*excluded

I like your comments and would like to add that I am getting great info regarding "identity politics." I put this link in my comments:

see http://www.bestcyrano.org/avenger212

Thank you, Mary.  I just saw your post...I read the post on Sotomayor. Looks like a great site.

Correction: Alito was making the claim that his background and experiences would make him more compassionate towards immigrants and POC.  Would that it were true! Unfortunately, he was probably just saying that to get nominated.  But since he was emphasizing this, why is the reactionary pundits jumping all over Sotomayor for saying essentially the same thing?  Eh?? I'll tell you why: a little matter of racism, because nothing scares insecure little white boys more than an "uppity" woman or POC.

why *are the reactionary pundits...

Oh, Analisa, Marl is Mark, I am me, Mark is not me and I am not Mark. This goes out to you as well Mary.

I closed my account in here over a month an d a half ago. Simply becasue I was tired of Dave deleting my comments, but since you and Mary keep thinking I am more than one person, i am only here now to tell you that I am not anybody else, I have no other sudonyms that I use, unlike you Analisa. I don't have to pretend to be more than just who I am.

Now about Alito, I suggest you look to what Kennedy said about Alito, what Schumer said about Alito, what the Democrat party was saying about Alito, what Howard Dean said about Alito. It is no different as to what the Limbaugh, Tancredo, gingrich and a few others are saying about Sotomayor.

I also suggest you look up what the Democrats did to Judge Janice Rogers Brown. I don't want to point you "progressives/democrats" out as hypocrites, but might I suggest you also look at the history of your political party you hold in such high esteem.

What of Justice Roberts? Wasn't your side ecstatic on how he held the case of "Illegal Aliens and ID Theft"; Flores-Figueroa v. U.S.? Yet Kennedy, Durbin, Schumer, Biden and Feinstein, all voted against Roberts confirmation.

Here's a quick tid bit for you:
Since his ascension to Chief Justice, Roberts has been recognized as a consistent advocate for conservative principles. Writing in the New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin commented that "In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."

Now, what about Sotomayor? Didn't she just side with the City of New Haven over Ricci? Wouldn;t that be in line with how Roberts and Alito have also ruled? Yet, why are the Dems praising her like the next coming? Is it identity politics? Is it hypocrisy on the behalf of the Democrats? Exactly what is it?

why are the Dems praising her like the next coming? Is it identity politics? Is it hypocrisy on the behalf of the Democrats? Exactly what is it?

It's politics.  I support Sotomayor for the same reason you support Alito and Roberts: my politics agrees with hers.   There will be the occasional outlying decision like Flores-Figueroa where the decision is narrow or precedent clearly falls in favor of one of the parties, but in general, Roberts rules in favor of the conservative political outcome because he is a political conservative, and I expect Sotomayor to do likewise from a liberal perspective.  That is the way it works, but lots of ink is spilled pretending otherwise.

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/sotomayor_and_the_judicial_shell_game

Bingo, Dave!!! IT IS POLITICS!!!! Right now its Identity Politics. Your assumption that I defend Alito and Roberts is but an assumption by you. I only used them to make a point, that point being that Sotomayor's opinions of cases aren't that much different then those of Roberts and Alito. I actually have no problem with Sotomayor becoming a SC Justice. I only have a problem with the rulings of being in favor of Cities, corporations, and the such, when it is clear in some cases that the petitioner/plaintiff should win based on the law vs. the interpretation of the law or the ineffectiveness of the law due to the petitioner/plaintiff being white or mostly white.

Nominee’s Links With Advocates Fuel Her Critics

This can't surely be helping matters for Sotomayor. I would expect a judge to show enough courtesy to the system to recuse themselves and at least not put oneself into a position of "conflict of interest".

Your assumptions of how Sotomayor rules in cases of racial discrimination are only that--assumptions.

http://themoderatevoice.com/33698/sotomayor-does-not-make-race-biased-decisions/

In particular, her dissent from the majority in the case of Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002), cuts against both your assumptions that she rules against white people and in favor of the city/institution.  The case involved:

an employee of the New York City Police Department who was terminated from his desk job because, when he received mailings requesting that he make charitable contributions, he responded by mailing back racist and bigoted materials.  On appeal, the panel majority held that the NYPD could terminate Pappas for his behavior without violating his First Amendment right to free speech.  Sotomayor dissented from the majority's decision to award summary judgment to the police department.  She acknowledged that the speech was "patently offensive, hateful, and insulting," but cautioned the majority against "gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

What speech are we talking about? 
When New York Police Department officer Thomas Pappas received charity donation requests, he would sometimes use the business-reply envelope to mail racist and anti-Semitic materials back to the charity. When the Mineola (N.Y.) Auxiliary Police Department sent Pappas a request for support, Pappas filled the business-reply envelope with fliers that "... asserted white supremacy, ridiculed black people and their culture and warned against the ‘Negro wolf ... destroying American civilization with rape, robbery and murder,' and declaimed against ‘how the Jews control the TV networks and why they should be in the hands of the American public and not the Jews.'"
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_pickering_rules_roost/

I'll just note for all those ACLU haters that the NYCLU filed an amicus brief in Pappas's favor in the Second Circuit case and filed a petition for cert on his behalf to the Supreme Court, which was denied.

If I understand correctly, Liquid, you don't oppose a Sotomayor appointment, but expect her to recuse herself because of an imaginary conflict of interest--what, between her and all white people--since she belonged to PRLDEF.  Sounds a bit of a waffle.

I spell out my argument that judicial selection is political only because conservatives argue so vehemently that it's not, that they adhere to some pure vision of the law that liberals don't have access to, which is patently absurd when you look at the decisions of the conservative justices on the court.

Also, sometimes the political selection process backfires, since Souter himself was appointed by Bush I, Justice Kennedy hasn't been the reliable vote that conservatives had hoped (and O'Connor before him), Justice Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, and even Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower, who later called the nomination "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."

Anyway, conservatives are just highlighting their own hypocricy and further damaging the GOP brand by going nuts over the Sotomayor appointment ... referring to the Spanish language as "illegal alien," questioning whether menstruation will affect her decisionmaking, and calling NCLR the KKK ... c'mon people this is ridiculous and everyone can see it.

I have assumptions of how Sotomayor rules?? I'm pretty sure I pointed out a specific case above and then pointed out a possible conflict of interest to that specific case, hell, there's even a link to it.

As for my statement of: I only have a problem with the rulings of being in favor of Cities, corporations, and the such, when it is clear in some cases that the petitioner/plaintiff should win based on the law vs. the interpretation of the law or the ineffectiveness of the law due to the petitioner/plaintiff being white or mostly white., again, referring to the Ricci case as I stated previously:  Didn't she just side with the City of New Haven over Ricci? Wouldn't that be in line with how Roberts and Alito have also ruled?.

Am I to understand you did not read my link? The conflict of interest and recuse are based on her previous involvements with PRLDEF:

One of the legal defense fund’s most important suits charged that a Police Department promotional exam discriminated against minority candidates. It was filed on behalf of the Hispanic Society of the New York police. The exams, the group charged, did not really measure the ability to perform in a more senior position, and were yielding unfair results: Too many whites were doing well, and too many Hispanics and African-Americans were not.

