Thousands protest immigration proposal

[rlg94086]

Well, the way I read it, “pro-life teen” just forgot to add the sarcasm smiley “” .

LCMS_No_More:

Also ironic given the screen name of “pro-life teen”

 

[LRThunder]

Kendy:

How is this different than a decree?

Let’s say we know that 1 million people will come int this nation next year. We can create a law such that, we can process 1 million legal residents or we can not and therefore they will be illegal. Whatever you do they will come (build a wall and they will find another way). The only choice is whether make them legal or illegal.

Kendy

Decree has the connotation of making them legal instantaneously without any effort to comply with the law on their part. Why should they get an easy road over those who are immigrating here legally and becoming citizens legally?

 

[_pro-life_teen]

*pro-life_teen*:

yes, it’s much too bad they don’t die of starvation in the desert…

sorry, I thought it would be obvious that I was being sarcastic, but given the caustic atmosphere in this forum, I could see why you could think I wasn’t

As someone with dual citizenship, whose parents are both incredibly hard workers from Mexico (my dad is a neurologist and my mom is a nurse), who lives on a border town, this issue is much more to me than simply “keep 'em all out.”

It’s so much harder when you can see the struggle that so many immigrants face, all their hardships, their pride when they see their children able to live in this great country, the cruelty of many (not all, obviously) border patrol agents…

I used to volunteer at a county hospital and saw countless Mexican women rushed in in labor, suffering the consequences of trying to delay the baby’s birth because they wanted so desperately for their baby to be born on this side of the border. We are so blessed in America; why do we so easily condem others who want to share in these blessings?

I am proud and grateful to live in such an amazing country, but please keep in mind that the people you speak about really ARE people, not enemy invaders or the like. Keep in mind that the corporal and spiritual works of mercy apply to all.
thanks and God bless!

 

[gilliam]

Can you explain to me why we permit a pregnant Mexican citizen to delay her pregnancy and then rush over to Nogales so her baby can be born a US citizen and then she and her family are immediately dependent upon taking the tax money of American citizens for the forseeable future while Fox gets rich from the taxes of Mexican citizens?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

gilliam:

Can you explain to me why we permit a pregnant Mexican citizen to delay her pregnancy and then rush over to Nogales so her baby can be born a US citizen and then she and her family are immediately dependent upon taking the tax money of American citizens for the forseeable future while Fox gets rich from the taxes of Mexican citizens?

Well there is this document called the Constitution of the United States where it says that anyone born on US soil is a citizen of the United States.

 

[gilliam]

LCMS_No_More:

Well there is this document called the Constitution of the United States where it says that anyone born on US soil is a citizen of the United States.

Actually, it is an amendment to the Constitution (the 14th to be exact). Since we are one of the last countries on this face of this earth with such a law, it might be time to change it. What do you think?

We might not even have to change the amendment. Just change the US Code Title 8 Section 1401 … change “born in the United States” to something like: Any one born in the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

 

[LCMS_No_More]

gilliam:

Actually, it is an amendment to the Constitution (the 14th to be exact). Since we are one of the last countries on this face of this earth with such a law, it might be time to change it. What do you think?

First, Amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution.

Second, no I don’t think it’s time to change it. I don’t believe that government’s role is to restrict restrict restrict but to protect the God-given rights of every individual person and to work for the common good. Conservatives used to believe in God-given rights but somewhere along the way, became drunk on the wine of power and forgot that it is God who gives rights and that government is supposed to protect those rights.

But I digress…it’s not apropo to criticize “conservatives” or “conservatism” on this board.

 

[gilliam]

LCMS_No_More:

First, Amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution.

Second, no I don’t think it’s time to change it. I don’t believe that government’s role is to restrict restrict restrict but to protect the …
God-given rights of every individual person and to work for the common good. Conservatives used to believe in God-given rights but somewhere along the way, became drunk on the wine of power and forgot that it is God who gives rights and that government is supposed to protect those rights…

Where is it a God given right for a woman to cross a border in order to give birth so that Arizona tax payers can take over the support of her family?

Or where is it a God given right for anyone to be a US Citizen who is not currently one?

I guess I missed that in the bible, would you quote that for me please? Or maybe Thomas Aquinas talked about it? Is it in the Summa someplace?

Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about when you associate God given rights and citizenship.

But I digress…it’s not apropo to criticize “conservatives” or “conservatism” on this board.

Well, it is definatly not apropo to talk down to anyone, conservative or not.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

gilliam:

Where is it a God given right for a woman to cross a border in order to give birth so that Arizona tax payers can take over the support of her family?

Or where is it a God given right for anyone to be a US Citizen who is not currently one?

I guess I missed that in the bible, would you quote that for me please? Or maybe Thomas Aquinas talked about it? Is it in the Summa someplace?

Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about when you associate God given rights and citizenship.

Well, it is definatly not apropo to talk down to anyone, conservative or not.

So sorry. I was under the misgiving that the Constitution was written to protect persons from excessive government power by enumerating its responsibilities and defining what rights would be guaranteed. I guess that the Consitution is just “some law” that we can ignore when it is inconvenient to what we want to do.

