Aztlan

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, there is no right given to the Federal government to do so, and therefore it does not have that right.

There is no right to the Judiciary to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional, but it still happens. There is no right for Congress to pass Social Security, but it can.

Just because it isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, doesn't mean the government can't do it. The government can't do something only if the Constitution prohibits it. It isn't an exhaustive list.

[Ramo]

ONCE AGAIN, try listening this time. Immigrants USED to try to assimulate, now they try to change US.
They USED to ADD, now they try to CONVERT.
I have no problem with immigration if the immigrants learn the langauge and try to assimluate.

Why's it your business what language they speak? Many can get along fine in enclaves without ever knowing English. Like it has been for the past couple centuries.

And there always have been groups that have tried to assimilate and groups that have tried to keep seperate within immigrant populations. If you believe otherwise, you're deluded.

As far as all this "humanity" Bull.
Using that agrument, the US should be shipping food all over the world because people are starving, even if their leaders are starving them or it would destroy local farmers.

What? That's the most idiotic counterargument I've ever heard. Would you respond to a post attacking genocide, by saying if we don't do genocide, we might as well ship food over to corrupt governments trying to starve the people at the expense of domestic farmers?

Immigration is very good for the economy and it alleviates suffering and provides opportunities for many people.

There is NO RIGHT to travel and relocate.
You make things up in order to help your argument.
Nations have always had the right (which mean legal, or it can not be called a right) to protect their borders.

For the second time, I have never asserted that there exists a legal right to travel. You are making things up to help your argument.

I was only pointing out that it is an important freedom which is the solution to so many problems in the world, so therefore there exists a moral right to travel (as indicated by its place in the UN Universal Human Rights).

I would also, again, refer you to the 9th Amendment, and what it says about the rights not enumerated.

Do you know of any countries that are better at protecting civil rights than the US and Britain?

Scandinavia, for instance, is much better in this respect. Should I continue?

Britain? I'm suprised Dino hasn't posted references to all of their authoritarian "anti-terror" laws.

Man, what planet do you live on?

Obviously not the same place as you.

Converting US into part of Mexico. You did say that you liked the idea.

You're making up stuff again. I said I liked the idea of seceding from the US because I like goverments de-centralized.

If you think the US is filled with tyranny, you must know of some Utopia that no one else has heard of. Where is it.

Portugal, for instance.

As you say you are an Anarchist, I will start to ignore you, as you clearly are not based in the real world.

I didn't expect much more from you. I seriously doubt you even know what anarchism is. Who Bakunin or Kropotkin were. What Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War was like. But go right ahead, remain ignorant, that's fine with me. It's obvious you're totally deluded.

How did it get to be conventional wisdom that all cultures are equal?

Why do you think that a culture is better because it has less political corruption? Immigrants tend to be more politically responsible than natives in my experience.

By the way, not one poster has advocated the secession of Aztlan from the United States.

Actually, I have.

[TomCB]

4 Imran Siddiqui
Sorry pal, but the way the US government is set up, calling laws created by congress constitutional or not is what the Supream court is set up to do. It is it's job.

And YES, according to the 10th amendment, that is EXACTLY what the constitution, and mainly the bill of rights, was designed to do, keep the feds from becoming what they have.

Almost everything in the Federal budget is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Read the 10th amendment and see for yourself.

Back to Ramo now.

My concern is that additional tax dollars are being spent on mulitlanguage crap that should not be. And don;t give me bull about the huge amount of tax dollars generated by recent immigrants. Does not exist, especially from illigal ones. I have said this before.
Aside from the Amish, every group has worked hard to assimulate, so no, you are the deluded one.

You seem to think that the US is this place where the world can come, load up their pockets and go home, and then get upset when we say no.
We are not responsible for starving people around the world. That is That.

Moral is relative, I would have to say that there is NO moral right to come into the US.
Do you know what "enumerated" means?
It just means that regardless of the order of the amendment, each carries as much weight as any other.
How old are you?
TO HELL with the UN. the US government is not bound by the will of foreigners.
Get off the UN kick, it is not even a factor and is a joke besides.
You keep playing word games, calling a something a "right" when it is just your belief.
Great Scandinavia, Must be nive to live in a country that has no obligations and instead only snipes from the outside. So many countries are so far past thier prime andust need to be ignored while the "big players" settle things.
HA The anti terrer laws are going to kill the western states.
Even if we gave up every freedom we still have, terroism can not be stopped. The only way to stop it is to tear it out by the root and kill it. Even if that means wiping out whole countries that harbor them.
You did mention your desire to see the area known as Aztlan to become independent, as a matter of fact, you do so in this very post.
You think it would be any different than an extention of Mexico?
If Portugal is so wonderful, why isn't everyone going there? I think your assessment is flawed.
I would also have to guess that your version of Utopia is far different from mine.
Since you have so many facts wrong, I have to wonder if you are even old enough to drive. It also sounds like you have an opinion of what you want and then you create the arguement to justify it.
It should go the other way around.
There are a wide variety of factors that make American culture better than all others, unfortunatly, we are constantly removing them by following liberal ideals.
The last election cycle gives hope though.

