicians who sat silent when their business owning constituents required it. Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican Nebraska, once told of the backlash he got from the meatpackers when he tried to impose tougher restraints. If the money interest in either country had wanted to do something about it they would have long ago. The Americans who see an injustice are not necessarily racist. And poor people migrating toward a better life, basically invited in by American business, are only human. It isn't realistic to do anything but make room for them now. Most are hardworking but I do worry with all our simpler work going out of the country and construction declining what will happen.

• Gaelicpiper | Jan 05, 2011, 02:47 PM EST

  As a mixed blood Sioux, whose European ancestors were Irish and Scots-Irish as well, I have studied the history of both branches of my lineage. Robert's sophomoric essay is historically incorrect. The above rant is just liberal, political, spin that is an insult to the readers of the site, whether the reader is liberal or conservative. The one thing this idiot, like all others of his ilk, fail to acknowledge, this Nation, a Nation of Laws not Ethnicity, was built, in part, by Legal Immigrants- including millioms of legal Irish immigrants. Roberts, I will say to you, as my mixed blood Celtic/Indian grandfather taught me-- Roberts, be a man, not a forked tongue Washichu. Or to put it another way-- are you English-man? Something else my grandgfather taught me-- This is not your Country to give away! It is amazing that the editors of this site continue to employ this muckraker. Being a liberal wordsmith is not provide a pass for ignorance of history; or, intentionally making absolutely false statements in a sophomoric rant. The above essay is outside the bounds of journalistic license. Shame, shame on the editors and this site. Roberts is following the game plan of many liberals-- if you can not win a debate on the established facts-- then lie.

• feeneycj | Jan 05, 2011, 01:23 PM EST

  200 years ago, no social security and less population, no problem. Today social security, Medicare, taxes, all these services should be for American citizens. Social security was designed for those who contribute into the plan.

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 01:19 PM EST

  ..less of course you pay for it.In which case you should put your hand up and leave a comment in Niall O Dowds prostitute blog.

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 12:56 PM EST

  @amputatedknee..why worry your head about catholics,bishops,babies or even the welfare of my country?You have no Irish blood,your character in your comments conveys the image of the infamous bridge dwelling troll...and even if you was to somehow actually find your way here..you would'nt get laid.If the comments you leave here are any indication of what 'small talk' or even the way you might introduce yourself to an Irish woman.I've no doubt she'd tell you to feck off.

• Monsoonman | Jan 05, 2011, 12:45 PM EST

  BTW Niall, race hatred is the leadoff? Nice bit of "journalism"...Now I am out of here got to practice my spanish. Hasta la vista, hermanos y hermanas y primos.

• WoundedKnee | Jan 05, 2011, 12:31 PM EST

  In Ireland the Catholic Bishops are to the forefront in asking that the relatives of such anchor babies be permitted to stay in the country. Same here. I saw an article by an Irish bishop in the Irish Times yesterday pleading for what he called "family unification". That means that one baby born in Ireland entitles granpa, cousin Daisy, ma and pa, son-in-law Julius, first cousin Chastity, etc etc. to come and live in the country (on welfare). But you don't see the bishops forking out money to raise & educate these children!

• peterson | Jan 05, 2011, 12:23 PM EST

  Obama wants the illegal immigrants to help him get re-elected !!

• OrenTruitt | Jan 05, 2011, 12:20 PM EST

  Mr.Roberts' comments demonstrate is complete ignorance of the issues of this debate. Truly, it is NOT about race, it is about people breaking the law by entering the country ILLEGALLY and then using the abuse of a 19th Century law that was written to give citizenship to the children of former slaves. Having a baby does not make the criminally illegal residents citizenship but it does, as immediate family, provide them with legal status to remain in the country. It also allows them to IMMEDIATELY apply for welfare, foodstamps, government housing and all the benefits of citizenship (other than voting). Many illegals come here, have a child as quickly as possible, and live here for YEARS on the back of legal, tax-paying citizens. They don't have to wait for the child to be born to get government benefits. My wife is a labor & delivery nurse, she sees nearly everyday, illegals who are already receiving AFDC, foodstamps and medicare (in the name of the unborn child). They are in the hospital, their care being provided by the taxpayers thanks to medicare. This issue is not limited to Mexicans, although Mexicans comprise the majority of the illegals, there are illegal residents in the US, living off the taxpayers, sending U.S. dollars out of the country, taking jobs from LEGAL immigrants and U.S. CITIZENS, trafficing in drugs, smuggling in counterfits of designer products, populating criminal gangs, committing murder, rape, muggings and other violent acts, engaging in illegal gambling (cock fighting and dog fighting) and prostitution. They also operate sweat shops where they abuse their own. Illegals immigrants are a drain on the economy and contributing to the decay that is destroying the fabric of this nation.

