Did Muslim Vote In Virginia Swing Senate Control?
By California Yankee Posted in 2006 — Comments (81) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Detroit Free Press reports Muslims played a critical role in the November midterm elections.
Imam Mahdy Bray, Speaking at a Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America convention in Dearborn, highlighted the effective effort to turn out Muslim voters in Virginia:
The effort was so organized that Muslim taxi drivers in northern Virginia took the day off to ferry Muslims to the polls, said Imam Mahdy Bray, a speaker at the convention. Volunteers also made phone calls to Muslims in Virginia to urge them to vote, he said.
As a result, Democrat James Webb ousted incumbent Republican George Allen by about 9,000 votes in a race in which 50,000 Muslims went to the polls -- 47,000 of them voting for Webb, Bray said.
For my money Senator Allen gets all the credit for running a losing campaign. Nevertheless, if 96 percent of Muslims are going to vote Democratic, that would make them a more reliable Democratic constituency than African Americans. Democrats consistently receive only about 90 percent of African American votes.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Immigration hardliners are hurting Republican electoral odds — Comments (222) »
Did Muslim Vote In Virginia Swing Senate Control? 81 Comments (0 topical, 81 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The vast majority of American Muslims are not ultra-comservative. However, ideologically, Muslims should identify more with the Republican party than with the Democrats. I am a Republican myself.
However, most Muslims were so turned off by former attorney General John Ashcroft's scapegoating of Muslims that they turned away from the Republican Party. Under the proper circumstances, the majority of American Muslims can still be brought back into the Republican fold.
Noman Bajwa
I wish it were easier to say that the "Muslim=terrorist" crowd was a fringe group. I think it is, but I understand why Muslims who don't follow politics too closely would not see that.
I hope your last sentence is true.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Adam, unfortunately the muslim=terrorist crowd is not condemned vigorously enough by the mainstream, for the general muslim vote to be receptive. If the 2008 presidential nominee pulls a Sister Souljah moment at the nomination convention, that would probably be the minimum gesture required to make a true difference.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Really now, specific examples please.
I don't recall Mr Ashcroft (a far better Atorney General than he was ever given credit for) ever scapegoating anyone.
Remember the infamous “phantoms of lost liberty” line that was so vilified by the pseudo-civil liberties crowd? It was in the context of a speech warning bigots not to use the fear of a terrorist attack to pick on immigrants.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Muslims.
Adam C, you seem to agree with Norman. Do you have any examples?
Not examples of perceptions---examples of things Ashcroft DID to scapegoat Muslims.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
without evidence. And I recommend that no one else in the GOP should accept them either. Instead, we should challenge them.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
another 9/11 and expecially for preventing planned follow-up attacks immediately after 9/11 when he scooped up 700+ visa overstayers for Arab/Muslim countries and in breaking up the cells in 3 states.
Do you think it was wrong to arrest the muslim/arab lawbreakers after 9/11?
http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
Gamecock, now DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
Although most muslims agree that gay marriage is unholy, that gambling is a sin, and a slew of other ideas in line with the conservative agenda (such as those concerning the role of women), I think this proves without a doubt that terrorists support the democrats.
"I think this proves without a doubt that terrorists support the democrats."
If this follows from the implicit Muslims=terrorists, then you can take it elsewhere.
If there is another logical step, please provide it.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
to why they voted overwhelmingly Democrat?
groups vote Democratic. That's been true since the days of Boss Tweed and the Irish.
a lot of people here at RS really don't want to hear that.
are not first generation immigrants.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Neither were the all the Irish and other ethnic groups that gave such strong supoport to the Democrats historically. But Muslim immigration to this country is fairly recent (post WWII, mostly post 1960s), although Christian Arabs have been coming to this country for over a century. No doubt there's a second generation in place, but I doubt a third generation of voters isp resent yet.
