[ Sam, here's the one that I said you should read from the bottom emails, then work your way up so it makes some sense as to who is responding to what or whom. I would not expect you to read all of this in one sitting!  The bottom email that started this all off was from Pete Strelke to Joann (me, and others). He's the friend of mine who you met with the giant diamond ring who was a kicker for the LA Rams and retired Navy Seal.   You never know, maybe some day in the future you may need to write something for some course you're taking and you could use this as a basis from which to start.  Moreover, in that you had personally guarded the border down in New Mexico, I thought that it might be interesting for you to see a "liberal versus conservative" view on guarding the USA borders and those who sneak by the guards and enter the USA illegally.   Love - Dad   

P.S. My first "girl friend's" name was Sarah Dias.  I was just a 13 yr. old kid in San Diego in the summer of 1965. She was very athletic, or should I say, she at least could run real fast.  Grandma and Grandpa liked her which I thought was really something in that I thought, apparently mistakenly, that they would not like any girl I'd ever meet. Sarah was an illegal alien who'd cross the border back and forth frequently to come up south of Tijuana to San Diego to see her uncle. Her uncle was always real nice to your uncle Guy and me. He took care of all the maintenance at the apartment complex where we lived that summer.  I know I was impressed by this big leather tool belt full of tools he always wore.  Before, and certainly, ever since then, I was not just neutral but rather have generally liked Mexicans. 

Aside from just learning about your dad when he was younger, I'm sharing this background with you so that you know what I've written appearing below was not negatively influenced by any racial or ethnic bias, much less any racism or bigotry on my part.  Conversely, what I've written appearing below was strongly influenced by me being a proud American who knows that the world is a much, much better and safer place because of the USA and, among other things, those such as yourself who physically guard what its Constitution represents and guarantees its citizens. ]  

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert
To: joann
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: What does this mean?

Well, in fact, I did not bow out diplomatically because it "was impossible to argue" with Michael's presentation. I very well could have decided to defend my position because there were many logical flaws, presuppositions, and one-sided definitions of key elements. I only chose to "bow out" because a) it would be fruitless to try and convince someone with deeply entrenched convictions to believe a contrary opinion, and b) because the original conversation was between you and me - and we had brought the conversation to an end weeks ago.

It is no big deal at all, but I actually take slight offense to the statements that you've written below indicating that you wish I would "open my mind" and that I would "become more objective" and that I am influenced by "liberal media" and "liberal environments." These sort of statements indicate that you think my mind is closed, that I haven't considered alternate opinions, and I haven't made the effort to educate myself but am just believing what I hear. Trust me, I am a very independent and critical thinker and I rarely believe what I hear on the news (no matter if it is on Fox or NBC). As you know, I have a masters degree in communication and I have extensively studied the media and know that its agenda is not to present all the facts. Furthermore, in case you didn't know, I was raised in a very conservative setting and I was also educated in very conservative (i.e. Republican) settings. Truth be told, I was very turned off of conservatism and the Republican party because of my immersion in those settings and my knowledge of the positions taken by people claiming those labels. My political views are entirely my own and are based upon the recognition that I am first and foremost a child of God, secondly a global citizen, and thirdly a person categorized in this nation as a minority and subjected to life experiences unique from what members of the majority know. Defining myself according to these associations causes my views (and hopefully my actions) to first be based in the concept of love, secondly in the concept of inclusion, and thirdly in the concepts of equality and justice. Therefore, I reject anything that resembles hatred, exclusion, and inequality or injustice. I hope that this allows you to see that I am indeed an independent thinker who is motivated by well-though-out, internal convictions that are rooted in sound principles. Sorry to spend so many words on this point, but I felt that I had to defend myself because it seemed that I was being perceived and characterized as an immature, non-critical thinker who is easily influenced by things and people around me. I assure you that is not the case.

Jason called me last night from this number: 651.224.1984. I am not sure whose line it was. He said that he was having to move out of Woody's house by this Sunday. I'll let him tell you the details if he wishes to.

So, your birthday is coming up soon and I told you last year that I would be sure to arrange something for you. I still intend to do so. Do you have any places in mind that you'd like to go? If not, I'll just arrange something by myself and let you and the family know of it.

Well, I have got some work to get done here, so I should close out of this email. Chat with you soon!

Love,

Robert

----- Original Message ----
From: joann
To: Robert
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:33:50 AM
Subject: Re: What does this mean?

