According to Associated Press reporter, Chris Kahn, Russel Pearce mass forwarded the email from the National Alliance in West Virginia - a state known for its white supremist mindset.
The article goes on to quote Hayworth and lists a brief description of the email.
["Given the regrettable and disturbing nature of the e-mail Russell Pearce circulated earlier this week, I cannot in good conscience lend my endorsement to his candidacy for State Representative," Hayworth said in a statement.
The article lashes out at how the media portrays "any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America."]
Russel Pearce is a leading anti-immigrant politician. He now states that he was not aware of the National Alliance or what it stood for. He appears to be so "hard right" on the issue that his own party is immediately withdrawing support.
As the immigration debate continues to flame across the nation, more and more public officials feel safe in expressing racist, separtist, and supremist views.
This does NOT represent the United States of America - and it's up to us to vote on November 7th to prove it.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
Why must anyone who takes a stance on ILLEGAL immigration be labeled a racist, or what's more, a SUPREMACIST? Please people, this is a Country that has to be RUN EFFICIENTLY AND ACCORDING TO OUR LAWS. Which means not all of the people will be pleased all of the time. If you feel you can do a better job running our immigration system, then by all means, apply for a job at INS.
For the record; Racism, or better put, bias, swings both ways. Do not for a second think that there isn't reverse discrimination out there against the ''White Man'' or anyone who is against illegal immigration. Look, this Country is based on immigration, but that does not mean the situation hasn't gotten out of hand. With terrorism on all time high, jobs being threatened, tax dollars not being paid through working legally and yes, even ''obsolete'' illnesses reemerging (verifiable by the way), this Nation has to be stricter than ever on immigration. It's just a cold hard reality.
I moved to England some years back (before returning to the US). I had to go through their immigration process, which was VERY TOUGH. I never complained, I respected the laws and policies of the country I had chosen to live in. The same should apply to those seeking to live here.
Also for a record I am from a family of immigrants to the US (in case you were thinking I was a White Supremacist). It took my father years to obtain his Citizenship. He did it legally and no matter how long it took, he never complained nor did he ever expect his Citizenship should be taken for automatic.
rated 10, worthy of discussion
Back in Maryland, they claimed they don't even have a mind in West Virginia, let alone a set of them. Couches on porches, they've got plenty of, though. ;)
The hardest work some of us ever do is qualify for social security disability and others wouldn't touch a check unless they earned it....just like everything - depends on the upbringing.
Sorry to disappoint you.
The thing is we all stereotype. I happen to know for a fact that 'pot' has been grown and exported to put a new roof on the house, buy braces and pay for a "hair-lip" operation.
Does that make it right? Of course not.
Is it reality? Of course it is.
Sorry about your loss in Nam.
And I am also sorry for your sorrow.
I would vote for any man or woman who defies political correctness and addresses the illegal immigration problem in this Country. We need leadership, not bleeding hearts and immigration carte blanche.
Why all the anger? Who pissed in your Cheerios?
I didn't ask for pity - Keith, you came out swinging and I responded with honesty.
What could possibly anger you about that?
As far as voting for a white supremist....well, I guess that's why this is America - right?
If you trust Hitler, Jr. and you are a patriotic, dedicated American - then, by all means, vote for him.
I guess we have different ideas of what patriotism and dedication to our country is...
I'm glad you knew I was kidding then. Actually I visited your state once in I think 96. I thought it was very beautiful, but there WERE lots of couches on porches. It appeared to be in an extended economic slump, when I was there. I also visited Maryland, and was amused that their favorite jokes were about West Virginia, it seemed, which was kind of strange cause half of them were from WV, but that's what they liked, so when in Rome.... I will say this, though, I thought the people in WV were a damn sight more friendly, overall, but maybe I just hit every convenience store, restaurant, or anything else on a bad day in Maryland (rude).
Oh Yeah, and you are right about the couches. We spend alot of time outdoors and well...why throw away a ragged old couch when you can lounge in it outside?
And yes, in the US we can (and have) vote for rascists. Some of them even changed their spots over the years.
