U.S. citizen arrested under state's new anti-illegal immigrant law, Hispanic advocate says

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, what would you know about "traditional conservative values"? You actually have no idea what I consider to be "traditionally conservative", if I consider my views to be "traditionally conservative",or even if I place a value on "traditional conservativism", so you can't tell if my views measure up or not. You like to say that the anti-illegals are a minority, but that you don't know either. The fact is, there is a lot you don't know.

LOL...oh ok...I wasn't aware that characterization of one's views only works if you're the one doing it.

Geez, Steven. Why don't you just come out and blankly state that you're pro-illegal and give the exchange some balance? One of the reasons that the discussion is often so black and white is because some of us are more committed to what feels good (having compassion for illegals and law-breaking) than doing good (standing up for our country's sovereignty).

....

The framing of the debate (my observation from the threads here on VJ) is that anyone in favor of offering a legal pathway (guest worker program) for the millions of illegals in this country is out of touch with mainstream America. There are many here who have voiced a very hard line approach (no amnesty, no legal pathway, no guest worker program, GTFO!) to illegal immigrants. And there has been an effort here to marginalize those who don't take that hard line stance as being 'on the fray' or simply in support of giving illegal immigrants free reign.

So I think it's quaint that you take my characterization of your conservative political ideology (not being in touch with what the traditional conservative viewpoint on immigration). One doesn't need to belong to any conservative group to know what their consensus is on such issues. While you are certainly most welcome to deviate from that tradition, don't get your feathers flustered when someone points it out. My position on issues like this have been subject to all kinds of characterizations as you demonstrated above in what I quoted from your post.

[NavarreMan 10]

Pedro,

Is starving to death a serious problem in Mexico?

I genuinely don't know.

they must be dropping like flies the way some talk around here.

wow, a charles commentary, condescending as usual..

don't you have an AAA meeting to attend?

Is that the American Automobile Association?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Like I said, Steven, you know nothing about "traditional conservatism", where my views stand within them, nor whether I care about either. I don't do sound bite politics, I take the long-range view. And, yes, like you, I know more about how to characterize my views than anyone else does. Notice how I requested that you state your own views, in contrast to how you attempted to define mine? You may want to keep that in mind.

Steven, what would you know about "traditional conservative values"? You actually have no idea what I consider to be "traditionally conservative", if I consider my views to be "traditionally conservative",or even if I place a value on "traditional conservativism", so you can't tell if my views measure up or not. You like to say that the anti-illegals are a minority, but that you don't know either. The fact is, there is a lot you don't know.

LOL...oh ok...I wasn't aware that characterization of one's views only works if you're the one doing it.

Geez, Steven. Why don't you just come out and blankly state that you're pro-illegal and give the exchange some balance? One of the reasons that the discussion is often so black and white is because some of us are more committed to what feels good (having compassion for illegals and law-breaking) than doing good (standing up for our country's sovereignty).

....

The framing of the debate (my observation from the threads here on VJ) is that anyone in favor of offering a legal pathway (guest worker program) for the millions of illegals in this country is out of touch with mainstream America. There are many here who have voiced a very hard line approach (no amnesty, no legal pathway, no guest worker program, GTFO!) to illegal immigrants. And there has been an effort here to marginalize those who don't take that hard line stance as being 'on the fray' or simply in support of giving illegal immigrants free reign.

So I think it's quaint that you take my characterization of your conservative political ideology (not being in touch with what the traditional conservative viewpoint on immigration). One doesn't need to belong to any conservative group to know what their consensus is on such issues. While you are certainly most welcome to deviate from that tradition, don't get your feathers flustered when someone points it out. My position on issues like this have been subject to all kinds of characterizations as you demonstrated above in what I quoted from your post.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Like I said, Steven, you know nothing about "traditional conservatism", where my views stand within them, nor whether I care about either. I don't do sound bite politics, I take the long-range view. And, yes, like you, I know more about how to characterize my views than anyone else does. Notice how I requested that you state your own views, in contrast to how you attempted to define mine? You may want to keep that in mind.

