Lets hurry & let them all vote so we be more like Mexico sooner!

[Christians4LessGvt]

Latinos Seek Citizenship in Time for Voting
By JULIA PRESTON

March 7, 2008

A lawsuit filed Thursday in a federal court in New York by Latino immigrants seeks to force immigration authorities to complete hundreds of thousands of stalled naturalization petitions in time for the new citizens to vote in November.

The class-action suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants in the New York City area who are eager to vote and have been waiting for years for the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency to finish their applications. The suit demands that the agency meet a nationwide deadline of Sept. 22 to complete any naturalization petitions filed by March 26.

Latino groups hope to summon the clout of the federal courts to compel the Bush administration to reduce a backlog of citizenship applications that swelled last year. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, more than one million citizenship petitions were backed up in the pipeline by the end of December, the majority from Latino immigrants.

Despite protests over the delays from lawmakers, Latino groups and immigrant advocates, the immigration agency is currently projecting wait times of 16 months to 18 months to process the petitions.

?The reality is that large numbers of Latinos will not be able to vote in the elections because of these delays,? said Cesar A. Perales, president of the defense fund. ?Now the world will know that the Latino community expects the Bush administration to get this done on time.?

Christopher S. Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said he could not comment on pending litigation.

?Our commitment is to work through the naturalization applications as quickly as we can without compromising the security and integrity of the process,? Mr. Bentley said.

The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, asserts that the agency violated immigrants? due process rights by routinely failing to finish their applications within a 180-day time period that Congress has set as a standard. It also asserts that the Bush administration did not follow regulatory procedures in November 2002 when it ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to deepen its background checks of citizenship applicants.

Foster Maer, a lawyer for the defense fund, said it would soon file motions asking the court to order the agency immediately to meet the September deadline, which is intended to leave new citizens time to register to vote.

Manuel Martinez, 35, a legal immigrant from Mexico who is a plaintiff in the suit, filed his petition in January 2006. It has been delayed because the F.B.I. has not completed the required background check, he said. He said he suspected the problem was that he has a common Hispanic name.

?I want to be a citizen yesterday, not tomorrow,? said Mr. Martinez, who has lived in the United States since 1990. ?I am really worried about the economy, and the deficit is too much. I need to vote.?

A fee increase, raising naturalization costs 80 percent to $595, went into effect on July 30. Legal immigrants were also spurred to seek citizenship by worries about the divisive debate over immigration and by citizenship campaigns by Latino groups.

?It is astonishing the government should be so unresponsive to immigrants who have enthusiastically taken all the steps to become Americans,? said Janet Murgu?a, president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino group that supported the suit.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/us/07immig.html?ei=5065&en=58025c09bf987fad&ex=1205557200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[fatman]

First of all, the suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.  Nothing to do with Mexico, as your title implies, but you already knew that.  Immigrant = Mexico to you evidently.

These are not illegal immigrants, so I don't know why you're hysterical.  Immigrants emigrate from a country for a reason, I'm pretty sure that they didn't immigrate hee so that we could "be more like Mexico sooner!".  They want the naturalization process speeded up so that they can vote in this election.  Evidently it takes a long time for the govt to get off its ass and go through the process, this happens in pretty much every area of govt.

Why do you have an issue with naturalized citizens wanting the process sped up so that they can vote?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that Mexicans who really liked Mexico, would have stayed in Mexico, and those who have come here have come here because the US is NOT like Mexico, and they do not wish to turn the US into another Mexico.

If they are naturalized citizens, they should be able to vote. Immigration has computers and this is not a difficult nor lengthy process. Allowing someone to vote is not a terrorism-related item.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Why do you have an issue with naturalized citizens wanting the process
sped up so that they can vote?

Until they jump through all the hoops they ought to shut their freaking pie-holes and
thank god they are allowed in here. We really don't need more immigrants that one
of the first things they do when they get here is start suing people.

[Christians4LessGvt]

First of all, the suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.  Nothing to do with Mexico, as your title implies, but you already knew that.  Immigrant = Mexico to you evidently

Quit playing your silly ass games.
It says right in the article Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants
It may be a PR Legal Fund but it says they are suing on behalf of "Hispanic Immigrants" what country makes up the vast majority of "Hispanic Immigrants"?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well, they are not going to do what you think they should, and they are not going to shut up or stop suing just because you dislike them for trying to vote.

========================
Can you rephrase this sentence so that it makes better sense?

"We really don't need more immigrants that one of the first things they do when they get here is start suing people."

We?  Is that frog still in your pocket?

I bet most of them will vote Democratic, too.