However the GOP is also in danger of never being able to attract these people given the perception that it is not so much the conservative party (most definitely it is no longer the fiscal conservative party), but rather the Christian Activist Party. It's largely for that reason that the GOP has trouble attracting Jewish people despite strong support for Israel, and is also losing non-Christian Asians even though they too are often moderately conservative on many issues.
with much of this. But one should remember that about 1/4th of American Muslims are African-American Muslims who are not recent immigrants. The Arab and South Asian Muslim Americans are more likely to be immigrants.
I strongly agree with your concern that Republicans are now seen as the Christian Activist Party rather than the Conservative Party and its effects.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Re; But one should remember that about 1/4th of American Muslims are African-American Muslims who are not recent immigrants.
Yep, and thanks for reminding us. It's all too easy for many of us to slip into the equation "Muslim=Arab" or at least "Muslim=immigrant".
well, except for part of it. You accounted for about a 1/4 of muslims' voting preference; they are black. Blacks don't typically vote Republican. What about the rest? Why did they vote Democrat in such numbers?
and you can take that to the bank? When will you guys get it through your heads that the entire Muslim religion has been indocrinated to hate Israel and that muslims in America, (because there is no such thing as an American Muslim, British Muslim, French Muslim, etc.), will support whoever they perceive to be more anti-Israeli and the leftwing of the Democrat Party is most assuredly anti-Israel either overtly or by its lack of support for the war on terror.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Well, if the "muslims=terrorists" view is representative of the way Republicans view muslims, then I guess I can see why they'd vote Democratic.
I believe you think conservatives treat women the way muslims do? I would beg to differ very loudly, this President has placed more women and minorities in higher positions then any President before him. I am a conservative woman and I love that my views are held in as high esteem as any man I come across and by the way the conservative movement makes women more intelligent because they need to think to prove their point. Liberal women just whine and scream loud to try to make a point. We conservative women do not buy into the victimhood perpetuated by the liberals we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and get on the business of living.
Peace through superior fire power:)
Muslims were a swing constituency. American Muslims have above average income and above average levels of religiosity. Both traits generally tend toward voting Republican. However, many Muslims feel that Republicans (from Bush down) see Muslims as the enemy. This does not help with winning over their votes. Further, most Muslims oppose the War in Iraq and are concerned with crackdowns on Muslim immigrant groups since 9/11.
Nevertheless, most Muslim Americans are socially conservative and many are businessmen. I hope the national RNC is trying to win back Muslim voters.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Sorry, RLC has a very long way to go to overcome duds like this guy.
why Virgil Goode needs to be overcome? The man is as solid a conservative as they come, excellent on border enforcement and constituent services, and won with 59% of the vote in 2006, despite having the hugely liberal city of Charlottesville in his district. We need more men and women like Goode in Congress, not less.
Virgil Goode is a complete, utter, freaking idiot.
He's managed to make a big deal out of something that should never have been mentioned. He's made a martyr out of Ellison and Muslims. You can expect to see anti-Muslim racial profiling legislation show up and God help anybody who opposes it.
In the world of really stupid, counter-productive stuff, Virgil stands all by his lonesome.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
ignoring the "issue" would have made it go away. The guy could take an oath on a Satanic Bible, and it would make no difference on how he votes in Congress. An individual could take the oath on the ring of the Pontiff, and it won't change the way they cast their votes in Congress! What is an oath to a politician?
the oath is administered and there are no bibles, korans or anything else. Bibles, etc are hauled out for photo ops AFTER the swearing in.
According to the Clerk of the House,
As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Members swear to support and defend the Constitution not the writings of any faith. I don't want my Representative swearing to defend the bible.
I'm sure most of the current crop of CongressCritters™ have pictures of themselves with their hand on a bible. It didn't seem to help Mark Foley, Dollar Bill Jefferson or any of the other band of thieves.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Clinton. Its a shame that the particular district in Minnesota chose to elect such a Farrakhan rogue. Powerlineblog reported all manner of legal, ethical and personal behavior problems with Ellison that should have disqualified him in the eyes of any house district's voters in the US.