Noted.

The fact remains, however, that the Constitution says that anyone born in the United States is a US Citizen. Period. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say, “unless to a Mexican illegal.” There are no exceptions.

Now, the question becomes who to punish (since that seems to be a favorite thing for many Americans these day). Punish the mother for breaking the law. Let’s separate her child from her, send her back to Mexico and put the child in an orphanage. There! The perfect right-wing solution to the problem!

 

[gilliam]

LCMS_No_More:

So sorry. I was under the misgiving that the Constitution was written to protect persons from excessive government power by enumerating its responsibilities and defining what rights would be guaranteed. I guess that the Consitution is just “some law” that we can ignore when it is inconvenient to what we want to do.

The Constitution is written to protect US Citizens from the US Federal Government. It is not written for anyone else. And Yes, it is a law. That is all it is. And yes, it has been changed over time. That is what this amendment is. It is a change. We are not talking about sacred scripture here.

The fact remains, however, that the Constitution says that anyone born in the United States is a US Citizen. Period. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say, “unless to a Mexican illegal.” There are no exceptions.

Yes, it would probably have to be changed to something like what I wrote.

Now, the question becomes who to punish (since that seems to be a favorite thing for many Americans these day). Punish the mother for breaking the law. Let’s separate her child from her, send her back to Mexico and put the child in an orphanage. There! The perfect right-wing solution to the problem!

I am not interested in punishing anyone. I am interested in protecting US citizens from being over burdoned by people coming into the country and over taxing the welfare, health and security systems and taking services away from US Citizens.

My point is that maybe the amendment needs, well, amending to better fit into what other countries have now for requirements for citizenship.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

Conservatives used to believe in God-given rights but somewhere along the way, became drunk on the wine of power and forgot that it is God who gives rights and that government is supposed to protect those rights.

Evidence to support your assertion please?

But I digress…it’s not apropo to criticize “conservatives” or “conservatism” on this board.

Evidence of this please? I ask because I read the forum guidlines and find nothing in them to validate your assertion.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Geldain:

Evidence to support your assertion please?

Two words:
“Unitary Executive.”

Evidence of this please? I ask because I read the forum guidlines and find nothing in them to validate your assertion.

They’re not in the guidelines. I refer to the general tone of this section of the board. I mention the double standard that what applies to non-Republicans doesn’t apply to Republicans and I’m told to stop the politics by another poster. I post an article about how Republicans are committing voter registration fraud in Orange County, CA and it’s called an April Fools joke (it isn’t) and read other comments that imply that Democrats are stupid.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

Two words:
“Unitary Executive.”

A few words: care to elaborate a little bit, please? I know it’s a theory bandied about by some. Lots of liberal and leftist law writers mention it regularly. I’m interested in how you think it applies in the context of your post and in the topic of this thread. Did you think Clinon’s was also a Unitary Presidency? He added more of those signing statements than Bush has. Or where you aware of that?

They’re not in the guidelines. I refer to the general tone of this section of the board. I mention the double standard that what applies to non-Republicans doesn’t apply to Republicans and I’m told to stop the politics by another poster. I post an article about how Republicans are committing voter registration fraud in Orange County, CA and it’s called an April Fools joke (it isn’t) and read other comments that imply that Democrats are stupid.

So 2 posts out of several thousand did this for you?

Amazing.

 

[St_Francis]

cainem:

the anger and distrust of the incoming mainly catholic mexicans is very much the same as my irish great grandfather and other irish catholics faced while coming to scotland

KENDY:

The issue here is one of preference ordering. Certainly, they prefer to be illegal residents in the United States than live in Mexico, but does that mean that they prefer to illegal rather legal residents of the United States. It seems to me that if one prefers to live in the United States (which we know they do), then that they would prefer to live here legally is an astute assumption unless we can demonstrate otherwise.

People keep thinking of other situations when they think about our current situation and that is wrong.

1. Not all those who cross the US/Mexican border are Mexican–at least 50 Middle Easterners *with known terrorist ties *have been caught in the past year. Moreover, the materials for building “dirty bombs” have been brought over the border twice, once by a reporter and once by the government as a test.
2. Not all those who cross the US./Mexican border are otherwise law-abiding: 30% of those currently in prison or jail here are illegal immigrants, the *vast *majority from Mexico.

You may not think that’s a problem, but that means that out of the general population, only .4% are imprisoned–one out of every 250 people; among illegal immigrants, 6.7% are imprisoned, and *that’s *one out of every 16.6.

Considering that the prison population only contains those who have been A. caught, B. convicted, and C. imprisoned, the number is probably quite a bit higher because a. they are less likely to have a fixed address, and b. with Mexicans you also have to take into account that Mexico won’t extradite to the US. So if a Mexican has the urge to rape murder and pillage, he can come here, do his thing, and hustle back to Mexico for safety.

Moreover, while people may experience poverty in Mexico, it is not dire poverty, as seen here. they mention that some of the jobs are unstable and or low-paying towards the end, but that’s pretty much the case here as well.