Americans are too "fat and happy" content to pay no attention to politics, and at the same time our "education" system is a joke.

It is a bad mix............

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ramo
You're making up stuff again. I said I liked the idea of seceding from the US because I like goverments de-centralized.

Besides, I believe yours was a theoretical and hypothetical, and astute, suggestion. Organizations, including governments, operate on many levels and have emergent properties. There can be no perfect system because the system is never stable. A sudden breakdown of the United States would no doubt be a bad thing though, if only because it would be destabilizing. On the other hand, continued global integration normally results in greater overall system stability, and national borders would become less important. For instance, the only way to fight terrorism is globally.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Thanks for the direct answer.

I aim to please.

What made the Founding Fathers more than just a bunch of rabble seizing power?

The fact that they bucked the general trend of revolutions and actually set up a government better than the one that was overthrown.

The Declaration lays out the legal case for when a people have the right to overthrow an establish order (and when they don't!).

I think that you are confusing legalities with morality. That is a mistake. As in this instance, the two don't always coincide with each other.

It really is important.

Historically, yes. In relation to US law? Not really.

Now what does this have to do with illegal immigration? Or are you suggesting that we carry the white man's burden and go on an imperial civilzing exercise?

[MyraeJ]

Oh to my many detractors....
Yes, I believe OUR culture is superior to most all others, or at least it was. Read DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA by DeToqueville and TRUST by Francis Fukyama, and perhaps you will understand what it is I am talking about. Mid -level social organizations used to abound in this country, filling in many of the gaps that are now filled by our growing central government, add to this the destruction of the nuclear family through changing mores and welfare programs. and you have a prescription for tyranny. Immigration and Television are also root causes where I would lay the blame as well, YES immigrants have always had a hard time in this country, but the numbers in this run are unprecedented, and there are no longer Americanization programs for immigrants and multiculturalism was not then the vogue. I am not against immigration in principle, but when did Italians or Irish ever propose something like Aztlan?BTW Zachriel, do you oppose self-determination? Most American wish to limit immigration. Would you deny them this? oh and CULTURE is NOT about the pursuit of happiness. Culture is software.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

It really is important.

Historically, yes. In relation to US law? Not really.

Didn't know it was a legal argument.

Now what does this have to do with illegal immigration?

Actually the thread is about Aztlan. And whether it is a serious political question of secession, or something right-wing ideologues are using to further their anti-immigrant cause.

Believe it or not, I was looking for common ground when I brought up th Declaration of Independence. That's how the Declaration was written, by starting with principles that virtually everyone can agree on -- Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Actually the thread is about Aztlan. And whether it is a serious political question of secession, or something right-wing ideologues are using to further their anti-immigrant cause.

Mea culpa. I thought the thread had already been side tracked on to other immigration issues (illegal immigration, language issues). Anyway this is the first I had heard of the concept, so I would have to say neither.

[Ramo]

My concern is that additional tax dollars are being spent on mulitlanguage crap that should not be. And don;t give me bull about the huge amount of tax dollars generated by recent immigrants. Does not exist, especially from illigal ones. I have said this before.

Tandee posted evidence refuting this. Care to provide any real evidence to back up your assertion? Multilingual forms lead to more revenue for the state, it's as simple as that. It's a matter of practicality.

You keep playing word games, calling a something a "right" when it is just your belief.

Moral is relative, I would have to say that there is NO moral right to come into the US.

You brought up rights, not I. I was responding to your assertion regarding the lack of the right to travel. There is a moral right to travel, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people in the world. Furthermore, there is the 9th Amendment.

TO HELL with the UN. the US government is not bound by the will of foreigners.
Get off the UN kick, it is not even a factor and is a joke besides.

I never said the UN had any legal authority. I was using the fact to demonstrate that there is a moral right to travel.

Do you know what "enumerated" means?
It just means that regardless of the order of the amendment, each carries as much weight as any other.
How old are you?

What an impressive amount of ignorance. Congrats.

Enumerated means "listed." It's amazing that someone can be this ignorant about the Bill of Rights.

Allow me to quote the first sentence in the 9th:
"The people retain rights not here enumerated."

Obviously, this makes absolutely no sense if you use your definition. How old are you anyways?

Even if we gave up every freedom we still have, terroism can not be stopped. The only way to stop it is to tear it out by the root and kill it. Even if that means wiping out whole countries that harbor them.