I think Prager's point (esp as corrected in a second column) was good one in that one should at least show respect and bring a Bible to one's personal swearing in after the official swearing in, so as to pay respect to the book that inspired the inalienable rights and has most greatly influenced our history.
And I think we should take control of immigration and allow only those that want to be americans in the traditional sense and not ones that want to transform america into part of a future caliphate, which is what I think Goode was trying to say.
BUT, when the MSM insists on equating fundamentalist Christians with jihadists, we get what we get. The problem is that our "reasonable" republicans accept the PC speech codes and so keep their mouths shut and don't fund fences, don't denounce the silence of the moderate Muslims, don't call out the Calypso Louie Ellisons DURING the campaign...
Cowards all
Goode is rhetorically challenged
But has guts
like Patrick Henry maybe..
I guess if I had real guts this diatribe of mine would not be in a comment to you but rather would be in a blog entry.
we pray
http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
Gamecock, now DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
ok gc, time to lay off the egg nog.
Goode isn't rhetorically challenged and if he has guts, this episode doesn't demostrate them. All Goode proved with this was that he is 100% deaf.
You should know that I've probably got more issues with Muslims than Goode could ever have and even "I" can figure out that crap like this does nothing to further "our" side. All it does is handicap us when, and now, if we can ever work up the chutzpah to increase profiling and agressively work on national security issues.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
Gamecock, now DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
Adam C sees socially conservative and business minded people who would align with the party if the RNC tried to appeal to them. However, Goode's antics alienate them. The RNC cannot overcome rhetoric like Goode's and still appeal to Muslims.
appealing to ME if they don't smack Goode around.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
This goes beyond attracting Muslim voters. Many non-Muslims, myself included, are turned off by this type of rhetoric. There is no reason to feed the opposition's contention that Republicans are spiteful or hateful of non-Christians.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Essentially everyone above age 40 in my conservative muslim community voted for Bush in 2000. All are rabidly anti-GOP now.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Are they opposed to spreading freedom in the Muslim world? To the suppression of Muslim terrorists? Which part of the GOP foreign policy do they have problems with?
Muslims supported Bush in 2000 becuase they thought he'd be more anti-Israel/pro-Arab than Gore.
Gore was a staunch supporter of Israel and was part of admnistration that had the most Jewish officials and cabinet members ever. Lots of Clinton's top friends and supporters were also Jews. Clinton had spent the final months of his Presidency trying to get a deal done that most Muslims saw a surrender of Islam and Waqf to the Yahud.
Bush was the son of the President that had perhaps the most anti-Israel administartion of recent memory and was known to be close with guys like Baker and Scowcroft.
Ironically, Bush has turned out to be perhaps even more pro-Israel than Clinton in many respects.
Thus, Muslims switch their votes.
This doesn't bode well for the GOP in states like VA and MI if Obama or Edwards runs. Clinton might not get the Muslim support as much as she's associated with Bill, although she still has 2 years to present a different side.
this is not true. The overwhelming rationale for muslim voters support of Bush in 200 was because of the perception that Bush would lower middle class taxes.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
So the rationale for muslim voters deserting the GOP was what? That the Dems are now more likely to lower middle class taxes?
from UPI Nov 2000:
Also, the GOP benefits from Arabs' and Muslims' perception of the Democrats as dominated by pro-Israel Jews. For instance, Hooper of CAIR derides what he believes is the Gore-Lieberman ticket's "slavish devotion to Israel." According to a Voter News Service exit poll, Gore picked up about 80 percent of the Jewish vote.
Interestingly, many Arabs and Muslims find Joe Lieberman's advocacy of Israel unobjectionable. To them, it is natural that a man should work for his ethnic group and religion. Their ire is largely reserved for Al Gore for picking a Jewish American as his running mate.
(I completely forgot Gore had a Jew as his VP. If you want to make sure you soundly win the Muslim vote, it helps if your opponent has a Jew on the ticket. Gore got 8% of the Muslim vote in 2000.)
