Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Nov 16, 2003.
Rest of the Article Here
Tough problem, Lady Eagle. Indianapolis has had an Hispanic invasion in the last decade. One never saw Hispanics this far north in Indiana.
William F. Buckley in his recent article suggesting a fine on employers who knowingly hire illegals said this:
"Both sides exaggerate, of course. And in any event, whatever doubts one has about an iron curtain that would screen out the illegals, it's hard to doubt that an iron curtain is there in Congress that says, DO NOT STOP ILLEGALS, UNDER PENALTY OF LAW (NO DETENGA ILEGALES DEBAJO LA LEY). There are about 7 million illegals. Using figures for legal immigrants and extrapolating them, we deduce that one-half are Mexicans, the other half shared by Indians, Chinese, Filipinos and Vietnamese. The big question reduces almost always to Hispanic immigration."
With seven million illegals in the USA, it is easy to see that we are not likely to send home the law-abiding ones. Nor do we see in the federal government any effort to close the border. I agree with Victor Hanson Davis, whom you cite, Lady Eagle, that, unless Mexico reforms its corrupt government, more people will try to migrate to the USA. Mexico is rich in natural resources. The Vatican instead of denouncing the USA for the war against terror would do well to denouce Mexico for an unjust system of government. That will never happen either.
Just in case you didn't know, CMG, Mexico is officially anti-Catholic. Priests are forbidden to wear their robes in public, and in the 30s, there were active persecutions of Catholics in Mexico, including killings of believers, priests and nuns.
The Church has somewhat better relationships with the state now that a more conservative government exists, but the laws against Catholics remain in force.
When you hear people here whining that they are being "persecuted" because the Constitution won't let them force students in public schools to listen to official prayers, remember, right next door, there were real persecutions against Christians.
Kinda sobering, um?
Yes, I know what you are talking about from the few years when I lived on the border. That is a result of the bitter revolution and the one-party rule of the PRI. When I visited the interior, I could not see that the law was an encumbrance to the Catholic Church except for not being able to wear vestments on the street. The events that you are talking about date to the time of World War I.
As far as I know, the Pope has been silent on the continued Mexican corruption in the government and the dishonest judicial system. Since the country is de facto one religion, the Pope should have stood up for some sort of reform in the last twenty-five years. Now he is too infirm. As I have told you before, the Vatican causes part of the problem by its refusal to rescind its doctrine that says that birth control is a sin. Is celibacy a sin?
The Pope had no influence whatever with the PRI, which was killing Christians in Mexico as late as the 1930s.
My mother remembered being afraid that the persecutions would start in America, too.
You might as well criticise Bush for not getting Castro to lighten up.
With the Mexican judicial system, the PRI probably still takes people out and executes them. Since the nation of Mexico is almost all Catholic, why did not the Pope speak out against the corruption in the government? He was always speaking out for the Arabs, who are Islamic.
Furthermore, you have not answered the question about the sin of celibacy and the Vatican doctrine that birth control is a sin. Isn't it time for the Catholic Church to rescind a number of its illogical doctrines? The squalor in Mexico could serve as a case in point to the residents of the Vatican, who are sequestered in palatial splendor.
Or is the Vatican like the Presidential Palace in Mexico DF--incapable of reform?
Why are you asking if celibacy is a sin?
As you know, the Catholic Church is part of the problem in Mexico by its refusal to rescind the docrtine that birth control is a sin. By logical extension of the Catholic Church doctrine, many people have noted that celibacy would be a sin also.
The Catholic Church stands for nothing. About five million people have petioned Pope John Paul II to make the Virgin Mary coredemptrix. In 1854, the Catholic Church created the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and in 1950 the doctrine of the Assumption was created by the Catholic Church.
As the article cited by Lady Eagle discusses, Mexico, who is against the war on terror, has merely exported people to the USA to solve its social problems caused by corrupt Mexican government and corrupt and cruel justice. I am now asking Galatian if it is not time for the Vatican to rescind the doctrine that birth control is a sin.
Was birth control ever considered a sin by Baptist Churches?
BTW, extending the ban on birth control to include abstinence is an illogical extension; I believe the fallacy is known as "slippery slope".
Birth control is not considered a sin by the Catholic Church, although "unnatural" forms are considered sinful.
Periodic abstinence or total abstinence (known as "rhythm and blues") are natural means and considered acceptable.
It's probably the ruling most frequently violated by Catholic laity.
Oh brother. I live here and I just want to say that that is some of the most creatively writen hogwash I've read recently about California.
Especially got a kick out of this part:
I don't know what California this guy is talking about. It sure isn't the California I was born and raised in. Here most of us struggle with our finances. Do our own lawn and household chores. And do our best to get by just like everyone else in the world who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
And if I were Mexican, which I am not, not even by marriage anymore. I would be really insulted by this article.
I haven't met a Mexican yet who would let anyone paint them as the victim.
I say "Boo" to this journalist.
Interesting, since the US does not have an official language. I wonder why the writer (I use the term loosely) of this article fails to point out that schools with a high Polish and Italian concentration have often taught in Polish and Italian. Maybe because they're white??
This happens where? Again interesting, since California doesn't use race as a factor in admissions (another point that the "author" fails to mention).
I can count the number of Hispanic Americans who are members of "La Raza", or even care about "La Raza", on no fingers. However, I know two white males who are members of the Flat Earth Society.
