Posted on 06/08/2007 4:33:15 AM PDT by savedbygrace
I think the open borders people just won a decisive victory when all is said and done
How so?
In the mean time...yes, you guessed it, more illegals.
That is half of the cabal that tried to make this little deal. The other half is the one that wants to rig every future election by importing 20 Million future Democrat voters.
We can do something about the former. The latter half just wants to win at all costs, so they cannot be convinced of anything. So we have to let the Chamber of Commerce types who just want a steady supply of cheap imported labor (we used to call that slavery...) that we are not going to stand for any of these deals.
COMMENT:
I am a little dense so let me diagnose what you are saying.
You believe this is a victory for the open borders hate America first crowd because: the Federal government will not enforce the current immigration laws thereby letting even more illegals and possible terrorists to cross the border.
There is a certain number of groups in the dark reaches of America who are more racists than a front lawn cross burning at a local KKK Klan meeting.
These racists groups are like cockroaches hiding in a cesspool drain.
Most of them belong to the George Sor@$$ wing of the Democrat party.
We know them by their racists names: Black Congressional CauCau’s, La Raza, Mecha, LULAC, Rainbow Push, Al Sharptongue, Jessie Jackass, MSM, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Peloser, Hair Reid, Dick Turdban.
No it's a victory for the open borders crowd because the laws we have can be walked through like a wet paper bag.
The laws are in place but then again there not being enforced out in liberal America.
The guest worker program will never fly. The unions, led by the AFL-CIO, oppose it vigorously. That is one reason the current bill was stopped in the Senate.
The porous laws are in place but then again everyone is running around them out in all of America.
Fixed that.
Thanks.
According to the Catholic Catechism, the following conditions must be met before an armed response is legitimate:
"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:
1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;
2) all other means of redress have been exhausted;
3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders;
4) there is well-founded hope of success; and
5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. (#2243)"
These conditions are not something peculiarly Catholic. They are identical with the Just War Doctrine's jus ad bellum requirements for a nation going to war, with one important omission. For a nation, there is an additional condition that must be met: war must be declared by competent authority. This exception is critical to any discussion of the morality of armed revolt. It is impossible to prescribe a “competent authority” to call for a revolt. Only the people, who retain the right to govern themselves, can undertake revolt when the above-listed conditions are met.
How do the people undertake a revolt? It has to start somewhere. In the case of the American Revolution, it started at Lexington and Concord, when the British sent troops on a gun-control mission. The local militia resisted, and the war was on. The Continental Congress, a body representing the thirteen colonies, took over management of the revolution. In South America, “resistance juntas” were formed when Napoleon made Joseph Bonaparte King of Spain and its colonies. Simon Bolivar, a member of one of the juntas, took over military leadership of the revolt. The war was long and bitter, but the South American countries eventually gained independence from Spain.
What is true of these two revolutions is true in general. There has to be some spark, some incident, that triggers a revolt. Someone has to decide that his particular “line in the sand” has been crossed. Whether the revolt grows, or instead peters out, depends on the actions of others. If others join the revolt, it may grow. If no one else is willing to take up arms, or is not yet ready, the revolt dies (at least for the time being).
Although the existence of the prior Continental Congress was important in organizing the American Revolution, it's not necessary that there be a formal organization at the start. One person "shooting back" may be sufficient to inspire others to copy his action. It's important, in that case, that the word get out quickly, or the incipient revolt can be suppressed by the authorities simply by preventing anyone else from knowing that it happened.
Initiating a revolution has grave consequences, which should be considered carefully before underaking such a violent act. However, allowing creeping tyranny to grow also has grave consequences. These consequences must also be taken into account in making decisions about initiating armed revolt.
I make no judgment here about whether the conditions listed above have been met, or are on the verge of being met. I present them for information only.
For what it's worth, I teach Just War Doctrine at Yorktown University, an on-line university witha politically and culturally conservative orientation. I am also the author of A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, which was published by Ignatius Press (a Catholic publishing house) as a reply to the American Catholic Bishops' blatantly pacifist pastoral letter on war and peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.