Steven, what would you know about "traditional conservative values"? You actually have no idea what I consider to be "traditionally conservative", if I consider my views to be "traditionally conservative",or even if I place a value on "traditional conservativism", so you can't tell if my views measure up or not. You like to say that the anti-illegals are a minority, but that you don't know either. The fact is, there is a lot you don't know.

LOL...oh ok...I wasn't aware that characterization of one's views only works if you're the one doing it.

Geez, Steven. Why don't you just come out and blankly state that you're pro-illegal and give the exchange some balance? One of the reasons that the discussion is often so black and white is because some of us are more committed to what feels good (having compassion for illegals and law-breaking) than doing good (standing up for our country's sovereignty).

....

The framing of the debate (my observation from the threads here on VJ) is that anyone in favor of offering a legal pathway (guest worker program) for the millions of illegals in this country is out of touch with mainstream America. There are many here who have voiced a very hard line approach (no amnesty, no legal pathway, no guest worker program, GTFO!) to illegal immigrants. And there has been an effort here to marginalize those who don't take that hard line stance as being 'on the fray' or simply in support of giving illegal immigrants free reign.

So I think it's quaint that you take my characterization of your conservative political ideology (not being in touch with what the traditional conservative viewpoint on immigration). One doesn't need to belong to any conservative group to know what their consensus is on such issues. While you are certainly most welcome to deviate from that tradition, don't get your feathers flustered when someone points it out. My position on issues like this have been subject to all kinds of characterizations as you demonstrated above in what I quoted from your post.

Re-read what you stated in red...a total characterization and framing of the debate in an attempt to dismiss those who don't agree with you.

I think my point is clear and that is that however much you and many other here attempt to marginalize those who don't adhere to your hardline approach towards immigration, we aren't the ones who are on the fray over immigration. All major political parties with their ideologies (including Libertarians) have had a much more open approach to immigration. Our voice and our opinions on illegal immigration are not only valid but have been the tradition of America.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Re-read what you stated in red...a total characterization and framing of the debate in an attempt to dismiss those who don't agree with you.

I think my point is clear and that is that however much you and many other here attempt to marginalize those who don't adhere to your hardline approach towards immigration, we aren't the ones who are on the fray over immigration. All major political parties with their ideologies (including Libertarians) have had a much more open approach to immigration. Our voice and our opinions on illegal immigration are not only valid but have been the tradition of America.

oh this should be interesting. what tradition might you be speaking of?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Re-read what you stated in red...a total characterization and framing of the debate in an attempt to dismiss those who don't agree with you.

I think my point is clear and that is that however much you and many other here attempt to marginalize those who don't adhere to your hardline approach towards immigration, we aren't the ones who are on the fray over immigration. All major political parties with their ideologies (including Libertarians) have had a much more open approach to immigration. Our voice and our opinions on illegal immigration are not only valid but have been the tradition of America.

oh this should be interesting. what tradition might you be speaking of?

That requires reading, Charles. I've posted the article, "Conservatives and Immigration" on this very thread. Feel free though to search for yourself. Look up the RNC's position on immigration reform. Look up the Libertarians position. Trying to marginalize those who support a more open immigration policy doesn't sit well with all major political parties over the last 40 years.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Re-read what you stated in red...a total characterization and framing of the debate in an attempt to dismiss those who don't agree with you.

I think my point is clear and that is that however much you and many other here attempt to marginalize those who don't adhere to your hardline approach towards immigration, we aren't the ones who are on the fray over immigration. All major political parties with their ideologies (including Libertarians) have had a much more open approach to immigration. Our voice and our opinions on illegal immigration are not only valid but have been the tradition of America.

oh this should be interesting. what tradition might you be speaking of?

That requires reading, Charles. I've posted the article, "Conservatives and Immigration" on this very thread. Feel free though to search for yourself. Look up the RNC's position on immigration reform. Look up the Libertarians position. Trying to marginalize those who support a more open immigration policy doesn't sit well with all major political parties over the last 40 years.

The Libertarian Party is an American political party founded on December 11, 1971.

hardly a tradition steven.....

link

[Caladan 19]

Geez, Steven. Why don't you just come out and blankly state that you're pro-illegal and give the exchange some balance? One of the reasons that the discussion is often so black and white is because some of us are more committed to what feels good (having compassion for illegals and law-breaking) than doing good (standing up for our country's sovereignty).