[Christians4LessGvt]

I suggest that Mexicans who really liked Mexico, would have stayed in Mexico, and those who have come here have come here because the US is NOT like Mexico, and they do not wish to turn the US into another Mexico

Then why do they protest and wave Mexican Flags?
Why do they come here and refuse to adopt the language?
They don't give a rats ass about the US, it's a paycheck.





If they wave the Mexican flag and are so prideful why don't they return to that
shit-hole called Mexico? To come here and not learn the language, reap the benefits
of our great country, and then wave the flag of a shit-hole they had to flee really shows
these morons have very limited brain matter between their ears.

[fatman]

Until they jump through all the hoops they ought to shut their freaking pie-holes and
thank god they are allowed in here.

It seems to me, after reading the article, that they've jumped through the hoops and they're waiting on the government.  I see nothing wrong with suing to get the government to do its damned job, and it's a shame that it has to come to that point.  This election is an exciting thing for a lot of Americans, with some fresh choices available.  These people are doing their damndest to become Americans, to take part in democracy (which, btw, a lot of citizens are too lazy, bored, or apathetic to do).  I would think that you would support such an effort.

We really don't need more immigrants that one
of the first things they do when they get here is start suing people.

That's a rather patronizing attitude.  What recourse do they have but to sue?  They can't vote so I would think that a letter to their Congressperson would be near worthless.  What would you have them do, shut their freaking pie hole and thank God they're allowed in?

Quit playing your silly ass games.

Who's playing games?  I'm not playing games, but I'm going to point out a large mistake you've made in your thread title and in your argument.

It says right in the article Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants
It may be a PR Legal Fund but it says they are suing on behalf of "Hispanic Immigrants" what country makes up the vast majority of "Hispanic Immigrants"?

From Wiki:  36% of the city's population is foreign-born.[2] Among US cities, this proportion is higher only in Los Angeles and Miami.[6] While the immigrant communities in those cities are dominated by a few nationalities, in New York no single country or region of origin dominates. The eleven nations constituting the largest sources of modern immigration are the Dominican Republic, China, Jamaica, Guyana, Pakistan, Ecuador, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Albania, Colombia, and Russia.[7

The six largest ethnic groups as of the 2005 census estimates are: Puerto Ricans, Italians, West Indians, Dominicans, Chinese, and Irish .[12]

Mexico isn't even in the top ten, so your "vast majority of Hispanic Immigrants" argument doesn't fly.  The vast majority of hispanic immigrants, in the New York City area, which the suit represents (not all Hispanic immigrants in the nation), are Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Colombian.  If you've been to Puerto Rico and Mexico, you'd know that they are different and distinct cultures, so I'm guessing that you haven't been to both.

You might want to at least delve into the material before you start posting blanket, unsubstantiated, and misinformed conclusions.  That way this situation, like you posting that Hispanic immigrants in NYC want this country to become like Mexico, doesn't blow up in your face.  Educate yourself, and if you don't know, admit it.  Don't pretend to know and hope no one will catch on, because sooner or later, someone will.

Wikipedia Article:  Demographics of New York City

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

Now here's another issue:  Puerto Ricans have the ability to vote once they come to the US, as they're already considered American citizens of the 1917 Jones Act.  So they're probably not trying to become naturalized citizens.  So who are the Hispanic immigrants being represented?  They could be Mexicans, or they could be Cubans, Dominicans, and Colombians (which I tend to think more likely), or they could be from a host of other Central and South American nations.

Throwing a "Mexico" blanket is not helpful, nor is it informative.

[fatman]

Then why do they protest and wave Mexican Flags?

Protest what?  And when did participating in a protest become wrong?  It is a basic right in this nation after all, enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  As to waving Mexican flags, I don't see you throwing a fit about Rich's Irish Flag (although the true Irish flag doesn't have the shamrock) avatar.  Above the archway to my driveway, I have a Scottish, Swedish, Danish,  and Irish flag flanking the American one.  Go into an Irish neighborhood in NYC or Chicago and count the Irish flags.  What is wrong with celebrating and promoting your heritage?  Or does it only apply if your heritage isn't Hispanic?

Why do they come here and refuse to adopt the language?

Another blanket statement.  In my personal experience, it is the illegal immigrants who choose not to learn English, though some obviously make that effort.  Most legal immigrants make every effort to assimilate themselves into an American lifestyle.  Not all, but most.  I personally would like to see English as the national language, this is mostly for reasons of safety and communication, rather than culture.

They don't give a rats ass about the US, it's a paycheck.

