Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Hispanic Challenge (To America) A MUST READ Samuel Huntington (Long But Good)
Foreign Policy ^ | March 2004 | Samuel P. Huntington

Posted on 02/24/2004 10:40:36 AM PST by Cacique

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 last
To: A. Pole
Yet the Constitution was created by the British Protestants, not by the Catholics. They were informed by the tradition of Common Law and by such Protestant polities like Congregationalism (which departed from Anglican monarchy). Congregationalism is the very opposite of Roman Catholic style of government. The first is intensely democratic, moralistic and individualistic, the second is authoritative, deeply conscious of human weakness (think about the Sacrament of Confession) and communitarian.
I would go one further: because of the misdeeds of Randy Henry VIII the course of religious liberty in England, Wales and Scotland (but not Ireland for various reasons) took a different way than on the continent. A third way.

In the Catholic south, the struggle was for the State to have some measure of independence from the Church. Thus monarchs sought to expand their secular power as far as they dared. The ultimate expression of this was seen in the tumult of the French Revolution which was largely predicated on the desire to produce a purely secular State where "religious liberty" became something in a private box that people carried around with them.

In the Protestant north the struggle for religious liberty was very different. Even though the kings were ordinary parishioners one day a week––albeit with a really nice private pew––the rest of the week they were the king, and it's good to be the king. This gave rise to the birth of notions that these "Christian nations" were not such because of the Church per se but because of the People in the pews. This notion was skillfully woven into the notions which gave us modern nationalism as well as simpler creeds like volk. In such an environment there was tolerance of difference provided that in the end everyone was a "good" German (or whatever).

Aside: pity the people who weren't proverbial "good Germans" (or whatever).

But because of what Henry did in England the struggle was for the Church to have independence and autonomy from the State. The importance of this difference cannot be stressed enough.

Whereas in the Catholic south there arose a notion that the State should be free of the Church––with the logical inference that it should have some say in moral matters––in England (and especially Scotland) there arose an opposite and yet equal notion that the Church should be free from the State (something the Crown fought long and hard)––again with the logical inference that the People should have something to say about the affairs of the State ... even if they were religiously motivated. At issue is the logical absurdity of the notion of separation of Church AND State: two coexisting institutions with claims for the hearts and loyalties of the People cannot be mutually exclusive. Either the People will be free first and foremost in their duty to the State or they shall be first and foremost free in their duty to God. The French chose the former after we Americans chose the latter; however, either "choice" was predicated by a long history of social and legal development.

As for the contrast between England (but not especially Scotland –.^ ) and the Protestant north: the struggle for an independent Church clearly drew distinctions between Church and State that were blurred on the continent. As a result, I would suggest that English nationalism (and American) differed from the rest because it was not so tightly bound up with the alliance of Crown and Church. Thus before the rise of Social Theory someone could be a "good Englishman" and not necessarily be Christian at all. Indeed, it can clearly seen that nowadays one can be a "good Anglican" in England and be everything but Christian (especially if one is a clergyman).

Thus I would argue that the nature of religious liberty in America is constitutionally different than elsewhere: People are free first and foremost in their consciences towards God (and the State can settle for whatever crumbs remain) but there is a strong inhibition against setting up any specific doctrine or religious truth as a prerequisite for participation in society and its government so that no one is forced away from the table, so to speak.

My two cents.
151 posted on 12/27/2006 9:53:55 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: livius
You are confusing language, culture, religion, law and the political system and intellectual structure and rolling them up into one big ball.

All those things we try to separate in our mind. But in the actual reality they are entangled in one big ball.

The latter two were drawn from European thought - not only British, but Continental

"Drawing from [someone else] thought" usually not just replace what already is there. Rather some type of combination takes place underneath, with the deceiving appearance of likeness. When Japanese put on Western suits and ties, adopt Western institutions, you might think that they became same as West, just because they look the same.