No wonder you haven't been able to give me a straight answer on the genocide question. You support it.

You did mention your desire to see the area known as Aztlan to become independent, as a matter of fact, you do so in this very post.
You think it would be any different than an extention of Mexico?

If you think federal influence is the only thing preventing Mexican-dominated regions of Texas and Southern California from turning into "parts of Mexico," you're deluded. These regions, in no way, are like Mexico governmentally.

If Portugal is so wonderful, why isn't everyone going there? I think your assessment is flawed.

It has other problems. I never said it was a bastion of economic prosperity. It, however, has a more enlightened drug policy, for instance, meaning them having freedom orders magnitude better than here.

Since you have so many facts wrong, I have to wonder if you are even old enough to drive.

You haven't demonstrated any facts I posted to be wrong. OTOH, you have repeatedly posted information in error.

It also sounds like you have an opinion of what you want and then you create the arguement to justify it.

What's that supposed to mean?

I am not against immigration in principle, but when did Italians or Irish ever propose something like Aztlan?

Mexicans do not support it to any significant degree. That they do is a fantasy promoted by right-wing xenophobes who want to stop immigration. As Zach has pointed out, white southern seperatism is much, much, much more significant than Aztlan. Why not kick them out instead?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Mea culpa. I thought the thread had already been side tracked on to other immigration issues (illegal immigration, language issues). Anyway this is the first I had heard of the concept, so I would have to say neither.

No problemo.

Immigration is relevant, after all. If Aztlan is a serious secessionist movement, then immigration might be relevant; and if Aztlan is a vehicle for immigrant-bashing, then ipso facto, immigration is relevant.

[MyraeJ]

Originally posted by Ramo

Mexicans do not support it to any significant degree. That they do is a fantasy promoted by right-wing xenophobes who want to stop immigration. As Zach has pointed out, white southern seperatism is much, much, much more significant than Aztlan. Why not kick them out instead?

Funny, I know several Mexicans that wear Aztlan t-shirts. This is in the Detroit area that has never had a large hispanic population until recently. I didn't know what it meant until I received the URL from the Aztlan website. Now I do.
As for White Southerners, I would guess that most of them were born here. Citizens should be not only be entitled to their opinions, but entitled to attempt to enact legislation to that effect. This concept is called "self determination", I believe that you already expressed disgust at the concept earlier in the thread, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe that people should be able to determine their own fate, so long as they don't hurt anyone else, and NO, not letting them in the country doesn't constitute harm, unless you'd agree to let me crash at your place and eat your food if I declared that not doing so would constitute harm to me?

[TomCB]

Ramo, You surely are an idiot.
First of all, you make up "facts" as you go along, then you demonstrate that you simply can't read.
The 9th Amendment does not say "The people retain rights not here enumerated." As you just claimed.
It says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny and disparage others retained by the people"

Enumeration means to count, and my original explanation of the 9th amendment stands.
That being that regardless of the number given to a amendment, each carries as much weight as any other.

This is a clear example of your inability to use facts and your constant distortortion of the truth.
Perhaps you only read the words you want to see and ignore the rest.
Perhaps you are used to debates with people that believe anything you say?
I don't know.

I find that no intelligent conversation can be maintained with someone like you and will therefore stop wasting my valuable time with the likes of you.

[cinch]

This is a clear example of your inability to use facts and your constant distortortion of the truth.

Sorry pal, but the way the US government is set up, calling laws created by congress constitutional or not is what the Supream court is set up to do.

The anti terrer laws are going to kill the western states.

"Terrer", "Distortortion", "Supream court"... Tom, where do you get off criticising immigrants for not learning English, when you clearly struggle with it yourself?

[TomCB]

Sorry, typing is most assuredly not my strong point and I didn't bother with a spell check.
Nor did I bother with going over it again.

Interesting that that is the best you could come up with.

By the way it is "criticizing" in the US, not "criticising".

How is that glass house working for you?

LOL

[cinch]

By the way it is "criticizing" in the US, not "criticising".

Am I in the U.S.? No. So, what's your point?

As for making more valid points:

1. Immigrants are NOT out to get you. They come seeking opportunity, not conquest.

2. People who come from other countries are not sub-human. They have rights, too. And yes, 'rights' do exist outside of the writings of the American government.

3. Multiculturalism is beautiful way to live and learn. Ethnocentrism is a relic from imperialist times, kept alive only by the paranoid and the delusional.

4. Just because your nation has the most money and the biggest guns, does not mean that you have the "best culture". Every culture can be the "best" in its own way. There is no set measure for culture.

5. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't respect the fact that you dismiss others because of their beliefs. An anarchist's views should be treated with as much respect as those of, say, your President. That's equality.

Peace.