The Republicans also profit from Ralph Nader's popularity. The Green Party provides Arab and Muslim leftist activists with an attractive alternative to the Democratic Party. For instance, the leading Palestinian American intellectual, Edward Said, strongly advocated Nader and the Greens. Of course, "green" may not be a particularly evocative term to people with roots in the tan-colored lands of West Asia. Still, the Greens offer one uniquely attractive aspect to Muslim and Arab leftists. The Greens are a party of the left that contains surprisingly few Jews. Although Jews had dominated the American left since World War I, they gave only 1 percent of their vote to Nader in 2000.
Although Nader didn't focus much on foreign policy, he advocated a less pro-Israeli stance. He also called for an end to economic sanctions on Iraq.
also:
“Governor Bush took the initiative to meet with local and national representatives of the Muslim community. He also promised to address Muslim concerns on domestic and foreign policy issues," said AMPCC-PAC head Agha Saeed.
(Foriegn Policy issues, ie anti-Israel)
The press conference was also addressed by:
Dr. Yahya Basha and Mr. Aly Abouzakuk of AMC,
Mr. Omar Ahmad, Mr. Nihad Awad, Mr. Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR,
Mr. Salam Al-Maryati of MPAC, and
Mr. Eric Vickers of AMA.
and:
Although sympathetic to a number of Gore's domestic positions, Muslims were upset over his attachment to Israel, particularly his unequivocal acceptance of Jerusalem as its exclusive capital, and what they perceived as his lack of concern for the plight of Palestinians. Muslims see Israel's control of East Jerusalem as a continuing threat to Haram al-Sharif, one of Islam's holiest shrines.
On election day, Muslims pinned their hopes for improved Middle East policies on Bush
(What's that old saying about being careful what you wish for?)
Not surprisingly, in 2004, Kerry(this time without a Jew on his ticket) overwhelmingly won the Muslim vote.
In 2008, the GOP will likely lose the Muslim vote again big time. But, if Obama is the nominee, I sense a huge opportunity to pick up Jewish votes en masse in NY, FL, NJ, CA and elsewhere, particularly if the GOP nominee is a staunch pro Israel candidate such as Giuliani or McCain to a lesser extent. Romney has no real record on Israel and his LDS background will be a problem for Jews.
Why is Romney's Mormonism a problem for Jews? I'm Jewish and I've never encountered any anti-Mormonism from anyone except that guy who posted a YouTube video about how knocking on doors on Saturday morning is a stupid idea. Am I missing something?
I'm not an expert but I suspect it may have to do with LDS (Latter Day Saints) having some doctrinal theories about he lost ten tribes. The future return of the Ten Tribes from their unknown location is a major theme in LDS doctrine. I don't know any more than just that, but to many Jews, this thought among Christians causes some discomfort. Mostly because some extremist views of this doctrine (not LDS) exclude the present day Jews from being Jews. I read somewhere that there is some twisted theory that claims that modern day Jews are actually a nomadic tribe that stole the Jews identity... don't really know on what evidence that claim is made, but people who are determined to hate find the most extraordinary ways of doing so.
Re: read somewhere that there is some twisted theory that claims that modern day Jews are actually a nomadic tribe that stole the Jews identity
Some really hard-core anti-Semites claim that today's Jews are not descended from the ancient Hebrews at all. Rather they are the descendants of a Turkic tribe, the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the early Middle Ages. There's actually a grain of truth to this as the Khazars did exist, were Jewish converts, and many Eastern European Jews have some Khazar ancestry. However Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Jews really are descendants of the ancient Israelites. And even the Eastern European Jews have some of that ancestry as many western Jews fled east to escape pogroms during the Crusades and, later, the Black Death. Poland in those days was perhaps the world's most religiously tolerant nation, and even Russia and Bulgaria were havens of refuge.
which helped in the Arab-American Muslim community. That group is only about 25% of the American Muslim community, but Nader did well in that group.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
What's the story here? A turnout effort, or that Webb is so far out of the national Democratic mainstream, that his nomination got the party close enough in that state that the turnout effort could put him over the top?