Get out the VOTE!!!
We accomplish nothing by caving in to rhertoric to deterioate our language, educational, and social makeup so to make it more comfortable for those that make demands from mass numbers only. To guilt-trip us into submission is not going to work. BROWN_SKINNED MEXICANS are swamping our nation and sucking us dry. Duh?
Then come back and tell me how it went.
Point is: If you wouldn't say it to them, why the hell would you say it to me?
You're just taking up space and wasting oxygen.
Then come back and tell me how it went."
Who cares what their reaction is. What are we here for? Pleasing the lawbreaking masses? If they are ILLEGAL I don't care what color skin they have or what they have to say. They have NO place here in the United States. And the majority of sound-minded Americans agree (thankfully).
That's hardly poor hospitality, and no bill before Congress that has a chance of becoming law would change this nation's hospitality. But it is poor hospitality to say to the nearly 22 million legal immigrants who waited in line that they wasted their time following the rules because illegal immigrants will now get the same status.
The need to deport illegal aliens and secure our borders has nothing to do with persecuting minorities or lack of hospitality. The United States can continue to allow a number of immigrants into this country legally, depending upon how many can be reasonably assimilated without destroying our American identity. Rather, securing our borders is necessary as a matter of principle - in the interests of equal justice under law - as well as practical security in this age of international terrorism."
Watch your stats, Tiffany. Try not to be so gullible.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html
Center for Immigration Studies - WASHINGTON (May 3, 2006) – A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (see wording on following pages), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives' enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies.
On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.
While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.
When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.
When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, thought not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.
There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself, exceptions included Hispanics 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea and the most liberal voters (progressives) 54 percent of whom approved of it.
When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and a policy of mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations; while 56 percent want the House approach.
But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent version to 30 percent.
One reason the public does not like legalizations is that they are skeptical of need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of 74 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.
Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that 73 percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.
Public also does not buy the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 70 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws.
Seriously though....no one has a right to speak from a representative stand point and be seperatist.
It would do Americans good to review the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and realize, now being factually informed through writings and history, that there is no room for racism....period. Andrew Jackson proclaimed to be something caring and in turn stripped the Native Americans of everything that was theirs to "benefit the civilized white man". Simply because they were different. That can never be tolerated again.
That being said, we DO need to enforce the rules already on the books regarding immigration and if they are too vague then clarify them.
Naturalization has to happen! Learn the language and the laws before you are allowed to take advantage of the benefits of our country. There really are NO free rides...
October 17, 2005 Contact: Clarice Smith, Press Officer
communications@manhattan-institute.org, (212) 599-7000
Earned Legalization and Increased Border Security is Key to Immigration Reform According to Republican Voters: New Poll
WASHINGTON, DC-Confounding expectations, likely Republican voters, do not favor an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration, according to a new poll of 800 registered "likely" Republican voters conducted by the Tarrance Group for the Manhattan Institute on October 2-5, 2005. On the contrary, the Republican rank and file strongly favor earned legalization for illegal immigrants, and enacting this reform would have a positive impact on their view of Congress and President Bush.
"In examining this data, it is clear that likely Republican voters strongly favor a comprehensive immigration reform plan that combines the stick of tighter borders and tougher enforcement with the carrot of a path to citizenship through an earned legalization process of registration, working, paying taxes, and learning English," according to Ed Goeas, Principal at the Tarrance Group, the Republican polling firm that conducted the poll.
This new public opinion data indicates that Republican voters do not think it is possible to deport the illegal immigrants already in the country and do not favor an enforcement-only approach often preached by hard-line conservatives. On the contrary, the rank and file want realistic solutions to deal with future immigrants and the millions of undocumented workers already here.
Although hardliners dominate cable television and conservative talk radio with calls to seal the border, the majority of Republican voters believe in sensible, practical immigration reform that includes an earned legalization process and increased border security, according to this new poll.