I have loads of compassion, but my compassion is reserved for those who respect our borders and our laws. I have no compassion for illegals and would never marry or employ one. I have no compassion for accomodating illegals just because they're already here. I have no compassion for politicians and Latino supremicists who kiss Mexico's azz and try to tell us that we're racist because we're against measures that open the door to voter fraud. I have no compassion for what illegals and their broods have done to destroy our schools systems, even going so far as to import Mexico's curriculum into American schools.

My capacity for compassion for illegals and their supporters was shot by the hypocrisy of our government's agenda to privatize profits from cheap labor while holding out the hat to taxpayers for the costs illegals impose on our social structure. It was shot by illegals and their sychophants marching in my streets, telling me that I need to devalue my citizenship and hand over its privileges to them. It was shot by the underhanded manipulations of politicians putting forth propositions that erode the distinction between legal and legal, sovereignty and capitulation to the New World Order. My compassion was shot by the hypocrisy of a foreign government that shoots to kill at its southern border, yet demands, and gets, leniancy for its trespassers here.

That list is not all inclusive; I could go on. I don't need no stinkin political party to represent my views; Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. They have both proven to be worthless and ineffective when it comes to the bread and butter issues of the common man. Democracy was never a spectator sport and I have never played it that way. My representatives now know me by name. I've made sure of it. I am heard, and not just on this forum. Fear is what motivates politicians; make sure they feel the fear.

what would you tell him? I love you but we can't get married, because I'd be enabling you. I guess the other people here that married an illegal had that question.. care about 'soverignity' or about my happiness..

Leave, return to your home country and come here the legal way ... otherwise you're an illegal alien who is always at risk of being removed from my life for a long period of time. (every day is a new opportunity to be discovered and deported ... banished from the country). If you can't abide by the laws of my country and do the right things so we can be together ... then there is no respect.

Oh wait ... that would mean .. the person would be just like the rest of us on vj that observe the laws and complete the visa process ... how unfair (sarcasm)

Do you give this advice on the board when someone says 'My wife came here on a tourist visa that is now expired, what do we do to get her a green card?' Because I certainly hope not.

Yet another leap.

Personal opinion does not translate into advice given, does it?

Hardly a leap. His advice to pedroh's hypothetical is 'leave and come back the legal way like I had to do with all of us.' If being illegal is such a horrible, horrible crime, that shows that you lack personal responsibility and all those other things, then why should that not be the advice you give over in the other part of the forum? Overstays are forgiven (showing, by the way, that it's not really that big of a deal to the government. I can't think of any other crime that you can get out of by promising to sleep with a citizen) , but if people honestly believe what they're typing here, then they should be advocating just as passionately for that part of the law to be removed.

[natty bumppo 297]

I have loads of compassion, but my compassion is reserved for those who respect our borders and our laws. I have no compassion for illegals and would never marry or employ one. I have no compassion for accomodating illegals just because they're already here. I have no compassion for politicians and Latino supremicists who kiss Mexico's azz and try to tell us that we're racist because we're against measures that open the door to voter fraud. I have no compassion for what illegals and their broods have done to destroy our schools systems, even going so far as to import Mexico's curriculum into American schools.

what would you tell him? I love you but we can't get married, because I'd be enabling you. I guess the other people here that married an illegal had that question.. care about 'soverignity' or about my happiness..

Leave, return to your home country and come here the legal way ... otherwise you're an illegal alien who is always at risk of being removed from my life for a long period of time. (every day is a new opportunity to be discovered and deported ... banished from the country). If you can't abide by the laws of my country and do the right things so we can be together ... then there is no respect.

Oh wait ... that would mean .. the person would be just like the rest of us on vj that observe the laws and complete the visa process ... how unfair (sarcasm)

Do you give this advice on the board when someone says 'My wife came here on a tourist visa that is now expired, what do we do to get her a green card?' Because I certainly hope not.

Yet another leap.

Personal opinion does not translate into advice given, does it?