“We saw the lawsuit as a vehicle to level the playing field,” said Mr. Perales. “It’s important to understand that she and the rest of the board, in that context, shared the philosophy that we had to remove the barriers to the advancement of Latinos.”

The suit resulted in a settlement with the city that produced greater numbers of promotions to sergeant for Latino and African-American officers.

Some white officers, however, felt that the settlement was unfair. They said that many white officers had outscored their Hispanic and African-American counterparts, yet were not allowed to fill the spots because of quotas. They sued, and their case, Marino v. Ortiz, reached the Supreme Court, where it failed by a 4-to-4 vote in 1988.

Two decades later, as a federal appellate judge, Ms. Sotomayor was again forced by a volatile case to confront the issue of promotion tests and race. She and her colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit were asked to review a ruling on a claim by white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., that they had lost promotions because of their race — even though they had performed well on the Fire Department’s tests.

Judge Sotomayor voted to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case, and her ruling is behind some of the most intense debate about her selection. Mr. Levey said that the employment discrimination case filed by the defense fund on behalf of Hispanic police officers raised questions about Judge Sotomayor’s credibility in the New Haven case. “It adds to the conviction that this was not accidental, and that she had a very specific agenda here.”

Now, for your argument of Pappas v. Giuliani, it was not a case based on race, but a case based on Free Speech. Nice try, but no cigar.

You post links to other blogs for your information? C'mon, Dave, from your first Blog link:
Update: Actually, my post title could have benefited from a bit less haste: I just read Michael Stickings’ response to Goldstein’s analysis, and he makes an excellent, and very important, point: Sotomayor’s record of decisions in race-related cases does not necessarily show that said decisions were not racially biased — that would depend on whether the particular decision was the correct one given the fact set. The significance of the pattern Goldstein discovered is that her rulings do not mark her out from her colleagues in any way; i.e., she is not an “outlier.” To me, that seems to go towards my point earlier that her decesions aren't much different than those of Alito and Roberts, she is not an "outlier". Your link even states: A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002)

According to your own links, In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times.  Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred..

I read the article you linked to.  I'm not sure if you're arguing Sotomayor should have recused herself from the 2nd Circuit's adjudication of Ricci, or whether she should recuse herself from the Supreme Court's current consideration of Ricci (she hasn't yet been confirmed and the Court already heard arguments on Ricci in April), or whether she should recuse herself from any future race discrimination cases because of her past efforts with PRLDEF before she was appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.  Perhaps you could spell out exactly what you believe she should recuse or should have recused herself from, because I'm still not sure.

Should Justice Thurgood Marshall have recused himself from racial discrimination cases because he used to be a lawyer for the NAACP?  That doesn't seem right.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone had made that argument when he was on the bench ... it seems to be the argument you're making now.

The Pappas case was a First Amendment case, but the substance of the case was clearly race-related: NYPD fired a white employee for distributing racist materials, Sotomayor sided with the employee against the NYPD. 

And I'm not sure that you read my link, or you wouldn't be asserting that Sotomayor's connection to PRLDEF makes her unable to rule objectively on race discrimination cases.  That is what you're saying, isn't it?  If not, what exactly are you saying? 

http://themoderatevoice.com/33698/sotomayor-does-not-make-race-biased-decisions/

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent's point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case.  So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

I wrote my last reply before I saw your most recent reply citing to the link I had posted.  So it's clear that you did read the link.

But I still can't tell what your position is, if you have one. 

Let's finish that quote block you started:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.)  She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

What I am arguing is that, yes, she should have recused herself from the Ricci case due to her previous bout as an attorney/board member for PRLDEF with the Marino v. Ortiz case. And if she is confirmed to the SCOTUS before the Ricci case is resolved, she should have no opinion in the case.

The three-judge panel, including Sotomayor, upheld and adopted as its own, a federal District judge’s ruling against the white firefighters. The panel set aside the anti-discrimination principle on the grounds that New Haven feared that promoting the whites “would subject the city to public criticism” and would probably result in a disparate-impact lawsuit by blacks “that, for political reasons, the city did not want to defend.”

So much for the anti-discrimination principle!! Again, probably no different than Alito or Roberts in the fact that she sided for the city (but then each case should be on its own merits and the outcomes looked at), "to save them the hassle of having to defend themselves if the black firefighters filed a suit against them."

As for Sotomayor and racism, do I think she is a Racist? no; do I think she made a racist comment? yes; Are her previous political actions (PRLDEF; Marino v. Ortiz) casue for concern? yes. The blindness of law, allows the petitioner/plaintiff to remain colorless, the Ricci case should have been judged based on the merits of the petitioner/plaintiff, and the City of New Haven should have had to deal with the Disparate Impact itself if it came up, Sotomayor should not have pre-empted the possibility for the City to allow New Haven to save face on the bases of the firefighters who failed the test for whatever reason.

The Second Circuit declined to overturn established precedent in finding in favor of the defendant in Ricci.  That's the opposite of judicial activism. http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/the-ricci-case.html
But conservatives tend to have no problem with judicial activism when it aligns with their politics.

What is your position on Alito ruling on race discrimination cases in light of his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an organization that opposed admitting women and non-whites to Princeton?  To be fair, it seems he should recuse himself from Ricci as well, according to your argument. 

What do you say to Thurgood Marshall participating in race discrimination cases in light of his work with the NAACP? 

How about Justice Ginsburg's previous work with the ACLU, given its work on affirmative action cases?  Should she recuse herself as well? 

I get the sense that if it were up to you, there wouldn't be many judges left to decide these cases.

Still using blogs???? I read this the other day. Here are Hilzoy's highlights:
The District Court found that the plaintiffs had established their prima facie case. However, they also found that New Haven had a legitimate reason for acting as it did: wanting to comply with the very same Title VII under which they are being sued. And they found that this reason was not, as the plaintiffs alleged, a mere pretext. Thus, they found for New Haven.
and then this:
There are various things an employer can do to show that a test that has a disparate impact on some racial group is nonetheless OK. New Haven did not do any of these things, though it does seem to have spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what accounted for the disparate impact, without success. But the steps New Haven did not take are not required: to get on the right side of the law, you can either take those steps or avoid the disparate impact by scrapping the measure that produces it -- unless, of course, scrapping that measure is itself a violation of Title VII.
For which the plaintiffs have done.

Anyway, this is going to the SCOTUS, the outcome is yet to be determined. As for listening to hilzoy, you do realize he is no lawyer, and the few lawyers in his comment section have made very good points.

As for the Judicial Activism, again her being a board member/attorney for PRLDEF and filing a claim (Marino vs Ortiz) based on basically the same thing as in Ricci, the test supposedly being biased, when in fact the Ricci test has been shown to not have any EEOC problems for Title VII. Her desired outcome is to have a higher percentage of POC's simply due to what she thinks and calls "White Privilege", disguised as Afirmative Action.

As for listening to hilzoy, you do realize he is no lawyer, and the few lawyers in his comment section have made very good points.

Hilzoy is a she.

