I suppose you also believe the Civil War was fought over slavery? Bzzzt, wrong. Good old Abe Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery. In fact, most of the US didn't care about it either.
The Civil War was fought because the South was protesting against the government trying to pass laws on them (outlawing slavery) when it was not supposed to be in the power of the government to force such a thing on them.
In fact, the North winning the war actually meant that liberal bigots won, and our democracy took a near-lethal hit. Unfortunately, the winners write the history, too.
In other words, this statement is totally invalid
That statement was totally invalid, period. I did not mention the Civil War. You did not even read what I wrote.
I wrote, essentially, that it was illegal for a black man to be free before the abolition of slavery. You've thrown up a bunch of irrelevant nonsense in argument that had nothing to do with what I even wrote.
Chibiabos
comment 10
Declaring a fascist law as invalid is no more anarchist than the voices who called for emancipation prior to the legal domestic abolition of slavery.
The truth is that it was anarchist. Yes, they might have been doing something good or worthwhile morally, but the fact is that it was still open revolt against the government. A good number of people involved in the "emancipation" movement were nothing short of terrorists. Does the name John Brown ring a bell?
In my dictionary, an "anarchist" is someone who believes that no one else should ever have any authority over them. Merely believing a law is wrong does not qualify. I do not know how you define anarchism, however ... for all I know, you could define anarchism as anyone who has blue eyes.
However, keeping illegals out of the country isn't fascist or supremacist of us, or even morally wrong. And there are reasons for it, as described before.
So, keeping escaped slaves prior to the abolition of slavery out of the country was not fascist, supremacist nor morally wrong?
The internment camps in the western U.S. during World War II was not fascist, supremacist, nor morally wrong?
Both of those situations were "keeping illegals" in 'their place.'
And by the way, you're using the word "fascist" incorrectly (and really frequently - I've found that most people who overuse a word ironically don't know its true meaning). The US is in no way a totalitarian state, and passing a law against illegal immigrants doesn't make it such, either.
Is it doubly ironic that you don't? Laws that discriminate against a minority and declare them unworthy to have the right to life, liberty or justice. Examples: Slavery laws; the Nazi German holocaust against Jews, gays and other minorities; internment by the U.S. government of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in World War II.
Chibiabos
comment 10
And your hazard would be false. Most /are/ just trying to feed their families. They can't get $1000 per month work.
You missed the point. The illegals come here and make $1000 a month (probably more) and send it back to Mexico, where their families live like kings and queens. If you could so easily raise your standard of living, would you be satisfied even if you had a job in Mexico?
You've missed the point and work hard to keep yourself ignorant of the facts. There is an upper class in Mexico whose earnings would be very impressive even here in the U.S.
The wealthiest individual in the world, in fact, is Carlos Slim Helu, the CEO of the Mexican state telecom. His net worth is US$53.5 billion, half a billion U.S. dollars more than the net worth of Bill Gates.
A lot of Americans moved to the 'Green Zone' in Iraq to make a lot of money, or to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to send a lot of money home to their families here. Is that morally wrong to you? Or is it only morally wrong to you when a non-white person tries to provide for their families?
The fact is that starvation is not a main motivator in illegal immigration, but greed. Now I'm not saying that no illegals are trying to feed a starving family. I'm just saying the number of starving people is just quite a bit lower than you might think. I mean, if people were starving on such a massive scale, wouldn't we have a slightly larger issue with immigration?
I've /worked/ with those "illegals" in farm fields. Many could not get any jobs at all at home -- $0 income. $0 income to feed their families. How much food can you buy for $0? Even in Mexico, food and rent does cost money.
I hazard to say I likely have more experience being with and getting to know some of these "illegals" than you do.
What we're seeing is a case of "the pasture is greener across the fence" mentality. If we made illegal immigration legal, we would have no end of people willing to do your job for half the money. I think you would change your mind about "bigotry" once you were shown the door in favor of an immigrant.
Ignorant through and through. For starters, again, the people that come here illegally are not people who are well off ... their families are below the poverty line. For another, the minimum wage laws would apply to them if they were legitimate and could actually get help from the law instead of persecution -- the same applies to the horrible crimes committed against them (by Mexican gangs and "Minutemen" lynch mobs). As it stands, they know they cannot get help from the police or authorities. This is because of the oppressive laws.
And notice that I'm not saying Mexican or South American. I'm talking about illegal immigrants of any race here.
Really? So you going to propose equal treatment of the Canadian border, which is the only land border used by the 9/11 terrorists to cross into the U.S.? The largest national border in the world -- 5,525 miles to be exact, roughly half of which is Alaskan -- is the U.S./Canada border. A lot of people cross that border illegally every day. Because they are white, no one cares. The arguments "because terrorists might slip in" always goes to the Mexican border, where not one single 9/11 terrorist got in the country, is never applied to the Canadian border.
At the going rate of $15 million per mile, that's roughly $83 billion to build the wall to the same level as current levels of walls against Mexico.
I am not a racial bigot. I am just against illegals, a demographic which happens to be mostly Mexican.
You discriminate against people based on where they are born. What have you -done- to earn yourself the supreme privileges you demand exclusive rights to and deny others who are different? How does that fit in with the pledge's promise of "liberty, freedom and justice for all?"