Robert, So you got the long email from Michael? He put so much of his time and heart into it. He is very passionate about our country and the Constitution. (as I ) I mean that he truly thinks about what he writes. I want to compliment you for bowing out diplomatically, it would have been impossible to argue with the facts and references he objectively positioned himself with. Yes I agree that we all have our perspectives and believe me when I and Michael were your age we believed the same way as you do. Then we became more objective.(objective is the word here) I hope you become more objective and open your mind to other arguments and start to really listen and compare what we are being told by the media. Its hard when you work in such a liberal environment.  Michael even listens to that Air America radio to hear the other side and we watch MSM etc to learn. That's where cable comes into the picture and we could hear the other side. Most people in America don't have cable. Regular TV news is very one sided as are the daily newspapers. The whole story is never told.  Then about the same time (we didn't even know each other at that time) we started to open our eyes and see what we believe to be the real truth. Then I was watching TV and a religious show was on and it started to talk about  the Keyoto Treaty. How our rights are being taken away from us. (Everyday another right seems to fall by the way side) I taped it on the VCR and showed Michael and then we showed his brother Guy and that's when we really started to listen and compare. We also were starting our business and paid attention to taxes like we didn't before and how much is given away. You should want to see the forwarded emails that I would send you to see the other side of the coin. But I will respect your wishes. I love you, Joann   PS: I haven't heard anything about Jason. We just moved him afew weeks ago. He moved into his friends Woodys home. Do you have a phone number for Jason?  

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert
To: joann
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: What does this mean?


Oh, well in that case, I presume that either my or your email client wouldn't send/receive the email because it was too large for Symantec to scan for viruses. I did receive Michael's email and I did respond. I wrote:
"Please tell Michael that I appreciate all the time he put into composing this argument. At this point, though, I don't care to spend any more time debating an issue that apparently we will not see eye to eye on, so I won't bother to respond. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do thank you for not sending me any more forwarded emails though. It should be noted that we all love this country. We just choose to express our love in different manners based upon our different experiences, perspectives, etc. Have a great week. Love, Robert."

Yes, Amanda and I went to see The Bourne Ultimatum on its opening day this summer. We both really like the Bourne movies, so we were willing to pay full price to see Ultimatum long before it got to the dollar theaters. Glad to hear that you enjoyed it too.

Will you be helping Jason move this week? He called me last night to ask for my help and said that he was going to try and get a hold of you and Mike so he could use your van. I don't mind helping him again, but I hope he eventually finds some stability in his life. So, maybe I'll see you during Jason's move later this week.

Love,

Robert


----- Original Message ----
From: joann
To: Robert
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:05:42 PM
Subject: Re: What does this mean?


I got it from the email I had sent you with a long message that Michael had written pertaining to that Sonoarn Desert Desert picture. Did you get that email? If not Michael said that maybe your computer won't accept it because it wasn't an attachment.
Joann

PS Just got home from seeing Bourne Ultimatum at the plaza it sure was great, lots of action. If you haven't seen it I would suggest you two go and see it at the theater since it needs a big screen to get the total effect  

----- Original Message -----

From: joann
To: robert
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Fw: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Robert,  Here is Michael's thoughts from that email that started the whole crazy thing about illegal immigrants. It takes some time to read but I totally agree with Michael. When you get time to read it maybe someday we can sit outside and have a rootbeer float and talk about it. I should have sent it to you right away but I didn't get through reading it till today. I thought it was fit to send today since it is Veterans Day. Love Joann xoxo  

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Holmes
 To: joann
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Joann - Dogs expel "dog crap," geese expel "goose crap," etc. and it should have been easy for Robert [RF] to have understood why you thought he was essentially saying that you, at least in part, were being racist in that you passed onto him, and others, what he deemed as "racist crap [- RF]."  In fairness, however, he may have thought that you knew not what you did.  At the bottom of it, perhaps, it was his thinking that he didn't want you to be a "useful idiot" on behalf of what he understood knowledgeable people consider to be a "racist-based" movement.  You and I, on the other hand, know that such vituperation, unbeknownst to Robert, is nothing more than slander and libel of a legitimate movement to demand that our government officials stop with their nonfeasance and earnestly take legally prescribed steps necessary to enforce our country's border, maintain its sovereignty, and further strengthen its security against future terrorist attacks.   