And most of those commenters who disagree with the ruling in Ricci - Von, Sebastian - are not making nearly as strong an argument against Sotomayor as you are.  And their analyses at least are coherent, which is more than I can say for yours ...

As for the Judicial Activism, again her being a board member/attorney for PRLDEF

Sotomayor was never an attorney for PRLDEF.

... and filing a claim (Marino vs Ortiz) based on basically the same thing as in Ricci, the test supposedly being biased, when in fact the Ricci test has been shown to not have any EEOC problems for Title VII.

Shown by whom?  The plaintiffs?  Not in federal court so far.  This is the extent of your legal argument?  

Donny, you're out of your element.

And have still not addressed what you would do about Justices Marshall, Alito, Ginsburg, or anyone else - other than Sotomayor - based on their pre-nomination activities.

I've only made the argument that if she were to hear Ricci over/again, she should recuse herself due to conflict of interest. As for me not being as coherent, I'm sorry, I don't have time to write a book, I thought you were up on the situation and would get the gist of my points, obviously I was mistaken.

She was an attorney at the time of being on the board of PRLDEF, was she not?

The Marino vs. Ortiz case, I pointed you to look at the reason for the filing, the case settled, there was no Federal filing. Legal argument?? I've only argued that if Sotomayor has Ricci brought back in front of her she should recuse herself from the case due to conflict of interest from Marino vs Ortiz.

Out of my element? Who's Donny? Sorry, but you've made my comments out to be much more than what they were.

Why should I address the other judges for their pre-nomination activities? They are already SCOTUS members. I would like to think they would have the intelligence not to put themselves into the position of conflict of interest. I'm sure that if they would have done so, an attorney involved in the case would also have the intelligence to petition either for a new judge or the case to be re-heard or re-opened.

Why don't you address than the Democrat arguments and statements of said judges nominations? Obama was one of the deniers and arguers against Alito and Roberts, but we all know you would rather blame the Republicans over the nomination now and call them hypocrites and whatever morally superior words you can think of.

Can this also be construed to see her as an activist?

The two sides of Sotomayor

She served simultaneously on New York's campaign finance board and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that took legal action in 1991 to fight what it considered discriminatory redistricting. Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from a finance board discussion of the redistricting battle, despite the involvement of her own advocacy group.

Analisa, It is so late at night...but I am enjoying watching you kick some butt in with your brilliant eloquent pen. You by far do not have any hatred towards white men and that is so obvious. It is also obvious that your intelligence intimidates the hell off of you know who? and so does Sotomayors.

By the way Analisa....do you like how he shows up as himself again. Now he is back to being the paste, post and copy nerd then he switches back into the Irish, Catholic retired veteran mode....tomorrow he is going to think he is Adam Smith again. All I have to say is....he must be eating too many fruitloops in the morning.

Oh, Mary, your ineptness still out does your intelligence. I note you had no rebuttal to my comments above. If you still think that Mark is me and that I am Mark, you truly are an idiot. I came back simply to point that out to the 2 of you. In fact you can verify that Mark is Mark and that I am me simply by having Dave check our IP addresses, but then I'm sure you would think of another conspiracy theory instead of actually giving something to the contrary of my statements.

We all know you are intimidated with actual facts and all you then do is attempt to attack and smear.

In nature, there is order in chaos and chaos in order.  In society there is chaos and order.  If chaos and order are two separate entities in society, but one in the same in nature, this means that man has conciously chosen either chaos over order or order over chaos... thus democracy was born. 

(I came back simply to point that out to the 2 of you. In fact you can verify that Mark is Mark and that I am me simply by having Dave check our IP addresses, but then I'm sure you would think of another conspiracy theory instead of actually giving something to the contrary of my statements.)

Liquiod, to elaborate a little on the conspiracy theory. I have 2 laptops and 1 desktop computer so there is no full-proof way of verifying who you really are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to post as different identity's but it is rather lame. If you wanted to conceal yourself better I do advise you to hit the spell-check button more often because your muti-characters have identical spelling habits and other habits I prefer not to mention.      

Again, Mary, ask Dave to verify the IP addresses. You will find I am in California, I have no idea where Mark is. You can afford 3 computers, I'm impressed, obviously you have no idea how to use them. Your carrier will have a permanent IP on your house through your router, if that is where you log on at, your computers have independent IP's, if they all attach through your router, which is the IP recognized. If you log on through Starbucks or wherever, then you will then have a different IP, however it will probably still be in your home town through the carrier they use. Dave can verify all this for you, that way you don't look so intellectually challenged.

Just so you know, Mary, I do hit spellcheck each and every time. Maybe you should do that, as in-force should be enforce, Liquiod should be Liquid, but I digress, you are probably relying on the computer to make up for your short comings. Remeber, your computer is only as smart as you, your's needs to go back to school and start over.

Mark and Liquids writing style is different. Mark uses perfect punction, spelling and sentence structure. He has a solid name. Liquids name and writing style has a more relaxed tone.  why is it so hard to belive that two people agree on an issue and don't double up as two double people.I don't know anyone who would go to that much trouble and second why would anyone think someone has that much time on their hands to pretend they are two different people.  who thinks like that.

once agian you put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and come up with the wrong conclusion. SB

 Your carrier will have a permanent IP on your house through your router, if that is where you log on at, your computers have independent IP's, if they all attach through your router, which is the IP recognized. If you log on through Starbucks or wherever, then you will then have a different IP, however it will probably still be in your home town through the carrier they use.

I can log in in whatever town I want whenever I want with broadband access. I never use the router even though it is there. You can have your broadband listed in another town or your other address. Common Micro?? lol

And by the way, I will never take your insults about my intelligence seriously. It seems to me like you have a real hatred towards women. You obviously have a real serious complex about the intellectualthing because I have seen you throw that ball around with many women who post on blogs. My guess is that one goes way back into your childhood and that includes the relationship you had with your mother.

Whatever your achievements were in life mom never complemented you and now we have all have to suffer from your superiority complex. The truth is that your try to prove to people brilliance by coming up with a fancy vocabulary and all that go-ogled stuff that you paste.

I'm not saying that your not smart. What I am saying is that you are carrying your baggage around from the past and dropping it on the people around you rather than focuseing on something positive in life.

You know Micro, We all have our fair share of bricks we carry around through life but when you have to drop them on 12 million undocumented people to get your fustrations you know its time to get some therapy.

And this is so obvious!

So, Mary, where do I send my check and to whom do I make it payable? Keep in mind, once you cash it, I can sue for malpractice, sure hope you have good insurance.

What's funny is that I just got done reading others comments towards you, mind you, from other women that have said pretty much to you as what I did.

I can log in in whatever town I want whenever I want with broadband access. I never use the router even though it is there. You can have your broadband listed in another town or your other address. Common Micro?? lol Mary, your IT skills must be astonishing, because you seem to be able to do things nobody else can. Your IT intelligence must make Bill Gates jealous, so why are you not working for Microsoft? You do realize "broadband" is a form of Internet access from a carrier, right? And that broadband access will have an IP address distinct to your router. Your computer has an IP address distinct to itself that the router recognizes. You "can not" log in through your broadband carrier from say Seattle, unless you have a remote desktop at home that you are working through, which will give your home IP. Your Seattle location will log onto the Internet with a IP address from the carrier there which will be different then your home IP. So, I'll ask you again to ask Dave to verify that Mark is not me and that I am not Mark.