152 posted on 12/28/2006 5:46:15 AM PST by A. Pole (General Buck Turgidson: "Mr. President... I'm beginning to smell a big, fat Commie rat.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
You were asked to prioritize and choose which is worse: 15 million "illegal" immigrants or 50 million slaughtered innocent babies with the thorough approval of the Junior League, Muffy and Skipper and why.

You chose not to prioritize. I do. The lives of the babies are far more important than the social calcification of our country by measures rooted in fear of those who will renew our civilization.

You seem to suggest that there might be some sort of "moral" equivalence based upon the oft-cited but long dead rule of law. There is not.

If you plan on actively opposing abortion, what is your practical plan to bring about its end without the influx of substantial numbers of people who will also oppose abortion, have many children per family and vote?

153 posted on 12/28/2006 1:20:28 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: livius; BlackElk

Yeah, and he neglected to point out that if it wasn't for the Spanish, we'd never have gained out independence. However, because the Spanish were, uh, Catholic, that doesn't make it into our history books.


154 posted on 12/28/2006 2:23:09 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I could bore you with the details of the other branches of my family and their entrances to the US very likely "without papers. P>*Sounds like my Irish Grandfather who just moved from Canada to Vermont and bought some land and started farming, al without permission; 'cept from the old farmer who sold him the land

He was an illegal immigrant and my family are Corkies - radicals...

I think we Catholics who view immigrants through the prism of the Holy Family - they were, essentially, illegal immigrants in Egypt, and ought not have been rounded-up and deported, - are not exactly alone in our ideas...

155 posted on 12/28/2006 2:31:35 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; BlackElk
Congregationalism is the very opposite of Roman Catholic style of government. The first is intensely democratic, moralistic and individualistic, the second is authoritative, deeply conscious of human weakness (think about the Sacrament of Confession) and communitarian.

*You are conflating church and laity. Congregationalism is a lay community.

In any event, The Rule of St Benedict long predated the Congregationalists - who used to arrest Christians in Masachusettes for NOT working on Christmas - and the Great Saint and Doctor of the Church, Bellarmine, among others, was a major proponent of Democracy.

In fact, were it not the the Catholic Church, the Congregationalists would never had a Europe Civilisation from which to pilfer the few good ideas they had

156 posted on 12/28/2006 2:43:25 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
In fact, were it not the the Catholic Church, the Congregationalists would never had a Europe Civilization from which to pilfer the few good ideas they had

True, but were it not for the Congregationalists and other Protestants we would not have Constitution and USA as it is. Maybe something like Canada mixed with Mexico ruled by a king.

157 posted on 12/28/2006 6:18:35 PM PST by A. Pole (Hush Bimbo: "Low wage is good for you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
If your position is that I must choose which evil I would rather endure then you have completely missed a nuance in what I wrote. I do not desire the presence of Illegal Aliens––whose presence is both a violation of our laws and a violation of that privilege which the Citizens should have to decide for themselves the state of immigration.

I have not ever written that I oppose lawful immigration on any principal, so your assertion that I'm somehow for the "calcification" of the nation is so much sophistry (and in a bad way).

If I'm to oppose lawlessness then I will do so.

As for abortion, it is sustained by a cancerous form of lawlessness that I've decried and presented sound constitutional reasonings against here at FR and elsewhere. Not to bore you but here is a short characterization of one position which may be used against abortion:

One of the principal reasons for the 14th Amendment was to enumerate to Congress the power to respect politically sourced civil rights which the several States could not disparage (the "privileges or immunities" clause).

Article 3:Section 2 of the Constitution defines the enumerated authority of the Court. It should be stressed that the article does not describe the Court as it now operats, but rather describes a Court that is only "supreme" within a limited sphere of enumerated jurisdictions (please also note that the Constitution does not capitalize "supreme" as if to say that the Court is the definitive article ... maybe it is past time we stopped doing so ourselves). The supreme Court is not even the "Supreme Court" over the several States except for these enumerated authorities––which are relatively narrow even considering the 14th Amendment.

