What should be done about illegal immigration?

I never said legals who support amnesty should be deported.

The 1st amendment gives them the right as citizens to expose themselves as the hypocritical idiots they are.

Castigat ridendo mores.

Do you always snort when you laugh?

Then who is the "they" in your sentence: "They should be deported too."? I thought it was "those who have gone through the process and still support amnesty." -- meaning legal immigrants.

I said it in anger. There is no provision to deport legal citizens, obviously.

My definition of racism is a) assigning negative status to people of a different race because they are a different race and/or ethnicity and/or country of origin or b) assigning victim or special status to people purely because they are of a different race and/or ethnicity and/or country of origin.

My definition of racism does NOT include making an accurate observation that the majority of illegal immigrants are from a particular country or that some who are committing illegal and/or unAmerican acts are members of a particular race/ethnic group/country of origin.

So what's your definition of racism?

Well, Foxfyre, due to our history I might have indeed a different one than you have: I will do everything possible to nip a repeat of that the bud.

Apology accepted -- at least by this poster who has gone through the process and still supports amnesty.

source: AP via The Guardian

California is screwed.

Calfiornia is not screwed; our government is. Over 90 percent of congress needs to be replaced during subsequent election cycles - including all the crooks that took money to influence legislation.

I accept your definition of racism for the purpose of showing you why I am troubled by several themes that your side is using in this debate.

1) CJ's claim that "most if not all Latina 14 year old girls" are either pregnant or already have had a child. You think the pregnant spanish girl is not a negative ethnic stereotype. Of course if this were true, you might have an argument that CJ was just telling the truth... but birthrates for different ethnic groups are public information and with a town name I could call up the stats (at least by county).

I am quite sure that no such town exists-- but it would be easy to prove me wrong with one town name.

That Foxfyre et. al. are unable to take a stand against these offensive ethnic stereotypes troubles me. She seems to be either unwilling or unable to accept that this could offend many Americans.

2) John Gibson (from Fox news) worried call to action that White people losing the majority in the US is a bad thing. This backs up an underlying theme that the US is for white protestants and other ethnic groups live at the majority's leisure.

I find it especially troubling the Foxfyre et. al. are unable to repudiate this.

3) The assumption that the opinions of American citizens who happen to have Hispanic surnames are less important than the opinions of white consertatives-- or even dangerous.

La Raza (the Hispanic civil rights group) was founded by American citizens, it is led by American citizens, the majority of its members are American citizens and it is in most part supported by American citizens.

The rhetorical claims that the American citizens are part of an "invasion" is quite offesive. They are American citizens... just who are they invading. The idea that for some reason they aren't real citizens and are "invading" those who are is offensive.

If you believe that Hispanic American citizens are full American citizens, you will accept their right to have an equal voice and an equal part of the political process-- including their role in the immigration debate.

I find the idea, which Foxfyre appears to support, that Hispanic American citizens are wrong to express their political views in opposition to White Americans, deeply troubling.

e_brown just wants the U.S. to give it all away.

Resistance is racist. Borders are racist.

Eat me.

Well you DID exaggerate CJ, and along with the hot button terms like 'border', 'law enforcement', 'national security', etc. that's all they need to pull out the racist label. Liberals won't talk about the elephant in the room if it is politically incorrect. Conservatives usually will and we pay the price by putting up with the slurs from the Left when we do.

But eBrown doesn't have to look at individual towns. Here's a very comprehensive study and easily understood tables on the subject of teen pregnancy.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf

While not exactly my old home neighborhood, try touring the area of Rengstorf and California Street in Mountain View, CA on a weekday when people should either be at work or in school. It's baby carriages in La Raza Land, day workers aside.

Any data or just to be done by personal, virtual observation?

Hardly virtual....

Simply Amazing Foxfyre. You have some nerve. It is not me who is bringing race into this discussion.

Earlier you make the emphatic point that your position in this discussion has nothing to do with racism. This is about "illegal" and upholding the law you say (in all caps if I remember).

But, here we are talking about the pregnancy rates of 14 year old Latina girls. You even took the time to dig up statistics (which incidently show that Latina pregnancy rates aren't the highest among ethnic groups while the birth rate is. This says more about the low rates of abortions in the Latino community than anything else.)

Perhaps you can explain to me what this has to do with your argument about what to do with illegal immigration. When you gave your definition of racism, you discussed negative stereotypes of ethnic groups. Are you going to deny that a statement that "most if not all" 14 year old Latino girls are pregnant is not a racial stereotype?

But what is instructive is why we are talking about 14 year old pregnant Latina girls in a discussion about illegal immigration that allegedly has nothing to do with race.

Lat's review... it was CJ who made this comment-- unprovoked and out of the blue.

I said to myself-- "I wonder if Foxfyre is sincere about her assertion that race has nothing to do with her opposition to 'illegal' immigration".

So I asked you directly if you would distance yourself from what was not only a clear negative stereotype of an ethnic minority-- but also was irrelevant to the position you claim to be taking.

I gave you the chance to distance yourself from CJ's opinions about racial groups (which again should have nothing to do with immigration)... I was expecting that you would dodge the question (as you have done consistantly in the past).

But what a surprise... not only do you refuse to distance yourself from CJ's inflammatory statements about Latina girls... you defend them.

Do you really think crawling into bed with CJ is going to help your case?

You claim that this is about enforcing the law and you are right that this argument is not racist. As long as you stick to this argument I will counter with my argument that we should care more about compassion then strict enforcement. If the argument goes like this-- race can and should stay out of it.

It is your side that insists on bringing race into the equation with ethnic stereotypes and attacks on American citizens with Hispanic surnames for their desire to be an equal part in the political process.

Stick with the enforcement argument and I will not bring up race. But when your side insists on using ethnic steretypes you shouldn't whine when I respond to them with the scorn that these types of arguments deserve.

As usual, those with the most to say understand the least.

You got that right.