Thousands protest immigration proposal

[rlg94086]

Have you been to the South? Do you know any Southern Republicans? Yes, there is still racism down there, but to say that the “current crop of Republicans would not vote for civil rights” is just plain ignorant. You are buying into the culture of hatred existant in the Democratic Party.

LCMS_No_More:

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.

 

[gilliam]

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It’s simply not true. This nation’s civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

…

What we are witnessing is not the birth of a new civil rights movement but the attempt to render meaningless the concept of border controls. Any march that can mobilize 500,000 people will get the attention of Washington’s politicians, but this nation must not be deterred from securing its borders, enforcing the law and finding a way to humanely deal with the more than 11 million illegal residents already here.

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hicks1apr01,0,5758338.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

By the way, I did live through the civil rights movement. And the marchers flew American flags, not flags of other nations… you see they wanted to be recognized as Americans.

 

[Kendy]

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.

I seriously doubt that there are tons of people having their children here so they could be taken care of. It’s not welfare is that generous since the 1996 reform anyway. People have children here because it makes the path to legal residency easier.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

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.

I concur. It’s no fun not being a Republican on this forum.

Kendy

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Kendy:

I conquer it no fun not being a Republican on this forum.

Kendy

I’m registered Republican but I find the current crop to be completely offensive and their ideology contrary to what I, as a Christian and candidate of the Catholic Church (I become a member on April 15th!), believe.

I’ve been thinking of changing my registration, but I can’t get with the “pro-choice” plank of the Democrats and don’t like the “Decline to State” option.

 

[Kendy]

St Francis:

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.

I don’t know which catholics you are talking about. This catholic happens to be pro-life and volunteers at a crisis pregancy center. I have a feeling that the many bishops who have spoken out against this. (I posted several links earlier) are all pro-life and did not support the Terri Schivo starvation. I also have a hunch that United States conference of catholics bishops might possibly contain at a handful of pro-life catholics.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

LCMS_No_More:

I’m registered Republican but I find the current crop to be completely offensive and their ideology contrary to what I, as a Christian and candidate of the Catholic Church (I become a member on April 15th!), believe.

I’ve been thinking of changing my registration, but I can’t get with the “pro-choice” plank of the Democrats and don’t like the “Decline to State” option.

It’s amazing that you understood that gibberish I just wrote. A little bit too much coconut rum .

Anyway, it definitely sucks not having a party you feel at home with. I feel the same way. It’s fine though. I think we put way too much stock in what the political world can do for us.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

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.

And she clearly knows know nothing about American history.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

gilliam:

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It’s simply not true. This nation’s civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

…

What we are witnessing is not the birth of a new civil rights movement but the attempt to render meaningless the concept of border controls. Any march that can mobilize 500,000 people will get the attention of Washington’s politicians, but this nation must not be deterred from securing its borders, enforcing the law and finding a way to humanely deal with the more than 11 million illegal residents already here.

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hicks1apr01,0,5758338.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

By the way, I did live through the civil rights movement. And the marchers flew American flags, not flags of other nations… you see they wanted to be recognized as Americans.

Oh, I just don’t know why this discussion refuses to die. Maybe cause people like me feel the need to respond to everything.

Look. There’s nothing you can about the 11 million except make them legal or wait till they die and their children becoming legal. There’s probably little you can do about the influx of illegals except make them legal before they enter to save yourself the embarassment of doing it later after they have broken your laws.

If you stop chasing economic refugees, you might have a better chance of catching terrorist by not spending time and money catching Mexicans. Laws only work when most people cooperate with them. If you have a law that typically law-abidding people break, it will fail.

Kendy

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

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.

As someone who’s lived in the south all their life, I can assure you that your assumption is extremely unreasonable. The notion that southern Republicans now = the Democrats who voted against civil rights in the 1960’s is a canard.

 

[Geldain]

LCMS_No_More:

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 the theorists claim

You want me to summarize EVERY SINGLE POST that does what I assert?

Why of course. Shouldn’t take you more than a month to read them all

Those are two very recent examples where I have personally seen what I’ve said.

Ah. The picture is made clearer!

Reading through the baord, anyone can see that this board is populated primarily with “Conservatives.”

Not a surprising notion, from where I sit.

That non-conservatives are allowed to participate at all is very unusual, so there’s props for that.

No reason for non-conservatives not to participate since this is a secular news forum.

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.

From where I sit, the hostility towards non-conservatives, as you describe them stems more from their arguments than the fact they are non-conservative.

Also, from where I sit, I don’t need to know the “Republican talking points” to know what they are. I just need a dose of my grandma’s common sense–and remember, Grandma is a democrat and has been for the last 70 years or so

 

[St_Francis]

Kendy:

And she clearly knows know nothing about American history.