At no time prior to 1973 did Congress ever seek to respect a civil right to an abortion that the several States could not disparage, so no "Laws of the United States" were in anyway involved nor has the 9th Amendment ever been extended to cover the several States––a specific point in the debates about the 14th Amendment. Even if it were, the Common Laws that are the subject of the 9th Amendment are quite clear: abortion is indefensible.

Therefore, the Court was utterly out of place to even accept the Roe case, much less render an opinion on it. It is fully within the rights of any State, its own Supreme Court or its Legislature, to rebuke and revoke such a lawless measure as is the pretend authority of sCOTUS to rule on such a matter as they did.

In short, I am trying to convince people of the plain truth that not only was Roe a bad opinion and ruling, but it is one that they utterly had no privilege to attempt and that they can be countermanded by any entity with superior local authority over their own laws who is willing to stick to their guns ... not some imagined international law but rather the several States themselves.

Naturally, such a tactic will not prevent abortions in all States nor could it ever return one murdered child to life; however, this is one constitutionally based logic to oppose abortion that makes no appeal to anything but law.

As I said, I will oppose lawlessness no matter if it is a great evil or comparatively minor one.

It is your position that we must endure these people who impose themselves on us simply because they may have some positive benefit that is unjustifiable.

No benefit they can ever render can annul the fact that they truthfully have no right to even make a difference simply because they chose to be here outside of our laws.
158 posted on 12/28/2006 10:13:35 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
While we have been arguing that the SCOTUS acted beyond its authority and unconstitutionally, 50 million innocents have been slaughtered with no end in sight. We argue. They ignore. They kill many more than a million per year by surgical abortions alone.

The 14th Amendment makes a distinction between a smaller group "citizens" and a larger group "persons." "Persons" has been held to include corporations. "Persons" also includes those natural persons who are NOT citizens but are present within our borders. The constitution says what it says and not what the border types wish it said. For example, any court would make short work of dismissing a governmental claim that police officers are able to wantonly beat non-citizens but not to so beat citizens. Equal protection extends to non-citizens who are persons.

If the non-citizens render the service of forcing a return to the recognition of the right to life, I'll take it. The rule of law died a very long time ago in the USA. Some of us prefer to deny that but it is true nonetheless. 50 million innocent dead is far MORE than enough.

159 posted on 12/29/2006 7:22:23 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Actually, the phrase is "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

An unborn baby (especially one concieved here) is under both the jurisdiction of our civil and our criminal laws, so abortion violates this principal in spades. This is why the effort is to define "persons" in such a way as to exclude the unborn (a lawlessly legal trick used to sidestep their humanity).

However, Illegal Aliens––not having entered legally––are not properly under the jurisdiction of our civil laws because the "terms" of their entry short circuit the process by which they might enter into our social contract.

Or to paraphrase something said earlier: the rule of law is dead for them because they have killed it.

This is also why people who entered legally but overstayed their visas are in a somewhat different situation from anyone who just imposed themselves in the first place.

That doesn't mean they are not under the jurisdiction of our criminal laws; but, aside from the commission of some specific crime these don't come into play.

This is why Illegal Aliens are not called Criminal Aliens––their presence is a violation of the civil social contract more than anything else. These do not properly have any right to expect equal protection of our civil laws as the only nominal legal recourse is to summarily deport them.

Also, I would question that their presence would even have a positive effect on abortion issue as you seem to think it may. One thing about Mexico that I've observed is that its political culture, the social theories that are deeply interwoven into her people's mindsets, are very different from those of Americans.

In Mexico some years ago there was a push by the government to promote an ownership mentality and private enterprise; however, the socialist mindset is so deeply ingrained in the people that they had to do so in language more at home in discussions about social theory rather than private ownership. Really, Monty Python's erudite peasants going on and on about social theory to a divine right king is not far from the mark even if it would be over the top if applied literally.