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 12:19 PM EST

  @howareya..Hollywood glamourises what you spoke of on the big screen.Like being a gangbanger a criminal was cool.Monkey see monkey do?No pun intended.

• peterson | Jan 05, 2011, 12:17 PM EST

  The Anchor Baby Law entitles these babies to free tuition to Colleges plus their birth is paid for by U.S. tax dollars. Most of their parents are on some kind of government welfare in spite of being in the U.S. illegally. Ireland would never allow this to happen !!!! They even let these illegals vote and their children to attend public schools.No wonder they are sneaking across the U.S. border !! I can see why U.S citizens are upset !!

• howareya | Jan 05, 2011, 11:53 AM EST

  And Mr. O'Dowd....the fact that the child is a citizen gives the family the right to apply for food stamps, welfare and many other benefits (IMMEDIATELY) And I do feel sorry for the people that are forced to leave their homes and families because their government is corrupt and does not take care of them. However, if the US continues to be the relief valve for Mexico and other countries, they will never change. Why is it okay to take in millions of Mexican and Central American illegals but the poor in South Africa where people are being slaughtered are not welcomed in? Where does it stop??

• howareya | Jan 05, 2011, 11:49 AM EST

  Doncha'just love it....Ireland passes the law that excludes citizenship from anyone not born to an Irish citizen, but the USA is expected to grant citizenship to the child of anyone that can make their way into the country in time to have their child here. Well, Mr. Roberts...if you think we should have open borders and welcome all with open arms (illegals) then you should send your children to school in some Los Angeles areas where 90% of the class does not speak English. Or have your son try to get a job in construction where it is filled with people making $5 an hour. Or live in your neighborhood for 30 years and see it become a ghetto because people are selling tacos out of their homes and fixing cars in their garages and their kids are joining gangs. Or have your whole family wiped out by an illegal gang member (re: San Francisco...Bologna Family!). Or take your child to the emergency room and have to wait 10 hours to get seen because it is filled with illegals that are using it as a family doctor. I just love it how people say we should do things and don't have to live with the effect of it!

• Niall O'Dowd | Jan 05, 2011, 11:38 AM EST

  It takes 21 years form the time a child is born to when it can claim its parents in. This canard that a child born here legally can immediately make its parent legal is nonsense

• Monsoonman | Jan 05, 2011, 11:23 AM EST

  The sole reason behind the anchor provision act was to grant former negro slaves & their children full citizenship. It has been warped to mean any woman stepping over our border and popping a kid out gets citizenship privileges. Which also gets the extended family in here too.

• colkelley | Jan 05, 2011, 10:59 AM EST

  The issue is people committing a criminal act by illegally entering this country specifically to deliver "anchor babies." That has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Patrick Roberts shows his ignorance and his a** yet again.

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 10:44 AM EST

  ...and whats with the use of the word 'aliens'?The only aliens I'm aware of are the ones that have a propensity for messing with a mans arsehole aboard a disk like object.Can ye choose something more human like say 'illegal immigrant'?

• FastEddy | Jan 05, 2011, 10:08 AM EST

  " There are so many sweeping generalisations in this article one cam hardly counter them all. Just because a person favors controls on immigration does NOT make that person a racist. ... the U.S. is the only country with this "anchor baby" provision and it's an unwise policy. ..." - BallinaLass

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 10:04 AM EST

  Might enter America from Canada.Sure all you'd have to do is say aboot instead of about. :)

• antoman | Jan 05, 2011, 09:59 AM EST

  Despite it being much cheaper to fly to Mexico than it is to the States.I doubt the Irish will enter America from that side. :)

• BallinaLass | Jan 05, 2011, 09:50 AM EST

  No, nay, never. There are so many sweeping generalisations in this article one cam hardly counter them all. Just because a person favors controls on immigration does NOT make that person a racist. I am politically to the left, and have always voted Democrat. I've also been to Mexico many times and love the people and culture. However, the U.S. is the only country with this "anchor baby" provision and it's an unwise policy. We need to be a lot more discerning about immigration numbers and standards: we cannot sustain the resources and benefits needed by people who require more services than they contribute.

• cpcpcp1 | Jan 05, 2011, 09:47 AM EST

  Why are people called racists and haters when all we want is for people to obey the law. If you come across the border without a visa or passport you are illegal, plain and simple. Why should American taxpayers pay for education and medical for people who aren't citizens of this country. Question, If Ireland was overrun with people who were not citizens and if the Irish had to pay for their education and medical would they be talking this way? If the illegal immigrants pay taxes it is miniscule. Why should they get an education at the taxpayers expense?