Or, better yet, keep showing your inept intelligence by thinking you know something that you obviously have NO CLUE ABOUT.

By the way, Mary, "go-ogled" is spelled incorrectly, it should be "googled", so for Christ Sake, use a real dictionary, you look as smart as a half-wit.

hehe...It looks like I just hit a nerve. I guess you aren't going to be able to sue me for malpractice. I really don't care who you are...but I know for sure you are a man with a multitude of insecurity's.

When you use a real ditco;ary.....I will try to pretend to be smart like you do with an expanded volcabulary.

Mark and Liquids writing style is different. Mark uses perfect punction, spelling and sentence structure. He has a solid name. Liquids name and writing style has a more relaxed tone. 

Liquid has a more relaxed tone then Mark! That's an interesting perception? I actually see Mark and Liquid's character's the opposite than what you have just described. Liquid is more ridgid and Mark trys to be more relaxed in his writing character but you can see that Mark is dyeing to copy, paste and post...so he needs Liquids support. 

Here Mary, let me "dumb things down for you", sticks and stones, love, sticks and stones.

Wow! Your such a poet Micro. That was a brillant come back.

I'm sorry, Mary, I'm not the simpleton you are. I haven't reached my second childhood yet, like you seem to have done.

When you reach your second childhood let me know. Maybe then you will lighten up and have some fun.

Don't take it so personal.

It's late! This child needs some sleep.

Have a Good Night.

 Italian immigrants who had suffered racial persecution, fiercely assimilated into American society.  They did this by changing their names, speaking only English, not teaching their children the language, and not passing traditions and culture to their children.  I've noticed a major shift, that the same generation that was denied a piece of their identity, as well as the American culture that persecuted Italian immigrants, have come to embrace it. 

Michelina, This is a very good point. I myself as a 3ird generation Italian have felt a huge denial of the background of my Italian heritage. In my school system growing up I was the minority along with some of the Jewish children. Their were no Hispanics or black children in my school. I would always feel denied when I went to one of my Aunts Christmas celebration to find no Italian dishes on the table. In school I was put down by others for all kinds of reasons and it was later on in life that I figured it out. When I see Hispanic friends go to the salon to try to bleach out their beautiful brown locks to a dried out, fried blonde (or woman who insist their foundation shade has to be 3 shades lighter than their natural skin is) that just looks terrible on there skin type I can identify with them and how they are trying to cover up their identity and I remember doing some of these things to try to fit in.

I am often disappointed that I can not speak Italian and wish that I was given this gift. If I knew how to speak Italian it would help me learn the Spanish language also. To be deprived of culture is to be deprived of a multitude of opportunities.

This is silly but: A traditional Italian Christmas Eve consists of a dinner of 7 different kinds of fish. I have yet to experience a real traditional Italian Christmas Eve and when I talk to another family that has one I feel kind of saddened that we lost our real traditions back from Italy. I enjoy my Spanish traditions with my friends. I enjoy their bond they have with their identity. Why do people have to try to control people and rob them of their identity. It adds flavor to the plate.

Can you imagine how boring this country would be if ever party or restaurant and place you went to had the same kind of food and celebrations. What a boring place it would be! What a boring world it would be!

Legally?  Funny, I never learned in American history that a USCIS existed in 1776 handing out visas to the British to set up their colonies.  They came packed up in boats searching for religious freedom, most of them as indentured servants, aka laborers.

They came packed up in boats searching for religious freedom, most of them as indentured servants, aka laborers.

Excellent!!! That is the truth!! Our ancestors were not blocked from coming here. Our current legal immigration is a tricky broken mess that brings us slave labor in the US.

I was confused by the remark that early American settlers came here legally.  Isn't it funny that even hundreds of years ago, when USA was mostly forests and open plains, that the same anti-immigration cry was used - No Space.  Not in my backyard basically.  They didn't want the sludge of other countries polluting their society. 
If the first settlers and pilgrims came here with open reign, why did they have to slaughter Native American Indians to colonize.  Didn't those reservations deserve respect because they were here first?  My point is that this country was founded by other countries and through bloody rebellion.   If we insist that judges look at the Constitution for what it is and was in past, why can't we cite history from hundreds of years ago.  The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago.

If the first settlers and pilgrims came here with open reign, why did they have to slaughter Native American Indians to colonize.  Didn't those reservations deserve respect because they were here first? 

The first settlers did not follow the Native American Indians law of the land. You are right Michelina...they slaughtered American Indians to colonize. (Not only did they not respect the law of the land they murdered people to steal it) It was a bloody rebellion.

When these people talk about the "rule of law" they only want you to respect the laws that they want to in-force and the ones that benefit them. They do not respect the Civil Rights of people. The do not respect there fellow mankind nor do they honor family values. They do not care if familys are split. They do not care if people die in detention. They are all about themselves...its all about greed.

why did they have to slaughter Native American Indians to colonize. Didn't those reservations deserve respect because they were here first?


Sersious?  jajajajaja! News flash.. native americans weren't living on reservations.

Sorry Mary, your statement of The Constitution is what protects all people not just Americans. is very wrong when it comes to "Deportable Aliens" who have "entered without inspection". They have absolutely no Civil Liberties granted to them through our Constitution. What Civil Rights they have, only if charged with an "infamous crime", are granted to them by the Charter of the UN on Human Rights.

Those that come here on a non-immigrant visa do have a couple Civil Liberties granted to them, along with some Civil Rights, at least up to the point of being here within their legal time frame. Once outside that time frame, they lose all Liberties and are then remanded to that of the Civil Rights of the UN Charter. The only thing that they have going for them is the Administrative process, in which they can apply for and be granted a new/longer non-immigrant visa, then their couple Liberties and Civil Rights are re-initiated due to being in legal status. There status can still be revoked at any time for whatever reason.

LPR/GC holders fall under the same as above in non-immigrant visas for Civil liberties and Civil Rights. Only once they become Citizens do they enjoy the full Liberties and Rights afforded to American Citizens.

And that is why today we are the most successful melting pot in the world. Is it because we are such a young country? Is it because we are one of only a couple that are accepting of others? Are the potential problems with this yet to fully come out? And yet nationals from around the globe who come here move to enclaves of their same nationality, self segregation. Your melting Pot ideal only works in the business world.

You are all about opposing a stable population of undocumented people that are here. Again, They are here!! They are a stable part of the economy. If they are such a stable part of our economy, why do they live in the shadows, on the fringe of society. Sure they are here, bettering themselves and those who hire them. There is no proof the are bettering society. You complain how the USA uses 20% of the worlds resources, yet the more people we bring in will either keep us at that number or increase that number.

What is un-prodictable?? Don't you mean unpredictable?? Maybe you need to break out your dictionary.

If they are such a stable part of our economy, why do they live in the shadows, on the fringe of society.

