[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe so, but what about the notion of BOTH parties representing the will of the people (as they're generally supposed to, being, after all, representatives of the people)? I think most Republicans and Democrats (regular citizens, not Congressmen) favor enforcement of existing immigration laws and tougher controls on immigration.
If both parties' representatives would take a stance of representing the majority wishes of the American people, neither party would suffer relatively to the other party on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't agree with the notion that a "majority of the people" want tougher controls on immigration, but even if they do, I'm sure both parties would vote for tougher immigrations controls. But that's not what's happening, so I suspect your assumptions are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress is not representing the will of majority America on many issues, so why presume it would do so on this issue? Didn't someone post a poll in another thread showing that most Americans want better enforcement of existing immigration laws and fewer overall immigrants?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to bring up an ancillary point that disturbs and puzzles me a bit, too: if either party takes a stance against illegal (or legal) immigration, the claim is that it will drive Latino immigrants away from that party. Maybe so. But immigrants are supposed to become Americans, are they not, with their primary new loyalty and allegiance being to America, is that not correct? That's what the immigration process is all about, isn't it? Yet if Latino immigrants tend to place their own ethnicity as a higher allegiance than their allegiance to America, how does that fit in with the ideal of immigration?

Further, Anglos in the USA seem to be bending over backwards to not be racist on such matters, but are Latino immigrants typically more concerned about allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than they are with allegiance to America or becoming Americans? If they are not more concerned with that, then how does the WSJ argument hold any water, that they will be driven away from a party that wants to enforce immigration laws? If on the other hand they are more concerned with allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than with allegiance to America, then the WSJ argument is totally correct, and they will indeed be driven away from the party that is not pro-immigration.

Does becoming an American no longer means having one's primary allegiance switch to America? I'm not saying that is true of most new Latino immigrants (legal or illegal), rather, I'm asking. If it is true, then the WSJ argument succeeds strongly. If it is false, then the WSJ argument suffers from some holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was quite a long false dichotomy. Respecting your ethnicity != disloyalty to the US. So your "question" is flawed on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never mentioned "respecting" and I have no problem with that. Respecting your ethnicity does not equal disloyalty. Placing allegiance to your ethnicity above allegiance to America does equal disloyalty to America.

If German-Americans or Italian-Americans during WWII had placed loyalty to their ethnicity or country of origin above their allegiance to America, they wouldn't have fought on our side in WWII, would they? So of course it is vital that immigrants gain a new primary allegiance. That says nothing about respect.

[ QUOTE ]
Do Saint Patrick's Day parades with Irish flags flying high imply some kind of treachery too, or is it only when brown people feel defensive about to their ancestors and their history that it becomes traitorous?

[/ QUOTE ]

If America had ever warred with Ireland, Irish-American immigrants such as my grandfather would have proudly (albeit sadly) fought for America against Ireland. Just as German-Americans fought against Nazi Germany in WWII, and Italian-Americans fought against Italy in WWII.

The point I was trying to make is that IF Latino immigrants will be turned against a party that is trying to enforce America's laws, merely because of ethnicity, that would show that their primary allegiance is to their ethnicity (or perhaps to Mexico) rather than to America. That's not fitting for a Latino immigrant nor is it fitting for a German immigrant nor an Irish immigrant. That's not fitting for an AMERICAN. That's not fitting for an immigrant to ANY country in the world. If you are to immigrate to America, it is to become an American (first and foremost). That's what the darn word "immigration" MEANS, that's why immigrants swear allegiance.

On the other hand, if Latino immigrants do not place allegiance to their ethnicity above being an American, then they ought not to turn against any political party which advocates enforcing America's laws.Changing one's citizenship is not just an expediency like getting a passport or Visa.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please everybody think this through a while before responding, and please try to respond analytically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of your posts contain a bunch of question begging, assumed conclusions, and downright silly logic. Asking people to "think for a while" and "try to be analytical" is a bit preposterous, IMO, because it assumes you were doing the same when you asked the question to begin with. It doesn't look like that's the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

To you.

To me, it's rather amazing that you seem to have such
great difficulty with my reasoning in virtually every thread whereas many others usually do not. The clearest example is the thread I cited wherein "She" stepped in and deflated your reasoning stance with a quote from American Jurisprudence. You apparently just never got it. Practically everyone in the original thread disagreed with your reasoning, so just maybe the problem is the mote in one's own eye, sometimes?

I believe I've addressed you respectfully and rationally at every turn. I'll mention now that I don't feel that that has been reciprocated. Well, the best I can do for you from this point forward will be to genuinely pray for you, and that I promise to do.