In contrast, the purveyors of socialism in America have historically found that unless they present their poison pill wrapped in some sweet meat––such as a language of personal entitlement, rhetorically blurring the distinctions between the "American Dream" and the welfare state––they will not be widely accepted.

I would challenge you that a demographic group––Illegal Aliens as a group––who have already proven an ability to compartmentalize their ethical standards (they came here knowing it was illegal to do so the way they did) would feel right at home in the socialist Democratic Party––which is a master at managing compartmentalized ethics.

So yes, they may well be "Pro-Life" leaning right now ... but the thing about political big tents is that most people end up in the darkened bleachers passively watching the clowns and showmen in the three rings under the lights.

As long as their section hears the rhetoric they like they can ignore or tolerate what is being preached to the folks in the other bleachers (please note that the DNC keeps folks divided up this way to help keep them manageable).

Then there is your contention about the rule of law, if it has died then are we right to pat more dirt on the grave or would it not be better to do what we can to revitalize it?

Is "social justice" rendered to artificial entities and groups so very lovely a thing that we must completely abandon Justice rendered to Persons forevermore?

By such lights if a person feels they should not have to obey our laws they are excused from doing so. It really doesn't matter if they are stealing their residency, stealing something off the shelf (shoplifting) or even stealing back their wombs.

You are actually siding with the mindset that has done so much harm to the rule of law and made abortion legal in the first place: my reasons justify my actions no matter how morally, ethically, or legally problematic these are.
160 posted on 12/29/2006 10:10:43 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: drhogan
... but i have the feeling that this article may be slightly alarmist...

No kidding.

I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of things written by "conservative thinkers" these days are slightly alarmist.

It's embarrassing.

161 posted on 12/29/2006 10:21:37 AM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne; sittnick; bornacatholic; MattinNJ
If, God forbid, you were disabled in an auto accident that was caused by the negligence of an "illegal" immigrant millionaire with $100 million in identifiable assets, would you be able to and likely to invoke the civil jurisdiction of our US courts to attach that property and sue the "illegal" immigrant miscreant seeking damages? Or would you claim that you cannot sue him/her here and restrict yourself to suing in the "illegal" alien's nation of citizenship? Our courts will gladly entertain your suit. If we don't like the civil justice system of a foreign nation like Saudi Arabia, our courts wll allow you to sue a Saudi Arabian citizen for similarly injuring you in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi defendant might seek to invoke American jurisdiction to get the benefit of our jury system (if shrimp whistle and pigs fly but COULD invoke US jurisdiction).

I would be anxious to see ONE case citation in which your remarkable theory that "illegal" aliens are not subject to civil jurisdiction was upheld and not subsequently reversed.

The rule of law is dead because of the evil theory of legal positivism promulgated by long dead elitist SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that the law is what SCOTUS says it is. It is not my theory. I don't side with it BUT I am tired of pro-lifers fighting with one (or both) hand(s) tied behind our backs.

If your methodology is to scrupulously imagine yourself observing each and every jot and tittle of what you imagine to be constitutional law and statutory law and somehow make the judges do likewise, what color are the moons in your sky?

The purpose of the exercise should not be self-righteously patting ourselves on the back for being right but to put an end to the SCOTUS imposed slaughter.

Offhand, in a contest for prolifehood between Mexicans and the Junior League, my money is on the Mexicans. Also, it is much more than likely that Mexicans heading north are a lot less likely socialist than those who lack the gumption or desire to come north.

162 posted on 12/29/2006 10:56:04 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I agree that Holmes was a traitor to the very essence of constitutional governance and I've written to that effect often.

I've even opined that what we need now is a separation of the Bar and State––since the legal class is so wholly pwned by these notions that corrupt our laws.

