Isn't Democracy the will of majorities in a country? So when Mexicans R a Majority & Jews a minority, is what?

Question

weird!
Most Americans are pro-Comprehensive Reforms and Full Civil rights for Immigrants.
But the anti-Mexican Media is manipulated by a minority!
Is this Democracy or Autocracy?

Answer 1

Jews have always been a minority....The media is only concerned about ratings.....They produce what viewers want to see....

Answer 2

Years ago it used to be a simple majority rule. That was also when our populaiton was much smaller and spread out over a larger distance. Today our Democracy is based on a Majority rule with a minority consent. 51% of a vote or pupulation is a majority but you simply can not ignore the other 49%. If you look at the numbers alone today it is simply to dangerous, that is why you see so much debate on immigration reform. You can not ignore people including Hispanics who have been here for generations simply because recently there is a new and larger number making a new majority.

Answer 3

Mexicans are America!
When you say.... Joe Lieberman is a Jew
or
that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian
or
Alberto Gonzales is Mexican
or
Diaz Balart is cuban..

Is all wrong!
They are just Americans!

But only when is good for the media... LOL

Democracy in America was kidnapped by Bush and his lobby pupetmasters.

America need to recover Democracy!
That's why I will vote Democrats! ( the best side of our bipartisan system)

Answer 4

Actually the majority is not for full civil illegal immigrant reform. I AM NOT. People who break the law should not be granted citizen ship. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to follow the law. Those who have entered this country illegal should be deported regardless of their family situation. Like i said ignorance of the law is not an excuse to follow it. Illegals broke our laws, they should not be rewarded for it. They only have them selves to balme when they are deported and thier children are left behind. You knew you were illegally here, now you have to lay in the bed you made

Answer 5

umm poll after poll show that the American people oppose the legislation in the US Senate and want to see a bill that secures the border first and then have the Congress deal with the other issues after.

Answer 6

Why do you see Jews as anti Mexican? The Jewish groups I know of are pro-amnesty, actually.

Answer 7

Now you know why some people want your kind here.
Because of there stupidity,to be an American is to believe in democracy.

Answer 8

they cant get rid of no Mexican because Mexicans are the reason it is so clean in America because without them they don't care they just want money they will work as hard as anyone for just a pay man that's sad if its anyone that works hard its the Mexicans they work extra hard that's why they should be giving papers man because if it was not for them **** would be really different in this America.....

Answer 9

Wow thats deep! good question

Answer 10

Perhaps....IF WE WERE A DEMOCRACY! That is EXACTLY what our forefathers feared happening: a simple majority running amuck with the minority.

We have a Representative Republic! You can call it a Democracy if you like, but we don't meet the definition! And thank God we do not! And I know of no true democracies!

Actually, since Bush is in office, he is exactly what kind of president George Washington feared!

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the
State, with particular reference to the founding of them on
geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more
comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner
against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature,
having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.
It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or
less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the
popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly
their worst enemy.

. . .

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble
the public administration. It agitates the community with
illfounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity
of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and
insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government
itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy
and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and
will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful
checks upon the administration of government, and serve to keep
alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is
probably true; and in governments of a monarchial cast
patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon
the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in
governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be
enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there
being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force
of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be
quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting
into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a
free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with
its administration to confine themselves within their
respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise
of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.
The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers
of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever
the form of government, a real despotism.

. . .

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification
of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it
be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution
designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though
this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The
precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any
partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who
should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness
- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The
mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect
and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their
connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply
be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the
oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of
justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that
morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be
conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of
peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary
spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more
or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a
sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to
shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object
of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of
knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives
force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion
should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish
public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as
sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by
cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely
disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent
much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise
the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of
expense, but by exertions in time of peace to discharge the
debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously
throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves
ought to bear.

. . .

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate
peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this
conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin
it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant
period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too
novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and
benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things
the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary
advantage which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can
it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity
of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is
recommended by every sentiment which enobles human nature.
Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than
that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular
nations and passionate attachments for others should be
excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings
toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges
toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is
in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to
its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray
from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury,
to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and
intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another
produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in
cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into
one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a
participation in the quarrles and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to
concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to
others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the
concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have
been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a
disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal
privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious,
corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the
favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests
of their own country without odium, sometimes even with
popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense
of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion,
or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish
compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

. . .

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you
to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must
be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence
to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive
partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of
another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one
side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence
on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the
favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its
tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people
to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations
is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as
little political connection as possible. So far as we have
already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect
good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a
very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent
controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to
our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to
implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary
vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations
and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to
pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an
efficient government, the period is not far off when we may
defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take
such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any
time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when beligerent
nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon
us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we
may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice,
shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit
our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our
destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with
any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now
at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of
patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim
no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty
is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those
engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion
it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments
on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to
temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended
by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial
policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking
nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the
natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle
means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing
with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course,
to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the
Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse,
the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will
permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time
abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall
dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one
nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it
must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may
accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may
place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for
nominal favors, and yet being reproached with ingratitude for
not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect
or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an
illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought
to discard.
George Washinton's Farewell Address, 1796