They, unfortunately, continue the practice of expanding the laundry list of perceived social injustices that are often blamed on, but never quite proven to be the result of racism; and thus, they believe these “civil rights” need to be obtained via Civil Right style marches. Of course, the Civil Rights Movement was never intended to endow foreigners the rights that are guaranteed to US citizens and there are many who know this.

If there is to be a diplomatic resolution to the obvious demand for labor and the ample supply south of us, the ignorant ethnic rhetoric has to subside and intellectual honesty must prevail in the public discourse.

It helped it. Kennedy was forced to react because of public outcry and the marches during his era. As such, this year’s marches have put the issue at the forefront during an election year.

We must realize that this is a political battle and that if it is to be won or if we are to have a favorable outcome, a wise political tract must be taken. That of course, precludes calling anyone a racist simply because they raise questions about the southern border of the US. It is obvious we need political allies if our ideas are to have a substantial impact on national policy, and insulting people who raise legitimate concerns is counter to that objective and end the ends hurts our paramount goal.

The debate is far from “fake,” it is real and cannot be and should not be so easily dismissed as such. If there is a cultural rift each side might benefit from analyzing its own actions that may have helped create the rift. Does waving a foreign flag at a political protest politically help or hurt the cause? Do ethnic politics tend to help create “cultural rifts?” As you mention some on the “other side” also engage in behavior that is less than diplomatic; however, what good does it do to follow suit? One, two, or even a hundred Minutemen do not speak for an entire nation. However, if people (Latinos) respond with instances of ethnic chauvinism they may very well end up speaking for a good portion of so-called Americans.

I agree that within the legitimate concerns of many lies the not so well hidden prejudices and bigotry of a few, but if we are to effectively counter their political attack we must be politically smarter than we have been. We must cajole those who are not so easily swayed by bigotry within there own group. To some this is tantamount to “bootlicking” or “Uncle Tom[ing] it, but it is the way of the world, and responsible “leaders” should try to impart that reality to the younger more emotionally driven element within our gente. Instead, political leaders and Chicano Studies professors often use (unwittingly in some cases) ethnic politics to secure their place in political office and academia at the expense of their constituency. A David like victory is highly unlikely to occur and tends only to happen in folklore and it will be the masses that pay the price for ethnic grandstanding of our leaders.

I’m just frustrated that the “legitimate questions and concerns of the opposition” can so easily be hijacked by racists, that’s all. Where I live, this fake “debate” has highlighted a serious cultural rift in the community. Mostly, the grievances against immigrants are esthetic and petty (and stupidly racist). I hope you know what I mean. I am not a “self-appointed educated leader”, either, just a dude who likes to “stir the shitstorm” and this is my perspective. There is a neverending stream of “idiotic sound bites and straw men arguments” coming from the other side, too, don’t you think? I don’t think the motivations of the opposition are entirely noble, no matter how lofty their rhetoric sounds.

Idiotic sound bites and creating straw men arguments that fail to address legitimate questions and concerns of the opposition do far more to harm our cause than racist element with our society.

No shit, Sherlock. Man must devise the tools to fix the machine he knowingly and arrogantly destroys. Stop trying to be so smart about being a hater.

In a sense, you can be both. It depends on context and what you are talking about. In terms of nationality I’m American and I’m loyal to no other nation, but who I am is influenced by my family, and they are illegal immigrants. I don’t use the term “undocumented workers” because it appears to be a manipulation of language and it doesn’t answer the question of what people want to be and where they stand (besides in the country).

I don’t think that many protesters were so sure in the first protest where you saw many more Mexican flags than at the May 1 protest. At the May 1 protest I saw many more American flags. And flags are powerful symbols.

Maybe I’m wrong, but my interpretation of the marcha was that people were saying, “I want to be American. I want to be part of the American dream. That is why I’m here” as if in realization and appreciation of what America is. They get it. They are not America-haters, in fact, many of them are more American than many native-born ingrates and we would be better off with some kind of citizen-exchange program of those who want to change horrible imperialist capitalist America and those who want to be a part of her family.

For me the march was moving, you can understand the words “I want to be an American” in any language. So I believe that amnesty would be appropriate. But you can’t have amnesty without stopping illegal immigration. That is why the US needs to gradually put the military and a fence on its borders, like Mexico, which has a much stricter immigration policy, does. That is the way to stop 90% of illegal immigration and thus bringing order back into the equation. Otherwise unrest, confusion and misunderstandings mount. And because I don’t like those things, I’m a conservative, not an anarchist.

Obviously, poverty and corruption are still major problems in Mexico, that is what has caused the economic refugees and the illegal immigration which bothers those of us who believe in law and order and those of us who are disturbed by alot of the unfairness and disfunction that exists in this world. If there are any good historical and economic studies/investigations of the situation in Mexico I would appreciate if someone mentioned them. I don’t know of any because that is not something that I’ve focused on. I do know that some 70 years of “Partido Revolucionario” has kept Mexico in economic retardation and that it is going to take much more than NAFTA to get the country up to speed.

The fact that that country’s economy is largely sustained by exporting workers is also a critical factor. A sudden stop in the flow would be a terrible shock to Mexico’s economy. That is why Mexico has promoted illegal immigration. And I’m gonna be candid, regardless of the feelings I might hurt or the anger that I might generate from saying so, but I believe the left is hampering Mexico’s economic development.

Their ideas about economics just don’t work. Otherwise nobody would be wearing a t-shirt which features a Stalinist (Yes, I mean CHE), academics wouldn’t need to support dictatorship (eg Cuba) and manipulation (a mainstay of the lib media) to support of their wrongheaded ideological views of “progress” and how to achieve it. This problem goes deeper and further back than Marx’s misconceptions.

If I had to take a guess as to what is behind the continued economic confusion and political propaganda that fuels much of the antipathy on America’s campuses for free-market economics and judeo-christian values, I would have to point to the attempted intellectual justification for sin leading to the conscious and subconscious desire to abolish the laws of economics and any basis for any kind of law whatsoever. See C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

“In addition to providing a vital product, former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering” while “American taxpayers subsidize the most cretinous, idiotic, hate-filled lunatics in the universe [See: The Professors by David Horowitz] — and liberals are demanding that we direct our hate toward people like Lee Raymond who allow us to go to the bathroom indoors.” –Ann Coulter

To me it keeps coming back to that. Quoting George Reisman, just like in my last post, when the topic was the environmentalism:

Whether global warming comes or not, it is certain that nature itself will sooner or later produce major changes in the climate. To deal with those changes and virtually all other changes arising from whatever cause, man absolutely requires individual freedom, science, and technology.