As you can see, some folks here in the United States are Native Americans even though there ancestry might be from a foreign country. Who really discovered America? Where did those indigenous Native American Indians come from?
Going to jail is one consequence of a law, but there are other negative consequences that don't require as much proof. The presumption of innocence doesn't prevent police from arresting people they suspect of having committed a crime. The law in the OP gives overzealous police legal cover to investigate and detain anyone who gives humanitarian aid to people who might be illegal. If church officials want to ensure that they won't be hassled by police, they have to verify immigration status. Pretend there are two churches across the street from each other. One is known to check the immigration status of anyone they give charitable aid to and the other doesn't check. Which one do you think police will go to when they need to up their immigration arrest numbers?
I believe there is a difference between "native Americans", Americans born in America, and "Native Americans", which by it's capital N is a proper noun (I might have mixed up the correct terms here but it sounds cooler if I make a guess) and refer to the "people" (that choice of words can also be disputed).
Well Swensson.. I admire you for your ability to speak up with the fact that you MIGHT be incorrect in your use of terms, and I also admire your effort in correcting the matter. Of course, over the past couple of years, you should know that I tend to lean on the strict definition(s) of words. If the writer is not clear in his/her intended use, then I can only presume the fullness of the accepted definitions. Even in claiming Native American (referencing the American Indians), there is still the problem of where did they originate? Was there a second or perhaps a 127th forming of mankind in that 'origin' of man? I don't think so, and the historical records available also disclose that there is a high probability that the American Indians traversed across the Aleutian Islands and migrated southward to what is known as American and there they took up residence. So, in that sense, there are no 'indigenous' people of the United States (America). But for the record, I am an indigenous person of the United States, born here, raised here... which meets the definition requirements, making me a Native American. My family dating back 175 years were all born in America.
I would say that "Native American" is a name which, of course has its origin in that the Indians were native when people first came, but is now an independent word. So the words Native American does not change even when our understanding of the word native does, Native American is defined independently of the word native. As far as I knew, native just meant that you were born there. But then again, I'm no expert on either English linguistics or American inhabitants and I am sure you had a proper discussion, before I intervened, to which I shall now allow you to continue.
Please stick around, I enjoy discussing things with you. You are probably one of the more (MOST) civil minded persons on this forum.
Really? That is ironic, as I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about 'bowing to robots'. As a matter of fact, I don't remember reading anything in the American Law books pertaining to 'injuns'? Amazing that similarity between American Law books and the Bible.
I'm not talking about law books. I'm talking about the only book. Here you going on about "historical records" and such nonsense.
Wrong: You previously stated: All of the terms highlighted in red text are your choice of words prior to the discussion of legal books and such. Those terms are all terms of the judicial spectrum and are found predominately in law books... not in the Bible in the sense that you have used them. So the lesson for you to learn here, is if you don't want a thread to go off topic, then don't use terms and phrases that belong outside the arena you are wanting to discuss.
I was responding specifically to your introduction of the "historical record" to the topic. Well, that sounds like a bunch of science mumbo jumbo to me.
Well you are still wrong. "Indeed, our immigration system is badly flawed. It makes it very difficult for some people to gain status. And of course, unless you are Native American, we are all immigrants." My first comment on that subject was the discussion about not seeing the word 'injuns' being contained in the American Law Books which was in response to you suggesting that you had not seen 'injuns' mentioned in the Bible. I said nothing about historical records at that point.
You stand corrected: I don't think so, and the historical records available also disclose that there is a high probability that the American Indians traversed across the Aleutian Islands and migrated southward to what is known as American and there they took up residence. That was post #30, made by you. Your comment regarding historical records and Native Americans was made prior to my declaration that I had seen nothing about injuns (post #33) in the Bible. But this still does not solve our problem of you trying to use science to prop up your position when you should be using the Bible. So I say again, I have not seen anything in the Bible about Nati... errrm, injuns.
And it was this post where you first mentioned the immigration system and its' applicable laws: http://www.politicalforum.com/4337332-post25.html Post #25 Which subsequently introduced the remainder of the discussion. So in fact it was you who diverted this discussion onto a topic of secular law as opposed to the Bible. So what is your point?
Well, that is about your third different rationalization of the situation. Think it over and let me know if there are any other excuses (rationalizations) that you would like to introduce before we continue this discussion.
Ah, now you want to change the subject, I see. Bottom line: bible or science? You can't pick and choose.
Not changing the subject at all... just emphasizing the points that I have been making... your failure to answer a simple question thus showing your lack of integrity and your dishonest approach at discussing these matters. Have a nice day... as I am signing off for a few hours.
Here is one that fits right into the title of this thread: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeDZUdr3xi4&feature=related"]Michael Combs - They'll Never Take Jesus Out of My Heart - YouTube[/ame]
Nice thread. very interesting. I am somewhat torn on this one. The Churches, have always been sort of an "underground railroad" for Latin immigrants (both kinds), I would guess that they would refrain from asking for ID from people (as if they do anyway), and then plausibly deny that they "knew" they were helping illegals in the 1st place. I don;t really see this as religions getting involved in politics, as they are not instituting legislation, but rallying against it. In the ideas about separation of church and state, they are not legislating, so I don't think there is even an issue there. hmm i hope this continues it has been a good read.
You are surely rattled. Now you want to know what "it" is when you don't even give a clue as to what "it" is by definition or other description. In short, an "it" usually refers to a "thing". Now if you can narrow your mental image down to a finer description, I'm pretty sure most any of the people on this forum could tell you what "it" is that you are talking about.