But I cannot and will not side with lawlessness of a similar kind to achieve any lofty goal ... simply because I do not trust men to do as good as what we've turned away from––if in a minor issue of the Constitution of one nation (which we are debating now) or in the truly significant issue of divine truth as it is similarly assailed by relativist, universalist and worse (where we might have far more common accord judging from some of your statements).

These are of a kind for me even if they are not commensurate. If I do not struggle for that which is a known quantity, then I won't know what I'm ultimately arguing for or what will be the end result of my labors––even as much as that is humanly possible.

It may be an impossible task for a man to do as I desire, but that doesn't mean I should stop trying.

Man makes choices but God makes outcomes and I can at least take heart in two facts: while it does say that all things work together for the good of those who love the Lord it does not also say that all things work for the bad of those who hate Him (at least in the mortal world before judgment). It may yet be possible for God to bless even a wicked nation like ours for the sake of His elect.

That is the color of the moons in my sky.
163 posted on 12/29/2006 10:01:25 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
I think we Catholics who view immigrants through the prism of the Holy Family - they were, essentially, illegal immigrants in Egypt, and ought not have been rounded-up and deported, - are not exactly alone in our ideas...

I was born and raised Catholic and think just the opposite. Round up all the illegals and ship them out or our country will fall.

164 posted on 01/03/2007 6:33:42 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Ping


165 posted on 01/03/2007 6:56:09 AM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

You think the Holy Family should have been rounded-up and shipped back to Herod?


166 posted on 01/03/2007 7:23:31 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
You think the Holy Family should have been rounded-up and shipped back to Herod?

What was the law back then?

Equating current issues with ancient (and arguably fictitious) writings is fatuous.

167 posted on 01/03/2007 8:02:22 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

is positive law normative morality?


168 posted on 01/03/2007 8:08:57 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
is positive law normative morality?

Asking that question without any context is specious.

169 posted on 01/03/2007 8:49:32 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
It isn't at all. go back and read my post you were responding to.

In any even, let's say the law back then was the same as today.

Would you have been in favor of arresting the Holy Family and sending them back to Herod?

170 posted on 01/03/2007 9:38:58 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Would you have been in favor of arresting the Holy Family and sending them back to Herod?

In favor - probably not. But, that was the law so, if you are making an equivalent to today, then my answer is yes.

171 posted on 01/03/2007 9:45:22 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
Would you have been in favor of arresting the Holy Family and sending them back to Herod?

Let me amend my answer. Yes, I would. I fell into your trap of seeing them as the Holy Family instead of what they were - illegal aliens.

I find it interesting that you would equate mexico to Herod's reign. It's probably true but it still doesn't make it our responsibility to house every one of his refugees.

Or, maybe you were saying we should be on the lookout for an hispanic family where the father is named Jose, the mother Maria and the son Jesus. Who knows they could be the second coming. But, would God's sense of humor give them the same names?

172 posted on 01/03/2007 10:41:03 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
bumping this up again so more people can read it as Pelosi takes power. Below is an adendum that I posted on another thread but which is relevant here.

Coming to a city near you. Now that the Democrats have a mandate they will push for all this nonsence. Unfortunately they will be in cointrol for the rest of the century. Once they pass Bush's pet project called "amnesty for illegal aliens" and the 2010 census redistributes the population and congressional seats (as well as the electoral college)to where most illegals currently live they will lock this country up for democrats for the rest of the century.

They will have to placate a very radicalized hispanic minority who believe in Liberation theology catholicism and view Fidel Castro and Che Guevara as iconic heroes. If you think the democratic party is radical now, just wait and see.

173 posted on 01/06/2007 7:54:00 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

btt


174 posted on 01/06/2007 8:11:31 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
They will have to placate a very radicalized hispanic minority who believe in Liberation theology catholicism and view Fidel Castro and Che Guevara as iconic heroes. If you think the democratic party is radical now, just wait and see.

How can they be any worse than the pubs have been over the past six years? The dems, be default, have the hispanic majority vote. They will treat them like the blacks - take them for granted.