"The Republican Party is at a turning point," said Tamar Jacoby, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
One wing—hardliners in the House, supported by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his temporary replacement, Majority Whip Roy Blunt—favors an enforcement-only approach designed, they think, to appeal to the Republican base. Others—the President, Sens. John McCain, John Cornyn and colleagues in the House—say our current policy is so unrealistic that it is all but unenforceable and that we must change the law first, then redouble our efforts to make it stick.
"Our new poll shows that Republican voters see the hardliners' tough talk for the posturing it is and side with the reformers," said Jacoby. "Republican voters understand that enforcement-alone will not fix the broken status quo, and they are demanding that the party step up to the plate with a solution worthy of the name."
According to the new poll, 78% of likely Republican voters favor immigration reform that includes increased border security, tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal workers, a policy that allows illegal immigrants to come forward and register for a temporary worker program that eventually placed them on a path to citizenship. Facing a choice between a registration and earned-legalization plan and a plan that includes deportation and enforcement-only, respondents favored the earned legalization plan 58% to 33%. In addition, 67% of respondents indicate they would have a more favorable view of President Bush if he supported an earned legalization reform plan.
********
hmmmmm.....Wonder which one would hold up under scrutiny? The CIS or the Manhattan Institute....LOL
I'll give you 2 guesses, Tiffany.
You sound very radical in your discussions..no one is trying to "ruin" anything for you. When it comes across that you are attacking others...you are "ruining" it for yourself..and some of the others as well.
My main comment in our last "discussion" was to slow down and take your time. I think you have good things to say but you just aren't sorting them out well.
"Do not come near my place. Cause before I put a bullett between you eyes I will ask who your next of kin is.But I do not speak spanish so I will drag you out in the desert like they do down south of the border."~this sounds a little radical to me...and if you are saying that others are "uncivilized" you should scrutinize your own comments a little better.
The funny part is, the study I posted was just one of MANY recent polls that are easily accessible via the internet, proving my point. I'd publish those here as well but apparently it will fall on deaf ears by those living in denial.
Are you kidding me, Jackie? A year old poll taken by an 'institute' I doubt many have ever heard of? THAT is your rebuttal? Don't even bother addressing the figures I've provided? Oh well, I suppose the best way to skirt an issue is to well, not address the opposing argument at all! Perhaps more attempts to attack my personal character would better suit your position. Time to chuck me in to the ''White Supremacist Bin," right, Jackie?
Alas, all this bickering back and forth is all for naught. We will soon find out by way of action, which way the pendulum will swing regarding illegal immigration. Let's see if Pearce gets elected for starts....
Jackie, please, the Manrotten Institute.......you may as well have taken this bogus poll in Moscow. We probably would have fared better. Listen, friend, this really has NOTHING to do with you as a chap, or anyone else. I'm sure you bring something to the table. It really IS as simple as this: legals are welcome; illegals MUST be deported.
Angie, you also voice your opinion well. Problem is, this is NOT an issue of opinion. The rule of law IS NOT an opinion. It is the rule of law. And I think it is a very common-sense law. In fact, every country in the world has these laws, so enough of the "racist" tripe. Go visit any country in the world, and tell me how you are handled. But, caution, don't forget the K-Y; 'cause you're gonna get a pretty good going-over.
Now - FOR THE RECORD
By making this statement, Jackie, "hmmmmm.....Wonder which one would hold up under scrutiny? The CIS or the Manhattan Institute....LOL" you just shot yourself in the foot.
Did you even bother to read the poll I provided? If so, you would have known that it was published on the CIS website, but that the poll itself was taken by Zogby, one of the largest, most respected and universally used polling organizations on the planet. www.zogby.com.
The following is just one small list of the types of organizations that use Zogby polls.
"I have been working with Zogby International for a number of years to conduct opinion surveys in the Middle East and in the United States. The work has been professional and first rate. Even more importantly, no one has a better ability to arrange for polls in the Middle East that probe the social and political limits than Zogby."
