May I see your papers, citizen?

@spendius,

It's quite a simple metaphor, its meaning is hardly opaque.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That's very sweet Finn, but not very realistic.

First of all, I do believe that racism is and always has been at the center of the immigration debate in this country. It is funny you used the Chinese in your example. The first modern immigration law was called the "Asian Exclusion Act" and was implicitly racist. Racism was the whole point of the law based on the "knowledge" that Chinese people could not possibly assimilate. In the 1920's there was a complicated system designed to restrmigration, and look at the comments. To ignore the fact that there is deep vicious racism toward Latinos in this country and that it is a big part of the immict immigration from Catholic countries while favoring northern European immigrants. Africans and Asians were pretty well excluded until the 1960's (where things started to change thanks to Ted Kennedy's work).

Of course racism still plays a big part in the debate. Google any story that mentions Mexico, even a story that has nothing to do with imigration issue is naive at best.

But secondly, your idea that we will somehow come to a "mutually agreeable solution" is also naive. That isn't the way we do things in the United States.

The first big issue in the United States was slavery. We tried a couple of half-assed compromises with three-fifths and Missouri, but the issue simmered until we ended up fighting a war over it. One side won, the other side lost. And after almost 150 years the side that lost is still bitter.

Womans suffrage was the same. We didn't come to any agreement. One side agitated and agitated and would not back down. They won when they figured out how to use the press effectively and they pretty convincingly humiliated the Wilson administration into submission. One side won, the other side lost.

Martin Luther King did the same. His message and strength of character rolled over the people who opposed civil rights (and it is not difficult to find American's who still hate Dr. King). School segregation was ended with troops while people who wanted to keep it threw rocks and screamed obscenities.

Gay marriage proponents aren't stopping with their recent victories. There will be no agreement between them and the fundamentalist Christians who think they are evil. Look at the little scuffle between Dan Savage and Rick Santorum. Santorum is now a constant target of late night comedians for his "Google" problem.

I respect that Brandon is an American, and I support his right to an opinion and to free speech yadda yadda yadda. But I don't think we will ever come to an agreement over our differences. One of our sides will win, and the other will lose and America will go on regardless.

However, I am confident the battle against monoculturalism has already been won. The holdouts are mainly a bunch of grumpy old white men who will inevitably die off leaving America to the the next generation which is far more diverse, open-minded and accepting.

Of course, our responsibility is to keep pushing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Well, you don't get a seat at the table then. Not only have you made it clear that you cannot or will not part with your conviction that racism is the primary motivation for disagreement with your positions on this topic, you've also made it pretty clear that you have no interest in exploring the possibility that better understanding of opposing positions might lead to your acceptance of some aspect or version of them.

You want to do battle and contend with winning or losing.

This latter is not atypical and assuming you have an accurate and well thought out position, is not inappropriate, but, in my experience, people who see racism lurking around every corner, and the real reason behind every difference of opinion rarely posses an accurate or well thought out position.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Of course I get a seat at the table. The table in the US is politics and my vote is as good as yours or Brandon's. There are a few logical problems with your attempt to reach "acceptance".

1. Understanding does not lead to acceptance. Quite often it leads to stronger opposition. I have given several examples of this including slavery and woman's suffrage, I would be interested if you had a counter example where two sides reached an agreement. That certainly isn't how it generally works in our history.

2. It is clearly wrong to see racism everywhere, but it is equally wrong to insist that there isn't racism anywhere. I don't see racism around every corner. I do see racism at the heart of the anti-immigrant movement. What is wrong with being honest about racism where it exists?

3. You can't accept the unacceptable. We are talking about chaining women to hospital beds during labor. We are talking about having children being interrogated at school by their teachers. Politicians in Alabama are saying the goal is to keep "illegal" kids from going school which is unconstitutional. We are talking about people coming to babysit and do yard work being called an "invasion".

There is an extreme difference of opinion here. You can't deny that Brandon's side is fighting mad. Of course this their right since we have freedom of expression. I bet that Brandon is no more willing to accept my position than I am willing to accept his.

This is why we have a political system to work out these differences. Over the short term my side has some difficulties, but over the long term the demographic changes make a good outcome nearly inevitable.

We also have an advantage since monoculturalists, whose numbers are decreasing, have trouble making coalitions. For example there has been increasing cooperation between the LGBT and pro-immigrant communities that at first thought might be surprising.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Of course you get a vote, but you don't want to be part of the discussion and can't contribute anything to it, so no seat at the table.