Kendy

I only have a minute before leaving for the day–I do know about American History, including tthe changes in the Democratic Party and the changes in demographics which have resulted in the change in voting patterns.

This is off-topic so if you want to discuss it further,let’s start a new thread for it.

I notice thatyou have not responded to my thread in which I outlined some of the problems with the criminals who enter our country from Mexico at the rate of more than one per 16.

 

[Robert_Bay]

**General Reminder:

**This discussion has strayed from its original topic of Thousands protest immigration proposal. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[coyote]

Dimmers:

Obviously some of them came here to live that American dream. They don’t have that right do they?

Lemme guess, do it the legal way? I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood. I’ve seen the troubles that honest illegal immigrants go through to even APPLY for citizenship. I’ve seen the financial burden that arises when they try and apply as well. So I don’t see how some dirt poor person in Mexico or whatever country can accumulate the money to even try and get here.

I don’t feel that they should concentrate on 1 group of immigrants but on all. Why not build fences up in Canadian border? Most of the Greek, Italian, Russian, and Polish immigrants I know came from up that way.

The United States IS a sovereign nation. It has the same right to design and enforce law and policy as any other sovereign nation. It also has a responsibility to it’s LEGAL citizens to do so.

The Unites States are not the collander of the New World. And no one is entitled free access to any so called “American Dream”. Anyone thinking that they can do better economically by living in the US and wants to take advantage of any opportunities that exist here to do that–**is still obligated to exercise the established legal means for doing so. **

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

*pro-life_teen*:

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 commend your parents for coming over here legally, and would welcome anyone who came over here legally. However, what I do not agree with is illegal immigration. Why should 11m - 20m people get to jump ahead of the line than others who are still waiting overseas trying to win the immigration lottery?
*pro-life_teen*:

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!

Thanks for being patriotic. I saw more Mexican flags flying at those protests than American flags, though. The one Hispanic girl I did see flying an American flag was being attacked by the other protestors…

God bless.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

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

The current representative for my district is a Democrat and he voted for the bill to make illegals felons (I can’t believe they aren’t, already…) and I definitely would not call him a conservative. Do only conservatives want current laws in place enforced? The media is skewing this to make it seem like it is only conservatives who want a closed border. In fact, most of the governors on the border states are Democrats and have actually called states of emergency to try and get the President to do something about immigration. America is a sovereign nation and the federal government has an OBLIGATION under the Constitution to protect the borders. Once that federal government fails to do its duty it is no longer a legitimate government. This is a bipartisan issue, as most Americans are for a closed border policy and are for troops to be stationed on the borders (as per many recent polls).

 

[gilliam]

Semper Fi:

The current representative for my district is a Democrat and he voted for the bill to make illegals felons (I can’t believe they aren’t, already…) and I definitely would not call him a conservative. Do only conservatives want current laws in place enforced? .

Nope, see:
Rasmussen: On Immigration, 66% Want Enforcement First

 

[Kendy]

St Francis:

I only have a minute before leaving for the day–I do know about American History, including tthe changes in the Democratic Party and the changes in demographics which have resulted in the change in voting patterns.

This is off-topic so if you want to discuss it further,let’s start a new thread for it.

I notice thatyou have not responded to my thread in which I outlined some of the problems with the criminals who enter our country from Mexico at the rate of more than one per 16.

I wasn’t saying that you know anything about American history. Sometimes, it’s hard to communicate sarcasm the right way.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

St Francis:

I only have a minute before leaving for the day–I do know about American History, including tthe changes in the Democratic Party and the changes in demographics which have resulted in the change in voting patterns.

This is off-topic so if you want to discuss it further,let’s start a new thread for it.

I notice thatyou have not responded to my thread in which I outlined some of the problems with the criminals who enter our country from Mexico at the rate of more than one per 16.

As for the criminals, if the US expands its intake of legal immigrants to meet market demand, honest people will be less likely to resort to legal means and thus, it will make it easier to catch criminals. The problem is now that law criminalizes millions of regular folks, which over extends the system.

Kendy

 

[TobyLue]

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.

Let me get this straight. So apparently this is only the responsibility of the USA and not other countries. So the illegal Mexicans can say “Let my beloved government stay corrupt and not work for my rights as a Mexican to have a better life. I will just cross the border illegally and let the USA take care of me as it is the responsibility of the USA **to protect the God-given rights of every individual person and to work for the common good. **I will protest if they try to send me back to my beloved Mexico and I will continue my allegiance to my beloved Mexico even though they have not protected my God-given rights."

I don’t feel that they should concentrate on 1 group of immigrants but on all. Why not build fences up in Canadian border? Most of the Greek, Italian, Russian, and Polish immigrants I know came from up that way.

Please back this up with statistics. How many millions are crossing the Canadian borders illegally?