["The phrase 'useful idiot' was supposedly coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe sympathizers with the Soviet Union from the west or the United States. While the USSR no longer exists, political and other famous Americans have carried the torch of dissent to the extreme, endearing themselves to left wing governments while criticizing the homeland." - John T. Urban.  "Lenin's successor, Stalin, was even able to dupe Walter Duranty, the New York Times correspondent in Moscow whose Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting helped convince the world that no government-orchestrated famine was occurring in the Ukraine." - Clifford May.  ("Soviet dictator Josef Stalin provoked the famine in a campaign to force peasants to give up their private farms and join collectives. Authorities collectivised agriculture throughout the Soviet Union, but farmers in Ukraine - then known as the breadbasket of the USSR - fiercely resisted and bore the brunt of the man-made disaster." - Mara D Bellaby in Kiev, Scotsman.com.  Estimates of 10 million victims died in this fight against state-forced socialism/communism.)]  

SPECIAL NOTE:  In the event that you forward this email on to Robert and he finds himself agreeing in part or whole with anything I've stated herein, he'd be well-advised to not share such agreement with anyone at the U of M.  Any likelihood of his promotion in employment positions at the U would evaporate.  For that matter, he might even jeopardize his current position.  I've heard hundreds of horror stories about how universities and colleges have become intolerant of diversity in ideology not consistent with their brand of modern-day liberalism.  

For whatever reason, it may possibly be that Robert doesn't feel that the USA should take its border enforcement and sovereignty nearly as seriously as does Mexico and every other country on earth of which I am aware.  For that matter, at least Mexico and France have tougher immigration laws than does the USA.  Of these two, Mexico has a major problem with Latinos from Central America but with mostly those from Honduras and Guatemala entering its country illegally who want to, among other things, fill the void of workers needed to do the jobs vacated by Mexicans who have illegally migrated into the USA. This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from nearly two dozen other countries, including China, Ecuador, Cuba and Somalia that pass through Mexico on their way to entering the USA, illegally.   

"The Mexican authorities report that detentions and deportations have risen in the past four years by an estimated 74 percent, to 240,000, nearly half along the southern border." - Ginger Thompson, International Herald Tribune.  Just this past August, Mexico has begun the repatriation of some 7,000 Central American undocumented immigrants, mostly to Honduras and Guatemala.  

Based on what Robert stated in his email appearing below and quoted herein, one could get the idea that he would think Mexico could save millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours in its border security if its government would simply realize that "At its core, the Mexican border argument is not at all about immigration; it is about many white American's perceptions of Mexican people's fitness for citizenship [- RF] *."  And as to what Robert said about American perceptions, in fairness, I would think then the same ought to apply equally to those of Mexicans.  In other words, they, too, just like Americans, should perceive people from other countries who are Latino, Hispanic, or maybe speak different language, or of different culture, or of different race, nonetheless just as fit for being Mexican as are Mexicans [regardless of whether they even want to be or not ** ].  Most everybody's intentions seem honorable so therefore Mexico should be just one big happy family gathering spot for anyone who wants to pass through or live there, whether long-term or temporarily.  The delineation between Mexico and other countries, that is to say, Mexican borders should come to be only something to be read about in history books, right?  Or, is it that he thinks it is only the USA borders should meet that fate?  [Or maybe, he thinks all borders for all countries should basically disappear and we can be just one big happy world community where all laws apply equally everywhere and are enforced under one jurisdiction by some elitist group that, for most of the world's people, would be across an ocean somewhere?]  

Perhaps the forementioned is too farfetched, but might it be Robert thinks the USA borders should be erased [so goes its borders so goes its identity] as some form of "just deserts" because he believes the world's woes and including Mexico's can be blamed solely and squarely on the shoulders of Americans, and more specifically regarding this issue, "American big-business ... going abroad, destroying local economies and pillaging [rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder; something pirates are known to do] local resources, which creates poverty and the need to immigrate [- RF]"? [Emphasis added.]   

Robert was not specific, so you can only guess as to what he thought was being pillaged. If Robert might be thinking that, among other things, the USA is "pillaging" Iraqi oil, then how come after all these years we haven't gotten it yet?  And for that matter, Mexico might have as much oil as Iraq, how come we haven't invaded Mexico yet and pillaged its oil?  And Canada's? They're both a hellava lot closer than Iraq!  

I think it is remarkable that Robert seems under the impression that it's common knowledge and an accepted default assumption by people-in-the-know that anything American is the culprit of everything wrong anywhere.  The default assumption of blame placed on something American in this instance is where American big-business goes abroad and destroys local economies and pillages local resources and thereby causes poverty in otherwise well-maintained self-sustaining countries and communities.  Perhaps he should get out and away more often from elitist academia that seems lately to be heading the "Blame-America-First Crowd."  I wonder how "better off" these academics think the countries of the world would be if the USA had not existed for over the past 200 years?  

