I don’t really get this. I’m definitely on the pro-immigration side of the debate, and almost exclusively for humanitarian reasons. I’m also (I am told) “soft� on illegal immigration. Still… this type of protest makes no sense to me and I believe it will only backfire. The combination of business interests and both parties pandering to the emerging Latino voting block give immigrants (legal or illegal) a powerful voice in this belated debate. As a matter of fact we are on the cusp of granting millions of undocumented workers effective amnesty. This type of boycott makes me wonder what the organizers have in mind. If it is only to flex the numerical muscle of their interest group it seems ill-advised and poorly timed.

I guess what I am saying is “what’s the point of this?� “what are their demands?� and “why would they want to look like there extorting concessions at exactly the point when they are being given?�

Fitz-

We Demand:

* Full, unconditional and immediate "amnesty" for all immigrants.
* Free movement for all people.
* Freedom for all ICE detainees and the abolition of detention centers.
* De-militarization of the US-Mexico border.
* The repeal of NAFTA and all neoliberal trade agreements which create economic conditions leading to the displacement of people.

We Pledge:

* Active resistance until we are all free to move!
* Active resistance against all attacks on immigrants, deportations and detentions!

We Believe:

The increasing militarization along the US-Mexico border -- by now a veritable war zone -- serves as a brutal reminder that all borders operate as integral and deliberate parts of exploitative economic systems, inseparable from capitalism and neoliberal globalization. The US-Mexico border, and all other borders between nation-states and governments, are reproduced in our minds and throughout society, serving to enforce and legitimize the boundaries, disparities, and exploitative relationships between people. The demand for full amnesty and free movement of people, therefore, aims at justice for immigrants at the same time as it aspires to a world free from all such destructive divisions. More information on our analysis is available at http://www.agp.org

Samhita
Well comrade, me thinks you don’t serve your (purported) cause very well.
I don’t believe for a minute that those who are partaking in today’s boycott subscribe to even a fraction of your agenda.
As long as we subscribing motives to these people, I say their marching/boycotting in support of U.S policy in Iraq.

Become LEGAL. Then talk to me about your rights. The rights that I and my forefathers fought to protect.

I care not about LEGAL immigrants, as we all are in some shape or form. It's the "ILLEGAL" part of the equasion that the media keeps forgetting about that matters to me.

If you are here illegally, then you ARE breaking the law and are a ciminal, period. Become legal, pay taxes, pay your own medical and earn a better living for yourself.

And as for the asshats that HIRE illegals, they are criminals as far as I am concerned as well. Hiring illegals to save a buck is discustingly inhumane. Help them become legal, pay them an honest wage, enable and assist them in obtaining what they obviously seek.

TMOTS

Become LEGAL. Then talk to me about your rights. The rights that I and my forefathers fought to protect.

You mean the rights you and "your" forefathers stole from the people that were living here before you showed up.

Fucking jackass.

TMOTS,

Uh, you might want to do a little more research into your own ancestry before you start spouting off. Lots of us (even white people) are descended from illegals. Yes, I do know that being born here makes you a citizen, but all the same.

I've read the demands, but I think things might end up backfiring on the protesters. I imagine many will try to return to work tomorrow only to find they have no job. And I don't believe that not shopping for one day will have the desired economic impact.

And what about immigrants from non-Hispanic heritage countries? I have several friends from Jamaica and Haiti who resent what they consider to be unfair preferential treatment. I wonder if the organizers of these events considered the potential divide in immigrant communities.

My ancestors stole my rights from noone. The first set of rights we have in America are delineated in the Declaration of Independance. To paraphrase: we believe that God granted men certain inalienable rights. Where do Native Americans figure into that equation? They are granted the same rights by God as everyone else, and inalienable means noone could have stolen them from them even if they wanted to.

The next set of rights, and the ones supposedly in dispute today are the rights granted by the Constitution. These rights are natural rights possessed by all free men. The Constitution merely provides assurance that the government cannot infringe on free exercise of said rights. Since Native Americans are full citizens of the United States, they enjoy the same guarantees as any citizen.

Non-citizens, however are given no such guarantee by the Constitution. If they wish to exercise their natural rights, fine. They have no legal basis to appeal to the Constitution for protection of those rights, however.