My personal opinion? TobyLue hit it on the head: the corrupt Mexican government benefits from emigration: they do not have to face the pressures they would otherwise face; they don’t have to pay for the education of these children, the incarceration of these criminals, the medical fees of all these people. Emergnecy rooms in California have had to be shut down because of financial pressures due to people not paying the bills. (For rural people, that might mean they have to go an hour or more to the next hospital.)

 

[gilliam]

LCMS_No_More:

Two words:
“Unitary Executive.”

They’re not in the guidelines. I refer to the general tone of this section of the board. I mention the double standard that what applies to non-Republicans doesn’t apply to Republicans and I’m told to stop the politics by another poster. I post an article about how Republicans are committing voter registration fraud in Orange County, CA and it’s called an April Fools joke (it isn’t) and read other comments that imply that Democrats are stupid.

cool down. You are welcome to your opinion. Just don’t belittle others and you will be fine.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Geldain:

A few words: care to elaborate a little bit, please?

The notion of the “Unitary Executive” is that the President is not subject to any checks and balances of his decisions or authority because he is “vested” with the executive authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It has been expanded to also include the idea that the President can unilateraly interpret law so that he can claim that it says whatever he wants it to say. A recent example is Bush’s signing of the reauthorization of the so-called “USA PATRIOT” Act where he says that reserves the right to ignore the civil rights protections if he deems it necessary to do so.

So 2 posts out of several thousand did this for you?

Amazing.

You want me to summarize EVERY SINGLE POST that does what I assert? Those are two very recent examples where I have personally seen what I’ve said. Reading through the baord, anyone can see that this board is populated primarily with “Conservatives.” That non-conservatives are allowed to participate at all is very unusual, so there’s props for that. Still, the overtly hostile attitude toward non-conservatives by other posters is daunting for those who aren’t well versed in how Republican talking points work (a subject that’s WAY too complicated to explain…it’s something that must be experienced :banghead: ) and the refutation thereof.

 

[St_Francis]

Kendy:

Well, there are simply too many good reasons not want to. By taking this up, the Republicans will piss off their business class, which is an important component of their base, particularly when it comes to raising money. They will piss of the the Hispanic community, (They have already done this) and this will cost them dearly.

Just like the Republicans lost the black vote for 40 years because of the civil rights movement,
That was actually unfair: if you check out the voting on the Civil Rights Act of 64, it was the evil Repubilcans who voted it in. The Dems added women to show what a joke they thought it was and it still passed, because the Republicans voted it in. The Dems just got the credit because they later on bribed the poor/declared a war on poverty which started a terrible downhill slide for the black community in this country.

The same “Catholics” who are against this are for the most part the same “Catholics” who ignored the plight of Terri Schiavo, who prefer to protest defense of our nation rather than lack of abortion restrictions, etc., along with those who simply do not understand the problem. I understand your situation, and I think that anyone owuld have sympathy for those who find themselves in that or a similar situation. It is also unfortunate that our government doesn’t help people out more who find themselves in that type of situation. However, that is absolutely *not *the situation of mexicans who come here illegally.

The republican party has done well because it has recently been able to get votes from these three groups. Wise politicians know this is not worth it.

Kendy

 

[LCMS_No_More]

That was actually unfair: if you check out the voting on the Civil Rights Act of 64, it was the evil Repubilcans who voted it in. The Dems added women to show what a joke they thought it was and it still passed, because the Republicans voted it in. The Dems just got the credit because they later on bribed the poor/declared a war on poverty which started a terrible downhill slide for the black community in this country.

Um…let’s not forget that in the 1960’s, the Democrats were the party of the SOUTH, so of COURSE they’d vote against the civil rights act. Since then, with the Southern Strategy, the Republican party has gained greatly in the South by taking up causes that the Democrats used to champion. If the Civil Rights Act were up for a vote today, it would not pass with the current Republican majority.

 

[St_Francis]

LCMS_No_More:

Um…let’s not forget that in the 1960’s, the Democrats were the party of the SOUTH, so of COURSE they’d vote against the civil rights act. Since then, with the Southern Strategy, the Republican party has gained greatly in the South by taking up causes that the Democrats used to champion. If the Civil Rights Act were up for a vote today, it would not pass with the current Republican majority.

Yes, the Democrats were the party of the South, and they voted *against *the Civil Rights Act. There are still some Democrats up there who would vote against it, but I see no reason to say that Rpublicans would vote any differently. But really, I was just responding to Kendy’s point–she is young and probably doesn’t remember that but it is off-topic.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

St Francis:

Yes, the Democrats were the party of the South, and they voted *against *the Civil Rights Act. There are still some Democrats up there who would vote against it, but I see no reason to say that Rpublicans would vote any differently. But really, I was just responding to Kendy’s point–she is young and probably doesn’t remember that but it is off-topic.

I was born in 1971 and can only work from history on the subject. Considering that the Republican Party is NOW the party of the South, and how little has changed down there (well, back there since I’m in Southern California), I think it’s reasonable to say that the current crop of Republicans would not vote for civil rights for racial, religious and ethnic minorities and wormen.