Shibley Telhami
Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development
University of Maryland
and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What continues to drive Zogby (and myself) is a search for what animates the American electorate. For us, that has meant paying continued attention to the importance of values. We are also keenly aware that a changing demography of the U.S. and the redefinition of family will also shape American politics for decades to come. These transformations are linked to the persistent values divide but are also separate from it, too. Only now are the implications of these transformations becoming apparent. Once again, old ways of thinking about elections will have to give way to new calculuses. I am sure that my collaboration with John Zogby will continue to be motivated by our mutual desire to find new ways of thinking about politics that, hopefully, serve to illuminate new "truths" about the ways in which presidents are elected and govern this country.
John Kenneth White
Professor of Politics
Catholic University of America
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Zogby's polling work in Africa is nothing short of pioneering. Working with local partners from throughout the continent, Zogby has projected African opinion into the global media dialogue as no other pollster has done. He has addressed such vital issues as trade and investment in Africa, the quality of governance, and how Africans assess the donor response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. With his work on the continent, Zogby has helped to illuminate and explain aspects of Africa's character that frequently are not well understood. Not only has he helped to amplify the voice of Africa's opinion but in doing so he has helped to make it matter more than ever.
Witney W. Schneidman
Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1998-2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have worked with John and his associates for about 4 years now as we have co-authored several surveys of Latin America elites in six countries. I have been very impressed with Zogby's ability to simultaneously field polls across numerous countries in multiple languages while accurately compiling large data sets in an efficient (and timely) manner. These data have served as the basis for publications appearing in some of the most prestigious journals in political science, including the American Journal of Political Science and Comparative Political Studies. Moreover, his team is exceptionally responsive and helpful. I look forward to working with John again in the future.
Best,
Ben Bishin
Assistant Professor of Political Science
University of Miami
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business for Diplomatic Action needed a research firm known not only for its quality and wide reputation, but also for its intelligent approaches to fact finding that could bring special insights to our programs. That's why we chose Zogby International and why we keep going back to them. They are extraordinarily reponsive and take pride in working with us to shape their methodology to our specific needs. I recommend them without qualification.
Keith Reinhard,
President, Business for Diplomatic Action
Keith Reinhard
Chairman Emeritus
DDB Worldwide Inc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stockton College has engaged Zogby International to conduct two major surveys in New Jersey. The first, a survey of 1,000 residents of New Jersey was conducted in May 2005 and focused primarily on issues relating to New Jersey's hospitality and tourism industry. The second was an electoral survey regarding the gubernatorial race in New Jersey in October 2005. This poll, also involving a sample size of 1,000, was completed in two phases: a survey of 400 likely voters and the second, later poll of 600 likely voters. Zogby International provided services of the highest professional caliber and all deliverables were produced on time and in a professional format. I give them my highest recommendation.
Cordially,
David Carr
Provost and Executive Vice President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September of 2005, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) contacted Zogby International to discuss a proposal for a poll of executives at Fortune 1000 businesses in the United States. The poll was designed to get a sense of the connection business leaders were making between the availability of early education and a healthy economy. The staff at Zogby was responsive and quick to address concerns or suggestions that we had with initial drafts of the poll. Ultimately we were quite pleased with a poll that was conducted in November and presented at our conference on January 10, 2006. It was important to us that John Zogby and others at Zogby were available to help release the results and to bring attention to the process that was used. Again, they were very helpful in accommodating this request. This is only our most recent experience with Zogby. We have used them in the past on different topics and have been similarly pleased with the services that we received. We intend to use them again in the future.
Sincerely,
Michael Petro
Committee for Economic Development
Chief of Staff & Vice President
Director of Business and Government Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John,
This note maybe a little late but it is sincere, none the less.
My thanks to you and your staff for working so closely with me in obtaining some interesting results from the ethics survey I commissioned from you a few months ago.
Chad Bonhert was great at mapping out procedures, policies and schedules. Writer Karen Scott was skillful in writing and rewriting (and rewriting) questions and scenarios with an eye towards getting the most objective data possible. Rebecca Whitman also provided important feedback in fine-tuning the final product. And Shawnta Walcott provided a clear and concise press release.
In all, John, your team, and YOU as well, not only made the process easier to manage but a lot less overwhelming. I'm currently writing a couple of articles based on the results.
It was a pleasure working with everybody at Zogby and I look forward to doing more surveys in the future!
Sincerely,
Jim Lichtman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a letter of reference and recommendation from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to Zogby International. In September 2004 and December 2005, the District Depart of Transportation contracted with Zogby International to conduct a survey of 550 DC residents to gauge public attitudes towards the transportation services.
Prior to this effort, the Department had substantial ad hoc information about public perceptions, based on community meetings, Council inquiries, correspondence, etc., but nothing that one could quantify, let alone consider statistically sound. Considerations of how residents perceive the agency's performance or the condition of the city's transportation system were assumed, but never measured. These surveys collected information in several areas, including
Perceptions of DDOT's performance in core service areas
Opinions about the importance of transportation issues such as sidewalks and safety
Detailed mode share data for commute and non-commute trips
Priority rankings of major transportation investments
Public opinion of transportation options facing the department in areas of parking and mass transit
Zogby International was outstanding in the speed, detail, professionalism, and quality of services provided to us and I would highly recommend them to others.
From: Kevin Donahue District Department of Transportation
Tiffany: I didn't realize it was from 2005 - my apologies. I was in a hurry.
Mark-John...sigh...here we go again. Which laws would you like to debate?
You first.
And, as you know the CIS is out to prove a point - that illegal immigrants are causing over-population in the U.S.
Immigration: The Numbers On Where Americans Stand
Republican National Committee
MEMORANDUM
PDF VERSION WITH GRAPHS
TO: Republican National Committee Members
FROM: Matthew Dowd, RNC Senior Advisor
RE: Public Opinion On Immigration Reform
DATE: May 26, 2006
Given the ongoing public and legislative debate on
immigration reform, I wanted to provide you with
an overview and analysis of public opinion research
on this important issue. A review and evaluation of
both public and private polls reveals the following:
1. Americans believe illegal immigration is a serious
problem that the government has failed to address in the
past. Doing nothing on this issue is not a solution, as
Americans want it fixed today.
2. The public wants a comprehensive solution that
includes reform on three fronts: (i) strengthening border
security/law enforcement to stem the flow of illegal immigration,
(ii) enhancing the avenues through which immigrants can
lawfully and safely enter the U.S. for work and (iii) creating
a compassionate, practical and equitable way for those
illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to legally enter the
system.
3. On the other hand, proposals such as criminalizing
illegal immigrants, have significantly less support among the
American people.
4. The comprehensive approach that emphasizes
both security and compassion is unifying, not polarizing –
it is supported by Republicans, Independents, and Democrats
. Furthermore, majorities of Hispanics back it. Therefore, it is
imperative for the Republican Party to talk about immigration
effectively and comprehensively and demonstrate leadership
on this vital issue as we move toward the mid-term elections.
I. Public Polling Summary
Public polls show that Americans want the government to
solve the immigration problem. The public strongly supports
a comprehensive approach.
For instance:
Expanding the Border Patrol. Eighty percent
(80%) in the FOX News poll (4/4-4/5) support increasing
the number of officers policing the border, and Gallup
(4/6-4/7) shows 81% believe increasing the number
of Border Patrol agents will be an effective way to
reduce illegal immigration.
Creating a temporary worker program. More than
two-thirds of voters – and equally large numbers
of Republicans – support creating a temporary worker
program. FOX News (5/16-5/18) found 63% of all voters
support a temporary worker program and 63% of
Republicans supporting it too. Similarly, CBS (5/16-5/17)
found 61% of Americans and 62% of Republicans support
a temporary worker program.
Providing a way for illegal immigrants already here to
obtain legal status. Proposals to allow illegal immigrants
who have been in the country for at least five years and
meet other requirements (pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn
English, and go to the back of the line) to apply for legal
status garner wide support. Close to 80% support such
a proposal in the CNN poll (5/16-5/17) and 77% in the CBS
News poll (5/16-5/17), including 76% of Republicans. And
according to the NBC News/WSJ poll (4/21-4/24), more than
two-thirds (68%) support the Hagel-Martinez approach that
passed the Senate.