• seagreen | Jan 05, 2011, 09:30 AM EST

  Stick your race, hatred line where the sun does not shine. We have listened to this crap for decades. Every freeloader that has never contributed a thing to any country is wandering around looking for a soft spot somewhere.. We have grave yards filled with 18 and 19yr olds who never got a social security check, food stamps, housing assistance, or anything else but an honorable discharge after they were drafted and never came home! These pikers work the system worldwide from the day they leave the various crapholes they come from, and show up in countries after the native population worked for eighty years to build a functional society. Take a ride through southern West Virginia, and take a look at the house trailers, plastic toys scattered around, young people with no teeth. We have our own problems.

• kell7757 | Jan 05, 2011, 09:26 AM EST

  As usual the liberal cannot discern the symptoms from the 'root' as he calls it. The root of this problem is corruption in Mexico, which causes a bad living environment for the poor people of Mexico. The wealth is not distributed fairly, because funds that should go towards a social service net, and a fairer economy are diverted into the pockets of criminals in politics, business, and drug cartels, etc. America accepts this corruption and does not stand up to Mexico and work with them to end corruption. The symptom is the people fleeing to America, and breaking our laws, making American's secondary victims in this problem by making our taxpayers pay for this problem. All because the actual problem, the Mexican corruption, is not addressed or recognized as the source of this problem. I support a reasonable level of LEGAL immigration and am not racist. The leadership of a country must uphold the principle of the rule of law or the country will not survive.

• seagreen | Jan 05, 2011, 09:13 AM EST

  These people come to get something that the citizens of countries worked to produce over the years. They bring nothing but problems and sob stories. If you come legally, you worked to get into a country, and will be a plus to the country you emigrate to. Just get off all of our backs!!!

• TheOldPerfessor | Jan 05, 2011, 09:06 AM EST

  Arizona could begin to solve their problems by arresting the people who keep providing the illegal immigrants with money as an alternative to paying American citizens a decent wage. It would be simple - hire Mexican-American citizens to pose as illegal aliens and set up a sting outside of Home Depot. Arresting rich white people isn't Sheriff Joe's thing though, so they're probably safe for now.

• sully1167 | Jan 05, 2011, 05:37 AM EST

  I agree with you bogsidebunny,those immigrants don't belong in Ireland. They are not Irish,and to be fair Irish people should not be living in their countries. I am not racist,I don't believe in racial superiority. I am a nativist,Ireland for Irish,Nigeria for Nigerians,etc.

• bogsidebunny | Jan 05, 2011, 02:19 AM EST

  Sorry mr Liberal Roberts, You should see what "immigrants" have done to Dublin in the last decade. I have and I don't like it. I've also been to Arizona recently and I can see the reason American citizens resent the INVASION by illegal fortune hunting Mexicans. Sure they're poor. So are the Nigerians, Romanians, Asians and other Non-EU INVADERS in Dublin. That's too bad. I don't like the idea of them bringing their problems to Ireland or America and laying them on my doorstep. If that's racist...I plead GUILTY!

• hancock | Jan 05, 2011, 12:42 AM EST

  We should run our southern border the way Mexico runs theirs. You won't read about that in this guys sob site.

• MarthaAnne | Jan 04, 2011, 11:35 PM EST

  Dear Mr. Roberts, I ask you not to confuse the reality of race hatred (which, I agree is real) of Mexicans with the honest fear of not being able to afford to support (via health care, ESL schools, disability entitlements, etc.)the undocumented parents and their American born children. I am speaking as a third generation Irish American who is a "padrina" (Godparent) to an American born young lady of undocumented parents. She gets disability assistance due to a "handicap" she was born with, and her parents use food stamps and other services/entitlements. However, here is where I part with those who are feeling these people cost middle class taxpayers: These parents work five, six days a week, using relatives for child care, and they do jobs like stuffing newspapers in bags and lawn care at wages that make the American customers able to afford them. They, IMO, earn their keep and are productive members of our society. I laugh sometimes, when I read about the indignant Americans about these "illegals". I was just reading a November issue of "New York Magazine" with the suggestions for Christmas gifts. Everything suggested was sheer excess: A bright red vinyl records player, sold in a store in hip Williamsburg, NYC, a $60 stuffed cow toy, an antique handled shaving razor, a scarf for $145, etc. I love it! So many people complain about the illegals exploiting us and then turn around and buy a Lexus, buy unnecessary luxury goods, and then complain of how they are getting soaked by the illegals. It makes no sense to me. (By the way, legal immigrants also immediately start using the same entitlements, not having earned them, as they only came here a few years ago. Yet, no one says they are soaking the system.) I do not believe in illegal immigration. But some illegals come here because of true poverty which prevents them from getting basic good medical care, any kind of decent housing or education, etc. So, I understand why they come.