They live in the shadows because people like you get paid to post all day to oppose them to keep them as an underclass to exploit them for there labor. They will shortly be out ot the shadows. Anyone political analyist will tell you that CIR will pass in 2011 on the fringe of society.

Anyone will tell you that you haven't re-invented the wheel of rhetoric with the let's use the population issue to oppose the newest group of immigrants.

Spelling?? Geeez you are really insecure with the spelling thing. Just because I said your multi-characters miss-spell the same it doesn't mean you should take it so personal. I really do not care if you spell a few words incorrectly. Who cares? It means nothing. It's just that it gave your identity away.

Break out my ditcisonary?? lol

Michelina, There are not many people out there that speak their language. Dave has a few nice polls that show them that 61% of Americans do not speak their language at all.

Hilary thinks we are the same people Michelina. That is a compliment because Michelina is cool!She can't believe there are 2 Italians on the same blog. lol..You can tell they aren't on the East Coast!

Hi Mary - you're cool too!  i thought it was hysterical that Hillary thought it was such a rare commodity to have two Italians blogging! talk about living in the past!!!  somebody put the travel network on for these people and stuff a cannoli in their mouths.

yeah i was actually being facetious.  Considering i'm accused of being Mark or posting under 2 different names.  it is funny that someone would think that way huh.

Ah Hillary...your just trying to cover up! Facetious...Yeah Right!

All I have to say is that your posts aren't really all that powerful.

Dave Bennion, Marisa Trevino,and analisa dp happen to be my guru's and this blog amongst others happen to be my source of education and I thank them so much for giving me their continued gift of education. These people can be out there making tons of money but instead they choose to give their gift of compassion to society. I know that you will jump on this statement and try to persecute it to death but your responses only make me want to work harder for what I believe in and fight harder for what is humane.

The information on this blog from good real resources combined with a mean spirited objection has motivated many to become defensive for the sake of innocent people that do not know how to mobilize this defense to protect them. There are groups across the nation that are by far more powerful than your rhetoric and you will see that a mobilization for Civil Rights will out way your rhetoric in the long run.

Mary, I appreciate your kind remarks here and above, but I truly don't belong on this list. Dave has a keen understanding of the immigration laws and issue at stake, while Marisa is a syndicated journalist. They are both much more knowledge about the immigration issue than I am. I am just here to learn, like you.

Forgive me for saying this, Mary, but I think it would be wise for both of us to stop commenting on who is who on this blog, since we have no way of knowing for sure. I only mentioned it once or twice because I have had a real problem with this before, and I don't want go through it again. If you want to read a hilarious post where the "antis" on Dee's blog are trying to figure out MY identity, check this out:

http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2008/10/bush-legacy-another-raid-another-300-to.html

They acutally thought I was Marisa or some college girl from Postville (another Analisa)! Some of these restrictionists discovered my Wordpress blog after googling some lines from a poem I wrote. So, they followed me there and posted comments, even after I told them that they were beginning to scare me. If you read far enough down, you'll see where Dee tries to reassure me:

"Analisa, These folks wont hurt you. I know most of them through their emails. They are fine. They just like to bully new people a bit."

At the time. I wasn't so sure, because I was reading all this stuff about white nationalists going after POC, and I was new to this kind of debate. I believe I actually dropped off the blog for a bit, but then I came back because I was mad that they were trying to intimidate me. And they harassed Dee quite a bit and another lady named Evelyn over at Latina Lista. I'm gotten pretty blase about ...I refuse to live my life in fear. I can get pretty combative on this issue, so I've tried to temper that with humor. And I've tried everything to reach these folks: befriending them and trying to see their humanity, shaming them, kidding with them, even flirting a bit with one (that was to trick him into revealing his real name after he followed me to my blog...and I know it now! he,he.) But no matter what I tried, nothing worked. I suppose that is because4 they have their own narratives which color their perceptions, just as I have mine. But another abortion doctor was killed the other day, so I'm beginning to question whether it makes sense to debate these folks, or if there isn't a better way to achieve our goals. Anyway, I think it's a good idea to stick to the issues, and let them worry about who is who. My fault for getting it started, but I had a legitimate reason for fear. Mea culpa.

*knowledgeable (and a few other typos/errors but I'm too tired to point them out)

But another abortion doctor was killed the other day, so I'm beginning to question whether it makes sense to debate these folks

Maybe we should be concerned with you folks? Your leaders, Olbermann, Ed, Mathews, and Maddow should lighten up on the military, on your Utopian vision of the USA, allowing every known religion to run rampant, etc... Are these your sides Moral Values??

It appears that the Obama administration's "law enforcement" approach to terrorists is working as planned. After all, in our country, law enforcement is not engaged until the crime is committed and in this case the FBI knew about this killer's (terrorist?) previous actions and (under the new Obama rules?) did not act until an American soldier was killed.

The FBI and its JTTT will have to answer some questions about when exactly they intended to intervene. Muhammad/Bledsoe got arrested in Yemen for traveling on a Somali passport, which triggered the FBI’s interest in him in the first place. It seems likely that he came back from his Islamic studies in the terrorist hotbed of Yemen with this mission in mind, and yet the FBI didn’t act until he killed someone.

Correction: they thought I was Evelyn, not Marisa.  I've got a bad cold and I haven't slept  well in a couple of days.

All I have to say is that your posts aren't really all that powerful.


If that were true, they wouldn't be deleted. they've got some power. they generate enough energy that dave has to go through and get rid of them so that they don't change anyones thinking.  that is power if you ask me.

Oh I have seen Evelyn's posts before. Evelyn is cool! The reason I never right on Dee's blog is I created a password that I can't remember.

Oh analisa you are so kind and humble but I must let you know that you are an extremely brilliant woman. You by far are way advanced in intelligence then any retrictionist that I have ever seen post on any blog.

Forgive me for this but I don't know who these people are? but I do know that whether they are all the same person  or they are one person posting as many but they are all of the same...theirrhetoric is always more of the same (hmmm maybe they are 2 people posting as ten..lol) and now you know how I feel about that cause I really have no proof.  I guess I really will never know who they are but BOY!! do I have an inkling?? hehe :)

You do have a point there about not knowing actually who is on the other side of the posts. They thought I was that other Italian posting the other day. I can see why because they did have a similar sense of humor like I do but I still haven't determined if that was a girl or a guy. That was really funny though! I'm not very trusting but as you have seen you know that I trust you.  I have a keen sense when it comes to that. I am joking around most of the time and I guess its really hard to figure that out sometimes when I write because you can't see my expression on my face. When I did go to college I did minor in theatre and I will have to admit that I really enjoyed it. The people I hung out with were a blast. The acting exercises and techniques and the assignments were so much fun. I actually went to see Blue Man Group a long time ago with the theatre group and we had to write a paper to critique it but I had already seen the show before that trip and way back then I use to have a drink and write it my paper as if I were making a live speech at the moment and I always ended with an A that way because the writing was most un-inhibited. I did learn a bit about how to study characters but in writing I suppose we can really get a feel for who the person is when we see the style of their posts. Then later I was a part of a comedy improve group called which was fun and since then I've never been the same. So if the retrictionists want to pick apart my brain...then so be it. Good luck! (now I'm way off immigration) I needed an immigration break.