Sending the National Guard to help Border Patrol agents
secure the border. Voters strongly support the President's
plan to deploy National Guard troops to the Mexican border.
74% support the plan in the ABC News/Washington
Post poll (5/12-5/14), 64% support it in the CNN poll (5/16-5/17),
and 62% support it in the CBS News poll. Moreover, the CBS poll
shows 68% believe National Guard troops will be effective in
reducing illegal immigration.
II. RNC Polling Summary
Examining RNC internal polling sheds even more light on the
immigration debate. Our most recent poll (5/21-5/23) by Voter
/Consumer Research finds:
Overwhelming support exists for a temporary worker
program. 80% of all voters, 83% of Republicans, and
79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary
worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and
obey the law.
When voters are given the choice of other immigration
proposals, strengthening enforcement with a tamper-proof
identity card (89% among all voters, 93% among GOP),
various wordings of a temporary worker program (the
highest at 85% among all voters, 86% among GOP),
and sending National Guard troops to the border (63%
among all voters, 84% among GOP) score the highest
among both all voters and Republican voters.
Immigration Proposals, Ranked By Overall Support
Voters don't consider granting legal status to those
already here amnesty. Seventy percent (70%) of voters
say illegal immigrants who have put down roots in the U.S.
should be granted legal status after they go to the back of
the line, pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and have
a clean criminal record; just 25% say that would be amnesty
and we should instead impose criminal penalties on illegal
immigrants in the U.S. Republican and conservative opinion
is only slightly lower—68% of conservatives and 64% of
Republicans support granting legal status over criminal
penalties.
Voters want comprehensive reform, including a temporary
worker program and legal status, not inaction. When voters
are given the choice between a comprehensive reform plan
of getting tough on border security and a temporary worker
program or no reform at all (below), 71% choose
comprehensive reform and 19% choose no reform.
Support for comprehensive reform is even higher among
GOP base voters—80% of conservatives and 72% of
church-going Protestants want comprehensive reform
over no reform.
Republican candidates succeed when they support taking
action on immigration. Our poll tested a number of messages,
and found candidates who talk about comprehensive reform
are more successful than those who focus only on border
security. For example, a candidate using comprehensive
reform language wins 71%—including 52% of Republicans—
when matched against a seal-the-border candidate.
• Candidate A "who only supports sealing off the
border, stopping illegal immigrants from entering the country,
and imposing criminal penalties on immigrants already here"
• Candidate B "who supports comprehensive immigration
reform that would beef up border security, enforce laws against
companies that hire illegals and creates a temporary worker
program that would allow immigrants to work here for a set
period of time so long as they register, pay taxes, obey the
law, and return home when their permit expires."
25% are more likely to support Candidate A
71% are more likely to support Candidate B
Finally, when discussing immigration reform, tone
and language are extremely important. To continue
to grow the party, we must conduct this debate with
civility and respect for our nation's heritage – as the
President has said, we are both a nation of laws and a
nation of immigrants. That is why the American people
favor a balanced plan that secures the border, improves
enforcement, enhances immigration avenues AND deals
compassionately and equitably with those who are already
here.
I think Gather needs to be notified about him....
Naturalization has to happen! Learn the language and the laws before you are allowed to take advantage of the benefits of our country. There really are NO free rides...
Mark-John...I believe we are stating the same thing if you were speaking in regard to the Illegals issue...
However..if you were speaking on the topic of the article...NO there is NO room for racism in either of the debates. We don't get to say ...you are not allowed here because you are Mexican. We don't get to say...you have to live where your heritage lies. This country has long been a country that through naturalization anyone could join. I have no issue with that...none whatsoever!
Do you?
Jackie, as I've said before, keep up the good work!
Good to see you here!
I welcome all who come here legally and gratefully, and who assimilate. For the uninitiated, that means to "become like", to love, and adopt as ones' own.