175 posted on 01/07/2007 6:31:41 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Surely they will attempt todo so. But it's a different culture with a vastly different outlook. There is a reason why socialism and communism are sweeping the continent to the south of us. The democrats will ignore them at their peril.


176 posted on 01/07/2007 8:43:19 AM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
Surely they will attempt todo so. But it's a different culture with a vastly different outlook. There is a reason why socialism and communism are sweeping the continent to the south of us. The democrats will ignore them at their peril.

But, the dems embrace socailism. It would seem that they should be happy about the change south of the border.

177 posted on 01/07/2007 12:40:30 PM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
The democrats are typical social democrat types. They are pretend socialists. Most millionaires in congress are democrats. They are old money. They use socialism to keep the nuveau riches and middle class at bay. Socialism is only good for the rest of us as far as they are concerned.

Latin American communists on the other hand,are more like the stalinist variety. They are not gonna let these wannabees live in the style they are accustomed to. Like all elites of the past, they make the mistake of thinking that they will always be in charge.

178 posted on 01/07/2007 3:46:51 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Clemenza; rmlew; Yehuda; Coleus; firebrand; nutmeg; RaceBannon; ...

I am resurecting this thread because now that the debate in the Senate seems determined to sell us out I feel people need to read it and also because I will post a thread on immigration that I am currently writing and hope to have finished by tomorrow.


179 posted on 05/16/2007 6:15:47 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

bump


180 posted on 05/16/2007 6:20:39 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

bump


181 posted on 05/16/2007 10:32:59 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (Dennis Miller said it best “Liberals always feel your pain. Unless of course, they caused it.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian4Bush
btt

STOP AMNESTY NOW!! WE CAN DO IT!!

182 posted on 05/17/2007 7:09:24 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

My God!

I can’t believe I’m hearing you right.

I agree with what you are saying, but see I’m a racist cause I’m a white American.


183 posted on 05/17/2007 8:00:18 AM PDT by beachn4fun (How long will the world allow terrorism to be the answer to the problem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beachn4fun

bump it


184 posted on 05/18/2007 11:20:59 AM PDT by don-o (We are "THEY")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

This is a thread that deserves resurrection. Very timely!


185 posted on 05/18/2007 1:38:02 PM PDT by GatorGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: GatorGirl

Damm right


186 posted on 05/18/2007 3:13:36 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Bump cause it needs to be read.


187 posted on 05/18/2007 3:34:36 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Bumping it because it needs to be read and now more than ever.


188 posted on 05/18/2007 5:11:42 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Bump


189 posted on 05/18/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

“The biggest problem I see is that we seem to have given up on the idea of assimilating newcomers. If this country becomes less white but retains American culture, I don’t see a problem. However, government programs and “multiculturalism” have de-emphasized assimilation.

In my cynical moments, I see this as a plot by rich transnationalists. “

No, its a plot by the Gramscian cultural marxists. This is their way to deconstruct our successful anglo-saxon-derived Judeo-Christian-based limited-govt free democratic republic.
To overthrow a culture, marginalize it within a wider multi-cultural context. Then let demographics do the rest.


190 posted on 06/10/2007 8:23:29 PM PDT by WOSG (Stop Illegal Immigration. Call your Senator today. Senate Switchboard at 202-224-3121.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

“If this trend continues, the cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society.”

Thanks for this excellent article.

The fact is that borders, language and culture matter, and that a demographic tidal can and will create cultural shifts. Would it be any different if the 20 million were Indian Sikhs, or Muslims from Egypt, or Chinese? The fact is, the ‘melting pot’ only works in a system of strong assimilation. That simply does not happen when you are continually bringing in millions of people from the same country.

It was the *low* immigration levels of 1920-1960s that ensured there would be a homogenizing effect of American culture. The only way to stop this effect wrt Mexican immigration would be to drastically lower immigration levels from Mexico (it would not be unreasonable to limit immigration from any one country to be 5% of total immigration).

to do otherwise is to invite the Reconquista on most border states.


