He's dead on with this comment!
2007-11-02 04:33:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Phonebreaker 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Pretty good quote. Here are a couple of other interesting quotes, one of which you'll like and one which you won't. Have you ever heard of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)?
The state of Texas had created a law (May 1975) requiring that all children enrolled in the public schools be either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants -- prohibiting illegals. A little more than two years later a lawsuit was filed in Tyler, TX challenging the law as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. All three levels of the federal courts came to the same basic conclusion -- the law is unconstitutionally discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was by a narrow margin, 5 to 4, with Justice Brennan writing the majority opinion, for himself and Justices Blackmun, Marshall, Powell, and Stevens. (In previous cases, Justices Blackmun and Powell had taken the view that the state may constitutionally ban legal immigrants from jobs as police officers (Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978)) and that getting an education is not a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)).) My "favorite" (note the sarcasm) part of Brennan's opinion for the Court is, "It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." What a swell job of understanding the motives of the Texas legislature.
Six years after the Plyler decision, Professor David P. Currie, writing a two-volume text called "The Constitution in the Supreme Court," had harsh words for this particular decision. He wrote, "With all due respect, this is carrying solicitude a little far. Public resources are scarce and those who have no business being here can have poor claim on them. I may have a right to keep a burglar out of my house, the Court appears to be saying, but once he is there I must invite him to dinner."
2007-11-02 11:13:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
The "undocumented" tag is a more generic all-inclusive label for people here without proof of their status. It includes illegals as well as those who can't provide their documentation for whatever reason (lost, stolen, etc.).
It has come to be used as a substitute for "illegal alien" though, but there IS a reason for the more inclusive term. Some people have a knee jerk reaction to thinking terminology is automatically for PC reasons.
They should put a little thought into it first before ranting...
2007-11-02 11:30:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dastardly 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I have said in many posts that I refuse to be PC about this.
As far as Neal goes he is a good host on the radio.
And I Applaud him.
2007-11-02 20:33:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your always at the top of your game, I agree whole heartily with the quote. Let's stop sprucing up the language and call a spade a spade. All the political correct BS is tiresome. It's PRO abortion, not Pro choice. It's anti abortion, not Pro life. It's Welfare, not "a hand up." Losing is losing and sucks, it's not well here is a medal Johnny for participation. It not a GAY lifestyle, it's a homosexual lifestyle. Very tiresome to make the unappealing more appealing. Example: I am for euthanasia of death row inmates.
2007-11-02 11:16:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Hehe, it's pretty funny. I'd agree, and I'm in favor of amnesty ideas, they are illegal aliens and so illegal is an acceptable term for them. Might as well reinforce what they did on them.
2007-11-02 13:21:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Strike true! I like Neil, he calls 'em like he see 'em! I think I'll go see my unlicensed pharmacist a pick something up for the weekend.
2007-11-02 11:18:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Princess of the Realm 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I am at the opposite end of the spectrum from Neal, but i agree with many of his concerns. I enjoy listening to him. But Rush raises my blood pressure too much !
This is a great quote !
Peace
2007-11-02 11:49:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I can't argue with him at all. I wish more people viewed the illegals in the same manner. Perhaps then we could start doing something about them.
2007-11-02 11:12:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by LadySable 6
·
6⤊
0⤋
I think he should boycott all products and services where illegal immigrants are involved to prove he is serious. His hunger strike should begin now since all of his food is involved at the very least.
2007-11-02 11:29:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I agree and what part of illegal don't the politicians understand.
2007-11-03 14:27:08
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