Understanding doesn't guarantee acceptance but it certainly improves chances for resolution. If you truly understand what the other sides position is and how and why they arrived at it there is a much better chance of resolution than if you simply assume you know what it is.

1) What you originally assumed and what you come to understand may be one and the same and so the chance for resolution will not improve, but it didn't exist before you tried and so nothing was lost.

2) What is right and what is wrong in isolation may be something different, but in terms of working to achieve resolution of a problem, seeing racism is worse than never seeing it, because declaring that someone's motivations are racist will, 9 times out of 10, shut down all discussion. Unless your goal is compromise, which I've already indicated it should not be, then there is nothing wrong with being honest when it exists. The problem is whether or not you can be certain that it exists. Because you perceive racism, doesn't necessarily mean it exists, and since it's a highly charged issue, the impact of being wrong is significant. Because racism can be an underlying factor in issues of immigration, doesn't mean it is always behind the positions with which you disagree. If you rigidly insist it is then, a seat at the table is wasted on you.

3) By definition you can't accept the unacceptable, but you can moderate your perspective and acceptance level. The examples you provided all need fleshing out and I can imagine them being described entirely differently by someone with an alternative perspective. For example:"Children being interrogated at school by their teachers." From you I perceive the image of a little kid sitting under a hot bright lamp while three adults loom over her barking out questions. The actual manifestation might easily be something a lot less threatening, and thus more acceptable. In another vein, is someone referring to a wave of illegal immigration as an "invasion" really so unacceptable to you? Surely you understand that it is merely a word choice, and most likely not intended to be taken literally.

Brandon clearly feels strongly about the topic, and perhaps he is unwilling to try and better understand your position. Perhaps there is no seat at the table for him either, but then I'm not certain he has expressed any "show stoppers" about your opinions that would equate with your suggesting his are based on racism. In any case you both may be people who are only interested in putting your positions, without re-examination, to the test, and win or lose.

Viewing this in terms of legislative strategy underscores your attitude of taking your position to the mat. Personally, I think your assessment of the politics is well off the mark, but that's perhaps for another post.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn,

Please give me an example of a time in history where a contentious issue was resolved in the way you suggest.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I wouldent even try to. Im not a constitutional lawyer like you and Phylis Shaffley. Im just a brain dead 76 year old common citizen not a genius like you and her.

Not an argument.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Brandon wants to define the American culture. He talks about what "we" want, and how "his" country should be as if he and people like him own America. Of course in our diverse democracy this simply isn't reality.

The genius of America is that the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are equal in every way to Brandon. So are "libruls", homosexuals, Muslims, African-American and anyone else that Brandon doesn't think he wants to share a culture with....

No, I am talking about the my personal right and the rights of the segment of the population which agrees with me to vote for laws in our own country. They call that democracy. What I claim to own is a single vote, and the right to argue in favor of my opinions. When every law designed to stop illegal immigration is nullified by a liberal judge by some tortured and false argument that it is unconstitutional, then the millions of citizens who voted for it lack the right to vote, or at least lack a meaningful right to vote.

You list people you claim that I don't want to share America with, and yet in all of my thousands of posts on this board, I have never stated a reluctance to share America with a single category you mention. You are making up a position I don't hold in order to be able to criticize it. It is interesting that you are unable to defend your position without misstating mine, but not very surprising.

Every country in the history of the world, at least to my knowledge, has claimed the right to regulate immigration. America has the same right as all of those other countries. We have a right to enforce those laws. There are now 12 million illegal immigrants in America because the federal government has failed utterly for decades to enforce the immigration laws. The federal government only has the power to rule over our lives because we have given it when our ancestors ratified the Constitution, and when the federal government fails egregiously to act in our behalf or enforce the citizens' laws, then we have the right to step in and act on our own behalf as these states have. When we are even denied the right to vote, then this is even more true.

4 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

When every law designed to stop illegal immigration is nullified by a liberal judge by some tortured and false argument that it is unconstitutional, then the millions of citizens who voted for it lack the right to vote, or at least lack a meaningful right to vote.

I'm glad to live in a democratic country with independent judges who look at laws if they are constitutional,

That's one of the great advantages of democracy as opposed to right-wing populism.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Every country in the history of the world, at least to my knowledge, has claimed the right to regulate immigration. America has the same right as all of those other countries. We have a right to enforce those laws. There are now 12 million illegal immigrants in America because the federal government has failed utterly for decades to enforce the immigration laws. The federal government only has the power to rule over our lives because we have given it when our ancestors ratified the Constitution, and when the federal government fails egregiously to act in our behalf or enforce the citizens' laws, then we have the right to step in and act on our own behalf as these states have. When we are even denied the right to vote, then this is even more true.