"American big-business ... going abroad ... creates poverty [- RF]."  Hmmm, "creates poverty."  That's gotta be a new one. The USA and its big-business may be known for a lot of things, and among those, being such a place or opportunity where wealth is created; but creating poverty here or elsewhere, until now anyway, hasn't been one of them.  

"Poverty" may be understood as a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, and or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life. These essentials may be material resources such as food, safe drinking water, and shelter, or they may be social resources such as access to information, education, health care, social status, political power, or the opportunity to develop meaningful connections with other people in society [- excerpts from Wikipedia].   

"Poverty" is also a relative term.  Contingent upon what all one is looking at, America can cause one to see the European Union [EU] as poverty stricken by way of nothing more than juxtaposition.  When the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] of entire EU is set along side the GDPs of each of the several 50 United States, all the EU countries together come in about 4th from the bottom, beating out only the individual states of Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi.  When the living circumstances of the people in the EU are compared to those in the USA, the EU's "middle class" would be classified as being in the "poverty level" if they were living the same way in the USA. "Poor" Americans are better off than the general population of Europe.   

Maybe the characterization of "pillaging" for describing how American big-businesses interacts in foreign countries is a term found in some new modern-day liberal rewrite of world history now found on the shelves of "Indoctrination U" libraries.  It's a pretty strong word .... as Blackbeard would say .... "Arrrrrrrhhh!" 

It's my guess, unless he's never thought about it, that Robert most likely thinks that the impetus, the reason, the USA and its people have been the largest benefactor to other countries and their people in all of the recorded history of the world is that it and they are guilt-driven for, among other things, their big-business' piracy and pillaging. Which, of course, isn't consistent with many things and including the fact that it is the USA's Navy, with little or no payment from other countries, that over many decades, patrols the seas worldwide so to keep shipping lanes for all countries safe from pirates.  

Here's a novel idea:  Even aside from the fact that the USA's Constitution vests no power in the federal government to act as some form of charity clearing-house [trying to take the place of churches, non-profits and other organizations], thereby thereunder unconstitutionally directing taxpayer dollars to this special interest group or that, whether foreign or domestic, which in any case is not tax moneys that provide for the "general Welfare" [Art. 1., Sect. 8, Clause 1, US Const.]; maybe our voter-hungry non-conservative officials in federal government should stop "giving" away or otherwise spending collected tax dollars to try to stop poverty here, domestically.  Since the war on poverty was declared by democrats, headed up by then Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, back in the 1960s, $11 trillion [- Linda Chavez, 'Look to the family'] has been spent on this War on Poverty thus far.  In terms of actual numbers, there are more now in the USA who are classified as in the poverty level than back in the '60s [millions of illegal aliens are counted along with American citizens].  And, still no 'exit strategy.'  Oh, but that's right. Liberals don't want to be judged by their results, rather, just by their intent. 

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds:  "American big-business [- RF]" fuels an American capitalist economy with enough moneys to pay university systems [aka: Indoctrination U's] whose liberal spendings are out of control and don't "blink an eye" when gouging students, their parents and government [funded 100% by taxpayers] that funds student loans and grants with higher and higher tuitions that have far exceeded inflation rates during the past decades.  If it weren't for the prosperity of business of all sizes in America, all schools, from elementary to higher education, would have to survive within the same inflation rates as the rest of America.  

Over the centuries countries, and for the most part, nations, have been identified by their borders, language and culture, whether speaking of the USA, Mexico or any other country past or present.  Aside from the other two identifying properties, we learned from the Bible regarding what happened with those building the Tower of Babel that when people no longer share a common language, they go their separate ways. Removal or blurring beyond the point of recognition of these three age-old markers of identifying a given country or nation strips that country or nation of its identity.  For all practical purposes, in either case, that country or nation ceases to exist.   Boy-oh-boy Joann, I'm sure glad that Robert isn't "closed-minded and anti-American -[RF]"  - phew!  [I wonder what he'd be advocating if he was?!]  

[*  Robert may have missed seeing the news videos made during the 2006 May 1st National "Law Day" of what were thought to have totaled well over 500 thousand + of illegal aliens and their supporters demonstrating in the streets of San Diego, Los Angeles and other cities where many of whom were waving Mexican flags. Making the broad argument that basically all illegal aliens from Mexico want to become USA citizens might be difficult if done in front of a backdrop of those news videos.    

**  Many of whom that have entered this country illegally did not do so with any desire of eventually becoming citizens.  They instead did it simply for the money, whether for themselves here or for their ill-gotten gains to be sent back to their families in their country of origin. It is estimated that somewhere between $20-30 billion is sent back to Mexico annually, which is, of course, between $20-30 billion that would be taken out of the USA economy annually, as well. (Robert should ask my brother Bill sometime about how difficult it was for him with the Canadian authorities when he told them he was coming there to work as a part of his employment down in the USA and who was paying him.)

Forty-nine years ago President Eisenhower proclaimed the first Law Day a "day of national dedication to the principle of government under law."  But "Law Day" was not the only day we saw those Mexican flags flown in the USA by illegals:

THE AMERICAN FLAG COMES SECOND
 

03/28 /06 : Student protest

Whittier area students from Pioneer, California and Whittier high schools walked out of classes to protest the proposed federal immigration bill March 27, 2006. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High. (Leo Jarzomb/Staff photo)

More:

Unreality-based Ted Kennedy gets the Clueless Blowhard of the Day Award [or maybe the "Useful Idiot Liberal of the Day Award" - mh]…chanting in Las Vegas: “La raza unida jamas sera vencida,” or “The united (Hispanic) race will never be defeated.”…protests turn violent in Watsonville…FrontPageMag: Who’s behind the [illegal] immigration rallies?  

Robert having a Master's degree in communications would know that words, and including adjectives, mean something:  I wonder why Robert thinks that his, your, my, and the peoples' of our country parents, grandparents, and/or ancestors who built this country were illegal immigrants?  Since the original email [appearing below at the bottom], with photos, that started this discussion was addressing "illegals" [Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:22 AM] and in that email it used consistently the term "illegals" and no other to describe those who were allegedly creating another "environmental disaster" on the otherwise "Beautiful Sonoran Desert"; leads one to believe that Robert thinks the term "illegals" to be synonymous with "immigrants."  RF - "They [previous emails originating from Pete, retired Navy Seal] are consistently close-minded and anti-American. America was built by immigrants."  [Emphasis added.]  But heck, maybe you and I just don't understand 'cause we're both "stereotypical ... white Americans" [ - RF] " who, among other things, make up only part of the 79% of all Americans [based on a Rassmussen poll] who don't want amnesty given to illegals.  Until recent times when it can be now argued that Islamo fascists/nazis and their supporters who think the Jews along with other American "monkeys and pigs" * should be wiped out, only white people in America could, by definition, be racist.  Bearing this in mind, what term, if any, could be attached to the other non-white folks in this country that make up the other portion of that 79%?  

Lately, modern-day liberals have, to a degree, succeeded in changing the meanings of several words: "liberal," "liberalism," "progressive," "marriage," "gay," "spouse," "wed," come immediately to mind; and this is not to even mention what liberals in the Supreme Court have done to long-held meanings of many words, phrases and clauses in the Bill of Rights and other Amendments of the Constitution.  Moreover, what has been done, in many cases, detrimentally, to our language and it's ability to communicate clear thoughts to one another in the name of "Political Correctness."  So it's of no surprise for me to see such influences on anyone, or in this case, on Robert, manifesting themselves to you in the form of attempting to blur, make indistinct, or perhaps homogenize that which is illegal with that which is legal; which, in the instance of Robert's email, was just eliminating altogether any reference to, or hint of, the illegality of the immigration.  If anything, it seems Robert thinks it should be nothing more than a distinction without a difference so why waste time and space with needless adjectives.  However, at what point would he think there should be a distinction?  When speaking of foreign terrorists in this country that came here with the specific purpose of doing Americans harm, I have not yet heard anyone say that these invaders "immigrate" here, at least not yet.  Gosh, not even on Reuters News Service that forbids its reporters to use the term "terrorist(s)" have I heard anyone ever say that "immigrants" highjacked planes on September 11th!   [It is estimated that in the year 2005 alone, about 50,000 OTM (Other Than Mexican) crossed the USA's southern border.]  

[ *  University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian (suspected of operating a front for Middle Eastern terrorists) said "the sons of Israel" were "monkeys and pigs" as per a quote he said he took from the Koran about those who earn the wrath of God. - St. Petersburg Times published March 26, 2002]  

It seems that Robert is still under the false assumption of something that he and I had discussed briefly some time ago.  (As for all of us, it might be as equally hard for him to dispel something that's been hammered into his head over a long time.)  It was my guess then as it still is now that he holds to the belief that the USA had become great due to diversity*.  It was my contention then as it still is now that the USA became great due to freedom, right to personal property ownership and therefrom, incentive and motivation of those who have the vision of what they can achieve by having freedom and owning their property.  Such, can be found nowhere else in the world. There is no mention of "diversity" in any of our country's founding documents, not even mention of the term "democracy" either, but that's another potential issue. (A true democracy would be where a sheep and two wolves would vote on what to have for dinner.)  When people from all parts of the world learned of this freedom and right to own property they became motivated to come [immigrate] to the USA and have kept coming ever since.  First freedom, then the draw of that freedom brought diversity. [Conversely, diversity doesn't draw freedom - otherwise it'd be like saying, "birds of a 'different' feather flock together."]  

[*  (Joann, the results of this recent Harvard study are that which you and I have known for years, especially when it comes to language [in that we both learned of it from the story of the Tower of Babel].  Don't expect to see this recent study mentioned on the nightly news of any of the major broadcast networks or other liberal-biased mainstream media.  I have no doubt it has been and will continue to be ignored or suppressed.  It doesn't fit in any template of the modern-day liberal agenda so they'll bury it if it is mentioned at all.) 

"The downside of diversity."  -  The Boston Globe (Aug. 7, '07) "A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?  IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength.

From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.   But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.

The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. 'The extent of the effect is shocking,' says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist. The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation's social fabric..." (emphasis added).]

Was this "freedom and property ownership" due to the USA's geographical location on this planet, its natural resources, the diversity of its climate, vastness of it countryside, and/or other physical attributes?  "No."  Such resources, climate, vastness and such can be found all over the planet.  Its primary language was brought to it from across the ocean.  What set the USA apart from all other countries was its constitution with its recognition of its people's freedom, liberty, and right of personal property ownership.  

The Constitution of this nation-state is an artificial [manmade] creation.  This manmade creation is set forth in words in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  This is what made the USA exceptional.  Our founders recognized certain "... truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... [The Declaration of Independence]" and not from any man or government.  Our country is unique in this respect.   

220 years and a few days ago [Sept. 17, 1787], representatives of thirteen colonies/states agreed upon a constitution that created one nation of several united states.  This Constitution defined this nation of states.  It set forth limitations of its federal powers enumerated in its Articles, Bill of Rights and other amendments.  This Constitution put forth an agreed upon process by which democratically elected representatives made law within its provisions and enforced a limited government with enumerated powers with prescribed duties for which the people of the several states give their consent.  One of the main duties of our government, whether in terms of federal or any of the several states, is to protect their citizenry, people under their jurisdiction, and their property.  In that all the various offices of government, whether federal or state, are all artificial, these offices with are incapable of having any "free will" of their own. The office holder has prescribed duties pursuant to law that he/she is duty-bound to fulfill.  There is little or no room for willful discretion for the office holder as to whether he/she can to decide to perform a duty or not - whether involved with border enforcement or any of the other thousands of governmental positions.  Hence, why we are a nation governed by laws and not ruled by people.  No distinction is prescribed in these forenamed founding documents that recognizes, much less discerns, difference among peoples' race, religion, or ethnicity or is enumerated as power from which the government, through its officials, could then thereby engage constitutionally.   

"Policy, laws, and fences will not stop immigration. Economics controls immigration. Where there is economic opportunity there will be immigration [- RF]."  This would be true if anything less than 100% success is deemed failure.  If you were talking about prophylactics or pricking an inflated balloon he'd have a "point." [*smile*]   However, such view doesn't work across the board.  One might get the mistaken idea that Robert doesn't lock his car doors, house, garage or close his fence at night because he thinks as with any other such barrier, they simply don't work; and moreover, he assumes apparently that unwanted intruders or would-be burglars or thieves would see no "economic opportunity" for themselves to enter his property and therefore it would make no difference whatsoever to such would-be burglar or thief whether a door was locked or not.   

Aside from what Robert's dog Toby could be made to believe, I think that Robert would be hard-pressed to convince Israelis that fences don't work. Since the time of final construction of the Israeli fence, the number of suicide/homicide bombings in Israel have been dramatically reduced, not by 100% but somewhere between 75 to 95%.  Is 75 to 95% more lives being saved successful or not worth the cost and effort?  [Joann, remember my definition of "success" is "The cognizable, forward progression towards a worthy goal."]  East Berliners who wanted to escape into West Berlin who would have essentially agreed with Robert's thinking must have, at the time, thought the construction and then, finally, the destruction of the Berlin Wall to have been nothing more than a Soviet boondoggle from start to finish, that is, from the time of its construction to the time it was torn down - and for the duration of its existence, nothing more than a mere impediment between the free flow of people from East and West. It seems highly doubtful that Robert believes this about the Berlin Wall's history.  

To suggest that any given citizen, whether you or any other, in the USA who desires his/her nation's sovereignty and borders protected and enforced, which in turn, protects them and their property, is thereby somehow advocating racism* in such matters, is ridiculous, but nonetheless, puts generally the accused into defensive posture.  Instead of pursuing, they become pursued and retreating from their endeavor.  On the other hand, bringing forth such false accusation does suggest there may be an underlying agenda for which a "red herring" accusation of "racism" could be a ploy, whether known, or unknown to the person or persons voicing or simply parroting the accusation.  That, of course, is where my previous mention of "useful idiots" comes into play.   

[*  Accusation of "racism" is a common ploy used by liberals and many democrats over the years, with at least one exception, longtime liberal and Democrat Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd, former Grand Wizard of the KKK.  I think he may have been too embarrassed to have ever derogatorily made that accusation publicly, but then again, I could be wrong.  At any rate, the term "racism," or derivatives, is/are akin to saying that someone, usually one's child, should be "ashamed of" him/herself, however, adults say such to other adults as well.  Child psychologists warn parents to not use this term/phrase when talking to any of their children, "you should be ashamed of yourself."  Rather, psychologists advocate in such seemingly meriting instances for parents to instead address the given behavior of the child as opposed to the child's self identity.  The reason is that the child has the ability to change her/his behavior and climb out of the figurative hole they're in and thereby regain approval of the parent and others.  When their identity and self-worth is made to sound terrible and shameful, there's no action they can take, no argument, no justification, nothing they can climb out of, leaving them stuck in negativity, feeling ashamed of themselves.  When that is the view of oneself, it promotes more of the same behavior that got them there in the first place. (The Strangest Secret: "We become what we think about.")  With this in mind, modern-day liberals know the debate is over.  Throw the "race card" out there quick.  They then can seem justified to onlookers for not taking further time arguing with that which is shameful; thus, hiding the reality that (more often than not) they can't back up the given claim they made that was challenged.]   

Whether democrat or republican, many politicians see turning illegal immigrants and their families [when including families, estimates of 45 + million more into the USA in the next decade or so] into new voters.  They see a whole new voting paradigm.  A irreversible change in the politics of the USA.  Conservatives, however, know that today's liberal democrat politician sees a whole new giant block of potential voters who are uneducated, unskilled, low income earners that could keep them perpetually in power by forever promising them, and "making good" to some extent, redistribution of wealth that would be too enticing, over the long run, for them to ignore.  In other words, the message to these potential voters would be that a government administrated by liberal democrats for whom they voted, will take property/money from those who have it and earned it [vast majority], and give it to those who don't  and haven't - namely, them, the newly naturalized, poorly educated, unskilled, low income immigrants and their families. It would be essentially, the newest and biggest "New Deal" socialism promotion since the original brought to us by FDR that would again be pretending to guarantee them all that they will essentially need from cradle to grave and of course, not to mention, "a chicken in every pot!"  

The USA has already, unconstitutionally, been turned into a welfare state.  Under current demographics 

and entitlement programs, it is already quite questionable if it can last.  In a few short years adding 45 + million, poorly educated, unskilled, low income people who would most likely be prime prospects to go on the government dole, namely people whose vast majority would be an immediate drain on the already highly questionable welfare sustainability would be the death knell for this country, at least as we know it.  

----- Original Message -----

From: joann
To: michael
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:36 PM
Subject: Fw: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Michael read this one and give me comment please Joann 

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert Fox
To: joann
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Hi Joann,

Here's a response to your comments:

1. What do you mean "I am far from racist look at you"? What about me should I be looking at?

2. "Politically based emails" refers to emails that present only one side of the argument. They generally support a specific policy position. They are negative and stereotypical. They always use graphic pictures or comments used to solicit strong feelings and immediate visceral reactions. And, most of the time, with a little investigation, these images can be proved to be false and misleading.

3. If you think that immigration is an important issue that "needs to be addressed" and that "concerns every citizen" then why not address the actual issue. Sending around emails such as the one that started this conversation is not addressing the issue. It is characterizing Mexican people who sneak across the border as being people who create waste and garbage, people who don't care about this country, people who are "illegal" and lawbreakers, "monsters", "invaders" and "human smugglers." How is that addressing the issue? That is negative characterizing and stereotyping! If you had a personal relationships or were related to a Mexican person who got across the border because it was a matter of life and death, I am sure that you would be proud of them taking action and doing what they had to do in order to survive. Many, many Mexican people are in that situation. When they arrive here, they stimulate our economy (they need to eat, to house themselves, to buy gas, clothes, utilities, etc.), they help America produce its products and services, they pay employment taxes (and if they don't, it is because their American employers are breaking the law and not reporting their wages to the IRS), and they add to the cultural vitality of this country. In a nation where the unemployment levels are at only 4%, how are these people harming the US?