Anyway, so much for sticking to the issues but I had to get off track and lighten up for a bit. We must stick to the issues. Retrictionists are into trying to get us off the issues because they know that if they fight with us they waste our time. They know that we will get off track when it comes to mobilization. They want to scare us but it doesn't work for the long haul. As you can see we are mobilizing across the nation. We do have support and we are standing strong together.

I had that cold too a few weeks back. It lasted for a few days. I thought it was coming back the other day because I felt like I was in pain for a few hours when I woke up late but I realized I was numb because I had no coffee. Without Coffee in the morning I am....Yuck! Hope you feel better Analisa. Take lots of Vitamin C!

ha,ha! Coffee and Vitamin C...sounds like a good recipe.  I also like hot lemonade.   Nothing worse than a summer cold, but I do feel better today.  Thanks Mary. 

To Liquid Micro or Liquid's reign (whatever you're calling yourself):

I would just like to make the same request of you that I made to Mark Lindley. Please do not address me on this site and do not follow me around the blogosphere. I am still upset that I had to delete my Wordpress blog because of you. I was disturbed that you posted comments on my blog after I asked you to leave me alone. Moreover, you posted a couple of unwelcome comments on my profile page here at change.org, forcing me to set my profile on private. This was after I asked you to stop. Last year, you discovered my blog last year after I informed you that your attempts to discover my identity was frightening me (at the time, no one knew about that blog except a few of my friends...I didn't advertise it). So, you have invaded my privacy, and you had no right to do that.. I did let my guard down momentarily but that was mainly to get your name. I wanted to know who it was who was stalking me. And it bothered me when your white nationalist friends, like Ultima, started showing up on my site, too. I got hits from ALIPAC and some of the search words that started showing up on my blog were disturbing. The moment I discovered your real name, I deleted you and banned you from my site altogether.

Liquid, it may well be that you are a harmless person, as Dee tried to reassure me. But I didn't appreciate the attention. There has been a lot of violence towards POC in recent months (you read about this all the time on Dee's blog, so you know this as well as I do). For this reason, I prefer to be left alone. I have made up my mind not to debate restrictionists any more. So, please quit trying to bait me into debating you. I'm not remotely interested. If you were a woman, you would understand. But you appear to be clueless, so I am telling you now in no uncertain terms. I have a couple of lawyers in my family, and they would advise you that what you are doing is wrong, illegal and could get you into trouble. Please stop. Thank you.

So, you have invaded my privacy, and you had no right to do that

Sorry, I have not invaded your privacy. Maybe you should talk to your lawyer family members and have them inform you about putting your information on the web. The web is not private. Don't flatter yourself thinking I am stalking you, you post in a comment section, I have the right to respond, if you don't like it, to bad.

There has been a lot of violence towards POC in recent months (you read about this all the time on Dee's blog, so you know this as well as I do). For this reason, I prefer to be left alone.

Dee is not the definitive answer to violence towards POC's. Dee points out her own racism and extreme biases with what she posts, what you both fail to open your eyes to is that POC's also have violence towards other POC's and towards whites. If you prefer to be left alone, then don't respond to my comments/points about anything you opine about, but if you post in a public or membership blog/forum and I too am a member, then I have every right to opine on your comment.

Advise the couple lawyers in your family, I know what I can and cannot do, nothing I have done is illegal or wrong. I suggest you quit threatening me with lawyers, or I will be forced to have my lawyer file a complaint about you. I also suggest you quit with the defamation of character towards me, and with your comments here and on dee's blog, it's pretty easy to point out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking

Defamation of Character

Maybe I ought to write Dee and try to get her to delete my account so that I can make a new one. That is pretty funny that they thought you were someone else. I read a little bit and saw that you were the Acused over there. I will have to go on there just to read Dee's blog because it is really good. Im going to have to print some of these articles up and bring them to the meetings because they would appreciate them. 

Did you see Hillarys comment up there? She thinks here posts are powerful and that someone is going to change their opinion. Doesn't she realise that it is not about changing someones opinion. Your not going to change anyones opinion over here on this blog. It is about rallying up your group and she rally us up alright!! When she posts on a pro-immigration blog she is rallying up our base to go out there and work really hard to move things forward. She doesn't scare us. That scare tactic can work for a little bit like you said analisa but once you see through it..it becomes a cat and mouse game. She shows that she is mean spirited when she posts and she actually brings the pros more pro-active. Americans do not like mean spirited people. They just don't like it. Whenever a candidate runs a mean campaign they lose numbers in the polls. The vast majority of Americans want to see Immigration reform...and they want to see a path to citizenship. That is what the polls show and this is in a bad economy. So there it is! They realize that our immigration system is broken and they have compassion when it comes to people and that is all people not just citizens. That it! and people like Hilary are going to have to except that this is what Americans want.

Oops! Analisa go look at the bottom of the thread...I accidently posted some info. for you on the harsh abuse immigrants face in detention. Please do add any info. to my list of various abuse's that immigrants face today in our detention sytem in the US.

I might of forgot to mention that American's deserve media coverage inside these detention system's and we all have the right to see how our taxdollars are spent.

Yes, Mary, they use scare tactics to shut you up.  It's their m.o. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff the "antis" did to get me off of Dee's blog. They pretended to be me and put words into my mouth.  And they were constantly trying to bait me...I got pretty good at ignoring their stupid comments.  But it really upset me when they tried to tie me to this poor girl from Postville by posting her pic as if was me.  Here's what I said on October 9, 2008 after liquidmicro linked to the picture of the other Analisa from Postville:

"I think that liquidmicro's posting of this woman's picture is pretty frightning (and possibly illegal). It seems like they'd like to stalk me. But that's not even me...I look nothing like the woman in that picture. I've never participated in any discussion with a single nativist before this blog. Frankly, I'm getting scared."
...

"When people started looking for my picture and posting that woman's picture, you are making me afraid for my safety. You have succeeded in convincing me that most of you are extremists. And for this reason I am leaving this forum."

I did leave for a time but later came back, because I like Dee, and I didn't appreciate their attempts to intimidate me.

Slander, libel, defamation, vilification, falsely representing another person's identity, harassment, fear and intimidation tactics.  Yeah - that sounds illegal.  Maybe just cause for shutting down a website?  Ironically, sounds like they are tying their own noose while attempting to block others' rights to voice an opinion.  They loose credibility and reputation. 
Analisa - I respect your courage in addressing these issues so that others are informed.  You are smart to keep the cyberbullying documented.

Thank you, Michelina.  You are right. I have been keeping detailed records of this invasion of my privacy.  And I have informed this person on several occasions that it is not acceptable to me.  Anyone can go to Dee's blog and see that I said that I was frightened when the nativists started googling me to determine my identity. So it is a matter of public record. You can see where Dee reassures me that they are not dangerous.  And anyone go to Dee’s blog and read where this gentleman states that he had discovered my blog and my identity.  He said that he had read a couple of my posts and lists them on Dee’s site as Deaf Orchestra and To Catch a Muse, a couple of short stories I wrote.  After he did that, other white nationalists started showing up on my site and I was alarmed by that. I think he must have told others because suddenly another of his white nationalist buddies followed him to my site. And before I knew it, I had a weird little "fan base" of white nationalists (and they are not shy about telling you that that’s who they are).  I can’t begin to tell you how creepy that was.  But I didn't let on right away because I wanted to get his name.  Once I got it, I deleted him from my site. 