191 posted on 06/10/2007 8:42:13 PM PDT by WOSG (Stop Illegal Immigration. Call your Senator today. Senate Switchboard at 202-224-3121.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

bump


192 posted on 08/30/2007 11:12:52 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drhogan

Yes I agree with you. The article is alarmist. The 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics are much more likely to speak English and intermarriage. I believe by 2050, half of the Hispanics today will be married into black and white families.


193 posted on 10/12/2007 10:39:51 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
My recent firsthand experience in Houston.

The Balkanization of America

194 posted on 11/18/2007 11:14:53 PM PST by expatguy (Support Conservative Blogging - "An American Expat in Southeast Asia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
I posted This back in May during the immigration debacle. You might want to read it.
195 posted on 11/19/2007 8:02:30 AM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

This is absolutely one of the most disgusting and disturbing articles I’ve ever read. And the fact that, allegedly, a Latino would not find anything bothering about the clearly bigoted nature of the article is even worse. Most shockingly, tragedy is not a strong enough word to quantify the sheer ignorance of a Latino who would judge the culture of his people and other non-Americans as “failed”. I am a proud Haitian born and raised in NYC. Haiti is my country and there isn’t a damn thing inferior about our culture. No culture is inherently inferior or “failed”.

This article is nothing but White nationalist propoganda revamped for the 21st century. Minorities and liberal White people need to realize that undocumented immigrants are nothing more than the latest scapegoat being used by elected officials to hide the real reasons for the ills that plague socieites. All my people of color need to rise up and realize that in the eyes of the conservative White elite, we are all niggers, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Gays, Amerindians, Arabs and all other oppressed minorities. By keeping one group of color down, they succeed in holding us all in the same inferior position.

Though I have to admit that the genius of neo-White nationalist thought is that now national origin and immigration status are being used to support inherently discriminatory ideologies. To outright say that it is because of the race of the newcomers that they garner so much animosity would be too easy, now they seek to divide people of color by saying that we’re all Americans (except the undocumented) and we’re all fighting for the good of the American people. My question is, since when have immigrants (documented or otherwise) in a concrete way ever caused the deterioration of the American people? They didn’t start unemployment, or the health care crisis, they didn’t take away school funding. So why do so many people seem to blame them? Think about it.


196 posted on 12/12/2007 5:43:35 PM PST by haitian_princess (HUNTINGTON'S ARTICLE IS 21st CENTURY WHITE SUPREMACIST GARBAGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique; kabar

Thanks for keeping the old thread alive.


197 posted on 12/13/2007 1:04:08 PM PST by a_chronic_whiner (FRED 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: a_chronic_whiner; Vom Willemstad K-9

Thanks for the bump, I would reply to #196, but it seems that she has already made up her mind. By her join date it appears she joined just to write that drivel. This old thread deserves to be re-read every now and then.


198 posted on 12/13/2007 6:28:51 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Seems like you’d be talking to deaf ears.

The original comments were well worth the read, but it’s a shame we don’t have more of this kind of rational and meaningful debate outside the confines of FR.

Anyways,

Merry Xmas to you and yours


199 posted on 12/13/2007 9:02:46 PM PST by a_chronic_whiner (FRED 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Clem, you cannot extrapolate from the Miami Hispanic Culture to the National Hispanic culture. Miami is its own deal.

The first waves of Cubans were white Europeans. Ditto the first wave of Colombians. In many cases English wasn't an unknown quantity to these pioneers, even if they couldn't handle it all that well. Naturally they now speak English and so do the kids. Perhaps they even speak it at home, just like the Germans, Jews, and Italians, whose now feeble looking immigration numbers did before them.

200 posted on 08/26/2008 2:52:25 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (GOP Plank: Pump MORE US Crude--2Xrefining capacity -- Coal /METHANOL fuel-- Build Nukes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson