We 55 respectfully disagree

[kweerwolf]

In an “open letter” to The Advocate and to LGBT people everywhere, more than four dozen prominent activists of color take issue with Jasmyne Cannick’s commentary calling for LGBT equality to take priority over rights for illegal immigrants. Quoting Audre Lorde, they remind us, “There is no hierarchy of oppression.”

<snip>

We are a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people of color who work in the LGBT movement. We are writing to you in response to Jasmyne Cannick’s article “Gays First, Then Illegals,” in which she, a black lesbian, argues that she cannot support the current battle for immigrant rights because LGBT people have not yet won the right to marry. We are writing to express our profound disagreement with her and to offer alternative LGBT perspectives to the current immigration battles happening across the country.

To begin with, Cannick fails to realize an obvious fact that the LGBT community and the immigrant community are not mutually exclusive. There are thousands of LGBT immigrants in this country. There are thousands of black immigrants. And there are thousands of black LGBT immigrants. To put forward an argument that says “we should get ours first” makes us question who exactly is the “we” in that analysis. In addition, we recognize the historically interconnected nature of the immigrant and LGBT struggles--such as the ban on “homosexual immigrants” that extended into the 1990s and the present HIV ban, which disproportionately impacts LGBT people--and we believe that only by understanding these connections and building coalitions can we ensure real social change for all.

And we ask those who share the destructive views of this article to remember the immortal words of Audre Lorde when she said that “there is no hierarchy of oppression.” We reject any attempts to pit the struggle of multiple communities against each other and firmly believe that rights are not in limited supply. We condemn the “scarcity of rights” perspective espoused by Cannick and other members of the LGBT movement and are surprised to see members of our community trafficking in such ugliness. But then one reason why it has always been so hard to shift power in this country is because the ruling class has successfully made us believe that there are only a few deserving groups to whom rights can be given. This strategy has always been used to divide oppressed groups from coming together to work in coalition.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid29496.asp

[xchrom]

1. and now 56.

[GodlessBiker]

12. I'm not a person of color, but I'd like to be 57.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Those who would pit GLBT against immigrants are just as evil as those....

who pitted poor southern whites against poor southern blacks after the Civil War and Reconstruction... While sharing common economic interests with their black neighbors, southern whites allowed themselves to be manipulated into supporting the corporate elites. Instead of voting their economic interests, they voted their prejudice.

My humanity encompasses more than my sexuality. Immigrant rights are every bit as important as gay marriage and to suggest a mandatory hierarchy is implicitly discriminatory.

[homaffectional]

4. Indeed... (and make that 57, BTW)

and Jasmyne Cannick has revealed herself as a shameless, hypocritical opportunist.

Not a single word she utters should ever be trusted and every editorial she writes from here on in should not even be given the time it takes to read her misguided words.


As it turns out, I know quite a few of the activists who signed the letter and called one of them, congratulating him for standing up to her hypocrisy. She has always complained how GLAAD, and other organizations don't do enough for LGBT people of color within the movement, and now turns around and finds another group to scapegoat, not realizing that many within the LGBT movement are hypocrites themselves...

maybe Cannick should put more effort into countering the voices of those such as Ken Hutcherson and actually being effective before she starts thinking she has the luxury to start creating her own hierarchies.

[jonnyblitz]

37. good post!

great post, actually. :thumbsup:

[Siyahamba]

3. Lots of people fit into both categories.

Both LGBT and immigrant.

[xchrom]

5. ain't that the truth.

[homaffectional]

6. Yeah, Siyahamba...

In my above posting, critical of Cannick, I meant to type:

not realizing that many within the LGBT movement are immigrants themselves...

Sorta defused the momentum of that one... ehehe :dunce:

[homaffectional]

7. Cannick now whining that she had an invitation withdrawn...

Writer and activist Jasmyne Cannick, who was originally slated to deliver the keynote at the Bayard Rustin Community Breakfast, disputed breakfast committee co-chair Jasmine Waddell’s claim that Cannick pulled out of the event due to a scheduling conflict (see “Irene Monroe To Keynote Bayard Rustin Breakfast,” April 20). Cannick said she withdrew after being informed April 13 by Waddell that the breakfast committee had voted to ask her to step down in response to controversy around a column Cannick had written earlier this month on immigration. In an interview for last week’s article, Cannick had declined to give the reason for her withdrawal from the breakfast, but she told Bay Windows that Waddell’s comments in last week’s paper prompted her to give her side of the story.

Link to full story


Well, time to pay the piper isn't it? FYI, I think Waddell should try to be more up front about her decision and not feel the need to give excuses. I don't think someone who constantly asks that the white gay community be more inclusive to gays of color can turn around and assert that gay citizens should then go and scapegoat undocumented immigrants (many of whom are gay themselves - duh) rather than including them in the broader struggle for civil rights and social justice that everyone is fighting for.

We're all in this together. There is no hierarchy of oppression, and Cannick seems to have forgotten that... kudos to the committee for voting to rescind her invitation. Perhaps maybe she'll think before she pens ridiculous op-eds at the Advocate. Perhaps Cannick could spend that energy making sure that legislation to take care of undocumented immigrants be more gay inclusive before it passes rather than trying to nix it all together.

[GymGeekAus]

8. They've already started building the camps.

Any guess who these are for?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12078.htm
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2006/1773
http://www.gsmlaborcouncil.org/node/659

Here's a hint. They're multipurpose.

[cboy4]

9. I wonder if Haliburton was also awarded the contract to print the pink

triangles the Nazis (ooops, I meant the government) will be "distributing?" :eyes:

[GymGeekAus]

11. There will be a pecking order.

There always is. The way to break minority opposition (or majority opposition, for that matter) is to break it off piece by piece. "When they came for my neighbor" stuff. Here's what I see as the progression.

1. Criminals.
2. Recreational Drug Users.
3. Undocumented Immigrants.
4. Visitors who overstay their visas.
5. Muslims.
6. Public Sexual Deviants (transvestites and transexuals).
7. AIDS sufferers (or anything else communicative).
8. Private Sexual Deviants (homosexuals, not fetishists since they are fetishists)
9. The Poor (debtors prison).
10. General Religious Persecution.
11. Racial Minorities.
12. The rest of the middle class.

We are on the road to not only imperialism, but royalism. The Revolutionary War isn't over.

[cboy4]

10. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be a black and female and gay,

but what a selfish article.

I agree. There is no hierarchy of oppression.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. I'm surprised I'm the only one that disagrees

I don't think that illegal immigrants should be rounded up and thrown into jail or something, but at the same time, no, I don't believe that their rights should take precedent over American citizens.

Maybe it's a false argument, because it's not like it has to be one or the other -- either work towards gay rights, OR work towards the illegal immigrant issue. It doesn't have to be that way, but if you are FORCED to choose one or the other, I'm sorry, but I agree with the premise of Jasmyne Cannick. The link isn't opening up so I can't see exactly what she wrote, she may have written some inflammatory statements that I wouldn't agree with. But if you have to place them in order of priority, yes, GLBT rights of Americans SHOULD be placed ahead of illegal immigrants.

Whether you like it or not, they are not American citizens. You may think they are entitled to the same benefits as American citzens if you extend it to human rights, and not just the rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution of the United States, fine. That is a nice ideal, and I may even be inclined to agree, but that doesn't mean that is how it is in reality.

If you are the citizen of another country, and you don't take the time and the steps to come here legally, and you don't pay taxes...I'm sorry, no, in the real-world sense, no, you shouldn't be given special care over legal citizens of the USA who "put in their time" as everyone else, and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Ideally, of course human rights are human rights, whether you are an illegal immigrant or whether you are a GLBT. Needless to say, we don't live in an ideal world. Given the choice -- a choice which I don't believe is "real" anyway -- between ensuring the equal rights of all AMERICAN CITIZENS or giving illegal immigrants equal rights as tax-paying American citizens (which would mean that heterosexual illegal immigrants would have more rights than GLBT American citizens, ie the right to marry), which do you think I'm going to choose?

[GymGeekAus]

14. Wake up call....

Say, do you know which of your rights are guaranteed as a citizen, and which are guaranteed as a person?

Here's a hint. Citizenship has very limited benefits. At least according to the Constitution. Your right, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, to equal protection under the law has nothing to do with your citizenship--it is supposedly granted by just being within the jurisdiction of the US.

Why would anyone want to stand in the way of someone else's struggle for equality? For human dignity? For the right to call the police if you were raped or abused?

I highly recommend you re-evaluate your position on immigration, in particular those who are already residents of the United States. And I highly recommend you consider what human rights are actually self-evident and unalienable.

[W_HAMILTON]

15. So you believe that...

...an immigrant who knowingly avoids the process to become an American citizen, and who refuses to pay taxes, should be allowed the same -- excuse me, MORE -- rights than a tax-paying, legal American citizen like myself. That makes alot of sense.

I don't need to re-evaluate my position on immigration, I am fine with it.

However, I will not re-evaluate my position on ILLEGAL immigration, which several people have conveniently (or purposefully) left out. We are not talking about rights for legal immigrants, we are talking about the rights of illegal immigrants. They do not deserve more rights from the American government than are afforded to American citizens, and they should not be given precedent over legal American citizens, and immigrants that are following the rules and trying to come here legally.

I don't agree with Bush when he breaks the laws, and I'm not going to agree with illegal immigrants that break the law. We're either a nation of laws, or we're not. If you don't like the law, change it. You don't break it.

If illegal immigrants are going to be afforded more rights than me, maybe they can start paying my taxes since they'll be getting the same sorts of rights and protections that I don't even get.

As for your argument about not knowing the Constitution, the preamble of the Constitution states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You can try to argue the meaning of that. It does not say simply, "We the People." It does not say, "We the human beings of this Earth." It says nothing of the sort. Other parts of the Constitution may make reference to generalized human rights, but that's because it's already made it clear in the very first thing written that this Constitution is written by, and for, the people of the United States. It says "We the People of the United States," it refers to "Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES," it refers to "OUR posterity."

Argue that all you want, but if I go visit Denmark, I am not a "person of Denmark." ILLEGAL immigrants are not people of the United States, because the law determines that. So all these constitutional rights that you are arguing that illegal immigrants should have, you don't even get that far, because the preamble states that the Constitution essentially is created by the American people, for the American people, and an illegal immigrant is not an American, per the law.

Whether that's morally right or wrong, that's another discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

[GymGeekAus]

16. Legality....

Is merely where some rich white guys drew a line in the sand. It's an illusion. Unless you are prepared to discuss the value of those laws, you're really just emitting worthless hot air. I'll have that discussion with you, by the way. I'll win it, too.

Regardless, I am not saying "grant citizenship to all residents, regardless of how they got here." I am saying "equal protection under the law." Immigrants aren't standing up and demanding citizenship (although some do want a route). They are exercising their right to free speech (a universal right, correct?) to call for equal treatment under the law. And guess what? They've undertaken the greatest political demonstration in my memory. That's American patriotism in action, if you ask me.

Right now, undocumented immigrants are not equally protected. If they are wronged, they have no recourse. If you were to rape/abuse/exploit an immigrant worker, they have no recourse. Anything they do just gets them deported.

I know this is a "patriotism" issue--that's how we are all being divided. I know that it's all about waving a flag and trying to elicit an emotional response. But if you want a real emotional response, perhaps you should investigate the conditions that these immigrants are fleeing. We do not need someone to hate, you know.

And if you're not gonna put them on a bus and send them back, and you're not going to round them up and put them in jails, what are you suggesting we do? Nothing? Fabulous. That's exactly what the Corporatists want to do. Only three fines levied last year, remember? Three. Either it's not a problem, or your government is lying to you. Manipulating you. With standard flag-waving.

There is no legitimate reason to break up families and communities in the name of "illegal immigration." There is only self-deceit and hypocrisy, and an awful lot of unaware racism. You know, there was a movement in the Republican party to declare racism a "solved" issue. Many would tell you that there is no racism in America anymore. Do you agree? Or do you believe these people are simply unaware of their prejudices or lying about their motivations?

These immigrants are here. Deal with them. I just hope people choose ways that reinforce human dignity and obey the laws of our country while they do so.

Remember, there is no such thing as an "illegal person." There is no type of personhood which is illegal. There are behaviors for which we have laws, but we are responsible for managing those laws within the boundaries provided by the Constitution. Equal protection for all people under the jurisdiction of the United States is a good law. Others fail to live up to it.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. Nice of you to declare a "victory"

Considering you're talking in ideals and personal beliefs about what is moral and what is not, and the one time you tried to argue an actual legal point, I proved you wrong.

You keep talking about the 14th amendment, but maybe you should read up on it:

""""No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""""

Notice that it says CITIZENS of the United States. The first part delineates who is considered an American citizen:

""""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.""""

How much clearer can it be? If you aren't born here, and you don't acquire citizenship here (aka naturalization), you are not afforded the same rights.

Like I said, argue whether that's morally right or wrong, I would be inclined to agree that it's not the RIGHT thing to do. But that is the law. If we have to choose -- which we don't -- I'm not going to bend over backwards for people that break the law, but want the same rights as every other legal American citizen, whereas I follow the rules, pay my taxes, and generally be a good little American, but I'm still not afforded the same damn rights as everyone else.

If you have to prioritize it, then I'm sorry, the equal rights of GLBT American citizens do take precedence over the equal rights of illegal immigrants, which are not United States' citizens, and therefore are not afforded the same rights as a citizen of the USA.

Argue this issue on a human level, or argue it on a moral level. But don't try to argue this on a legal level, because it's clear who is right in that regard. If you are not a citizen of a country, you are not afforded the same rights as a citizen of that country, and your rights should not take priority over the rights of a citizen of that country.

[GymGeekAus]

18. It's clear you can't read, actually.

Let's break that amendment down for you, shall we?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; " Immigrants are not citizens. So this isn't a bother. If you would like to argue that the presence of immigrants is in itself an abridgement of the privileges or immunities to which you are entited as a citizen (as in, voting), then I'd love to hear your ridiculous argument.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Here we get "any person" in the text. Not "any citizen." Perhaps your problem is that you equate citizenship with personhood? Regardless, that is your failing. We shall not deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process. Unfortunately, due process has been fulfilled--by the passing of anti-immigration laws.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Aha! Equal protetion under the law is an entitlement of "any person within (the United States') jurisdiction."

Equal protection under the law is not citizenship. Undocumented immigrants typically can't vote, for example. What other rights do you think are withheld from them? Certainly the 14th Amendment demonstrates that "equal protection" is NOT one of them. In fact, punishment for undocumented immigrants who actually get into the country is demonstrably unconstitutional, since it creates a circumstance in which immigrants are incapable of receiving equal treatment.

What do you have against immigrants, honestly?

[W_HAMILTON]

24. Where does it say...

...that they are entitled to guest worker programs? Or amnesty programs? Where does it say that they are entitled to receive more rights than some legalized American citizens?

You said: """"In fact, punishment for undocumented immigrants who actually get into the country is demonstrably unconstitutional, since it creates a circumstance in which immigrants are incapable of receiving equal treatment.""""

Wrong. They can receive equal treatment by going through the process and becoming legal citizens of the United States. Your point is foolish. That's essentially the same as saying it's unfair to punish a murderer, because that's treating him unfairly since people that didn't commit murder aren't subjected to the same punishment. Gee, you think? We have laws regarding illegal immigrants. Of course I'm not going to be subjected to the same punishment as an illegal immigrant, because I'm a legal United States citizen! Your argument is ridiculous.

If a crime is committed against them, then proper steps should be taken to punish whoever committed the crime. I agree with that (and I assume most people would agree). But what that doesn't change is the fact that they themselves are breaking laws by being here illegally, and like the people that committed crimes against them should be punished, they too can't get off if they're breaking laws that are set in place, sorry.

As for what I have against immigrants, nothing. As for what I have against ILLEGAL immigrants, pretty much nothing as well. But I do have a problem if we, as a country, are working harder to grant illegal immigrants rights that are not even afforded to me, all the while politicians look to remove rights that I should have as an American citizen.

[GymGeekAus]

27. If legal immigration was that easy....

Then we wouldn't have a problem, would we? Obviously, legal immigration is not that easy.

I support removing barriers for immigration. And documenting immigrants, so we know who they are and where they are. And so we can make sure that they are accorded the human dignity they are entitled to while they are here. And to making sure we provide all immigrants with a pathway to citizenship that does not require them to join the military.

"They can receive equal treatment by going through the process and becoming legal citizens of the United States." Well, dude, you screwed up on this one too. They don't need to be citizens, just (by your own argument) legal residents. You again betray your prejudices.

And can they go through this process? The process being recommended by the right wing racists who want cheap labor right now involves a fine. Will they be able to afford that fine? Keep in mind, we don't even pay undocumented workers minimum wage.

You still haven't expressed what rights you think you are entitled to that they are not, by the way. I personally have only come up with one at this point: voting.

[W_HAMILTON]

28. It's not easy...

But the answer isn't to break the law. Like I said, fight to change the laws. There is a large Hispanic population already in the United States that are legal and can vote, and there are plenty of other Americans eligible to vote that side with them.

When confronted with "pesky" laws, whether it's Bush or an illegal immigrant, my solution would not be to break the law. Go through the proper means and change the law if it needs to be changed.

If you are here illegally, you are breaking the law. Period. You try to argue that it's unfair to them because they are punished, but they are punished because THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. If you break the law, you are going to be punished. If you break the law, you are not going to be treated the same as someone who did not break the law.

This has transformed into a completely different argument now. My original point was not simply about illegal immigration, it was about whether or not the rights of illegal immigrants should take precedence over the rights of GLBT American citizens, and they shouldn't.

[GymGeekAus]

31. You want immigrants to change the law before they arrive?

You really are living in outer space, aren't you? How are prospective immigrants supposed to lobby Congress for a change in law?

Here's a simple thought for you. Is there any such thing as an unjust law?

And here's another. Where do human dignity and justice meet?

[W_HAMILTON]

33. You're looney

And obviously have an axe to grind, and keep arguing points I'm not arguing, and refusing to acknowledge stuff I say.

Did I say that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should be the ones to change the law?

Funny, I thought I said: There is a large Hispanic population already in the United States that are legal and can vote, and there are plenty of other Americans eligible to vote that side with them.

Big difference yet again, huh?

Here's a simple thought for you. Obey the ~*!#@$ laws. I'm through arguing with you.

If you want to argue a point with someone in the future, (1) stick to the argument and (2) you might want to acknowledge what the other person says, rather than just make up random bs. If you can't argue against what I'm saying, don't edit my words so that you can.

Oh and by the way, good job assuming (wrongly) yet again the smart alec comment you tried to make about sodomy, because I've never committed an act of sodomy seeing as how I'm a virgin :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: Feel foolish yet? Oh well, like I said, I'm through with you. Needless to say, no one -- not even yourself -- was willing to go on the record and state that they believe illegal immigrants should receive rights ahead of legalized American GLBT's, and that's all I was curious about.

[GymGeekAus]

34. I'd be upset, if you actually addressed any of my points.

However, you didn't. Don't worry. I eat the uninformed for breakfast. And the bigoted for lunch, because they're heavier.

It's really simple. You have to evaluate the value of a law before you adhere to it. Blind adherence to bad laws is not a "social good." It's actually the pathway to abuse by those who write the laws.

Civil disobedience. Go look it up. Then try and understand why it happens. Hint: It's similar to judicial review.

I can't believe you just basically said that Rosa Parks should have rotted away in jail. But you don't realize that this is your position, do you? It's okay to be uninformed, as long as you're not trying to interject yourself into the discussion. But if you do so anyway, don't expect people to leave your opinions unmolested simply because you have a right to say them. I have just as much right to attack them.

And that is not a right reserved for citizens, either. It's actually self-evident and unalienable, and protected by Amendment I. Go figure.

[GymGeekAus]

32. By the way....

This argument of yours implies that if sodomy is illegal (and it was, in an awful lot of places, until a relatively recent SCOTUS decision Lawrence v Texas), then homosexuals shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.

Well, that walked yourself solidly into a corner, demonstrating your ridiculousness.

[W_HAMILTON]

19. Also...

...please let me know that, here in America, you consider the rights of illegal immigrants more important than the rights of GLBT American citizens.

It looks like the original article, as well as most of the people that responded to this thread, have said that ALL rights are equal. I agree with that.

But the original article is a response to an article written that apparently said the rights of GLBT American citizens should be at the forefront when it comes to the rights of illegal immigrants.

So I would like people to respond that believe the rights of illegal immigrants here in America should be prioritized ahead of the rights of legal, GLBT American citizens. Everyone, including the original article posted, is saying that ALL equal rights should be on the same footing. Who wouldn't agree with that?

But the article saying that GLBT rights should take precedence apparently sprung up because all of all the uproar over illegal immigration, and what we can do to fix it. Grant amnesty, worker programs, blah blah. Meanwhile, the only meaningful dialogue on a national, political level concerning GLBT American citizens is how they can be prevented from being allowed to marry.

If you can do both, fine. But if you can only put "effort" into one or the other, I'm sorry, American citizens come first.

And if someone disagrees, and believes that the rights of illegal immigrants who are not American citizens, who do not pay taxes, etc, SHOULD take precedence over the rights of GLBT American citizens, I'd like to hear why.

[GymGeekAus]

20. Oh an easy one.

You see, there is already a rise in hate crime against immigrants. And there is definitely a national movement to curtail their access to what little protections they have now, under the law.

I am not saying that immigrant issues are paramount. I am agreeing with the opinion presented in the OP--there is no hierarchy of discrimination. We deal with what we encounter. I encountered you.

"American citizens come first." Fabulous. Recognize this for the discrimination that it is, and we'll be fine. I don't understand why you are so fascinated with putting civil rights issues into "lines."

[W_HAMILTON]

22. There you go again...

...erasing the lines between a moral argument and a legal argument. They are two completely different things.

And I notice that you did not do as I said, and state that you believe you should put the rights of illegal immigrants in America ahead of the rights of GLBT American citizens.

So again I say, if someone believes that the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of an American citizen should take a backseat to extending all those rights to illegal immigrants who are not citizens of this country, let me know.

[GymGeekAus]

23. You have no legal argument.

And apparently no moral argument either. Just a prejudice that your existence is more important than someone else's because your mother was lucky enough to push you out of an orifice while sitting in an American hospital.

But don't be too upset. Recognizing our own prejudices is a very tricky endeavor.

[W_HAMILTON]

25. It's not a prejudice

I wouldn't go to a country and willingly bypass a country's immigration laws, demanding that I receive every single right and protection afforded to the citizens of that country, and in this case, demand that I receive rights and priveleges not even granted to every American citizen.

I apologize that I prefer to follow the rules and laws of a nation, rather than break them, advocate breaking them, and advocate breaking them and being rewarded for it.

But don't be too upset, hey, even our President breaks the laws! :eyes: :eyes:

[GymGeekAus]

26. Spoken like a person unaware of reality....

You would not go to a country and willingly bypass that country's immigration laws, huh?

Well, what if the United States government re-instituted internment camps on US soil? "Homosexuals are being gassed in Abeline!" And all the other countries said "no, you are not welcome here." What would you do then?

Go take a shower in a death camp? I certainly wouldn't.

This is not entirely ridiculous, you know. The government is building camps right now, they're just saying that they're for immigrants we attempted to deport but were refused. Or for any necessity of martial law like that which might be imposed during a quarantine. Or any other purpose they feel necessary, or so the explanation went. Uh huh--whatever they want, they said.

I suggest that you do some investigation into the conditions which immigrants are fleeing. As well as some investigation into why the conditions for immigration exist in the first place. And for the love of God, figure out what you want to do with these people. Deport, detain, or dignify. Those are really the only choices you've got.