In addition, natural rights do not include the right to break the law, for either citizens or non-citizens. Crossing borders illegally, working illegally and not paying taxes, receiving government benefits for which one hasn't contributed and are not entitled, are all unlawful acts. Unless you can pass an amendment saying we can all flout the laws of the land at will and with impunity, your appeal to "rights" to is a childish attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

To correct an element of law, Boogieman, the US did NOT grant Native Americans "citizenship rights" along with the Delcaration of Independence. Along with African Americans and women, they were not considered full citizens, could not vote, and were not deemed to be capable of owning property (hence the creation of "reservations" which are technically sovereign entities). That is why the government was permitted to kill them off during the 1800s.
Non-citizens are, in fact, granted certain rights in this country, depending on their residency status.
So before you start waxing poetic, I would get your law straight.
Personally, I think the concept of "citizenship" is pretty much a construct, because, clearly, indentities are fluid, and one can live in different countries and feel connected to other countries, and people are pretty much "equal" in my view whether or not they live in a territory governed by a constitution or in complete anarchy.

Interestingly enough, there are several legal theories and actual English common law precedent that establishes the “right� of European colonialists to take the land of Native Americans.
(sometimes it was bartered for, often it was signed away in treaties… however)

One of the most fundamental rights of the sovereign is something called “right by conquest�. That’s right it means exactly what you think it means, - we fought you for it, fair & square. (might makes right)

Theirs one wrinkle however in viewing this under a politically correct anti-colonialist prism.

Well you see….. The Indians recognized a right to conquest.
By us, and amongst themselves, before we ever arrived!

(says something about our universal “in� humanity doesn’t it!)

Sorry, Jessi, it is you that is mistaken. The Declaration of Independance makes no reference to God granting rights only to citizens. It clearly states all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. So how are Native Americans not included in the phrase "all men"? These are natural rights, as I stated, they are granted by God, not men or the Declaration, and all men, including Native Americans, were in possession of them since time immemorial.

Also, I never stated that Native Americans were granted citizenship by the Declaration, that is something you pulled out of thin air, not from my comment. I did state that Native Americans are full citizens, and thus enjoy the same Constitutional guarantees as anyone else. Where in my post did I claim where their status of citizenship derived from, and at what time? That's right, I didn't. So stop putting words in my mouth, I mean keyboard rather.

In addition, I never claimed that non-citizens have been granted no rights by the government. I merely stated that their natural rights were not guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, non-citizens cannot appeal to the legal protections of the Constitution simply because that specific document does not apply to them. Obviously this does not preclude them from appealing to the protection of other laws that do apply to them. How difficult is that to understand?

As for your notions of citizenship, they may be entertaining, but they have no legal basis. The Constitution clearly defines the basis of citizenship in the United States, and it is not based on wishy-washy emotional claptrap about "fluid identities" or "feelings of connection". Your feelings may be justification enough for you, but they will not hold up in a court of law. Please read the 14th Amendment, it is the law of the land and your feelings do constitute the 2/3's majority of both federal legislatures, and 3/4's ratification by the States required to overrule it.

hi.

Fitz -

"I don’t believe for a minute that those who are partaking in today’s boycott subscribe to even a fraction of your agenda."

Why not?

And as for your pro-imperialist rant...um...I don't think anyone here is young enough to buy your "we were fair to the native Americans, promise!" history book bullshit, so I won't even bother with it.

TMOTS -

It's kind of ironic that you talk about the rights that you and forefathers "fought" to protect, when you are denying them to other human beings. Maybe you would like to live in a country where absolutely no debate is allowed regarding its laws. Your argument in a debate about a law can't be that you're right because the law says so. Also, the rights that you "fought" for are the same rights we are fighting for today. Are you a natural born citizen? Because if you are, you did absolutely nothing to gain your citizenship. All you did was not die when you were born. These people are fighting for their citizenship rights while you sit on your computer chair and tell me about how you fought for yours.

I would also like to point out that you are openly advocating the criminalization of children. As you so eloquently write in CAPITALS, these children who cross the border with their parents are ILLEGALS! They deserve no RIGHTS because they commited the CRIME of obeying their parents.

viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/tag/immigration

To Boogieman: What the Declaration and Constitution did or did not say has no bearing on Native Americans at the time. By the time these two documents existed, they had already been treatied, forcibly removed or murdered out of their homelands. Plus, many tribes were still self-governing as they had been for thousands of years, so had no need or want to recogize white man's laws. As for the Treaties, you can talk to this Native American about them when you can point out one that WASN'T broken by the Colonial or American government. Not to mention, what goes on paper and what happens in practice are two totally different things. The lack of enforcement of a law renders it useless. So, Declaration or Constitution or no, Natives had no real rights. We're still having plenty of issues to this day.
I won't even dignify the myths about undocumented people that have run roughshod over the facts as of late.
Finally, as a member of one of the groups on the recieving end of one of this country's worst birth defects, this is my response to non-Natives who have a problem with immigration, legal or otherwise. You are welcome to return to your country of origin or ancestry, IMMIGRANT.

Breck,

I think you are misunderstanding of the principle of natural rights. All people have these rights, regardless of whether governments respect them or not. No government granted these rights, and therefore no government can take them away. It is up to individual free men and women to assert these rights. That is the basis of the idea of the social contract.

To say that these are "white man's laws" is not accurate. All men have a fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No white man needed to write this down in order to make it true. All men have freedom of speech because our Creator gave us brains to form words and mouths to speak them. All men have a right to bear arms because they are the ones most responsible for defence of themselves, their families, and their communities. All men have a right to due process and equal protection under the laws, because governments operate at the whim of the governed, and not vice versa.

These things were true long before either the Declaration or Constitution was written. Our nation was merely the first to state these explicitly and concisely, so as to preserve for posterity the simple knowledge that men are free as long as they have the will to be free. It seems too many people nowadays forget that the ideas in these documents were derived from those principles, but did not define them.

Back to my original point though, natural law does not protect one's right to violate civil law or criminal law unless civil or criminal law is in conflict with natural law. The standards of citizenship violate no natural rights inherent or implied in the Constituion. So people who are defending illegal immigration as a right need to do better than appeal to the Constitution, or the rights it represents. They need to explain how they can be considered deserving of citizenship if they do not respect the rule of law itself, including the very laws which set forth the standards of citizenship.

An analogous situation would be if a burglar entered your home, and then demanded that you pay him rent. To defend such actions as a "right" is to defend chaos over the law. Only a fool would accept such a proposition, and hopefully there aren't that many fools in this country yet.

If you read my posts, I made no comment approving or disapproving our government's treatment of Native Americans in the past. I was merely responding to the claim that my natural rights were "stolen" from someone. That is a blatant falsehood and that is all I am stating. My rights were given to me, and stolen from noone. Please stop reading your own biases into my comments and trying to insinuate that I said something which I plainly did not.

Boogieman: The next set of rights, and the ones supposedly in dispute today are the rights granted by the Constitution. These rights are natural rights possessed by all free men [sic]. ... Non-citizens, however are given no such guarantee by the Constitution.

Nonsense. I defy you to show me any passage in the Constitution which distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens in delineating the natural rights which the government is bound to respect, or indeed anything identified as a "right" at all, other than voting rights (which are, in any case, arguably better described as one of the "privileges and immunities" of citizens rather than as a right, which are, except for the franchise, invariably ascribed to "the people" or to "persons" rather than to "citizens"). There is absolutely no textual basis for the claim that the restraints on U.S. government power, as expressed in Article I, the first ten Amendments, the Thirteenth Amendment, etc., don't apply to the government's powers over non-citizens as well as the government's powers over citizens.

Boogieman: If they wish to exercise their natural rights, fine. They have no legal basis to appeal to the Constitution for protection of those rights, however.

Even if this were true, it would only serve as an argument against the legitimacy of the Constitution. If the Constitution allowed the U.S. government to violate the natural rights of non-citizens with impunity, then it would be a criminal document, worthy only of the contempt of civilized people.

Boogieman: In addition, natural rights do not include the right to break the law, for either citizens or non-citizens.

"You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. ... The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.'"

Part of what having natural rights means is that there are things that no government has the legitimate authority to do to you. If those sorts of injustices are commanded by a law, then defiance of the unjust law is justified, since laws that are passed without legitimate authority are not binding on anybody.

Of course, you could claim that U.S. immigration law isn't unjust, and doesn't violate the natural rights of immigrants. But then you'd just be assuming what it's incumbent on you to prove. So let's hear the argument for that, rather than a bunch of pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo about clauses that the Constitution doesn't actually contain.

Viktor

(I wrote)
"I don’t believe for a minute that those who are partaking in today’s boycott subscribe to even a fraction of your agenda."
(you responded) Why not?
Well, look at the list of “demands� that Samhita assumes are being protested for by yesterdays boycott.
Do you believe those marchers were demanding an end to NAFTA, or worse yet- subscribe to the mindset behind this Marxist rant “borders operate as integral and deliberate parts of exploitative economic systems, inseparable from capitalism and neoliberal globalization. The US-Mexico border, and all other borders between nation-states and governments, are reproduced in our minds and throughout society, serving to enforce and legitimize the boundaries, disparities, and exploitative relationships between people�
No- my instincts tell me that current illegal aliens in the United States are merely making their numbers and voices known in an appeal for basic fairness in pursuit of an equitable, pragmatic, workable, effective amnesty. This way they can come out of the shadows, enjoy the rights of citizenship, establish themselves permanently – and reconstitute their families and communities.

(you wrote) “And as for your pro-imperialist rant...um...I don't think anyone here is young enough to buy your "we were fair to the native Americans, promise!" history book bullshit, so I won't even bother with it.
I don’t know how you came up with the idea that my statements were “pro-imperialist� or that I said (or even inferred) that we were “fair to the native Americans�. Go through my comment above again, and try to discrern the point about “our� (meaning mankind’s) universal in-humanity.

Boogiemna, the concept of "natural rights" (I know Rousseau too, thank you), was created by white imperialist men. Now, you can abide and believe that theory, but you have to qualify yourself that this is ONE theory. ONE theory. That most of the non-white world didn't know about or believe in.

So, while I think that logically, you can construct your world view around this theory, you have no right to claim that it is the "right" theory.
And yes, the Declaration of Independence was written by white men who were heavily influences by the Enlightenment and believed in this theory. But, they also believed in slavery, and if you want to be a strict constructionist, the framers of this country never intended any non-white person to enjoy the privileged of citizenship.
As far as whether "natural rights" can be stolen, I think that is also a sort of philosophical argument. "Natural rights" are a great concept, I would love to see it actually enforced for people (except, of course, that the actual Enlightenment theory has definite racist undertones).

Fitz

By saying that you didn't think immigrants suscribed to "even a fraction" of her "agenda," I assumed that's what you meant. You should have specified that there were only certain parts of her post that you didn't think immigrants subscribed to. I agree that most people, simply because of the law of averages, don't study Marxist economics...however, due to the peasant revolution in southern Mexico, the economic implications of NAFTA on poor people is widely known there.

As for your other point, I must have misunderstood you. I apologize.

i keep wanting to write something but other folks put it so much better...

and, viktor, tight blog... keep it up...

as an aside... pretty much all the 'illegal' immigrants i know are better versed in north american history than u.s. citizens... the history behind the panama canal, how nafta was unhinging one of the basic tenets of the 1817 mexican constitution, u.s. presidents' names and occupations before they became presidents, etc. etc.

it's pretty astounding, actually, as a north american who thought i was informed... til i met a former zapatista construction worker with no formal education who could draw maps of all of north america by hand amazingly accurately...

you'd be suprised, fitz... just because us folks tend to be poorly educated, doesn't mean other folks are as well... for a lot of people south of the u.s., it's a matter of survival to know history and political theory. we're just too complacent up here.

overall, though, i've got to agree with fitz on some points... a lot of people have been marching to be treated like human beings right now... but that doesn't mean a lot of them don't have a consciousness that extends to wanting to be treated like human beings for a long time to come.

peace and blessings

Rad Geek, thank you!

Boogieman: Since s/he already beat me to the point/counterpoint punch on the rest of the post, I'll address this paragraph from your post:
"If you read my posts, I made no comment approving or disapproving our government's treatment of Native Americans in the past. I was merely responding to the claim that my natural rights were "stolen" from someone. That is a blatant falsehood and that is all I am stating. My rights were given to me, and stolen from noone. Please stop reading your own biases into my comments and trying to insinuate that I said something which I plainly did not."

Yes, I read ALL of your posts. By not acknowledging that the "rights given" to you were given at the expense of other's rights--natural or otherwise---you do give tacit approval to what was done to Native Americans in order to make this the country of "United States of America." Therefore, I didn't have use my "biases" to see anything that wasn't already there.

Pinkko:
"You mean the rights you and "your" forefathers stole from the people that were living here before you showed up.
Fucking jackass."

I stole nothing asshat. My parents immigrated here from Canada when I was very young, thus I AM an immigrant. BTW, scab, we did it the LEGAL way, just as many of MY forefathers did when they immigrated here as well. I then went on to fight in the gulf for asshats like you... Again, just as many of my IMMIGRANT MALE ancestors did in support for their new country, the USA.
___________________

Viktor:
"These people are fighting for their citizenship rights while you sit on your computer chair and tell me about how you fought for yours."

There is no need to fight for your citizen rights. Fill in the paperwork and do it legally. Pay taxes, sign up for the draft etc. just like all LEGAL immigrants in the past has.

It is YOU who is ASSuming here pal. When I speak of "fighting for rights" I speak of serving MY country, the USA, in the military.

"I would also like to point out that you are openly advocating the criminalization of children. As you so eloquently write in CAPITALS, these children who cross the border with their parents are ILLEGALS! They deserve no RIGHTS because they commited the CRIME of obeying their parents."

Boo hoo. If they are here illegally, they ARE criminals, PERIOD...2, 15, 20 or 60. Illegal is ILLEGAL. Funny how you forget that part of the equasion. It is always "immigrants this and immigrant rights that" but the REAL fact and the REAL ISSUE is ILLEGAL immigrants, NOT immigrants in general.

Something like 7% of America is native, so that means the other 93% of the population are immigrants from somewhere in time.

So remember, the issue is NOT immigrants. it is those folks that cross the US borders ILLEGALLY and are now demanding that we treat them as citizens. They are not.

TMOTS

BTW, read and learn:

Down Mexico Way

Try crossing our southern border; try going the other way,
To enter Mexico illegally for an extended, unlawful stay.
Ignore immigration quotas, all their visas and their fees,
And quietly slip their border, anytime you damn well please.
Just sneak in past the policía, ignoring Mexican laws;
You’ve a desperate need to improve your lot; you have a righteous cause.
With Evil Bush in power now, destroying your liberal order,
You’ve a right to seek asylum, to trespass their northern border.

Once there, speak English only and demand it in their schools;
Forget assimilation; make Mexicanos change their rules.
What right do these Latinos have to make you learn their lingo?
Tell those churlish campesinos¹ you’ve the right to remain a gringo.
Move right on in, live your own way, ignore their cultural norms,
And demand the use of English on all their official forms.
Free healthcare is, of course, your right; let poor peones² pay,
For bilingual health providers throughout your border-bending stay.

Be sure to have a baby just as quickly as you can;
A citizen in the family helps legitimize your clan.
Then have another three or four, or maybe six or eight;
Don’t worry how you’ll feed them, just demand help from the state.
Paisanos³ paying taxes may resent your reckless breeding,
And protest loudly to their states about your gringo kids they’re feeding;
“But it’s just our way,� is your excuse, “Brought from our Yanquí land.�
How dare they question gringo ways they’ll never understand?

So defend your Anglo ethos; yield not your Yanquí essence;
And demand a driver’s license to legitimize your presence.
Just so you know what you’ve done wrong in case of policía stops,
Insist the Federales must teach English to all cops.
Make Mexicans accept your ways, make them your pliant fools;
Demand a Yanquí culture course be taught in all their schools.
So what you paid no taxes; when you’re an old gringo who will care?
File for your Seguridad Social, after all, you’re due your share.

If all this sounds preposterous, an irrational expectation,
They are demanding it for Illegals now in our multicultural nation.

Russ Vaughn

¹Rube, hick, unsophisticated person
²Laborer, worker
³Citizen

TMOTS

TMOTS:

"Pay taxes, sign up for the draft etc. just like all LEGAL immigrants in the past has."

Illegal immigrants pay taxes.

It is not up to them whether or not they get paid in cash. It is up to the employer. If they get paid with checks, they pay income tax. "Read and learn."

there is no draft....

You failed to respond to my comment: in a debate about a law, your argument cannot be that you are right because the law says so.

Your argument is: they're illegals. But why don't they deserve citizenship? You could use your argument for anything...it could have been used in the past: "it is illegal (wait, I have to type it in all caps like you do) ILLEGAL for blacks to vote. Therefore, blacks should not be able to vote."

You have to explain your rationale.

As for "doing it the RIGHT way," it is dishonest to pretend like immigration policies were the same "in the past" as they are now. It is not just a matter of filling out forms and waiting. If it was as easy as that, why wouldn't illegal immigrants just do it? It's not like there are advantages to being illegal... why would they deny themselves citizenship rights? (here's where you claim that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Look it up.) The system is purposefully convoluted because the labor of illegal immigrants is beneficial to the establishment.

"Boo hoo. If they are here illegally, they ARE criminals, PERIOD...2, 15, 20 or 60."

So, your response to my argument that you're supporting the criminalization of children is "boo hoo." Cool. Would you send a child to jail for witnessing someone smoking pot and not reporting it to the authorities?

Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

"So remember, the issue is NOT immigrants. it is those folks that cross the US borders ILLEGALLY and are now demanding that we treat them as citizens. They are not."

Well, that's fine with us. You're saying that you have no arguments except that they're illegal. We're presenting arguments and counterargumets against yours. Are people going to listen to the side that presents arguments or the side that says "they're illegals, I don't need any other reason." ?

And yes, there ARE many anti-illegal-immigrant arguments that I've heard (and discussed in my blog). It's just that you don't use any of them except "THEY"RE ILLEGALS!"

Think about this: everything the Taliban did was legal in their country. Oppressing women, forcing people to follow an extreme/distorted tyrannical version of Islam, etc. But they weren't ILLEGAL. So was it okay?

Do you not see the importance of allowing debate about laws? That's what we're doing. That's kind of what the US is based on....

As for your copy/pasted article/cute poem, which includes a bunch of racist generalizations that shouldn't be used as argument...I advocate the same immigration policy for any country, including the US and Mexico: If people are making an effort to learn the national language, paying taxes, obeying the laws and working, then they deserve citizenship.

"If people are making an effort to learn the national language, paying taxes, obeying the laws and working, then they deserve citizenship."

Do you hear yourself? "Obeying the laws". If they are here ILLEGALLY, they are not obeying the law!

I have no problem WHAT SO EVER with them becoming legal. Why do they come here illegally? because they can! They can come here, work under the table and noone is the wiser.

There is no draft... no? The draft has been not activated, but a MALE OF 18 YEARS OF AGE MUST REGISTER. It is the law.

I see nothing wrong with debate of law either. Stop putting words in my mouth.

As for the "poem".... funny how it's racist when it goes against the status quo. It is merely a FACTUAL statement of how SOME illegals act here.

LEarning the language? Paying taxes? Are you kidding me? Lets see, if I go to an ATM, I have to choose whether I want english or spanish. why? You are in America. The language is English. Should there be a choice for traditional Chinese, Manderin, French (france and Canadian), Italian, Germal....etc....etc... no. Why? Because these LEGAL folks are not demanding that this country assimulate THEM. They know the rules. They know that when in Rome and the like....

TMOTS

"Do you hear yourself? "Obeying the laws". If they are here ILLEGALLY, they are not obeying the law!"

Do you really not know what I meant or are you just being childish?

"They can come here, work under the table and noone is the wiser."

Anybody can work under the table. It has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. There are people who work for cash who aren't illegal immigrants. And why are you placing blame on the ones who work under the table, instead of on the employers? If it was up to the workers, they would be citizens get paid legally, and receive benefits.

It almost sounds like you're under the impression that illegal immigrants come here for the sole purpose of making your life horrible. They are not consipiring against you. They want to feed their families, and employers want the cheapest labor possible.

"There is no draft... no? The draft has been not activated, but a MALE OF 18 YEARS OF AGE MUST REGISTER. It is the law."

Ummm....

...they can't register for selective service if they aren't citizens. If they were granted citizenship, they would. (unless you are operating on a sublty racist notion that they won't respect any laws).

"I see nothing wrong with debate of law either. Stop putting words in my mouth."

Uh...how 'bout the fact that your entire argument is, in exact terms, "THEY'RE ILLEGALS!" ???

Like it or not, you have entered into this debate. People are debating whether or not to change immigration policy. That's the whole point. You still haven't responded to my criticism: if you are in a debate about a law, you can't use the THAT law to say you're right, because the whole point of debating is because the law might not be right.
That's the reason I say you're not allowing debate. Because when I present arguments, your response to them is THEY'RE ILLEGALS!

"As for the "poem".... funny how it's racist when it goes against the status quo. It is merely a FACTUAL statement of how SOME illegals act here."

So should I post a poem about how some white people are racist and use it as an argument? Your xenophobic personal opinions should not be considered when debating a national policy that will affect millions of people.

"LEarning the language? Paying taxes? Are you kidding me? Lets see, if I go to an ATM, I have to choose whether I want english or spanish. why?"

I'll take a page from your book: "boo hoo!"

1.) Would Native Americans have been justified in attacking all white people who came from Europe without permission and driving them out? They certainly didn't assimilate or learn the language. How many white people know the appropriate native American language for the area they live in? My point is, if everyone has to respect the dominant white culture and use English, it's only fair that that Americans be forced to know the language of the people to whom they were illegal immigrants. The US is made up of MANY different cultures. We should be appreciating other cultures instead of pretending like Americans got this country fair and square and forcing everyone to conform to their culture. I agree that immigrants should learn English. The fact that you have to *gasp* see Spanish words at your ATM...is...basically....how do I say this....THE WORST ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE. BOO HOO.