Policy, laws, and fences will not stop immigration. Economics controls immigration. Where there is economic opportunity there will be immigration. If the people who were so "concerned" about immigration actually understood the forces controlling it, they would seek to halt American big-business from going abroad, destroying local economies and pillaging local resources, which creates poverty and the need to immigrate. At its core, this is a human issue. People with love in their hearts should be focusing on the immense pressures that are causing Mexican people to decide to leave their families, their cultures, and their countries, and to risk prison or death, for a chance at life. The solution is not to support the Minute Men (as the email below does) who want to drive around in the desert in pickup trucks and shoot at Mexican people! That is pure, unadulterated hatred based upon assumed racial superiority, for which the south has always been known. The solution is love, empathy, and concern for people of all nations. American's should not only be concerned with themselves; the Bible tells us to love our neighbors.

At its core, the Mexican border argument is not at all about immigration; it is about many white American's perceptions of Mexican people's fitness for citizenship. My Great-great-grandfather never had to struggle to get in this country. He was let in the country because German and Irish people were considered as favorable candidates for American citizenship. However, because Mexicans are brown, have a very different culture, and speak a very different language, many white American's don't like them. Many white American's don't think that Mexicans will integrate into American society. They think that hearing Spanish (or even a thick Spanish accent) is offensive: "this is America; speak English." They don't understand the pride that Mexican immigrants have in their culture and their home country. They are fearful of having to interact with people that look different than them and are of another ethnicity. Yet, when it comes to the Canadian border never a fearful word is uttered! Why is that? It's because American's are not fearful of Canadians who are largely of European decent, who speak English, and who have a similar culture. If Canadians sneak across the border (as many do), they are not perceived as posing a threat to the white American status quo, so it never becomes an issue.

Those are some of the reasons for my reaction to your initial email and hopefully some things for you to think about.

Love,

Robert

----- Original Message ----
From: joann
To: Robert
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:46:08 PM
Subject: Re: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Robert I am surprised for you to think I am racist! I am far from racist look at you...I just think that if people want to get into this country they need to do it the legal way. We are a country of rules and if rules are not followed we wouldn't have the country we have today. Your Great Great grandpa came in to the country the legal way I am sure he had many heart ships to indure but he did it for his future family. I think that the USA has let these people who sneak in get away with it too long. Just think of the people in AZ. where this photo were taken and seeing there beautiful country side looking like garbage. These people I feel sorry for but there own government  don't take care of there own, we can not take care of everyone who comes in the backdoor they have to come in to our country the right way like most of there relatives have done sometimes waiting years to get there USA citizenship The relatives no matter what nationality they are are also mad at these people who don't come in legally when they did it them selves the correct and legal way. I am offended that you even had a thought of me being racist it upsets me and when I send this information, racist crap, as you call it I am just passing on info that needs to be addressed. What do you mean, politically based emails? This is not a problem of just one party it effects all of us US citizens. This is a United States problem that concerns every citizen.  Joann  

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert
To: joann; [others] Cc: [others]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Please don't send me this racist crap any more. I do not agree with any of your politically based forwarded emails. They are consistently close-minded and anti-American. America was built by immigrants. If America was as anti-German or as anti-Irish as many people are anti-Mexican, you wouldn't even have the opportunity to send around such garbage.

I still love you, but your forwarded emails oftentimes infuriate me. It would be best if you didn't include me in your mailing list.

Love,

Robert

----- Original Message ----
From: joann
To: [others]
Cc: [others] robert
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:23:49 PM
Subject: Fw: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

----- Original Message -----
From: Pete S
To: William W
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:22 AM
Subject: Fw: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Oh so very true!!!!  pete

Subject: Our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

Subject: Fw: Recent pics of our Beautiful Sonoran Desert

 

This has to be shared in order to get the word out.

This is just one of the effects upon America because of our open, unprotected borders.

A lot of your tax dollars are supporting illegals. Write or email your congressman and senators and tell them to secure our border.

HERE IS A REAL EYE OPENER FOR YOU. 

We are all breathed sigh of relief the day the Senate defeated the Amnesty Bill, but the USA is still being invaded!

We discovered one of the biggest lay-ups we have ever found.

This lay-up is on an 'illegal super highway' from Mexico to the USA (Tucson) used by human smugglers. This lay-up area is located in a wash area approximately ¼ of a mile long just south of Tucson.