--
Run like Reagan!
if you'll do some reasearch you'll see that the same thing happened FOR the GOP in FL in 2000. Bush won an overwhelming number of the 50,000+ strong Muslim vote.
Now when Bush won FL by 500 votes or so, it's pretty clear that that Muslim vote in FL was a big deal for him to say the least.
It's only natural that a strong stance on Iraq and terrorism in general will hurt the GOP among Muslim voters.
Similarly if Barack Obama or Hillary runs in 2008 on talking with Iran and Syria, becoming more evenhanded in the Middle East, dealing with the UN and acquiescing in Iran's nukes, that will hurt them with Jewish voters.
Think of the muslim vote as similar to the Cuban vote in FL. The Dems have gotten killed on the Cuban vote for 40 years. Now, usually it doesn't matter because they get enough of the black vote and the Jewish vote to cancel it out. But in a close race, every vote matters. Maybe if Clinton doesn't surrender Elian, Gore wins FL.
What the Webb race shows is that Muslims have become a voting bloc to be reckoned with and one that has power to swing elections in certain states. Every party takes account of blocs(Black, Jewish, Cuban, Hispanic, Union, Mormon, etc...). The Muslim vote is just now one of those blocs and will likely grow.
It's only natural that a strong stance on Iraq and terrorism in general will hurt the GOP among Muslim voters.
Is it? We're constantly told that the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to terrorism and support efforts to reform the dysfunctional Muslim world. Why should the GOP's stance hurt it with Muslims if this is true?
really do support the Islamofacists...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
someone care to explain why this is "only natural?"
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I think because just as taking a strong stance in favor of securing our nation’s borders brings out the crazies who don’t like immigrants (who don’t look like them) period, taking a strong stance against terrorism is going to bring out the bigots who don’t like Muslims and/or make no distinction between the two*. People like this guy for example.
Unfortunately we have a segment within our party that is openly contemptuous of Muslims and sees the war as being one of Christendom versus Islam and those are the people who will get media attention and be held up by the opposition as “proof” that all of our talk about a “war on terror” is really just code for a “war on Islam.”
Which IMO makes it all the more important to keep making the distinction between the two
As far as it being “natural,” I think it is only natural that if you think that someone is attacking you for your religion because someone else who shares your religion does some horrible things in the name of your religion which you don’t agree with and tells you it’s your religion is the problem (rather than how a segment of those who share your faith have perverted it), you’re going to feel might p***ed off and not supportive of the people you see as doing the attacking. You may in fact despise the people who pervert your faith for their own wicked agenda but at the same time less inclined to appear cooperative with those you think are persecuting you because of your faith.
In other words, if we expect moderate Muslims to condemn those who use Islam to incite violence and hatred, then don’t be surprised when they expect reciprocity when anti-Muslims within the conservative movement make bigoted remarks while far too many respond with silence or approval.
* If anyone is planning to make any snide “you mean there’s a difference?” cracks, please don’t bother. You only prove my point.
You allege that Republicans are "persecuting", Muslims, or at least engaging in actions which a reasonable Muslim might interpet as persecution. Why don't you attempt to back that up?
I don't think he was accusing Republicans in general of persecuting or hating Muslims. As he said, it is only a segment, and if you want to see it for yourself, you're welcome to take a look at the comments at LGF for the extremes. Of course, as vile as some of those comments might be, it's probably still not "persecution" by the literal defnition of the word, but that's another matter. And I know that they do not represent the mainstream of the republican party, and to an extent it is unfair - what can a regular republican do about a place such as LGF? Probably nothing, but unfortunately the human mind all to often succumbs to guilt by association.
As far as why it is "natural", well, if you saw person A say "I hate Muslims" and "I like Bush", then all other politics is tossed asside and you'd generally vote for the other guy if you happen to be a Muslim. Making a big fuss about a politician using a holy book other than the Bible at a private ceremony doesn't help much either. Just my 2 cents.
