tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8379208418097937187.post2771971290274731155..comments2019-06-01T08:53:04.618-05:00Comments on Voces de la Frontera - Wisconsin Reality Tour: Appleton - Day 5 (Thursday p.m.)JShanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17576922062158389832noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8379208418097937187.post-81230266236798437082007-07-25T21:58:00.000-05:002007-07-25T21:58:00.000-05:00Some reactions to the last comment. 1.) The idea ...Some reactions to the last comment. <BR/><BR/>1.) The idea that "people are not illegal, their actions are" prompted an image of Charles Manson on the loose, while his actions were locked in sort of a Pandora's box. People who slip across borders without permission have made a deliberate decision to break the law. The usual consequence, which you find in every nation on the planet except one, is deportation. <BR/><BR/>2.)"Two few oportunities to immigrate...." The United States has the most liberal immigration program, and the weakest enforcement, in the world. Of course, we still must have limits; all five billion people on Planet Earth who could claim to be just "wanting a better life for their family" cannot come here. Remember, there are nearly two hundred nations on Earth, and the immigration quotas must be spread across ALL of them. Our immigration system is NOT broken just because 12 to 20 million illegals cannot get visas on demand, on their own terms, as though they were buying stamps at the Post Office. BTW, the poem on the Statue of Liberty also mentions a door if you read it closely.<BR/><BR/>3.) I agree with Article 25 of the UN charter. If I remember correctly, Eleanor Roosevelt was involved in writing it. People DO have a right to a decent standard of living. However, the United States is not obligated to provide it to the whole world. Latin America needs to fix its own problems. NAFTA was not imposed on Mexico.<BR/><BR/>$.) I have to reread history; I didn't realize the Southern Poverty Law Center was part of the 19th century movement to end slavery, the reference that was made. BTW, had a conversation with the Center this subject. They said they might advocate for an illegal in a hate crime case, and they do work on cases where guest workers aren't getting paid properly, for example. (Guest workers are here legally and voluntarily, remember.) The Center assured me they would not advocate for an illegal for any other case, a deportation hearing, for example.<BR/><BR/>5.) The Ameerican Civil Rights movement was African Americans working to gain rights they were being denied as CITIZENS of the United States. I do not recall a Latino connection to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, for example. The Civil Rights movement in the United Stated is the sort of thing that Latinos should be replicating in their own countries in order to build better lives, instead of taking the lazy way out and walking across the borders of the U.S. When I saw all the illegals and their advocates demonstrating for "immigrant rights" two years ago in the spring, under all those Mexican flags, my very first thought was "why aren't you people doing this at home?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8379208418097937187.post-27745610877152908162007-07-19T10:02:00.000-05:002007-07-19T10:02:00.000-05:00A few responses to the last comment. 1) Of course...A few responses to the last comment. <BR/><BR/>1) Of course there is a Spanish word for illegal- ilegal. Many in the immigration debate however refrain from using the term illegal when referring to a person, preferring to use the term undocumented. Many believe that acts, not people are illegal. <BR/><BR/>2) I also do not know anyone who is against legal immigration, but there are few opportunities to do so. People would come legally if they could. <BR/><BR/>3) According to Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, people have a UNIVERSAL right to survival, and I quote: <BR/>"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social service"<BR/><BR/>If they are being denied this right at home, I for one, do not blame them for pursuing it elsewhere. <BR/><BR/>4) The reference to slavery is in response in the context of the guestworker program. The comparison to slavery is from the South Poverty Law Center, a reputable think tank. <BR/><BR/>5) The civil rights movement was a movement of people to change laws they saw us unjust. I also see this as a response to injustice and not so different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8379208418097937187.post-6458193012757559052007-07-14T22:05:00.000-05:002007-07-14T22:05:00.000-05:00I attended the Appleton presentation. During the ...I attended the Appleton presentation. During the testimonies I kept thinking, "Does Spanish not have words or idioms for the concept of "illegal"? Is this very ephemeral, fluid concept of rule of law part of Hispanic culture?" <BR/><BR/>Tonight (Saturday the 14th) I was online searching for articles about the effects of NAFTA on Mexico, and was quite surprised by what I found. Did you folks "cherry pick" the most negative intelligence you could find? I quickly found articles from credible sources (ever hear of Yale University?) that counter your claims.<BR/><BR/>Two more quick points. You need to stick to the correct meaning of the term "immigrant": someone who is LEGALLY in another country for the purpose of establishing residency. Your Myth/Fact sheet alternately applies the term to both legal and illegal immigration, sometimes in the same sentence. I suspect that is a deliberate (and dishonest) confusing of the issue. I know of no one who is against LEGAL immigration.<BR/><BR/>I was horrified that you attempted to compare the illegal immigration issue with the tramua the United States endured while ending the institution of slavery. There are NO similarities - 450,000 Africans or therabouts did not voluntarily row across the Atlantic and wade ashore into slavery in Dixie "in search of a better life for their family", the plaintive rationalization for illegal immigration.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, America's Civil Rights struggles of the 50's and 60's were CITIZENS working to gain their rights, so comparisons to the illegal immigration issue are invalid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8379208418097937187.post-23417667881030283852007-07-14T20:01:00.000-05:002007-07-14T20:01:00.000-05:00Melanie's comments about "the law" and "that which...Melanie's comments about "the law" and "that which is legal" from the APL stop remind me of a few incidents from the life of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>1. Townspeople dragged an adulterous woman before Jesus, waiting to stone her for her actions. Jesus asked the accusers who was guilt free among them; they quietly left (perhaps with their "tails between their legs"). Jesus looked up, asked where the accusers were, was told that they left, and replied that he forgave the woman and that she should go and sin no more.<BR/><BR/>2. Jesus and his disciples were accosted for picking and eating grain on the sabbath. Such an activity was forbidden on the Sabbath; it required too much energy and was considered "work". What is more important, to maintain a religious law, whose layers can conceal the premise of what the believers are even trying to protect, or fight off malnourishment when preaching the word of God?<BR/><BR/>3. Finally, the "but they broke the law" argument causes me to ask, "And you have never surpassed the speed limit, consumed alcohol as a minor, etc?" Besides, having to pay a fine as a stage on the path to citizenship hardly suggests that a person is getting off "Scott free".stevenherrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03974593268634461971noreply@blogger.com