Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The folks who support illegal aliens certainly aren't un-racist.
lol, I have to laugh everytime one of these pro-illegals bring up the racism of the civil rights era and compare it to our right to enforce our immigration laws and changing birthright citizenship. Since when are immigration violaters only from a certain race and since when is it only one race here illegally giving birth on our soil? The civil rights era was about black citizens not illegal foreigners.
Here is the answer. It is mostly Hispanics who are advocating for illegal aliens and birthright citizenship for their anchors (their ethnic kind are here by far in the largest numbers illegally). They think their ethnic kind are above our laws and they want to increase their numbers here via illegal immigration. I would say that the race hat belongs on their heads, not ours.
It's hilarious that chicagonut laughs when people compare this to civil rights legislation, and gets all indignant that people think race has anything to do with this debate on the anti-immigration side... AND THEN IN THE VERY NEXT POST she complains about those hispanics and how they're all out to get us.
Here is the answer. It is mostly Hispanics who are advocating for illegal aliens and birthright citizenship for their anchors (their ethnic kind are here by far in the largest numbers illegally). They think their ethnic kind are above our laws and they want to increase their numbers here via illegal immigration. I would say that the race hat belongs on their heads, not ours.
If they ACTUALLY THOUGHT hispanics are above the law, then they WOULDN'T BOTHER ADVOCATING FOR THOSE LAWS TO BE CHANGED. If they wanted to "increase their numbers via illegal immigration" then THEY WOULDN'T BOTHER ADVOCATING FOR THOSE LAWS TO BE CHANGED. Your argument makes no sense.
Additionally, your PANICED CONCERN about the prospect of MORE HISPANICS in the US is, in fact, indicative of a psychological bias on your part. It has a name, but of course, it's offensive to call a duck a duck around here, even if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck. We have to be super-sensitive so as not to upset the ducks.
Here is the answer. It is mostly Hispanics who are advocating for illegal aliens and birthright citizenship for their anchors (their ethnic kind are here by far in the largest numbers illegally). They think their ethnic kind are above our laws and they want to increase their numbers here via illegal immigration. I would say that the race hat belongs on their heads, not ours.
The folks who support illegal aliens certainly aren't un-racist.
And certainly it's not racist to want America for the Americans as Americans are various races and ethnicities. It's racist to insist that those of your own ethnic background are special and are above the laws because of their ethnicity or race.
Immigration rates both legal and illegal need to be scaled back until our fellow Americans of all sorts of ethnic backgrounds and races are employed and wages rise for them so they can afford to live.
Speaking English is not about race or ethnicity either and we want to keep the USA an English speaking nation. Like it or not, the 3 nations in the western hemisphere with the highest standards of living for their people are the USA, Canada, followed by Barbados. Is it only a coincidence that all three are English speaking?
Well if I were hearing this as a Judge deciding on the merits of this issue:
Stephen Zack introduced facts not in evidence with his; "underlying reason for proposed amendment is racism"
Because Mr Zacks opened that pandora's box AND introduced that argument into the issue; the defense of the proposed amendment is now entitled to argue the isssue by introducing counter arguments.
Hence Chicagonuts post has validity without any stigma attached!
The racism card was thrown on the table by Mr Zack in his submission. Now the floodgates are open folks!
The law isn't supposed to discriminate based on race. I would think that Mr. Zack, as a supposedly best-in-field lawyer, would have the brains to figure out that this law would apply to children born of illegal Polish, Chinese, or Mexican parents.
He can claim all day that the underlying motive is racism: the law clearly isnt' prejudiced based upon race. That he doesn't like the fact that some would be disproportionately affected by the law is his own prejudice.
Certain races and males in particular are targeted by laws banning murder and rape, but I don't hear Mr. Zack complaining about that. Same thing goes with public intoxication laws.
Mr. Zack, methinks that were you to retake the LSAT with your current line of logic that you wouldn't fair so well.
Who cares if Hispanics are disproportionately affected at this point in time? Were we to strike down any law that disproportionately discriminated based on race, we wouldn't have that many laws left. Goodbye laws surrounding murder, money laundering, wire fraud, etc...
And should this nation be restored in years down the road and Canadians start flooding across the borders, well, I guess it would disproportionately affect whites. The law sounds reasonable to me, no matter who it most affects.
The law isn't supposed to discriminate based on race.
Ahahahahaha.
The fact that the law doesn't specifically mention race doesn't mean that wouldn't be a primary consequence of it or that such isn't actually intended.
Certain races and males in particular are targeted by laws banning murder and rape
Wait, what "certain races" are targeted by murder and rape laws?
Quote:
Who cares if Hispanics are disproportionately affected at this point in time? Were we to strike down any law that disproportionately discriminated based on race, we wouldn't have that many laws left. Goodbye laws surrounding murder, money laundering, wire fraud, etc...
Oh, I see, you don't understand the difference between "affected by" and "discriminated against". You've also failed to make any differentiation between crimes that have actual victims and those that don't.
Quote:
And should this nation be restored in years down the road and Canadians start flooding across the borders, well, I guess it would disproportionately affect whites. The law sounds reasonable to me, no matter who it most affects.
Wow, you really don't understand how immigration laws work at all, do you? White people are much, much more likely to be able to get legal immigration approved for a variety of reasons (none of which SPECIFICALLY MENTION RACE).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
