Hearings on Radical Islam Should Make Americans Uneasy

For about a week I have wanted to write something about the hearings on radical Islam. They make me uneasy for a number of reasons. First, it would not take much of a stretch to see this happening to members of other religions. As a conservative Christian, that makes me nervous. If Congress can hold radical Muslim hearings, it can certainly hold radical Christian hearings. Then, might I be considered a radical? It is a possibility.

But that is only one problem. There’s also the question of constitutionality. Is it really constitutional for Congress to single out one religion for scrutiny? I suppose it could be, so long as that scrutiny did not prevent the free-exercise of religion. But suppose the hearings make some Muslims afraid to practice their religion. And what if the hearings go from scrutiny to action? What good is a hearing if there is no possibility of it leading to something?

And then there is history. Once we singled out Japanese Americans. Because we were afraid that they might be aiding our enemies in World War II, we trampled on their rights, stripped them of their dignity and robbed them of their possessions. This is to our shame and, in more recent times, we have recognized this, making apologies and in some cases, paying reparations. But are we sincerely sorry? And if we are – will it stop us from behaving the same way again? Is it possible that we might do the same thing to Muslim Americans?

I hope the answer is no. And perhaps the hearings are harmless. Certainly a hearing is not the same thing as an internment camp. But I think such hearings should make us uneasy. Having said all that, I will confess that I hesitated before posting this. Right as I was about to sit down to write, I happened to see an article about a brutal murder in Itamar. The story appears in several publications, but the following is what appeared in The Jerusalem Post:

Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when the Palestinian terrorists pounced on her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed on Friday night in their home in Itamar.

The terrorists stabbed Ruth to death as she came out of the bathroom. With both parents and the newborn dead, they moved on to the other children, going into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi’s sons Yoav (11) and Elad (four) were sleeping. They stabbed them through their hearts and slit their throats.

If this were not heartbreaking enough, the story goes on to describe how the Fogel’s 12-year-old daughter found her two-year old brother screaming for his dead parents to wake up.

What made the story even more disturbing to me was that the scene was that one of the rooms in which these murders took place was not unlike my daughter’s room. There were colorful pillows arranged near what appeared to be a child’s bed. And someone had left a little doll on the floor – just as my daughter often does.  Were it not for the bloodstains, the scene might have been heartwarming. But with the bloodstains it was terrifying. So, for a second I wondered if I was right to be uneasy. Maybe, I thought, the right thing to do would be to root out this sort of thing before it happened.

But then I remembered something that happened around 9/11. After the attacks, someone vandalized the office of a middle-eastern professor on the campus of my university. The professor was justifiably upset and I remember how sorry and ashamed I was that it had happened. I have only seen him on a handful of occasions. On one these, he was praising a Christian student for her high scores on a mathematics exam. On another, he was attending a small wedding in a Christian church. The bride had a Jewish last name. It would be hard to accuse such a person of being radical or intolerant. The idea of someone such as this man being persecuted merely because of his name or heritage still disturbs me.

Therefore, though I do fear the sort of terror inflicted on the Fogel family, I find it hard to support Peter King. He may have the best intentions, but I am afraid that if we begin to try to paint Muslims in America with too broad a brush we may end up doing something that will grieve us forever.

Comments

[BillW]

"As a conservative Christian, that makes me nervous. If Congress can hold radical Muslim hearings, it can certainly hold radical Christian hearing"

You are absolutely right KB. The same convoluted logic whereby Congressman King panders for the political support of the Muslim-bashing hard right can, and easily be applied to Christians ... exploring our connections to - no matter how tenuous - and our failure to openly enough condemn the murder of abortion doctors and the hate speech of the Westboro Baptist Church.

King and those pontificating the loudest over the plan to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center are an affront to the fundamental American heritage of freedom of religion.

[lynn]

Last I noticed, Christians weren't advocating a califate, flying airplanes into buildings of innocent persons going about their jobs (including Muslims BTW), radicalizing Americans to join their califate resulting in the Ft. Hood shooter shouting out to Allah as he killed fellow soldiers, using their churches as recuirtment centers to indoctrinate members to go out and kill Americans and any in the way of their califate, etc etc. I see nothing wrong with investigating how Muslims are being radicalized in this country. Does that mean that all Muslims are evil? Of course not, and no one is saying that. But consider this fact, all recent terrorists have been Muslims, either born or converted later to radical jihad.

It seems that no one dares to speak out this truth for fear of being deemed racist. With this attitude of multiculturalism or appeasement, some day it will be too late to protect ourselves; then what?

