A Complete Waste of Space

these arent illegals in the context you guys are always freaking about

they were invited to USA as guests, and kept at a US GOV installation with its own security

your [USA's] fault for letting them out of the base, or not ensuring they dont meet mexican girlfriends at one of the gates at night

Word has it.....that some of them now have Canadian girl friends...

Daiichidoku wrote:these arent illegals in the context you guys are always freaking about

The women that helped smuggle them to Canada were illegals....................Reading is fundamental.

I thought it strange that one of the "escaped" Afghani's was allowed entrance into Canada, but his "escort BMW" was denied entry.

Would lead one to believe that Rugg is on the mark. I would have to surmise that her "papers" didn't pass the smell test. She probably didn't either.

ruggbutt wrote:

Daiichidoku wrote:these arent illegals in the context you guys are always freaking about

The women that helped smuggle them to Canada were illegals....................Reading is fundamental.

then Rugg, is it findamental reading skills you are lacking, or skewing things to suit your tastes? do tell

how did you get "The women that helped smuggle them to Canada were illegals", from: "A loose network of Mexican-American women, some of whom may be illegal immigrants"? Its the first fucking sentence of the article! lol

in fact, this is brought up again in the article: "The network of people helping the deserters goes beyond the women and includes former AWOL Afghans and their supporters throughout the U.S. and in Canada, the sources said"
"Some of the Afghans are believed to have fled DLI thanks to the help of a single American woman"

I get the gist of what youre saying Rugg, but if you blantantly skew the facts (particularly from a source you produced yourself lol) like you did, I have to call you for stupidity and/or duplicity, and I dont tend to believe that either traits are very strong in you sir (dont be jealous of sgt laughter and comportfark, they have lifelong headstarts, apparently)

Daiichidoku wrote:they were invited to USA as guests, and kept at a US GOV installation with its own security

your [USA's] fault for letting them out of the base, or not ensuring they dont meet mexican girlfriends at one of the gates at night

Now, now...Daii, you silly loon.....they were not invited, they are soldiers and they were ordered here....further they were not kept, they were stationed at a facility, hence they were not "guarded" by security....

I find it amusing that you fail to recognize your country's contribution to the Afghan war, in aiding and abetting Afghan war deserters....the least you could do is take the meskins along with them...

Old Pudfark sez: " is it findamental reading skills you are lacking, or skewing things to suit your tastes? do tell "

Daiichidoku wrote: how did you get "The women that helped smuggle them to Canada were illegals", from: "A loose network of Mexican-American women, some of whom may be illegal immigrants"? Its the first fucking sentence of the article!

Someone said you live in Canada so I would imagine that you'd know something or other about being able to cross your border. First, if someone is "mexican-American" then they are citizens. But then they throw in the "may" modifier. Couple that with the fact that the "mexican-American" women weren't able to cross the border says it all. Proper ID allows any U.S. citizen to cross the border. You cannot operate in life in this country without proper I.D. So when you do the math and add it all up what I read was that there was no proper I.D. coming from the "mexican-Americans" who "may" be illegal immigrants it's pretty simple. They're illegal.

Americans, chime in here: Do any of you know anyone who doesn't have a state issued I.D. card or driver's license who is over legal age (18)? Cuz I don't.

Does Obama have one yet?

Old Pudfark sez: " or, is it like his birth certificate... "

ruggbutt wrote: I would imagine that you'd know something or other about being able to cross your border.

why would you imagine that? are you assuming im paranoid about who my country is letting in? i care about it, be sure, but i have no reason to be truly concerned, we have next to no problems with multiculturalism, and we need the influx of professional talent (that for other, mainly financial, reasons we lose to USA in what is called "brain drain"), and non-professional also.

anyhow, as a matter of fact, i do know...i know that US customs can bar anyone from entry to US if that person is considered to be one of "moral turpitude"...this means, in short, anyone with one (1) or two (2) criminal convictions in any country. US customs can, provided there is no more than two criminal convictions, allow or disallow anyone from entering the USA at thier own discretion...anymore than that and they are bar, arbitrarily

you can read below, to see Kanada entry requirements, you're welcome

ruggbutt wrote:First, if someone is "mexican-American" then they are citizens.

US citizen? in that case, wouldnt they be "americans"? "mexican american" to me, infers that that person has a dual citizenship
is there some journalistic convention that dictates that an " [country]-american" means they are necessarily a US citizen of particular ancestry/ethnicity? if so, please back this up

ruggbutt wrote:But then they throw in the "may" modifier.

they didnt "throw" it in, arbitrarily, they said "may" simply because they cant say one way or another definitively, at least at this point
it may turn out that they will prove that EVERY woman involved was indeed, mexican, and illegally in USA...but until that time, you cant say it is so...now someoen else will take what you erroneously wrote, and it becomes fact to them, which in turn gets passed around as fact

stop it...you wonder why there is so much BS and propaganda going on, cuz of stupid reactionaryism such as that, extant out of smoke

ruggbutt wrote:Couple that with the fact that the "mexican-American" women weren't able to cross the border says it all. Proper ID allows any U.S. citizen to cross the border. You cannot operate in life in this country without proper I.D. So when you do the math and add it all up what I read was that there was no proper I.D. coming from the "mexican-Americans" who "may" be illegal immigrants it's pretty simple. They're illegal.

remedial math time also Rugg:P

there are more reasons that lack of or improper ID (although they are prob the most numerous reason) will deny entry to Kanada:

http://www.cbsa.gc.ca/security-securite/admiss-eng.html

People can be denied a visa, refused admission or removed from Canada for a number of reasons.

Security
They have engaged in, or there are reasonable grounds to believe they will engage in, spying, subversion or terrorism, or they belong to organizations that have engaged in, or will engage in, these activities.
Human or international rights violations
They have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. They are or were senior members or officials of a government that has committed acts of terrorism, major human rights violations, genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Serious criminality
They have, or there are reasonable grounds to believe they have, committed a crime punishable by a maximum of 10 years of incarceration.
Other criminality
They have, or there are reasonable grounds to believe they have, committed an indictable crime. They commit an offence such as possessing or importing narcotics, while seeking entry to Canada.
Organized crime
They belong to an organization that is believed to take part in organized criminal activity or to engage in transnational crimes such as people smuggling, trafficking in people or money laundering.
Health
They may be a danger to public health or cause excessive demands on Canada's health or social services.
Financial
They are unable or unwilling to support themselves and their dependants.
Misrepresentation
They provide officers with false information or withhold information that is directly relevant to a decision under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Non-compliance
They contravene the requirements of IRPA. Some examples include the following:
•not having a valid passport or visa;
•entering as visitors and remaining longer than authorized;
•trying to re-enter without the written permission of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, after being deported;
•working or attending school without the appropriate permit; and
•breaching conditions imposed when they were first admitted to Canada.


Inadmissible family members
They are the family members of someone who is inadmissible.

In addition, permanent residents are in breach of IRPA if they fail to meet the residency obligations set out in the Act. Permanent residents who are inadmissible for this reason may be issued removal orders.






fact is, it could have been any of the above keeping "BMWs" from entering Kanada..hence, some or all may have had IDs, but still denied...so much for your theory


dont get me wrong Rugg, it would SEEM that indeeed, illegal mexican chicks are trying to ride the coattails of those who seek only a better life
but FFS, please dont skew uncertain things into fact, as you have done here, its helps no-one, in fact quite counter-productive