[W_HAMILTON]

29. Nice job cutting off my quote

I said, "I wouldn't go to a country and willingly bypass a country's immigration laws, demanding that I receive every single right and protection afforded to the citizens of that country, and in this case, demand that I receive rights and priveleges not even granted to every American citizen."

There's a big difference.

I can't say what I would or would not do in that case you bring up, and I'm not going to assume what other countries would or would not do (chances are you would have countries granting asylum). But I do know that I would not go to another country and act as though I own it. I would not go to another country and demand that I receive the same rights afforded to legalized citizens of that country.

As for what I would do with the people, I wouldn't deport them, or detain them. I would work out a way to get them documented, and work out a way for them to pay the back-taxes, the same taxes that we American citizens pay to be able to enjoy the freedoms and rights given to us. Then I would begin to enforce the immigration laws they should have been enforcing all along. They should fine companies that employ illegal immigrants, and new illegal immigrants should be deported. Allow more immigrants into the country LEGALLY if need be, maybe make the process easier, but no more breaking the law.

[GymGeekAus]

30. I cut that because it was ridiculous.

But if you want to defend it, let's get to it.

This is not a "grant us citizenship now" movement. This is a "recognize our residency" movement.

You want them to pay back taxes? Wow. Uh, you want to tax them on the two bucks an hour that they get paid. I have a surprise for you--they're going to come in under the minimum income for tax line.

Your argument is getting more and more ridiculous, guy.

[homaffectional]

39. W_HAMILTON...

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the illegality of those who came here and slaughtered the Native Americans.

If anyone here is 'illegal', I'd say it's the Anglo-Saxons who colonized the lands that later become the US and then went ahead and were presumptuous enough to declare others as 'illegals'.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. homoaffectional

Well, when the Mexicans come here and kill all of us and take over our government, then the issue of illegal immigration won't be a problem.

That's a silly metaphor. And trying to bring these grandiose moral arguments into this discussion is pointless. Guess what? The entire world was involved in colonization in those earlier times. Countries did not feel obligated to anyone outside of their country. Right or wrong, that's how the world was back then.

And even if I accept your premise, do two wrongs make a right? Because the colonists came here "illegally" (debateable, did the Indians have laws against foreigners?), then it makes it right for every other type of immigrant to come here illegally?

Oh and btw, since you addressed me personally, I'd like to see whether or not you support giving illegal immigrants of another country more rights ahead of the rights of GLBT American citizens?

[GymGeekAus]

42. A correction (of generalization, so watch out)

"Guess what? The entire world was involved in colonization in those earlier times."

Link please? Never mind, this statement is not demonstrable. It's hyperbole, empty rhetoric to support an argument. It's WORTHLESS. I can disprove it just by pointing at the genocide that occured on our soil during that time. Of course, this requires that you consider Native Americans to be human beings, which might have been a stretch for you had you lived in that era.

Generalizations are dangerous, W_HAMILTON. They lead to prejudice and bigotry. They prevent one from expanding their understanding to other perspectives. And more often than not, they're just simply inaccurate. That doesn't support one's position in an argument, unless we're just trying to have a "passionate fight." Which is a possibility, since you started waving a flag at us and want to move the discussion to "illegality."

Why don't you, W_HAMILTON, tell us which of these options you prefer for the immigration solution: Deportation, Incarceration, or Amnesty. You see, these are the only solutions on the table right now. Either we send the immigrants away and break up families and communities, or we incarcerate them for seeking a better life because they broke a rule they had nothing to do with establishing (and then use them as slave labor if the bigots have their way), or we accept the fact that they are here and try to protect them from the abuse and exploitation that is the current condition of the undocumented worker.

There's another choice: "do nothing whatsoever, and permit the corporations to continue their exploitation while these human beings who are under the jurisdiction of the United States are denied the equal protection of the law guaranteed to them by the 14th Amendment." But I suggest to you that this course of action is criminal, and therefore is not a solution.

If you know any other solutions, feel free to share them. Otherwise, just tell us what your plan is--and we'll see if you understand the concepts of human dignity or equal protection in the first place.

[closeupready]

21. This is another issue where I'd prefer to let pukes attack her

because at the very least, she is supporting US. Silence is the least I feel we can do in return, especially because the pukes will attack her in a fashion almost guaranteed to turn people away from them - a "twofer", in a way. Though everyone is entitled to their opinions, I'm just saying...

[WobbliesUnite]

35. Illegal immigrants have rights?

Who or what says?

[GymGeekAus]

36. The U.S. Constitution.

"Amendment XIV: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[RWM_texdem]

38. GLBT equality first

Here's a logical strategy: fight for GLBT rights FIRST.... then... does it not follow that all others, including immigrants, will benefit from the changes made to laws granting GLBT equality?

It seems to me from a review of this thread and its long line of ranting posts, that those of us with the means and intelligence to not only fight for, but also achieve great ideals, continue a sad tradition of misdirected zealotry and self inflicted injury.

[GymGeekAus]

41. Lead us, Oh Wise One. (sarcasm)

Here is what I found to be at the root of your post, RWM_texdem. "I want people to pursue GLBT rights first, because this affects me directly. If you help me first, then what you did to help me will help these guys too." Please share it with me if I interpreted you incorrectly.

If this is your standard for the fight for equality, then I am glad you are being so honest about it. But that's not fighting for equality--that's fighting for self-empowerment. Now, some people do not see a difference. "What empowers me reinstates my rights and provides me with equality, and therefore is a fight for equality." Well, it does have this as a consequence. But once you're done, if you are solely motivated by self-interest, you are going to put down your signs and go about your life. You see, that demonstrates that you are not fighting for equality at all--you're fighting for yourself.

Like I said, that's perfectly fine. But don't presume moral authority based upon self-interest. That's nuts. Recognize that equality is not defined by your status alone.

"Continue a sad tradition of misdirected zealotry and self-inflicted injury." So, fighting for equality is misdirected zealotry and self-inflicted injury? I propose that you might should have kept that opinion to yourself. But thanks for sharing, because it demonstrates an important aspect of your character. "Nothing matters but me! Help me! Help me first, and to the exclusion of anyone else! Helping me helps them, so help me! Anything else is misdirected zealotry and self-inflicted injury."

Is there no other reason to pursue equality than self-interest? OF COURSE THERE IS.

Some of us are compelled to fight all injustice when we encounter it. Telling those people that they are misdirected and that they should be working for your interests is not only amoral, it's ridiculous.

Nobody is saying "put down your signs, GLBT communities, and devote your energies to this issue." Or at least, nobody of any value in the fight for equality. Activists can multitask, and LGBT issues do not conflict with immigration issues.

You want to talk logic? Then recognize that you can do more than one thing at a time. That assertion being missing from your argument turns the entire mass into nothing but an expression of ignorance and bigotry, IMHO. Your argument also neglects to address the fact that fighting for equality while other people are potentially being deported or incarcerated will NOT benefit those people--they'll be deported or incarcerated, and your fight will have no impact upon them whatsoever.

I think you're out of your depth on this "logic" argument.

[RWM_texdem]

43. Me thinks thou dost protest too much

Dear Geekster: the "sad tradition" i spoke of refers to the form of personal attacks you were so easily baited to make in response to my post <#38> with its benign expression of free speech.

Your response projected far more into my ideas and words than had been revealed to you. Moreover, nothing in my post could ever justify the rather harsh and judgmental nature of your comments about my personal character, morals and motivations. I submit that an honest evaluation of your conduct will acknowledge what others reading this thread are likely to be thinking: your insults and comments were "self-centered" and ego driven.

Forgive my manipulation of you in this regard. It was quite easy to set you off and watch the explosion. Perhaps, we can now discuss issues with each other in respectful tones.

Here is your next test. With the original post in mind, <#1> above, please see if you can respond with a simple, non inflammatory answer to this straight forward statement: I support passage of the UAFA. Do you?



RWM\

[GymGeekAus]

44. Review thread for inflammatory language, RWM.

Yes.

Were all of the questions in my previous post by some requirement ignored in your response, RWM?