Legal immigration or illegal immigration? I have no problem with anyone coming to this country legally. I do, however, have a problem with people who assume that anyone with brown skin is illegal. That's simply a racist attitude. The author of this article doesn't even take the time to denote "illegal" immigration. Rather, he makes a blanket statement about immigration as a whole. As an immigrant myself who is a naturalized US citizen, I'm quite offended by that.
Illegal immigration is the fault of Californians who hire landscape companies to cut their lawns? Oh please!!!
No, they find it less profitable and flexible than working at Starbucks or the Mall. It's called the law of supply and demand.
Again, the dead end jobs that are more profitable and flexible are plentiful, so this statement is a flat out falsehood.
The author attempts to blame Californians for this, forgetting that this is one of the reasons that we recalled our former Governor. Our new governor plans on repealing that measure. Considering he repealed the tripling of the Vehicle License Fee (aka, "car tax") on his first day in office, I'm sure this will be happenning soon.
Told by whom? I know of not a single person, immigrant or citizen, who thinks this?
So it's the fault of the Californians that the free market of supply and demand is alive and well in the 49 other states?
The hiring of undocumented workers in California is illegal.
Mexican legal immigration? No. Illegal immigration? Yes. Note again how the author attempts to imply that all Mexican imigrants are illegal.
Or the Chinese immigrants who built the California railroad, or the Eastern Eurpoean immigrants who created California's silent picture industry, etc etc etc.
That's simply not true. The author may not like it, but it did exist. And those early Italian, Chinese, and Japanese folks faced the same racism that many Mexicans face today.
But it's okay for a legal resident ot citizen to do this? Again, the author implies that everyone who roofs, pics, mows, cleans, or cooks is illegal. Further, he implies that, if someone's done it for their entire life, they're illegal.
I work with several first generation born Hispanics. None of them think as the author describes.
Statistics show that children born of multilingual environments are able to master both languages very well. Again, I refer to the same Hispanics I work with.
Note how the author implies that all teenages who are Hispanic are illegal.
I guess the millions of American Citizens don't have a voice. The author also fails to note that, in California at least, Hispanic Americans who are citizens have views on illegal immigration similar to their non-Hispanic neighbors.
Actually, "undocumented worker" is more accurate, since there are many people who are here in the US legally, but are not authorized to be employed. The term "illegal alien", otoh, is a person who is not allowed to be in the US at all. All illegals are undocumented, but not all undocumenteds are illegal.
BTW, did anyone notice that this author implies taht every Hispanic person is from Mexico? He fails to remember (or chooses to forget) that there are native Hispanic Californians, as well as Texans, are Hispanic, that trace their line back to statehood. He also fails to take into consideration the millions of Puerto Ricans (PR is part of the US). He also fails to mention the immigrants from Central and South America: Honduras, Colombia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Panama, to name a few. Nope, to this author, brown skin equals "Mexican". I dare him to call a Puerto Rican a "Mexican" and survive.
Daisy, don't you belong to the humorless left? Or have you been spending too much time at Barbara Streisand's website? If it is a sin not to procreate, then it is not a slippery slope--where do you get that stuff, Daisy?--to ask if celibacy is not a sin?
Meanwhile, Galatian I am asking if it is not time for this most political of popes since Pope Leo X to rescind the Catholic Doctrine on birth control? This is the fourth or fifth time that I have asked you this question. It is not that I am asking you to defend the de facto deportation of Mexicans to the USA, or the 1854 doctrine of Immaculate Conception, or the 1950 doctrine of the Assumption, or the the political answer of Pope John Paul II that he would not create yet another new doctrine on the Virgin Mary about her being coredemptrix because it might damage political relations with Protestants and Orthodox Christians. I am not even asking you to defend the corruption of Mexico and the primitive justice system.
I just wonder if the Catholic Church should rescind its doctrine on birth control--which doctrine you enunciated above.
Au contraire, we lefties love humor, especially that of the wry variety. It may be that it's just over your head.
I've never yet been there, but you seem to be recommending it to folk.
The RCC doesn't say that it is a sin not to procreate, but a sin to have sex for reasons other than procreation (and, more recently, to strengthen the marital bond).
But you're correct, it is not a slippery slope, it is merely a flawed premise. My bad.
That was a good post John.
So I guess this guy who wrote this for a Michigan College can just say anything he pleases about California since he claims to have been born here? And people will believe him? I hope that everyone who has read this doesn't take it at face value.
Daisy, Galatian does not want to answer any questions about Catholic doctrine. Nor does he want to admit that Mexico has a corrupt government and a primitive judicial system based on the idea that one is guilty until proven innocent. But I will tell you this, Daisy, since I am your friend--abortion has caused the USA to have a shortage of people. We have now murdered forty million babies. I would like to see the political arm of the Vatican nation tell Catholic politicans in the USA to vote pro-life or be ex-communicated.
If we have an actual shortage of people - which is definitely not apparent here on the East Coast, why try to limit immigration?
Well, La Raza has several thousand members and subscribers, as do other radical Hispanic groups. The fact that you don't know them is as irrelevant as the fact that you know two flat-earthers.
I know many guys who are members of Ducks Unlimited, but I'll bet there aren't very many of them where you live...
What's "Ducks Unlimited" - a group of hunters against quotas and seasonal permits? A poultry growers' association? Tall people in short houses?