Christina-
You are either 5 years old, or an idiot; But okay, I'll try. The SECOND someone crosses ANY border [not just here in the U.S., try it sometime in Turkey!] without permission from said government, they are BREAKING THE LAW !!! Now they are a lawbreaker, and NOT a citizen of said country. Now, let us say they steal an apple, for they are hungry. Now they've broken TWO laws; 1. they are here illegally and 2. they broke our law with regard to stealing. With me? Great! So, let us now say that I'M hungry. It follows quite naturally [to you] that I steal an apple. Fortunately for me, I am a United States citizen. Viola, only one law broken! AAHHKAY!?
Now, for the Pop Quiz:
QUESTION- Who has more rights under the jurisprudence of the United States of America???
CLASS? ANYONE?? Tiffany, you are CORRECT! Good answer!!! Christina, you may go back and play with your breasts, now.
Class dismissed. I'm exhausted......
Rena, no...it doesn't make the murderers crime less because he is a citizen. However, what it does do is make his law breaking an act that our courts can force action upon. When Juan decides that he is not making enough money to feed his family and decides to rob a store, and in his flight he wrecks his car (for which we have given him a legitimate license) and he kills a family member of yours...will you feel the same when he cannot be prosecuted because he is an illegal? What is your suggestion then? Send him back? Hmm...maybe we should have done that the first time...because like it or not...it IS a crime to be in any country without the governments permission...
If you have to feed you family and can't do it in America..are you going to go to Mexico (escaping across borders) and take food out of the mouth of Mexicans by being there illegaly? Or will you do it the legal way..being naturalized and learning the language...adapting to the society you have chosen to be in?
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am far from prejudiced.
Still, I ask you, from a realistic point...
will you feel the same when he cannot be prosecuted because he is an illegal? What is your suggestion then? Send him back?
Yes, they break a law by coming here. As I said before, we've all broken laws. No, they're not perfect. Does the situation need a remedy? Yes. Do I believe that remedy is as simple as deporting all of them? Hardly.
I don't care if you or anyone else takes me seriously....
I commend you and thank you so much. It feels like I'm part of a team...and as you can see, one person fighting prejudice or the "legality" of this issue can be exhausting.
To resolve this issue, both must be addressed realistically. It does no good to spread racism, prejudice, separatism, etc. It is dangerous to unleash on a minority - bad things happen. Things decent people regret - no matter how angry they are.
It does no good to argue that they shouldn't be here - THEY ARE HERE.
It does no good to argue that their children aren't citizens - THEY ARE CITIZENS.
The laws people suggest changing to assuage their prejudice lie at the very foundations of the inception of our country. To alter or destroy a part of that is to permanently change our course. And we've come a long, long way in a very short time as countries go.
We witness history. We can only read about the Great Potato Famine that brought the Irish, we can only read about slavery.
We WITNESS FIRSTHAND the next big immigrant influx. Regardless of where we stand personally - these years will forever be remembered.
Let's make our grandchildren proud. Let's concentrate on the reality of this situation instead of spreading hate. Our kids don't want this to turn any uglier than it is...we argue over their friends, their classmates, their church peers.
To those who see this situation for what it is - please vote. And be careful who you vote for. Don't be afraid to get involved. Don't be afraid to send an email to your senators and congressmen. Don't be afraid to contact your governor.
The screams of dissent are often met with our silence simply because they aren't comments worthy of a reply. We can reply at the polls. We can reply by voting.
Thank God we live in the United States.
No matter how large we are or how many settle here - most arrive to adopt our customs and make this nation a better place.
300 million is a drop in the hat, Brandon. Study the populations of countries with much smaller land masses. We're fine - and we need the labor - either that or people need to start having four or five kids like they used to.
You want to rid our country of illegal immigration - go reproduce and urge everyone you meet to do the same....LOL...because until we replenish our human supply - immigration, legal or illegal, is a permanent part of our future.
Arizona Republican Russel Pearce Mass Forwards White Supremist Email
So what, in order to fix the illegal immigration issue we have to become White Supremicists? We have to elect candidates who think it's ok to hate ANYONE who isn't WHITE ANGLO SAXON and PROTESTANT? Run for the hills Catholics! You, that guy, over in the corner, pay attention! Your French Heritage is next. Got any Swedes out there? How about those damned drunken Irish? The brawling Scots? Go home AUSSIES!
