[Luis Gonzalez]

Here's a clue:

Buchanan has a problem with Central and South Amerindians.

Ameridians are not "white" either North or South of the border, but Pat takes it to an illogical level when he lumps all Hispanics (descendants of Europeans) in with the Amerindians, and claims that because of a shared language, all Hispanics are no longer "white".

To follow Pat's claim to its logical conclusion, since the North American Amerindians learned English from the Anglo-Saxon settlers of North America, Americans were never "white" either.

[norton]

I'm sticking with what I posted earlier. But, by the way, it was not a slam at legal immigrants of any sort and not a slam at the long established Tejano and 'mexican descent' people who's families might well have been here before any of ours.

It's also not a slam at the people who were already here, also immigrants, before europeans showed up. And, note that they also are ancestors of what we generally consider to be 'mexican'.

Race, or in this case 'national heritage', has a place in our self image and perhaps those we select for friends. It does not have a role in redefining our society, goals, or culture as is being witnessed in los angeles. THAT change is due to massive and mostly illegal importation of the same practices and expectations they supposedly left behind; and THAT is the most telling indicator of the illegal's intent and impact.

[FITZ]

since the North American Amerindians learned English from the Anglo-Saxon settlers of North America, Americans were never "white" either.

What's a hispanic who learned English then? Especially if they never learned Spanish? What's a Mennonite from Casas Grandeswho speaks fluent Spanish and holds only Mexican citizenship? What is Vicente Fox? Since Spaniards are generally referred to as "Europeans" and not "hispanic" and his ethnic heritage is European Spanish and Irish --- then does he count as a "hispanic"?