Not everything you claim here is 'federal' - when you look at your Constitution, then the qualifications for voters are left to the states, it's not the fault of the federal government if you are denied that right.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

You list people you claim that I don't want to share America with, and yet in all of my thousands of posts on this board, I have never stated a reluctance to share America with a single category you mention.

You're willing to share as long as they don't get too uppity and want to change things from how you want them to be.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You are twisting the facts Brandon.

First of all judges stopping laws from being enforced when they are unconstitutional is part of the Constitution. The Constitution institutes a judicial branch to decide which laws are constitutional. You can whine all you want when the judicial branch doesn't go your way, as can I, but that is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

Second the American people are far from in sync with you. Politicians with moderate ideas about immigration keep getting elected and polls continually show many Americans support a moderate position that includes a path to citizenship (what you call "amnesty" if you like) if combined with border security.

And it is Republicans, acting on behalf of the anti-immigrant side, who are stopping a compromise solution. A compromise position with border security measures combined with path to citizenship has had the support of a majority in Congress and the country a couple of times now. It had to be filibustered by a Republican minority.

But, there is a bigger battle here-- the battle for diversity against monoculturalism. This is why the debate is about much more than legal or illegal immigration. This is why the fight is about English only laws, and whether people can build mosques and whether you can teach the history of Native Americans or tell kids that homosexuals are people.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
When every law designed to stop illegal immigration is nullified by a liberal judge by some tortured and false argument that it is unconstitutional, then the millions of citizens who voted for it lack the right to vote, or at least lack a meaningful right to vote.

I'm glad to live in a democratic country with independent judges who look at laws if they are constitutional,

That's one of the great advantages of democracy as opposed to right-wing populism.

I agree completely, but democracy involves the right to vote too, doesn't it? Isn't the right to vote kind of the definition of democracy? Millions of people in these states voted for these laws. When the judges disqualify laws because they don't personally agree with them by working backwards to rationalize non-existent violations of the Constitution, then the votes of millions of people have been unfairly voided by the votes of a handful of people. I absolutely challenge you to find anything in one of these laws which has been ruled unconstitutional and then find the text in the Constitution which it violates. Maybe one or two things in the laws actually were unconstitutional, but in general, the claimed violations of the Constitution were fictitious. If you disagree, you have only to give an example of a law or part of a law ruled unconstitutional and then state the exact text in the Constitution which it violated.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Every country in the history of the world, at least to my knowledge, has claimed the right to regulate immigration. America has the same right as all of those other countries. We have a right to enforce those laws. There are now 12 million illegal immigrants in America because the federal government has failed utterly for decades to enforce the immigration laws. The federal government only has the power to rule over our lives because we have given it when our ancestors ratified the Constitution, and when the federal government fails egregiously to act in our behalf or enforce the citizens' laws, then we have the right to step in and act on our own behalf as these states have. When we are even denied the right to vote, then this is even more true.

Not everything you claim here is 'federal' - when you look at your Constitution, then the qualifications for voters are left to the states, it's not the fault of the federal government if you are denied that right.

When I say denied the right to vote, what I mean is that millions of people pass a law and then the liberals persuade a handful of judges to void their vote. What is the point of having the formal right to vote if one's political opponents get the laws violated based on fictitious interpretations of the Constitution? What is the point of having the formal right to vote if the laws one passes are quickly nullified?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You list people you claim that I don't want to share America with, and yet in all of my thousands of posts on this board, I have never stated a reluctance to share America with a single category you mention.

You're willing to share as long as they don't get too uppity and want to change things from how you want them to be.

Prove it based on any one of the thousands of posts I have made on this board.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

What is the point of having the formal right to vote if one's political opponents get the laws violated based on fictitious interpretations of the Constitution?

You say they are fictitious. Other Americans say they are not. Do you know who decides whether the laws violate the Constitution or not?
(Hint: it is clearly specified in the Constitution).

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. If you do, then you need to accept the judicial process as an important part of our Constitutional system of government. There are several decisions that I didn't particularly like or agree with. You don't hear me whining about it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are twisting the facts Brandon.

First of all judges stopping laws from being enforced when they are unconstitutional is part of the Constitution. The Constitution institutes a judicial branch to decide which laws are constitutional. You can whine all you want when the judicial branch doesn't go your way, as can I, but that is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

Second the American people are far from in sync with you. Politicians with moderate ideas about immigration keep getting elected and polls continually show many Americans support a moderate position that includes a path to citizenship (what you call "amnesty" if you like) if combined with border security.

And it is Republicans, acting on behalf of the anti-immigrant side, who are stopping a compromise solution. A compromise position with border security measures combined with path to citizenship has had the support of a majority in Congress and the country a couple of times now. It had to be filibustered by a Republican minority.

But, there is a bigger battle here-- the battle for diversity against monoculturalism. This is why the debate is about much more than legal or illegal immigration. This is why the fight is about English only laws, and whether people can build mosques and whether you can teach the history of Native Americans or tell kids that homosexuals are people.

I see anti-immigration laws getting passed by voters which are then quickly nullified. What is the point in having a formal right to vote if the laws one votes in are nullified? Of course this would be fair if the claims of unconstitutionality were true, but they aren't, at least not in general. It's about time for you to stop talking in vague generalities and put up or shut up. I insist that you find some immigration law or part of such a law that was ruled unconstitutional and show me the exact text in the Constitution that it violates.

There may actually be some little thing here or there in these laws that actually was unconstitutional, but in general the court rulings represent the liberals' practice of finding a pretext to nullify laws that they don't like.

If, say, Germany or Italy were overrun with millions upon millions of, say French, who entered illegally and came in such numbers that the country began to become bilingual and had pockets of France within its borders, you can bet that they would act to rectify the situation. I welcome all legal immigrants, but insist upon the right to enforce the immigration laws and to keep the numbers of immigrants to levels such that they can (a) be assimilated into our culture and (b) not put a strain on goods and services that creates shortages.

If the federal government would enforce the immigration laws effectively, then that would be fine, but they have failed to do so and failed on the scale of decades. The concerned cititizens should not be compelled to depend on a federal government that has demonstrated time and time again that it won't do its job. If the federal government begins to enforce the immigration laws on the books effectively, then you may be sure that these local movements will go away, or at least be reduced to a tiny minority of kooks.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
What is the point of having the formal right to vote if one's political opponents get the laws violated based on fictitious interpretations of the Constitution?

You say they are fictitious. Other Americans say they are not. Do you know who decides whether the laws violate the Constitution or not?
(Hint: it is clearly specified in the Constitution).

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. If you do, then you need to accept the judicial process as an important part of our Constitutional system of government. There are several decisions that I didn't particularly like or agree with. You don't hear me whining about it.

Show me a law or provision that was ruled unconstitutional in one of these laws and then show me the text in the Constitution that it violates or shut up.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

You are just upset because the judicial process set up by the Constitution didn't go your way. Each judicial decision is argued before judges and you can read their decisions on your own. My opinion on the matter doesn't matter any more than yours did.

I suspect that you are just engaging in partisan whining, but let's check. How do you feel when judges overturn legislation that you don't agree with?

In DC v. Heller gun control legislation that was voted on by elected officials was overturned by judges. Did you feel that this was the act of activist judges, or was this an important protection of a Constitution principal.

Obama's health care plan was voted on. If a judge overturns it, will you think this is a bad thing?

Look, you either accept the process set up by the Constitution, or you don't. If you only accept the Constitutional government when you agree with it, we should just appoint you supreme leader and do away with this whole Constitutional process that seems to bother you so much.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are just upset because the judicial process set up by the Constitution didn't go your way. Each judicial decision is argued before judges and you can read their decisions on your own. My opinion on the matter doesn't matter any more than yours did.

I suspect that you are just engaging in partisan whining, but let's check. How do you feel when judges overturn legislation that you don't agree with?

In DC v. Heller gun control legislation that was voted on by elected officials was overturned by judges. Did you feel that this was the act of activist judges, or was this an important protection of a Constitution principal.

Obama's health care plan was voted on. If a judge overturns it, will you think this is a bad thing?

Look, you either accept the process set up by the Constitution, or you don't. If you only accept the Constitutional government when you agree with it, we should just appoint you supreme leader and do away with this whole Constitutional process that seems to bother you so much.

U see, a lot of things were put beyond the reach of government jurisdiction by the Creators of that government,
but later generations of legislators adopted USURPATION
to express their preferences. The judges acted correctly in pointing out accurate Constitutional history,
tending toward ending that usurpation.

Your post falsely implied
that if someone is elected, then he can properly enact whatever he damn pleases. It is not so.

The American Revolution was LIBERTARIAN.
Its leaders Founded this Republic,
knowing that personal freedom and domestic jurisdiction of government are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

David

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know