[larry kurtz]

Oh, Ms. Flint: it looks like your two choirmembers fumbling to heap scorn on Islam have soiled themselves. You weiners ain't seen nuthin; yet: http://waziyatawin.net/commentary/

[BillW]

Ah Lynn,

Yesterday you asserted that Obama was elected because of his race, but proclaimed that you are not racist.

Today you demand the investigation of people on the basis of their religion, again insisting that you are not a racist.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

I'll bet I know where you stand on the Arizona law requiring people to be investigated because of their 'Mexican-ness'?

is there any group outside of the white Judeo-Christian community that you don't think bears a bit of looking into?

[larry kurtz]

I think Lynn is boy, Bill.

[BillW]

Leave it to Larry to post an unintelligible comment with a link to the irrelevant.

Thanks for the keen insight to the discussion, my friend

[larry kurtz]

Miranda's tale of discrimination could be coming out of the files of a Rapid City Police Department background check, Bill. Still can't find the NPR clip; but one psychologist estimated 20,000 Jared Loughners. This stupid Muslim deal grabs headlines from suicides spiking on reservations. The numbers are staggering.

[Gina R.]

Remember how we also singled out White Americans with all those investigations into white supremacist teachings and groups?

[Corey Mondello]

Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this. James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution", along with many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State."

[BillW]

I don't remember white Americans being investigated as a group, Gina, just the ones affiliated with supremacist groups. I'm white and no one from the government checked into me, and I don't suppose anyone looked into you based on an assumption that you are likely to be a murdering thug because you are white.

The problem is that Congressman King wants to invetigate the Muslims as a whole for being Muslim, not just the ones who affiliate with extremist sects.

[BillW]

Larry,

Seems like res life is not too good. Maybe the folks who live there ought to leave them and go someplace where there are better alternatives than suicide.

[larry kurtz]

So, Muslim children should leave their homes and go find jesus, Bill?

[caheidelberger]

Good work, Miranda. Your post embodies what Rawls (ask Ken to correct me if I'm wrong) calls the veil of ignorance: we should make our laws and conduct our politics as if we did not know what specific people would be affected, as if we ourselves could be subject to whatever scrutiny or punishment we dish out. Actually, I think Rawls was just reinventing that line about walking around in the other guy's shoes.

Meanwhile, right-wing extremists and white supremacists have wrought more havoc on our soil since September 11, 2001, than Muslim terrorists: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/king-muslims-plots-terrorists/

[BillW]

I didn't say anything about Muslim children finding Jesus. I ws merely suggesting that if life on the res is so unfulfilling as to lead someone to contemplate suicide they might want to think about making a change. If economics are at the root of the suicidal depression, go some place where jobs are more plentiful. If the weather is causing the problem, seek a better climate. If the people around them are bringing them down, go to a place with a more supportive community. Why stay some place where life is so miserable that suicide seems to be a better alternative? Change the circumstances that are causing the problem.

[lynn]

Funny how good you are at twisting my words, BillW.

I'm not racist. I don't care if Obama is purple, striped, green, or whatever; I didn't vote for him because of his policies. The people who voted for him because of race were Black, unless you think that 95% of the Black vote going for him had nothing to do with race?!

I want our gov't to be able to investigate people who are advocating for the destruction of our way of life. If you have a problem with this, you have a problem.

And yes, I applaud the AZ law to investigate people who are not obeying the law and might be illegals. THis only targets people who have first broken a law. Apparently you have no problem with people breaking the law by illegally coming into this country.

[KB]

Great Post, Miranda! And great discussion. I will have to think about this one a bit more, but if Buddhists suddenly started committing terrorist acts then I would think that militant Buddhism would be a proper topic for a Congressional hearing. Such a hearing would not discriminate against Buddhists as such any more than a hearing on rural poverty discriminates against people out in the country.

That's not to deny that such a hearing can be abused.

[BillW]

Lynn,

I am foursquare against people breaking laws. I have a problem, however, with declaring Hispanic ethnicity to be probable cause for a crime. You apparently have no problem with establishing race as evidence of a high probability criminal behavior. The illegal immigrants are just about all Catholics too. Maybe we ought to set up the cops outside the Catholic churches and have them demand proof of citizenship from everyone as they leave church on Sunday.

25% of all of the soldiers defending your right to express racist views are Hispanic and subject to being stopped and detained if they are not carrying proof of citizenship in Arizona. You apparently have no problem with that. I happen to think it is an abominable violation of everything this country stands for.

