Could someone please make a list for me of the laws which it is ok to break and for the breaking of which I cannot be described as “illegal”? I am just not sure which laws are ok to break and which must be obeyed.
It may go further than that. See below.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=54
http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/intel/LAWLESS_EMAIL_042006.pdf
The above link is a pdf copy of the letter.
So much for good American values. Nazis. That’s really good American values.
Go for it mr. Moot point guy.
At this point I’m convinced the Boycott was indeed the idea of some in the movement, but now that it was dropped it is being used by the “liberal” and right wing media to pull your chain.
In a thread discussing the boycott, a link to a group that is doing something to counter the boycott is moot? :rolleyes:
Thanks for your input.
Are you that dense?
It was since last Monday that officially the boycott was not endorsed, and even before many leaders discourage the boycott too, the only conclusion left when they did not reported that to you is that they are pulling your chain magellian01.
Fact #1: there is a boycott. Although some groups are now not supporting it, it doesn’t change that fact.
Fact #2: there is something being done by the radio show I posted to counter that very boycott, therefore it is NOT a moot point.
If you can prove to me that there is absolutely no boycott now—zero—I’d love to see it. If you can do that I will agree with you that this counter-boycott is moot. If you can’t, you may want to rethink your position.
Watching CNN, the rally they are showing has lots and lots of red, white, and blue and mostly American flags. That’s a good step in the right direction.
Read the Arizona report I posted before, virtually all groups are not supporting it.
The problem was that you ignored on purpose that the leaders of the protest are not stupid. they indeed think a boycott is not a good idea.
I will go for the official position and ignore what the fringe is saying, I just wanted to point out that the radio guys (and many on the media elsewhere) did not bother to tell you what it is happening. Come to think of I wonder why it is that when they choose to not report that to you is not an issue.
It indicates that that most off the leaders in the Valley group are against it. It is mum on the rest of the nation, except to claim that some ledars in D.C. plan to express a similar opinion. Also, there is this:
The problem with your comment is that I never called the leaders stupid, just the boycott. You even quoted me. A n opinion that the leaders, as you pointed out, seem to agree with. One that you seem to agree with. Fell free to change “stupid” to “counter-productive”. Fact remains, I did not call the leaders stupid as you erroneously claimed.
First, I don’t expect to shock-jocks to give me the full story about anything. As far as the rest, you still haven’t shown me that the vast mahjority of protestors do not advocate a boycott, just the leaders in LA and possibly those in D.C. And still, even your article shows that there are groups who still advocate it. So my comments about and against the boycott stand. If there are groups that have backed away from that position, good for them for not being dumb fucks.
With all due respect, I question the Catholic’s church motivation in all of this. They see immigrants as a steady and cheap supply of worshipers. Put another way, immigration is good business for the Catholic Church.
In addtion, many charitable organizations are quite small and are often not representative of anything much larger than their own active membership.
Maybe I’m crazy, here, but weren’t these people already Catholics before they came to America? I don’t see the Chruch’s ulterior motive in having these people be worshippers here instead of worshippers there.
They are reportedly chanting “We want to pay taxes!” That’s the way to go! 
Well, I don’t know if they need to go THAT far. 
I did see lots of “We Are American” signs (in English). We’ll see what the wrap-up looks like on the news at the end of the day. It does seem like there has been a positive learning experience from the first round of protests last month when we saw more Mexican flags than American, for example.
Last night on KABC-7 news, I saw LA mayor Antonio Villairagosa urge protestors to only fly american flags and to sing the national anthem in english in today’s protest. Although this is L.A. and not Tucson, each city has it’s own issues on how to make a positive impact when they protest.
Also, I did not ask them to “erase their heritage”, instead I wondered if they could draw more support if they were exclusively american flags which seems to make reasonable sense.
Great…+1 for pro-immigrant side.
Not questioning their freedom of expression…remember? I was asking if that was the right way to gain support from outside of their own groups. You are reading way too much into my queries.
Because the Church is in trouble here and parishes with a decling flock would like to keep their churches and schools going.
They’ve managed to put a nicer gloss on the marches and eliminate the overt secretarianism but it still doesn’t change the fact that they are illegal regardless how many taxes they pay. Too bad they didn’t say “We pay taxes and consume lots of services as well that our taxes don’t cover!”
I hate the disingenious argument by the pro undocumented side that those who oppose illegal immigration are ‘anti immegration’. It’s like they can’t realize that people are able to seperate legal immegration from illgeal immegration. I’m all for controlled immegration. Sure, it’d be great to let everyone in, but we do have to consider over population and natural resources. Perhaps if more people followed the laws, we could increase legal immegration to central and south america.
Precisely. I’m with you on this 100%. Seems like a no-brainer, but those without brains can’t seem to grasp it.
Sorry, most Mexicans (and Central and South America), are already Catholics. So, no matter where they live, the Church already has them. It’s suppsed to be a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one. Also, what’s that about a cheap and steady supply? Is that supposed to be some sort of whoosh? Was the Pope supposed to send me a check? WHERE’S MY MONEY?!?!?!?! (put angry face thingy here)
Yep. I just posted pretty much the same thing in the GD thread.
We’re here to protest for rights for immigrants. Yeah, right. You’re here to advance the argument for making illegal immigrants citizens. That’s a whole 'nuther thing.
Actually, the vast majority of those who apply for permanent residency based on immediate relative petitions will eventually have them granted, and are here in a status authorized by the Attorney General - the reason the report classifies them in the “unauthorized” category is that they do not yet have permission to remain permanently in the U.S. My point was that you obviously didn’t read the report beyond the title before passing judgement on it, and imprecision like that annoys me.
[/quote]
So, let’s talk about them and see if we can find some common ground. As it applies to these 10.15 million that are here illegally, what do you suggest we do? Anything? Nothing? Should we enforce our imigration laws at all? And hiow about the future? Should we know who is coming into our country and keep out those who arrive here counter to our laws?
[/quote]
As I have mentioned previously, I never claimed to have all the answers, and anyone who does is lying or delusional. I certainly wish I could wave my magic wand and fix the socioeconomic disparities in the world, and particularly in the Americas, but obviously I don’t have that quite figured out yet. But the Senate bill is a better compromise than some of the insanity that’s been banging around Congress.
(And I also think that the U.S. bears a certain degree of responsibility for the massive population upheavals caused by the civil wars of recent decades in Central America, so the least we can do is accept some of them and give them a shot at starting over. But that’s a whole different thread, probably in GD.)