Then why would they even bother to try and be naturalized?  As I understand it (and I may be incorrect), to have American citizenship you have to renounce your prior citizenship, except in rare cases of dual citizenship.  That would mean that they can't move back to Mexico/Dominican Republic/wherever and claim citizenship there without being naturalized.  I don't understand how you're coming up with this opinion.

If they wave the Mexican flag and are so prideful why don't they return to that
shit-hole called Mexico?

For the same reason that Irish don't return to Ireland, the Italians don't return to Italy, and the Germans don't return to Germany:  They like it here, they like their life here, and they feel that they have more opportunity and more of a chance at a better life here than they did in their home nation.

To come here and not learn the language, reap the benefits
of our great country, and then wave the flag of a shit-hole they had to flee really shows
these morons have very limited brain matter between their ears.

General Naturalization Requirements

Age
Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
Refer to the section, Naturalized Citizen's Children under Waivers, Exceptions, and Special Cases for information on applicants who are less than 18 years old.
See Also INA 334

Residency
An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status.


See Also INA 316

Residence and Physical Presence

An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:

has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (see preceding section);
has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with no single absence from the United States of more than one year;
has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year shall disrupt the applicant's continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period)
has resided within a state or district for at least three months
Good Moral Character
Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990. A person also cannot be found to be a person of good moral character if during the last five years he or she:

has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude
has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more
has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana
has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more
has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses
is or has earned his or her principal income from illegal gambling
is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice
is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States
is or has been a habitual drunkard
is practicing or has practiced polygamy
has willfully failed or refused to support dependents
has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An applicant must disclose all relevant facts to the Service, including his or her entire criminal history, regardless of whether the criminal history disqualifies the applicant under the enumerated provisions.


See Also INA 316

Attachment to the Constitution
An applicant must show that he or she is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.


See Also INA 316

Language
Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 15 years or more and are over 55 years of age;
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 20 years or more and are over 50 years of age; or
have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant?s ability to learn English.

See Also INA 312

United States Government and History Knowledge
An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who, on the date of filing, have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant?s ability to learn U.S. History and Government
Applicants who have been residing in the U.S. subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over the age of 65 will be afforded special consideration in satisfying this requirement.

See Also INA 312

 Naturalization Test Questions for Applicants Meeting 65/20 Exception
Test Yourself on U.S. History
Sample U.S. History Questions with Answers
Oath of Allegiance
To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:

support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.;
renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and
bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required.
In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, INS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath

To be a naturalized citizen, you must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.  This argument of yours about not knowing the language falls flat on its face.  And as I stated above and gave evidence of, celebrating your heritage with a flag is not an illegal or treasonistic act.  Your arguments against the legal immigrants are the same ones that were used against the German/Eastern European Immigrans, the Italians, and (with the exception of the language angle) the Irish.  Care to try again?

Personally, I think you're trying to make your argument about illegal immigration, which is a whole different ball game than immigrants requesting the government to speed up the naturalization process.

General Naturalization Requirements:  http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=12e596981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

[Christians4LessGvt]

fatman you are the one that needs to be educated.
because obviously you can't read
but obviously you are adept at jumping to conclusions
so you can demonize and pigeon hole people that dont agree with your crap
my title refers to mexico as being representative of a 3rd world country
mexico is a shit-hole

Also it's a Federal Case....that means it won't just affect New York
it will have effects on the whole country where most immigrants are Mexican

"So who are the Hispanic immigrants being represented?"

well Fatso we know one because it says right in the article: (can you not read?)
Manuel Martinez, 35, a legal immigrant from Mexico who is a plaintiff in the suit

sure it's easier to play some pansy ass "gotcha game" about whether
the title says "more like Mexico", "more like Haiti" , "more like Dominican Republic"
it's not relevant to my point
quit playing games!

rules are rules
they can't vote until all the hoops are jumped through
the US government works slow, but probably a hell of lot faster than most in the world
it's ridiculous these people come here and start suing people
they should shut up and be grateful, not come here and litigate

[Christians4LessGvt]

Protest what?

There have been huge demonstrations across the United States
about crackdowns on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The lawbreakers and the lawbreaker supporters don't
want US law enforced.

They don't give a rats ass about US law.

And when did participating in a protest become wrong?

Lawbreakers (aka Illegal Aliens) protesting our laws and policies is wrong.
They should have no say in our laws and policy, they are not citizens of this country!
We don't care what they think!

As to waving Mexican flags, I don't see you throwing a fit about Rich's Irish Flag
(although the true Irish flag doesn't have the shamrock) avatar.  