As much as we might to think otherwise, practically nobody reads the comments sections on blogs. Heck, not many people read the blogs themselves.
He indicated that "the Republican party" was leading Muslims to feel persecuted. I'd like to see some sort of anti-Muslim laws being suggested before this notion is even plausible.
Contrast the reaction of Muslim Americans now to that of Japanese Americans in WWII. They really were persecuted. But they responded by trying extra hard to demonstate their loyality to America.
You are right, but in WWII there was still no mass means of communications such as the internet today. And sure, probably not too many people read the comments of LGF or other extreme blogs, but often blogers copy and paste such comments to highlight the extremism of the political side they dislike.
And again, in the age of mass media, there is no needs for a law to be actually proposed and voted on before someone feels "persecuted". Imagine that there is a politician in office that happens to share your religion and members of a party were making a big fuss about "how dare he take oath on a holy book that's different then mine". You would feel persecuted or at least you feel discriminated against. Note that I think this story itself was blown out of proportion but those Republicans who actually made a fuss about it should have known better then to make such idiotic statements officially.
From my personal experience, none of my Republican friends in real life have shown any anti-Muslim sentiment in my company and I trust them. At the same time, it is interesting to see Bush and other politicians say publicly that "Islam is a religion of peace" and at the same time see bloggers who support him say the opposite.
And when you do go back and reread my post, you’ll note that no where do I say that Republicans are persecuting Muslims or any other such nonsense. There is however a segment within the GOP or conservative movement that blurs the line between opposing Islamofacism and opposing Islam. I gave one specific example in my post and other has been debated in this thread.
It frankly doesn’t matter how few in number these idiotarians are relative to the party/movement so long as there are enough of them to get noticed and played repeatedly in the media and provide fodder for the opposition.
...to reduce immigration, ASAP!
The Diversity Lottery should be abolished, and chain migration reduced by limiting family reunification to the spouses (i.e. female wives of men, and male husbands of women), minor children, and parents of citizens and permanent legal residents.
If we did this soon, then future Muslim immigration would be severely limited, which would be good for both national security and the GOP's long-term political fortunes.
As a diehard fan of birthright citizenship, I'd rather we not give free passes to parents of citizens. Let's not set up the system to encourage pregnant women to try to hope the fence.
--
Run like Reagan!
pregnant women to try to hop the fence?
Come on Neil, it's being done on a wholesale basis now. And the parents we are giving free passes to are already here illegally. Not to mention that it's not just "parents", it's whole extended families.
Birthright citizenship should be available ONLY to children whose parents are here LEGALLY.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
If I had my way, though, it wouldn't be done a whole lot anymore. Combine vigorous enforcement against employers of illegals, an all-around nice for security border fence, and a willingness to deport the parents of citizens, there would be no more incentive to hop the fence.
So don't try to pin the current system on me, heh.
--
Run like Reagan!
If you were responsible, Moe would have locked out my IP address after my comment. :>)
On a serious note, if I was a Mexican and my son could be a US citizen just by being born here, I would have carried my wife thru the desert on a trek that would make Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem look like a trip around the corner. We REALLY need to change the law so that illegal parents don't end up with kids who are citizens.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
every illegal will result in 25 more citizens.
I suggest that people buy that Rosetta Stone CD program iun Spanish, I understand you can learn the new national language very easily using that system.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
By parents of citizens, I was not referring to anchor-baby situations.
after you read this article.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I just oppose Medi-Cal all the more, heh.
--
Run like Reagan!
the point was a 100,000 new citizens with illegal parents.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The 200k illegals with free passes bother me. That's why I said above: I like birthright citizenship, but I think to KEEP that we can't just automatically let in the parents of any citizen. Even if that citizen is less than a year old.
--
Run like Reagan!
extending birthright citizenship ONLY to people whose parents are here legally?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
That's how France does it, and they have intractable assimilation problems we've yet to approach.