I am also all for tossing terrorists into the deepest hole we can dig. But I have a serios problem with declaring membership in one of the world's largest and oldest religions to be probable cause of terrorism. One fourth of the world's population is follows Islam, and as many as 7 million Americans. You want to declare 7 million Americans, endowed with the same Constitutional rights as you enjoy to be likely criminals and subjet them to investigation and scrutiny bacause a minute fraction of one percent of them have committed crimes?

I express opinions all day long to just about anyone who will listen, yet I cannot recall ever expressing an opinion that motivated me to have to make an unsolicited declaration that I am not racist. Don't you think it is strange that twice in as many days you had to be concerned with the notion that people might interpret your views as racist? Just how often do you find yourself beginning sentences with, "I'm not a racist, but ..."?

"The people who voted for him because of race were Black". Really? No white folks voted for him due to race? Any Asians? Or is it black people, only black people, and virtually all black people who voted based on race? You can't begin to appreciate just how racist you sound ...

KB - You can do better than that. It is quite a stretch to compare investing rural folks to gain insights into rural poverty with investigating an entire religion to see which members ought to be thrown in the pokey.

[Anthony Renli]

So KB - would you have been in favor of a congressional hearing Catholics who may or may not have sent money to an Irish Catholic terrorist group in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's? Specifically because some people in the Irish Catholic community didn't call the police to report when their neighbors had fundraisers?
Should we automatically assume that all American Catholics are then automatically sympathetic to Irish Terrorists? Would this be seen as discriminatory?

The IRA was a terrorist group(like Al Queda). They killed and targeted civilians (like Al Queda). Both Al Queda and the IRA killed Americans (Al Queda killed a lot more...We can only confirm One American civilian dead from the 1983 Harrods bombing). Both have killed more of their neighbors than they have killed Americans. The IRA are Catholic, Al Queda are Muslim.

But blaming or accusing all Catholics because some Catholics in this country were supportive (or even as is one of the justifications for this hearing not as helpful as one would hope with tracking down those that are supportive) is neither right, nor fair, nor frankly useful.

Should Radical Terrorists be hunted down, captured, and stuck into a big deep hole where they will never see the light of day? Absolutely. Should a hearing be held investigating whether your friends and neighbors are being helpful enough to the police just because they follow the same religion as a terrorist? That is not what America is about.

[Miranda]

Thank you all for your comments.

Bill: Thank you, I agree with you.

Lynn: Thank you for your input. You make a good argument. Christians have not (to my knowledge) been engaged in any of the activities you mention. But that does not mean that someone opposed to Christianity could not find examples of radicalism in the Christian community. It would be very easy for someone to use the example of a radical group like Hutaree (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8593975.stm) and then to extend an investigation to Christians engaged in other behaviors deemed radical - perhaps evangelism.

Once we allow Congress to single out one religion, it becomes very hard to protect others from the same treatment.

Mr. Kurtz: Thanks again for your participation. I'm not quite sure which choirmembers
you were referring to. There are only two comments above yours - and one denounces
King, rather than Islam.

Gina: That's a good and fair point. However, I agree with Bill.

Mr. Mondello: You put Peter King to shame. George Washington, the "father of the country" had quite a different take on things. See: http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/washington.html and http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (Line 27 is particularly interesting)

Cory: Thank you for your kind words. I will have to review your links before commenting on your claim.

Dr. Blanchard: Thank you. I agree that the terrorist incidents themselves would merit investigation, but I am still uncomfortable with the idea of singling out Buddhists.

Anthony: I agree with you. Thanks for your contribution.

[larry kurtz]

Great link, Cory.

The ACLU's response to a 2009 Muslim version of outlawing the Ghost Dance:

"According to the report, for which the ACLU conducted 120 interviews with Muslim community leaders and donors in several states, federal law enforcement agents are engaging in practices that intimidate Muslim American donors, such as widespread interviews about their donations and surveillance of donations at mosques. Those interviewed say the government's actions have a chilling effect on Muslim charitable giving, or Zakat, one of the five pillars of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims. In his speech from Cairo on June 4, President Obama raised the issue of terrorism finance laws that have an adverse effect on Muslim giving."

http://www.aclu.org/human-rights/terrorism-finance-laws-undermine-american-muslims-religious-freedom-says-aclu

[Jimi]

BillW,

"Yesterday you asserted that Obama was elected because of his race, but proclaimed that you are not racist. Today you demand the investigation of people on the basis of their religion, again insisting that you are not a racist.

