Anti-Illegal Alien = Nazi?
Does such stupidity event warrant commentary? Yes, just a little.
Read what Ruben has to say...
To his credit, he does say that attempting to suppress another's freedom of speech is not the way to solve problems. But not-so-hidden between the lines is his hatred and disdain for those who oppose the flow of illegals across the border.
When Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist sent me an angry e-mail calling me a racist a while back, I shrugged it off as a pot-kettle thing.
What did the email say exactly? We are supposed to simply take your word for it?
As the son of a retired law enforcement officer, I have little tolerance for wannabes who play cop and even less for those who play with fire by taking up a cause that appeals to nativists and hooligans.
I see. No citizen should ever take responsibility for their own country. If the government is ignoring the Constitution then, by God, we should all follow suit. What is a 'nativist' anyway? I love the way he mentions that he is the son of a retired law enforcement officer. So? Does this somehow lend more credibility to his opinion?
It's not tough to win an argument with someone like Gilchrist. You just let him talk, and, before long, he'll say something inaccurate, intolerant, or idiotic.
Again.. back up your statement. What has he said that you found to be idiotic? Please cite some examples. Let us know what you find to be idiotic so that we can better weigh the merit of your opinion.
That's enough. I think that I will turn this over to my lovely fiance' and let her grade it.
posted by TinyElvis @ 10:27 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Nice finish! You get bonus points for the reference to the fiance.
Please illuminate me....how is the present immigration situation in the US indicative of "the government ignoring the constitution"?
*ahem*... unless you are Foley, I think that you meant fiancée. "A man who is engaged to be married is called his partner's fiancé; a woman similarly engaged is called her partner's fiancée".
"Please illuminate me....how is the present immigration situation in the US indicative of "the government ignoring the constitution"?"
For your edification:
Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Hell, we can even look at the preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You don't think that illegal aliens pouring across the border in droves while the Feds turn a blind's eye violates principles outlined in either of the selected texts?
"*ahem*... unless you are Foley, I think that you meant fiancée. "A man who is engaged to be married is called his partner's fiancé; a woman similarly engaged is called her partner's fiancée"."
Well, this is my first time using the phrase so please be patient with me.
A new "anonymous" here. Good topic, and I agree with your views on immigration, but I can't in good conscience defend these Minutemen.
The commentator seems to have more of a problem with the tactics of this group than their stance on the issue. I agree. Let's be honest: while the group may not be composed entirely of rednecks, it's certainly redneck-ish.
As for Art. IV, Section 4, I'm surmising your referring to the "invasion" language? And I'll similarly presume you reference the "general welfare" language in the preamble. Or maybe domestic tranquility.
While illegal immigration is just that - illegal, it's hardly an invasion as the term is traditionally used, and would've been used in 1789. And I don't believe arguing for a living, evolving Constitution meshes with the Conservative platform. Scalia certainly doesn't see the Const. that way: he often talks about the framers' intent.
As for general welfare, many [including, I think, our Prez] would argue that these aliens provide valuable labor and services to our country that actually promote general welfare.
Most importanly, my reading or your reading of the Constitution isn't what matters. There's a Supreme Court whose jurisprudence decides these matters. Maybe someone should sue to have specific statutes enforced by the executive branch?
The "new" anonymous once again. I admit I'm not super-knowledgeable about the Minutemen's mission/charter, etc., but every time I see members interviewed on TV, they seem redneck-ish. To wit: the T shirts saying [paraphrased] "I got caught crossing the border by a Minuteman and all I got was this lousy T-shirt," and the immigrant then being photographed with the Minuteman.
It smacked more of a trophy hunt to me, and there's definitely an element of humiliation by design to it all.
And I'm left to wonder if attitudes and tactics would be the same if English-speaking Anglos from Canada were pouring over the border illegally.
On a somewhat related note:
http://www.kget.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=3608870D-4D17-4F0C-8D22-A7D6DC73EE18
Stuff like this undermines the effort to make border security a more prominent election issue, IMO.
Gilchrist's rebuttal:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/25/gilchrist.commentary/index.html
"Well, this is my first time using the phrase so please be patient with me."
It is? I thought you had used it once before.
Post a Comment
<< Home