--
Run like Reagan!
You can do better than that. There is no comparison to the policies of France and those of the US. We have always welcomed legal immigrants, and still do today. France has always viewed immigration of any kind like the German Army marching thru Paris. We've never had intractable problems with assimilation either - until the current flood of illegals coming over the border from Mexico.
If that's the best excuse you've got for limiting birthright citizenship to people with legal parents, you are way on the wrong side of this one.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'll see if I can put into words why I feel this way yet.
--
Run like Reagan!
December 25, 2006
Keith Ellison's crowd: Allahu Akhbar
Thomas Lifson
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) gave a speech yesterday to a crowd in Dearborn, Michigan, home to a large Muslim community. According to an account in the Detroit Free Press,
"You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.
"Allahu akbar" - God is great - was the reply of many in the crowd.
I anxiously await the response of the New York Times, the ACLU, and other decriers of any hint of God talk on the part of politicians - at least when the God in question is mentioned in a Judeo-Christian context. Will we hear talk of a nascent "theocracy" from them? Somehow, I doubt it. Can you magine thecoverage which might be given to an evangelical Christian newly elected to Congress giving a similar speech, and receiving s similar response?
Ellison said in Dearborn that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection, suggesting that Muslim activists may be part of God's plan. He spoke at the annual convention of two Muslim groups, the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. The convention ended Monday morning.
"Muslims, you're up to bat right now..." he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, sallalahu aleyhi wasallam," (meaning peace be upon him) "did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?... How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?"
Perhaps Rep.-elect Ellison would care to teach us about justice when it comes to women's standing as witnesses in court, and in respect to inheritance rights. I am particularly curious as to his probably acceptance as a good Muslim of Quranic injunctions that women count as less than men in regard to these points.
I eagerly await the National Organization for Women's take on the subject.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/12/keith_ellisons_crowd_allahu_...
more to come from GC, who is
"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com
Gamecock, now DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Though its hardly needed, this serves as futher proof that the GOP is orchestrating its own destruction in supporting liberal immigration policies.
Its political suicide, plain and simple.
The only bright side to this particular case is that Allen did himself in with multiple, easily avoidable, mistakes. Without macacca, and feminist-like attack on Webb's past comments about women in the military, and a bizarre decision to focus on passages from Webb's novels, and of course the general anti-GOP mood, then Allen would be on his way back to the Senate even if he lost every Muslim vote in the state.
Imagine if helvecticus is right: The strong Muslim support that Bush and the GOP received in 2000 might have come from a Muslim perception that...the Dems were too closely supportive of Israel!
If so, doesn't it follow that the GOP, in order to attract Muslim votes, will have to become demonstrably LESS supportive of Israel?
Who here is willing to pay that price? Not me.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
There is IMO a bit too much of a knee-jerk reaction in which criticism of Israel (or failure to support it zealously enough) is poof positive of being an anti-Semite (see Erick’s “why does Jimmy Carter hate the Jews” piece). It reminds me a bit too much of attempts to shut down debate by referring to one’s opponent as some kind of “bigot” which is a tactic I usually associate with people on the other side and hate to see people on my side of the Ditch adopt.
Also can I be the first to say it – I don’t support Israel or any other nation other than the United States of America. I don’t have any guilt over what someone else did during the Holocaust anymore that I would feel guilty about slavery. I don’t have any religious beliefs which require me to consider the Israelites the “chosen people of God” and I don’t believe it is incumbent on the United States to create a homeland for any people other than the ones living here.
Insofar as Israel is an ally (and by far the most decent society in the Middle East) and I see it in our nation’s interest to have good relations with them, I support our alliance. But if push comes to shove and Israel crosses our nation (as it did when their spies stole top secret information) or their interests conflict with ours, I won’t think twice about coming down hard on them any more than I would any other nation just as I would expect their supporters to do the same.
Why would ultra conservative muslims vote for liberals?
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire