Increased visibility of homosexuals, increased homosexual discease, and maybe increased homosexuality itself has occurred at the same time that we have had increased illegal immigration. (not that I would want interject facts into the discussion)

Perhaps the US is now a magnet for homos the world over. I do know that single males are disproportately represented in the illegal immigrant population.

It's a new twist anyway, the wogs want to rape out men, not our women?

You might want to check your medication--you need a higher dosage.

"[S]ingle males are disproportately represented in the illegal immigrant population"

There's no mystery to that: Single males are more footloose, more capable of defending themselves, and more capable of finding enough work to support themselves, than either married men or women, single or married.

Yet more evidence that the ultra-left and the ultra-right (Pat Buchanan) are on the same side, though neither yet realizes it.

Mike:

They realize; they're just too mortified to talk about it openly. But Pat Buchanan did run with a Socialist last time.

But OJ forgets (conveniently) the tremendous distinction implied by the word Citizen. There is little doubt that most of the immigrants quoted are American citizens.

When I lived in Sacramento area, it was across the street from a Methodist church that had two services on Sunday. The second one, in Korean, always seemed to be better attended, based on the cars in the lot, number people milling around after, etc.

More arranged marriages, too.

Whoopee.

Michael, Mike, OJ,

I was joking.(as regards Mexicans anyway)

Actually on the margin I would suggest that more liberal the country is regarding homosexuality, that you would see increased homosexuality in the immigrant population.

Mike

"Yet more evidence that the ultra-left and the ultra-right (Pat Buchanan) are on the same side, though neither yet realizes it"

Listen Pal, I'm with Bush.

Harry:

Nothing wrong with arranged marriages.

Paul:

They weren't until they'd been here several years. But they were Americans from day one.

Harry: yeah, my wife arranged mine and barely checked with me to see if it was ok first.

Some day I'll tell y'all the story of how my mother proposed to my wife, without checking with me first.

OJ:

Bunk. There became Americans when they took the Citizenship Pledge. Before that, they were not Americans, though many were admirable Christians brothers and sisters.

O.J.,

Do the cost benefit analysis.

It's like handing someone a dollar bill to make change and getting a quarter in return.
For every evangelical Korean coming to the country there are probably 10 rock worshipers.

Your population replacement theories are both
fascinating and horrifying.

Paul:

You elevate a mere technical pledge above their beliefs? How formulaic.

"Formulaic"? Only someone deeply infected by dreary post-modern decay would imagine that the public tranferral, declared as an oath before God, of a man's loyal from the country of his birth to another is mere formula.

“It is not monarchy or aristocracy against which the modern spirit fights, but loyalty.” -- Orestes Brownson.

If the pledge is what makes them citizens give it at the border and let them all come

Count me against monarcy, Orestes.

OJ:

They cannot do so. The oath contains the following words "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" -- which, if administered to someone in the midst of violating those laws, would have to be taken in bad faith.

And yet OJ would ask us to trust the loyalty of someone who violates an oath even as he speaks it.

You live under what amounts to a monarchy, Harry. Washington is our Versailles.

"will" is prospective, not retrospective.

Prospectively, they are violating our laws.

Not if they're citizens and all that takes is a few pretty words apparently.

Again, we want no one here who will exchange his loyalty with "a few pretty words." Not for nothing do loyalty oaths have a rich and varied history in this country.

Regarding the harmonic convergence of the ultra-left and the ultra-right into a giant undifferentiated mass of moonbattery: Michael Medved commented on his show this afternoon that Pat Buchanan is going to endorse Ralph Nader for president.

Anyone else hear or see a report on that anywhere?

Well, Paul, I happen to believe, contra Orrin, that most people much prefer kings to freedom.

But 2 Bushes in the White House is not quite the same as a dynasty.

When we start anointing presidents, I'll believe we're monarchical.

Harry:

I believe kings are the best guarantors of freedom.

"Not if they're citizens and all that takes is a few pretty words apparently."

When people like you make such statements,I have to admit my emotional attachment to my own citizenship weakens.What's it's value when strangers and lawbreakers easily aquire rights and privileges equal to or greater then my own and are burdened with few of the obligations of citizenship?
Why should I have respect for the Law when they,and you ,don't?
Why should I accept it's legitimacy when you,and they,don't?
If it's all about tribal privilege,why shouldn't I fight for my tribe and damn you as a tribal traitor?

You should. Your side is doomed but you may as well go down fighting. Want to borrow a white sheet?

"These are the folks the anti-immigrationists would keep out of the country."

No, I have no problem with Koreans. It's the Mexicans I want to keep out.

Not that I have anything in particular against them either, it's just that I don't like having to large a fraction of the country be immigrants from any single place. If we took in the same number of people from a hundred different countries and cultures, the chances of any of them forming a "critical mass" to create an unassimilated subculture would be much lower.

Yeah, the problem wasn't that they were Irish, but that there were so many of them...

"What [is the value of citizenship] when strangers and lawbreakers easily aquire rights and privileges equal to or greater then my own and are burdened with few of the obligations of citizenship?"

Illegal immigrants do NOT aquire rights and privileges equal to those of American citizens, much less greater, and legal immigrants don't EASILY aquire said rights and privileges.

As to the "burden" of citizenship, it's largely self-selected. There are plenty of American citizens who don't vote or serve on juries.
About the only burden a male citizen can't put down is compulsory military service, and not only is that not currently a worry, it hasn't been for the vast majority of American history.

Versailles is better than Brussels or Berlin (or Moscow). I suppose Concord would be the best example, but for every Concord, there are probably four Albanys.

I know you do, Orrin. But you're wrong.

Even if you were right, the kind of monarchy most people yearn for does not include freedom. What they want to believe is that Little Father the Tsar cares for them and if only he would come to their village, everything would be set right.

Speaking of immigrants, how is the drive to fill N.H. with alien Libertarians working out? Does it make for more interesting town meetings?

(It will be interesting to see, a few winters after they've taken over, how Hampshiremen like being cooped up with their kiddies all winter because the roads are impassable.)

Harry:

They're too self absorbed to show up for civic duties.