You aren't WHITE, ANGLO SAXON and PROTESTANT, you don't belong in OUR United States.
And this is OK with you, just as long as you get rid of these pesky illegals?
What in the hell has possesed this country?
The Illegal issue does need to be dealt with. Do we have to do it by bringing back the Aryan Nation, and start DNA testing to make sure only WASPs can live, work and play in peace here?
I'm ashamed to be American tonite.
I am often ashamed of us - it's a new feeling, really or at least one I've never become accustomed to.
I'm accused of playing the "guilt card."
Ya know, sometimes we just plain deserve to be shamed. Our way is not reminiscent of white supremecy. We are not a nation of separatists. We are a nation of immigrants, a variety of family cultures, a mix of languages and customs.
I hate it for those who think otherwise - because THEY are the ones with the issues. The rest of us KNOW where we live.
And you base this on what?
Here is the link: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
I would think someone who writes on the immigrant experience and racism would be sensitive about stereotyping.
The point remains, this article was and is about a politician who is so adamant on this issue that he is helping to spread white supremicist propaganda in an effort to further his agenda.
I have not denied that this issue needs resolution. I have asked if the method in THIS instance is accpeptable. You have not answered me. How and why is contributing to the White Supremicist Movement in this country Ok with you?
Or is it that you do not understand the term "miscegenation"? Is it that you fail to grasp the implication of the phrase "rapidly darkening racial situation?" Did you miss the 60's and 70's altogether?
Flair for the dramatic or not, the fact is, if it is acceptable to you, as "any means necessary" to rid ourselves of these "parasites." Then yes, I'm ashamed to consider myself under the same citizenship as you. I take pride in this country and what it's about. Hatred and racism are not among the reasons for my pride.
Check back with your constitutional amendments. It would appear that your government also takes a dim view of white supremicist attitudes.
if it is acceptable to you, as "any means necessary" to rid ourselves of these "parasites." Then yes, I'm ashamed to consider myself under the same citizenship as you.
And you base this on what?
Saint Joan: I was raised in the coal fields of Southern WV.....consider it an observation. I wasn't stating that they had the most hate groups - I was stating that Hillbillies are generally unaccepting of other cultures and races....most minorities who live there or who have visted can attest to this fact.
******
Interesting, Brandon..........and archaic.
Perhaps you should investigate the LATEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER - from Columbia University. His economic research is firmly based in TODAY's ECONOMIC REALITY.
Bottom line is this: You can scream all you want - they won't be mass deported. Those who came to work have EARNED a place in our society. Swallow it, little boy, because it is a FACT. The majority of citizens in the United States recognize their contributions and will react accordingly.
We need a WORKING immigration system - but make NO MISTAKE...WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS.
That fact has fueled this nation from its inception and if you or anyone else thinks that we don't recognize the "Hitler mentality" of these types of perspectives - you are sadly mistaken.
For the first time since KKK, a racist/separatist movement has found a voice in the general population, among politicians and in the pulpit. Remember this: it has been tried before. It failed. And, it will continue to fail.
I and millions like me will not allow this element to dictate the future of my children.
And I was too and I happen to be a minority as well. I say you are slamming an entire state and furthering a stereotype, which is undeserved and just shows how ignorant you are.
You of all people who write articles about discrimination and the struggles of immigrants. There is not a preponderence of the white supremecist mindset there. If so, why hasn't there been a single hate crime reported there this year?
There are hillbillies/rednecks/racists in New York, in California where you live (CA is TOPS in hate crimes and I imagine a good deal of them are racially motivated and directed at immigrants), Vermont, Colorado... all places I have spent a great deal of time.
Making a sweeping statement about a state having a white supremacist mindset is inaccurate, makes you look like a hypocrite, and a poor writer.
It doesn't. It's the writer's opinion solely.
Besides which, my family members have always welcomed any friends of any race and color. It isn't my intention to stereotype - but it's a little hard when the majority still has a separatist attitude.
Again - welcome to Gather. Sorry to get off on the wrong foot.