Immigrants are not "demanding" that this country, which took land from Mexico in an illegal war (look it up before yelling at me), which took this whole land illegally from native Americans...they are not demanding that it "assimilate" to them, they are just demanding that they be treated fairly.
http://viktorfrankl.livejournal.com/tag/immigration

woops. don't know why i put the "1".

This is going nowhere. You nit pick the hell outah everything I say, taste the morsels and spit it back along side the bile. What is the use. Why should I expect anything else from a feminist site. And this wasn't even a "feminist" topic!

Simply put, become legal then talk to me. Until then, have a nice cup of STFU, and go the eff home, thank you very much.

TMOTS

I'll post this discussion in my blog. It presents a nice example of how some of the conservative arguments totally fail.

Uh, no. I wrote it here and it stays here. You do not have my permission to copy it to your liberal shithole.

Furthermore, the only failure is your ability to see the facts...

Excuse me for butting in ... I have no idea of the issues, except that it did cross my mind re shifting "ownership".

"The language is English. Should there be a choice for traditional Chinese, Manderin, French (france and Canadian), Italian, Germal....etc....etc... no."

Um, I live in a cosmopolitan society, maybe not ATMs but most important functions (where possible) have umteen language choices. If we all exercised our minds a little language is very enriching, neurologically speaking.

Yikes. Ever heard of a thing called "the blogosphere?" It's this amazing collection of information that basically runs on the principle of copying and pasting. Anybody in the world with an internet connection can see your comments on this page. If you prefer, I'll just link to here in my Liberal Shithole instead of posting the discussion on it.

Did people need your permission to open their eyelids to see the comments you wrote on this page?

Man, that is an awesome name. I might just have to change my blog's name to My Liberal Shithole.

Besides, don't you want more people to see your side of the debate?

"Besides, don't you want more people to see your side of the debate?"

Sure! They can come here to see it. I have no problem with that. Then they can see how you took everything I said out of context to fit your warped ldeals and once again show the world what a liberal asshat looks like.

As for your new site name, I was being generous.

TMOTS

could someone please tell me what a Liberal Shithole is? or a Liberal for that matter, I must have missed the memo.

" ... they are just demanding that they be treated fairly."

Unfortunately, no. I've seen posters at a protest in Texas that shows Texas annexed away from the US to Mexico. I've seen US flags flown upside down. I've seen pictures of Che.

Is it fair that my Filippina cousin (with a university degree) will spend years trying to legally immigrate to the US with no guarantee of approval while someone else that sneaks into the US illegally demands amnesty?

Actually, TMOTS, Feministing.com owns your posts as soon as you publish them here--so the decision to distribute them further, or not, rests with Jessica, Samhita, etc.

Cheers,

TH

Well, actually I'm pretty sure it's more of a nonexclusive right to distribute rather than ownership, but the fact remains that you license over publication rights to your posts when you make them--so the site owners can cut-and-paste them elsewhere at their leisure. As far as I know, there's no distinction between first serial and second serial rights on blog comments.

Why someone hostile to feminism would feel inclined to spend so much time on a feminist blog is another question, one probably best left to those in the helping professions.

Cheers,

TH

Dave:

The majority of the people at the protests do not demand that Texas be annexed by Mexico and do not hang US flags upside down. It's a dishonest representation to say that those are the main sentiments of the movement. Just as many, if not more, people on the other side of the argument wish to "shoot all immigrants on sight" who are caught crossing the border illegally, or other ridiculously inhumane demands.

No, I don't think it's fair that your cousin has to go through a convoluted, complex and unfair process of citizenship. I also don't think it's fair that people who risk their lives to feed their families, make a living, obey all the other laws and pay taxes should have to go through that almost-impossible process.

My stance is that people who have no crime record (other than crossing the border), learn English, work and pay taxes deserve citizenship. If your cousin, or any other immigrant, meets those requirements, she deserves citizenship, in my opinion.

Is that unfair? Is there something wrong about my stance?

"Actually, TMOTS, Feministing.com owns your posts as soon as you publish them here"

I think owns is overstating the case, and could have negative implications as well. They do indeed own the site.

Ooops sorry, didn't read your afterthought. Don't really know that you can cut + paste with gay abaondon (sorry, no offence but I love that phrase in spite of it's dual meaning). If he is so bothered he could of course, respecfully ask that his post be removed.

Right now though I am glad I live on an island continent at the other end of the world.

viktor,

I did not qualify any actions of the protestors as the majority opinion. However, the organizers never seeked to remove the pictures of Che and annexed Texas or turn the US flags right side up. There seemed to be a quiet acceptance.