Rich is an Amercian Citizen.
Rich didn't come here illegally and then wave the flag of some shithole he left.
Rich is not a lawbreaker sending all his money back to the shithole and then wave the shithole flag.

makes a whole lotta sense to proudly wave the flag of the country that was
sooo bad....such a shit hole......you had to flea by any means possible.
Do these people have a brain?


What is wrong with celebrating and promoting your heritage? 
Or does it only apply if your heritage isn't Hispanic?

Oh here comes the "pigeon hole".
If someone disgrees with Fatso and thinks lawbreaking illegal aliens sneak in here then start
protesting our country, waving the flag of the shithole they left is unacceptable ...
well by gollly I am going to imply they must be a racist!
Yeah, if people disgree with Fats they are racist and that will end the discussion.
Pathetic.

BTW...what a heritage to celebrate. They have really accomplished so much in the last century!

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact that Mexicans are proud of Mexican culture does not mean that they want to turn the US into Mexico. Just like if you drive a Volvo doesn't mean that you will instantly hate hamburgers.

Perhaps you should have someone check you out for racism...you seem to be coming down with a bad case of it.

[fatman]

fatman you are the one that needs to be educated.
because obviously you can't read
but obviously you are adept at jumping to conclusions

Obviously I can read, or I wouldn't have posted the research that I found.  The ability to read is a precursor to the ability to write, so I think that

a.  I have a sufficient education to participate in this discussion
b.  I can read

As for jumping to conclusions, I think that I've demonstrated that you're the one guilty of this offense.  Really, it's not a major deal, admit it and move on, or if it changes your opinion or argument, then make the changes to that opinion or argument.  I've been guilty of misreading something or having a piece of info wrong in the past, and when it's pointed out to me or if I catch it myself, I admit it.

Here's an example: I caught my mistake.

From the article:  The $4-a-gallon forecasts were reported widely in newspapers and on TV in the past week. The White House press secretary took a question about $4 gas at her Wednesday media briefing. A poll last month found that nearly three-quarters of Americans expect $4-a-gallon gas.

BT has a point about Bush being out of the country.  I apologize for the mix-up.

3DHS thread:  http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5628.0

Seriously, I don't understand why it's so difficult to admit a mistake and move on.  We all make a screw up once in awhile, and it's not a major issue usually.

so you can demonize and pigeon hole people that dont agree with your crap

A couple of questions here.

1.  Who have I demonized, how so, and please provide an example.
2.  Who have I pigeon holed, how so, and please provide an example.
3.  How would you know what crap I believe in?  The only personal opinions that I've given prior to this post in this thread are that a.  I think that English should be a national language for safety and communication reasons, b.  I believe it's okay to celebrate your ethnic heritage, and c.  I think that you're wrong.  Everything else has been backed up and substantiated by facts, with links to relevant articles.  What else would you have me do, make your argument for you?  If I'm going to do that I might as well not even come in to this forum, if I can sitat home and argue with myself.

my title refers to mexico as being representative of a 3rd world country

Then why didn't you just say so?  Lets hurry & let them all vote so we be more like Mexico sooner! doesn't come across as being representative of anything other than Mexico.

mexico is a shit-hole

Parts of it are, certainly.  There are also parts that are very beautiful and unique.  That would be similar to myself looking at some inner city crime infested slum and declaring that America is a shithole.  That's the problem with blanket statements, they're often incorrect.  You can't judge the whole by a couple of its parts, you need to take in the whole of the whole.<---- clumsy sentence!

Also it's a Federal Case....that means it won't just affect New York
it will have effects on th whole country where most immigrants are Mexican

It's a Federal Case because it is the Federal Government that administers immigration policies and issues.  This is the only court or venue that the case could be brought.  Any changes that this suit brings about will undoubtedly affect the total of naturalized American immigrants, of which Mexicans were roughly 14% in 2006.  Again, I think that you're trying to make this about illegal immigration, where the vast majority of offenders are Mexican.

well Fatso we know one because it says right in the article: (can you not read?)
Manuel Martinez, 35, a legal immigrant from Mexico who is a plaintiff in the suit

I'm not sure why you're so determined to make this a personal issue, I haven't insulted you, and I've taken the time to back up my posts and opinions with statistics and relevant links.  So let's knock the personal crap off shall we?  I don't think that either of us really need to go there.  Back to your post:  One person in the suit is a Mexican.  Does that make the majority of the plaintiffs Mexican?  Judging by the demographics of NYC, which again the suit represents, I'd bet against it.  Using your argument, I could safely assume that since I met a Chinese immigrant in Chinatown, all immigrants are Chinese.  That dog don't hunt either.

