[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

I have spent the last few days thinking about how much agreement must be had within the ranks of the border security movement. I think this is an important question if we are going to grow. At the old site, there was a definite air that unless you supported Ron Paul's primary bid at the Republican nomination for President you were not a "true" Patriot. That got worse during the general election campaign, when it was the supporting of various and sundry third party candidates.

One of the members of the old board was a young guy. I would consider him left of center. On a couple of occasions he voiced some of his politics, and was immediately denounced as not being a "true" patriot. This man was every bit as much a patriot as the next guy when it came to border security. However, it was not enough for some of the posters. They seemed to demand "pure" ideology from anyone that dared to enter their domain. I believe that this attitude severely crippled that organization, and is one of the reasons that led to its ultimate demise.

The same thing is happening here, and I fear that if we do not learn from history, we will be doomed to repeat it. I speak of my opposition to Arizona's SB 1070. Because I have voiced opposition and concerns to it, I have been labeled a la razaist. So my question to you members and administration, is there now going to be an ideological "litmus" test? Do members have to agree 100% with every piece of law, in order to avoid being termed a "la razaist" by other members of this board?

Further, my opposition to this bill, is based on my concerns over its potential abuse by law enforcement on American citizens and legal residents/immigrants in this country. It seems that there is a propensity to regard all Latinos as "the usual suspects," and this is deeply troubling to me. I continually get the feeling that there are people on this board who regard people like me as second class citizens, not worthy of the same respect and equal treatment. It should be pointed out that these same people have posted openly their admiration for the actions of white nationalists and nazis in this country!

So I am left with the question, how much ideological agreement must one have to post here? And is there real freedom to post dissent without running the risk of being called a "la razaist? Or should people that agree with the general idea of border security, but disagree on specific details just shut up and go away. Further thinning the already thinned ranks of this movement, and making it look even more like the gathering of far right kooks that the leftist media makes it out to be? I hate using the word, because the Left has ruined it, but is there room for tolerance within this group, and this movement? Again, I am not speaking of the things perpetrated by the Gilchrests, Nightingales, and Gheens of this movement, but on issues where there can be civil disagreement.

What say you?

A lot of people just don't seem to understand that there are many different people out there with many different ways of thinking who just happen to be "Hispanic".

Some of the people here agree with and expound on the propaganda brown racists dish out: race is indicative of language, culture, nationality, political belief, and personal belief concerning illegal immigration.

Much of the commentary seems to be directed towards "Hispanics" as if they were all the same exact person, rather than illegality and the problems with importing poverty and displacing American workers of all races and all ancestries as well as government sanctioned fraud and the rest.

They're all willfully ignorant, criminal, Drug pushing, gang banging, child molesting, Mexican flag waving, perpetually drunken pervert border hoppers, every last one of them - regardless of who and what they truly are.

Just as it slaps me in the face as who is likely to be an illegal, I also see a multitude of people who don't fit that description and have no fondness for illegals as illegals don't respect them and drive them out of work too, yet are driven into supporting illegals by rhetoric in tune with the above sentence.

I support the idea of the Arizona law, it would go a long way towards taking the cuffs off immigration enforcement. However, there is also the probability that the pendulum would swing too far and target people who aren't illegal.

As I've stated before, the other person of my household has personally experienced pre 1964 white racism - it's ugly and it doesn't need to come back.

For what it's worth.