That Wordpress blog was never intended for debate over the immigration issue nor any other issue.  It was a personal blog for sharing stories and poems, not a political blog.  I set it up with the intent of sharing my stories with a few friends and other writers, not folks who subscribe to a white nationalist ideology.  So, hardly anyone about it until this intrusive individual came along, although I did get the occasional visitor.  And I am upset that I was forced to delete it for my own peace of mind.

I have documented all the dates of the blogs, the comments, my repeated requests to be left alone and the search terms that were used to find my blog. I continued on Dee’s site for a few more weeks after that, but I finally got sick of these people and their tactics of intimidation. I came to this site BECAUSE I wanted nothing more to do with this man nor his friend Ultima nor any of the other “antis” who were habitués of Immigration Talk with a Mexican American. And I informed this individual the first time he showed up here that I didn't want him to address me, and that I would not debate him. This is all on record.

I also expressed my distress to family and friends that I had to delete the blog and told them the reason why.  In fact, I blogged about it before I took the site down.  I have made copies of everything.  I also wrote to Mary in private emails when this individual first showed up here, expressing my anxiety. And I let Mary know about my fears concerning these white nationalist and about the increasing in violence towards immigrants and POC.  Then I wrote to the blog owners/administrators (not Dave), saying that I trusted Dave’s judgment as far as deletions go, but I wanted to document the fact that I had asked this gentleman to leave me alone.  And I have just asked him once again to leave me in peace...and you see his response. I may joke around with Mary to let off tension, but this is an issue I take seriously. There has been a disturbing spike in hate crimes during the past year. And a beautiful man and human being was killed in a house of worship just this week.  So there is a legitimate reason for fear when people are cyberstalking you and can’t seem to get the message.

George Tiller, rest in peace my brother. 

So, hardly anyone *knew* about it until... (omitted a word)

I would just like to add that I don't think any websites should be shut down.  Immigration Talk is an great site, and I applaud Dee for her toughness and courage.  I am also not implying that anyone is necessarily dangerous, just that I have expressed a fear and a desire to be left alone. I appreciate your support, Michelina.

Thank you, Mary. I think I would prefer to respond to you via email.  I've been giving this some thought, and I've made up my mind not to debate the restrictionists any more.  Sometimes it feels like I've stumbled into an ALIPAC blog, just from the comments. Since this is a pro-migrant site, so I would like to hear more of the voices of the immigrants and dreamers out there.  If we could get more immigrants and dreamers on here, we could turn this into a real pro-migrant blog. (I wish we could vote on this.)  When the nativists start making  racist/xenophobic comments, I think it's natural to take it personally if you are a person of color. I also feel that the nativists' presence serves to intimidate immigrants and dreamers who might like to voice an opinion, but they are intimidated by vitriol that gets thrown at them when they do.  Anyway, I will continue to post, but the only people I care to engage with are other pros on this site. 

We don't need "immigration reform" or any other keyword to elicit happy thoughts. We need our current laws enforced. We don't need to reward people for breaking the laws, and thus encouraging even more illegal behaviour.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

If you want to save the worlds poor by allowing them to flood our labour market with cheap labour, then invite them to your home. I Personally, want low property taxes, non-failing schools and an end to our hospitals closing.

You selectively use facts to bolster your need for open borders. I mean, should we post all the horrible things illegals have done to citizens, would that validate my argument any? The fact that more americans are killed each year by illegal immigrant than all the soldiers killed so far in Iraq?

By allowing this flood of other countries poor, you effectively displace all those people who can effect positive change in their home countries. Its great,Mexico, does not have to worry about their one-party system from being displaced when the nations poor are herded north. Placation on both sides.

What do you get when you print too much money? Infaltion. What happens when you flood the labour market with too many workers.. wages are suppressed and the value of workers is lowered.. thus, quality of life is lowered. That is great.  Wow, I am just flattened by peoples need to control others moral direction. Talk about nanny state. I moved out of my parents long ago, maybe you should too.

Truth be told, I don't care about 'hard workers'. That sounds great for a Sunday night family movie, but that is no NO excuse to supplant the laws of the land and pretty much spit in the face of American Citizens.

I also get a kick out of that other poster using Americas 200+ year history to validate a timeline of "white rule", such dishonesty.

I pray to the lord above that my bi-racial daughter doesn't grow up with such hate. Instead, I'll teach her about self-reliance and not to look at the color of ones skin, but perhaps the character of their heart. Something you should do. Get rid of the hate, its making you look like a monster.

Asking people from other lands to respect our laws and for our corrupt government to enforce these laws does NOT make others "xenophobi" or "anti-anything".

It would be wise for you to stop putting so much effort into defedning your open border apologist mentality, and try to actually read about the detriment of open borders and unyielding immigration.

But then again, you don't desire to be empathetic, do you? I feel your goal is to dilute that which you see as "America's white rule" and its "created problems".

Your reply to Mary illustrates your own intolerance and how you create a boogyman from nothing. I read thru this thread and I saw nothing to denote what you describing. Infact, it is you who injects racial qualities into the discussion. Your life revolves around it, so everything flows thru your racial and "dislike white" prism.

Mary, please make a distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigrants. You are playing the tired card of lumping them into the same category. They are not.

Also, I would work on your figures. A huge majority favor enforcement of our existing laws and NO to amnesty.

I am also of Italian Heritage and I am an AMERICAN first and foremost. When my Italian grandmother came here she refused to speak Italian outside the home, why? She said "This is america, we are to speak English". Culture in the home, american outside the home. That ocean was the seperation that needed to happen to assimilate. Now, there is no assimiliation, no appreciation, no 'love' for this country.

I would also bet the ranch that you didn't read that "immigration reform" bill that was introduced during Bush's reign. You didn't did you? That bill was a travesty.

I would urge you and others to speak to immigrants who came here legally and thru the proper channels. You ask them what they think of the unending flood of illegals coming in and the non-enforcement. You ask them. You will very surprised on what you hear. I will also ask you to look up the figures on black american employement and its correlation to the rise in immigration.

James, Illegal and Legal are actions that pertain to something you do. It is not correct to call people names.

*Immigrants have entered our country and reside here with a civil offense is the intelligent choice of words when discussing the issue of immigration reform.

*If you want to continue to capitalize these words with your description of immigrants that are husbands, moms, children, neighbors and friends of US born citizens I must warn you that it doesn't help you much in the polls.

*Americans do not favor mean-spirited rhetoric on this issue. 63% are in favor of a real solution and they choose reform that includes legalization and a path to citizenship.

I really do not even like to label a person as Undocumented because it is a form of segregation but since we are here trying to find solutions to this problem I find that word much kinder of a description when talking about the status of another human being. 