In all honesty, I have not heard anyone say they are in favor of shooting all illegal immigrants on sight. I have heard that families along the border often thank the Minutemen because their dogs no longer bark at trespassers all night. Also, fences no longer have to be rebuilt every day.

Far too often, illegal immigrants to NOT seek to assimilate and become Americans. That is why so many Mexican flags were flown at the protests. The vast majority do not pay taxes, do not learn the language, and plan to retire back to Mexico.

It is not the responsibility of the US to solve the world's unemployment problems. If the Mexican government was not so corrupt, that country could be prosperous. Why don't these same protestors hold rallies in Mexico City?

Why should illegal border crossers jump in line ahead of my cousin?

You twice alluded that border crossing laws are unimportant. You can't ignore a law after you break it just because you disagree with it. A soverign nation does not exist without borders and laws.

"Sir, I'm going to give you a ticket for going 90 in a 55 zone."

"Officer, you can't give me that ticket because I don't believe there should be any speeding laws."

Dave

"There seemed to be a quiet acceptance."

Do you believe that the movement is anti-American? There are always going to be more radical people in the crowd. Leaders of the movement, as well as the vast majority of protesters, have made their stance clear, and it doesn't involve making Texas part of Mexico. That's like saying that your side of the argument would like to shoot all illegal immigrants on sight. You have not heard that claim, and I have not heard the Texas claim. They are both minority demands that neither of us should be arguing about when honestly looking at the debate.

"I have heard that families along the border often thank the Minutemen because their dogs no longer bark at trespassers all night. Also, fences no longer have to be rebuilt every day."

The illegal sneaking across the border would not exist if our stance about granting citizenship was validated. If the process of citizenship was changed (in other words, if the movement ended up being completely successful), then I personally would be opposed to those who still sneak across the border, and would denounce it.

"Far too often, illegal immigrants to NOT seek to assimilate and become Americans. That is why so many Mexican flags were flown at the protests. The vast majority do not pay taxes, do not learn the language, and plan to retire back to Mexico."

I don't know how else to say this, but it is simply not true.

First of all, make sure you are not assuming a racist/xenophobic idea of "assimilation." Mexican immigrants should not have to change their culture (that's one of the fundamental sentiments of the US), but they should be able to function within the dominant society (in other words, speak English, understand traditions, etc.) Our critics claim that immigrants are trying to change the national language and take over the country. We are not demanding that. In fact, it is those that want Mexican immigrants to completely forget their culture who are demanding too much. Immigrants only need to comform to the dominant culture as much as it takes to function as a citizen of society. Other than that, American ideals guarantee their freedom to express their culture. Any assumption that Mexicans somehow are incapable of functioning in society is simple-minded or racist.

More US flags were flown at the protests than Mexican flags. Sorry for being so blunt about it, but what you are saying is just simply not true.

"The vast majority do not pay taxes"

Do you have a source for that or were you just hoping to let it slip by?

"do not learn the language"

Yikes. I wonder how their kids manage to go to school and purposefully refuse to read the words around them and in their books.

"and plan to retire back to Mexico."

Uh...

Did you happen to see about a million people on TV supporting citizenship? That means they want to stay here.

"It is not the responsibility of the US to solve the world's unemployment problems. If the Mexican government was not so corrupt, that country could be prosperous. Why don't these same protestors hold rallies in Mexico City?"

Do you know what NAFTA is and its implications on Mexico's poor people? Do you know its relation to "Operation Gatekeeper?"

"Why should illegal border crossers jump in line ahead of my cousin?"

Your cousin and everyone else would have the same opportunity for citizenship if our stance on reform were validated. We are only asking that everyone have the same opportunity to "do it the right way," regardless of if they have certain resources. Why are you opposed to that?

It almost seems like people who use this argument are afriad of getting their argument taken away from them. "We did it the RIGHT way...so don't do it the right way or we won't have anything to brag about."

""Officer, you can't give me that ticket because I don't believe there should be any speeding laws.""

If someone disagrees with the speeding laws, they are justified in saying this. However, they wouldn't be able to gather millions to support him/her and march in the streets on a national level because so many people think he/she's right. We don't disagree with the speeding laws. We think the law should be changed regarding immigration policy.

"Sir, you can't enslave me because I think it's wrong. I think there should be some kind of emancipation proclamation to free us. So I'm not gonna follow your orders."

Not justified?

I think you are missing some of the differences between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. I see these two groups VERY differently.