Hardly a leap. His advice to pedroh's hypothetical is 'leave and come back the legal way like I had to do with all of us.' If being illegal is such a horrible, horrible crime, that shows that you lack personal responsibility and all those other things, then why should that not be the advice you give over in the other part of the forum? Overstays are forgiven (showing, by the way, that it's not really that big of a deal to the government. I can't think of any other crime that you can get out of by promising to sleep with a citizen) , but if people honestly believe what they're typing here, then they should be advocating just as passionately for that part of the law to be removed.

The question ... "what would you tell him? I love you but we can't get married, because I'd be enabling you" was asked in reference to the comment made by GEG.

So I took the moment to state my opinion ... what would I do ...

Please notice :

Pedroh did not ask what he should do (seeking advice) ... he only asked what someone else would do if faced with this scenerio (personal opinion)

So ... notice a shingle posted? Didn't think so ...

There again ... after this attempt at twisting words and putting words onto me ... maybe I should post a sign ... with a fee listed of .05¢

Edited November 8, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Caladan 19]

I didn't twist your words. (Hard to do with a direct quote.) I assumed your advice was consistent across scenarios. My mistake.

[GabachaYucateca 0]

I think GEG DID answer the question posed, and as Natty Bumpo pointed out, the question was entirely hypothetical.

Such an interesting contrast to the hypothetical question I posed pages back that was immediately ridiculed and shot down by one of dear VJ's esteemed memebers as "space alien hypothetical #######." Or something to that effect.

I guess people who live in black and white don't do hypotheticals, as it would take imagining what like would be like had you been born into different circumstances.

[natty bumppo 297]

I didn't twist your words. (Hard to do with a direct quote.) I assumed your advice was consistent across scenarios. My mistake.

Hardly a leap. His advice to pedroh's hypothetical ...

"His advice ... "

You stated those words implying more than what I posted ... not me ... direct quote yes ?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think GEG DID answer the question posed, and as Natty Bumpo pointed out, the question was entirely hypothetical.

Such an interesting contrast to the hypothetical question I posed pages back that was immediately ridiculed and shot down by one of dear VJ's esteemed memebers as "space alien hypothetical #######." Or something to that effect.

I guess people who live in black and white don't do hypotheticals, as it would take imagining what like would be like had you been born into different circumstances.

maybe because i don't see much point in hypotheticals that stand as much of a chance of becoming a reality as adolf hitler winning the nobel peace prize?

now if you had the hypothetical of if i was hit by a car, if i lost my job, something that does not involve reincarnation and other far fetched ideas, then we could discuss that

[Caladan 19]

Also, I'm not so sure how much of a defense it is to say 'Well, I wouldn't marry an illegal because I think that's evidence that they're no good liars who have no respect for the law, but if you don't care about liars, just your happiness, marry away. My opinion no cooties no punchback! ' There's a limit, I think, to what 'just my opinion can cover' and if I were to say "I wouldn't marry a black man because they're all shiftless drug dealers, but if you don't care about drug dealers, just your happiness, you are legally free to marry" or "Some Arabs beat their wives, so I'm never dating an Arab, but if you don't care about being beaten, marry away. It's just my opinion!", or "May-December marriages are gross and abnormal, but if you like gross, marry away! I never said you coudn't" I doubt many of you would be nodding sagely at how wise I was.

I think assuming everyone who has ever fallen out of status or otherwise been illegal is a congenital criminal is a similarly bad position, and saying 'just my opinion' doesn't really cut against the insult to those whose spouses have been illegal. Even the U.S. government doesn't think that being illegal makes you a congenital criminal. If you're illegal in one country, it has no effect at all on whether you'd be let into the U.S. It's just not a crime indicating moral decay.

[Caladan 19]

I didn't twist your words. (Hard to do with a direct quote.) I assumed your advice was consistent across scenarios. My mistake.

Hardly a leap. His advice to pedroh's hypothetical ...

"His advice ... "

You stated those words implying more than what I posted ... not me ... direct quote yes ?

I'm sorry. It was a horrible slur upon your character to use the word 'advice' when you imagined advising someone. ??? I don't think I see what you're getting at here.