Immigration Demographics:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

sure it's easier to play some pansy ass "gotcha game" about whether
the title says "more like Mexico", "more like Haiti" , "more like Dominican Republic"

Actually, it's not.  I've spent a lot of time this morning looking up articles and posting them, and writing and rewriting my posts to reflect them.  This isn't a gotcha game, personally I could care less.  I have no personal stake in this.  What would be much easier would be to keep changing my meaning, and evidently my point, as you are seeming to do, but I have elected not to take that route.  It's not my fault, nor my problem, that you didn't do any research or back up your thread title and expect me to be a mind reader and divine the "true" meaning of it.  Complaining that I'm playing "gotcha" isn't backing up your claims either.  So either back it up or get off of it.

it's not relevant to my point

Which is what exactly?  No offense, but it seems to rather mercurial in this thread, changing from one post to another.

rules are rules
they can't vote until all the hoops are jumped through

*Sigh*  As I've pointed out before, they've jumped through the hoops.  The only hoop they've got left is the approval from the Govt, which I'm sorry, but 5 and a half months seems reasonable for the government to go through these petitions and approve or deny them in time for the election.  If you feel that it is unreasonable for the government to do that, please explain to me your rationale, preferably something other than the "they should just be happy to be here" line.

the US government works slow, but probably a hell of lot faster than most in the world

Care to back that claim up at all?

it's ridiculous these people come here and start suing people
they should shut up and be grateful, not come here and litigate

Well, no individual has been named in the suit, all the article mentions is Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is a part of the Federal Govt.  The article also states that these people have been waiting for years.  How long would you have them wait?

[fatman]

Protest what?

There have been huge demonstrations across the United States
about crackdowns on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The lawbreakers and the lawbreaker supporters don't
want US law enforced.

They don't give a rats ass about US law.

And when did participating in a protest become wrong?

Lawbreakers (aka Illegal Aliens) protesting our laws and policies is wrong.
They should have no say in our laws and policy, they are not citizens of this country!
We don't care what they think!

As to waving Mexican flags, I don't see you throwing a fit about Rich's Irish Flag
(although the true Irish flag doesn't have the shamrock) avatar.   

Rich is an Amercian Citizen.
Rich didn't come here illegally and then wave the flag of some shithole he left.
Rich is not a lawbreaker sending all his money back to the shithole and then wave the shithole flag.

I'm really beginning to lose some patience here.  The article, and my posts responding to it, have concerned LEGAL IMMIGRATION.  Jeez, I don't know how many times I have to say this.  You obviously don't know jack about what I think about illegal immigration, because none of my posts in this thread have concerned it.  This whole rant of yours above (italicized) is about illegal immigration.  If you want to argue about illegal immigration, fine, take it to another thread.  Let's stick with legal immigration here, and not lump the two together, because they are TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE THINGS.  Hopefully I've cleared that up, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make the point that my posts are about LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

makes a whole lotta sense to proudly wave the flag of the country that was
sooo bad....such a shit hole......you had to flea by any means possible.
Do these people have a brain?

Do the Irish have a brain?  Their country was pretty much a shithole when most of them left it too, many of them were starving.  And yet I still see Irish flags, and not that there's a damned thing wrong with it.

Oh here comes the "pigeon hole".

This is getting old.  I notice that you didn't bother to answer either question.  Is it wrong to celebrate your heritage?  Or is claiming that your opinion is being marginalized the only response that you can make?

If someone disgrees with Fatso and thinks lawbreaking illegal aliens sneak in here then start
protesting our country, waving the flag of the shithole they left is unacceptable ...

Look.  See those big read letters in this post that say "Legal Immigration"?  That's what my posts were about.  I had assumed, from the content of the article that didn't mention illegal immigration, that your posts were about the same.  You don't know jack shit about what I think about illegal immigration, so keep your words out of my mouth please.  You're no more of a mind reader than I am, so quit pretending, okay?  Seems like you're the one doing the pigeonholing here.

well by gollly I am going to imply they must be a racist!
Yeah, if people disgree with Fats they are racist and that will end the discussion.
Pathetic.

Tell you what.  Point out one time, any time in the history of this forum, that I've ever called someone who disagreed with me a racist and I'll apologize.  Really, I'd like to see this.  I'll definitely not hold my breath on this one.  Playing the victim card (and a transparently false one) rather than backing up any of your claims isn't helping your cause at all.  Not one iota.

BTW...what a heritage to celebrate. They have really accomplished so much in the last century!

Since when do you get to decide whether or not someone's heritage is worth celebrating?  What gives you that almighty, all seeing power that you can make that determination?  Your statement probably isn't racist, but it is almost certainly elitist.

[Universe Prince]

Reply #12, good post, Fatman.