Maybe some day we can call them what they are?...PEOPLE.

Please don't yell.

When I heard the news that Sotomayor said she was more qualified than a white male I immediately began to see reverse racism.

Been listening to Rush Limbaugh much?  If you read what she actually said, you would know that's not what she said.  If you read her opinions, you'd know she is well within the mainstream on the Second Circuit.

Yo Dave, I heard the whole quote on ABC national news. I don't listen to the extremists, left or right. She said what she said and there is no denying it. Context is not important when you quote a nominee for SCOTUS. 
Also, some of her opinions have been changed on appeal because of her leftist views. Check out the  firemen case she mishandled. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090603/pl_afp/uspoliticsjusticesotomayordiscrimination is not Rush Limbaugh. The days of Affirmative Action are over. Sotomayor doesn't render her opinions according to the laws of the land, but rather with her heart and her heart is not with the mainstream people. She should not be placed on SCOTUS.

I've been moderating more lightly lately (and also been having wireless problems while away from home) but it's obvious that this isn't working out.

If you've been on these threads for long, you should know my objections to turning them into a restrictionist forum.  There are other places for that, I encourage you to go there.  Or start your own.  I am not "neutral" in the MSM model when it comes to human rights--no activist should be.  If you have a reasoned argument and aren't simply regurgitating Lou Dobbs or ALIPAC talking points, then there's room for dialogue and discussion.  Coming here looking for a fight does not advance reasoned discussion.  Some of us I think already have found common ground on certain points which probably surprised us both.  On the issues which seem to come up most frequently in comments, it's likely that no amount of discussion is going to resolve fundamental disagreements.  Hashing those points out ad nauseam doesn't tend to be productive. 

Also I would encourage everyone on both sides to try to stick to policy where possible and avoid making personal attacks--though I know sometimes I have a hard time following my own advice. 

Wow Mary,

You keep reiterating a falsehood. Over and over. I now know ur MO. You are not here for knowledge or to even have an open and honest discourse, are you? You are what we call a "trosky zealot", at least I do.

In states all across America the "dream act" and its associated special interest bills are going down in flames. Why? Because americans do not want to subsidize illegal behaviour and most notably, do not want to subsidize non-citizens in lieu of citizens. We also, overwhelmingly, do NOT support amnesty. You keep spouting 63% and that is blatantly dishonest. Is that another "blog" figure you drummed up?

You appear to be nothing but an agent provocateur. You methods of reiteration are so very transparent.

The MAJORITY of americans want enforcement of the current laws and want MORE enforcement instantiated. The Majority of americans are compassionate, that is not at issue, BUT americans don't want to reward law breakers for it. If you asked me "James, do you feel compassion for illegal immigrants and their plight?", "sure"... but that does NOT mean I support their illegal behaviour or them being here.

You keep spouting 63% and that is blatantly dishonest.

Not so:
http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/pew_poll_63_of_americans_favor_path_to_citizenship_for_undocumented

The MAJORITY of americans want enforcement of the current laws and want MORE enforcement instantiated.

Do you have polls to support this assertion?  Even if you do, it's not necessarily the case that someone who agrees with your statement opposes legalization.  As the poll linked above shows, and other recent polls, there's a 2-1 majority in favor of legalization, even after the contentious debates of 2006-07 in which negative arguments on immigration were made repeatedly in the MSM and by politicians on both sides.

*63% of Americans want reform that includes legalization and a path to citizenship because they know it is the sensible humane solution.
The actual number from your poll is the following:
44% believe "Stay and Apply for Citizenship"
21% believe "Stay as Guest Workers, No Citizenship"
30% believe "Required to Leave Jobs and the USA"

I read the pole as saying 51% beleive there should be no path to Citizenship for "Illegal Aliens", while only 44% believe they should be given a path to Citizenship.

Now, of those 63% you claim, 44% want a path to citizenship and 21% would allow them to have guest worker status. Would the 44%, be satisfied if the 12M+ were given guest worker status and then had to leave at the end of their visa? Or because some have children, the 44%'s reasoning, here are you only for the path to citizenship due to seperation of families and removing an American Citizen from the USA?

I come to the conclusion of a guest worker solution. As I have stated before, I am all for giving them H-2A visas, 10 months and then return to their home countries. If caught as an "Illegal Alien" after said 10 months, then 6 months in jail and minimum of 10 year ban. If caught again, felony and minimum 2 years in Federal Prison.

The actual number from your poll is the following:
44% believe "Stay and Apply for Citizenship"
21% believe "Stay as Guest Workers, No Citizenship"
30% believe "Required to Leave Jobs and the USA"

No, that's the NYT poll.  The poll I'm talking about is the Pew poll.

Would the 44%, be satisfied if the 12M+ were given guest worker status and then had to leave at the end of their visa? Or because some have children, the 44%'s reasoning, here are you only for the path to citizenship due to seperation of families and removing an American Citizen from the USA?

A lot obviously depends on how the question is worded and the details of any proposed legislation.

I'm not opposed to change in Mexico.  But demanding that another change so you don't have to while you both share responsibility for a given problem is the definition of hypocricy.  That is why U.S. credibility abroad is so low on so many issues.

Hi Dee,

I'm glad you stopped by and you are right on sister. There is not such thing as an illegal person. We are a Civil Rights movement and we are mobilizing from the Civil Rights groups that are have the make-up of all different shades of skin from all different backgrounds to stand up for our brothers and our sisters nationwide. The mobilization is coming from various religious backgrounds. Tonight I attended a bible study with friends; Evangelicals, Catholics, members from the reformed church, Pentecoastals and we had one thing in common our universal interpretation of "God" and it didn't matter what our beliefs were we found one common ground that we had love for all of his children.

An immigrant that has been in our country for 26 years held his bible up in the air tonight at the gathering I attended and he said "I do not fear ICE police; if they knock on my door I will show them my passport and it is in my hand!" he said they can take him wherever they want but they will not take his bible.

In the reformed church I watched an ACLU film in about detained children we had a guest speaker. A detainee that spoke about being detained in NJ. The members of the Reformed church took turns 24/7 and they sang hyms and prayed outside the jail for their brother. When they transfered him to Seattle Washington to Tacoma they thought they lost him for ever...but then a miracle occured. Their brother was released and he returned to his 2 beautiful children and his wife. He stood before us all and prayed in the reformed church before the ACLU film and many of us had tears running down our eyes. Although the room was filled with people of all different nationality's and beliefs Prayer was a powerful thing.

The 12M will be on their way to citizenship and I am so glad that all of us sisters and brothers are together in this PEACE movement to end all Hate Crimes.

Here is a line from one of my vinyl records I played over and over again on my turntable phonograph as a child by the Grassroots.

"Common People now, smile on your brothers everybody get together try to love one another right now."

With Love,

Mary

Dee,

I just saw your post the other day on this blog (somehow I missed it until now). I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for sticking up for me, Dee. It meant a lot to me. You have stood up to the "antis" and their vicious attacks. I just think you are such a courageous and brilliant women. I admire your spirit, Dee. Mil gracias, hermana!

en la lucha,

Analisa