"I'll bet I know where you stand on the Arizona law requiring people to be investigated because of their 'Mexican-ness'?"

1.) What percentage of the Black Vote did Obama get compared to every other election in history? Why did he get that percentage? Why did the media not vet the man during the campaign? Just because somebody points out the obvious in which the color of skin is the subject does not make them a Racist.....and if it does then you are just as much the Racist.

2.) Here is the quote from Lynn, "I see nothing wrong with investigating how Muslims are being radicalized in this country" and here is what you said, "you demand the investigation of people on the basis of their religion."

You took her words twisted them out of context.....you clearly owe her or him and apology

3.) Your strawman quote, "I'll bet I know where you stand on the Arizona law requiring people to be investigated because of their 'Mexican-ness'?"

Now the actual law, "NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW."

I suggest you read the entire thing before ever commenting on that particular subject again.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[Ken Blanchard]

Miranda: I don't understand the term "singling out" here. A congressional hearing on the diabetes problem among Native Americans would be perfectly reasonable. Such a hearing wouldn't imply that all Native Americans have diabetes; it would single out, if you will, a certain specific subpopulation that has its own specific circumstances.

BillW: who is talking about investigation "an entire population"? Rep. Peter King's hearings are focused on domestic terrorism among American Muslims. The fact that King is a bit of an ass doesn't change that.

Mr. Renli: Of course blaming all Catholics for the IRA would be reprehensible and stupid. Again: who is suggesting any such thing? An investigation of IRA activity in the U.S. might be well in order. Such an investigation would in fact focus almost exclusively on Irish Americans and not Protestant Irish Americans. In this case, ethnicity first and religious identity second because those are indispensable identifiers. The aim would be to single out IRA operatives and their supporters. Similar singling out would be appropriate in looking for the next Timothy McVeigh. Hint: he probably won't be Nigerian.

[BillW]

Jimi,

Your point #1 does not address my comment in the least. You say that racism among black voters is obvious in that they clearly voted for Obama on the basis of his race. You making an assertion that something is obvious does not make it fact. You and Lynn seem to be the only people I have encountered who focus on the man's color. I wonder why?

Your point #2 makes no sense. Lynn supports investigating people because they are followers of Islam. That is the context. My statement stands.

#3 Are you are clueless regarding the Arizona law, or do you assume I am?. Either way your taking one boilerplate sentence from a voluminous piece of legislation proves nothing. The law as written by the Arizona legislature and signed by the governor requires all public employees to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they think might be an illegal immigrant. The primary basis for thinking someone might be an illegal immigrant is their appearance.

You and Lynn seem to be quite concerne dover the color of the President's skin. You support investigating people on the basis if their membership in a legitimate religion that does not happen to be yours, and you support laws that require investigating people for looking Mexican.

You say that does not make you racist. I say if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck .....

[BillW]

KB - "who is talking about investigation "an entire population"? Rep. Peter King's hearings are focused on domestic terrorism among American Muslims."

I must have missed the post Oklahoma City hearings in which Congress investigated Domestic Terrorism Among American White People ... and the recent Congressional hearings investigating Drive By Shotings Among American Black People ... and after the economic crash when Congress held hearings on Securities Fraud Among Middle Age American White Males.

[Miranda]

Dr. Blanchard: I suppose what I mean when I say that Muslims Americans have been “singled out” is that they are being treated differently because of their religious affiliation.

Diabetes has no guilt associated with it. No one is likely to be jailed for having it. A hearing about diabetes in a population is, therefore, I think, more likely to generate a positive result for the people involved than a hearing about radical Islam is. That is why such a hearing would be less worrisome. But suppose the hearing on Diabetes goes beyond just a hearing. Suppose the government decides it will fund diabetes treatment for Native Americans, but not for African Americans. Are we still comfortable with it? I’m not sure I would be.

[Miranda]

Thanks, again Bill, for your arguments. I do not think that any of the posters here are racists and would give them the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, though, I think you are spot on.

[Ken Blanchard]

Miranda: you are wrong about diabetes and guilt. Yes, if the government funded treatment for one group but not another there would be an equal protection question. I see nothing analogous here. The committee is not acting, it is investigating.

Bill: the committee is not investigating all American Muslims. It is, as you note, investigating radicalization among American Muslims. In the same way it might investigate support for the IRA among Irish Americans. If Congress wants to find out whether there are more Timothy McVeighs out there, it won't both much with Nichiern Buddhists.

[Miranda]

And as long as it is only investigating it may be harmless - but I still think it should make us uneasy.

[Becky]

Miranda, I apologize in advance for branching off of your main post. I have nothing to say in regards to that, but I cannot remain silent regarding some of the comments BillW has made regarding Arizona's laws.

BillW, you obviously have never lived in a state where illegal immigration has been a major problem. While I grew up in South Dakota, I currently live in Colorado. Living here has given me a much better understanding for why folks in Arizona would want strict laws regarding illegal immigrants. Now I have no problem with immigration in general as long as it is done legally. But here in Colorado, we see a lot more criminal activity because there are so many illegal immigrants here. Quite recently, a young college student working as a valet was killed by a hit and run driver who was an illegal immigrant. A pregnant woman lost her baby because she was hit by a hit and run driver who was also an illegal immigrant. A local police officer was killed during a drug bust by an illegal immigrant. So you want us just to give these people a free pass because they are illegal immigrants? it makes no sense to sit idly by and let people die because people don't want to go through legal channels to become US citizens. Also, with our economy struggling as it is, it does not make sense for government programs such as food stamps and medicaid to go on paying for people who are NOT US citizens and are not in the country legally to live here in the US. Why should the money I pay in taxes go to supporting people who wish to do nothing instead of back into my pocket where I could really use it? Arizona has good reason to desire laws that crack down on illegal immigration. If you actually LOOK at the laws, you will also see that there are measures included to apply not just to one particular ethnicity, but to illegal immigrants in general. I don't blame Arizona. Until the federal government gets off it's tail and actually does what it is supposed to regarding illegal immigration, it makes sense for states to step in and protect their citizens.

[Jimi]

BillW

"You making an assertion that something is obvious does not make it fact."

B.S.....I am not the one claiming Racism. You are! I am not claiming Racism among Black Voters. I am simply pointing out that Barack Obama was able to secure more votes in the Black Community, was is a clear advantage in Presidential Politics. 95% of the Black voters voted for Barack Obama and it was the largest Black Vote turnout in history.

"Lynn supports investigating people because they are followers of Islam"

No....she said she supports investigations into the Radicalization of Islam.

"The primary basis for thinking someone might be an illegal immigrant is their appearance."

The first person arrested and sent thru the deportation process was a White Canadian arrested during the SB 1070 Rally right after the law went into effect, for hanging a banner from a construction crane in downtown Phoenix.

"You support investigating people on the basis if their membership in a legitimate religion" Oh Really.....why don't you back thru the comments and point out the evidence to support that?

"You support laws that require investigating people for looking Mexican."

Here is a hint for you...since you obviously did not read the SB 1070.....you support it too. Because all SB 1070 is, is the enforcement of the Federal Law that has been on the books for a very long time.

What's with running accusing people of being Racist? Get a Life!

[BillW]

I have a life, Jimi,

One that doesn't involve harrassing Mexicans and Muslims, nor assuming that since Obama received a great majority of the black vote they must have voted for him solely because he is black. Obama is black. Black voters supported him, erego black voters supported him because he is black. That is the logic being offered? Give black folks some credit for having the mental capacity to consider issues other than race Jimi. But don't make such an assumption of stupidity on the part of the 95% of the blacks who voted for him, then cry when you are called racist.

Whether you are ignorant of the details of the AZ laws, or obfuscating to hide the truth, your description of is as a benign re-enforcement of federal law is simply not true. Are you so naive as to think all of the hoo haa over the AZ law would have ocurred had it merely said that AZ was in line with the feds? Do your homework.

Read the title of the investigation: "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Communiyt and That Community's Response" Support the investigation and you support an investigation of "That Community". Who is being investigated? That Community - the Mulim community - people who follow Islam - to determine their response to the radicalization. How much clearer can it be that people are being investigated for following Islam.

[BillW]

Becky,

Don't presume to know me.

I lived in Tucson for five years. I met my wife and my step-children In Hermosillo, Sonora Mexico. They are all Mexican born US citizens. I have four children in Arizona, including a daughter teaching high school in a predominantly Hispanic community in Phoenix.

I have a Mexican born step-son who is a decorated Army Airborne staff sergeant and a veteran of two tours in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. He lost his Mexican born best friend in the mountains along the Pakistan border in a firefight with the Taliban, defending your freedom to express your opinions. I have a Mexican resident father in law who served in US Army intelligence along the Berlin Wall shortly after WWII.

You cannot imagine the disgust I feel for anyone who presumes to lecture me on the rationalization for discriminating against Hispanics in the name of protecting freedom.

You and Jimi can spin the AZ law however you like, but it specifically says that anyone suspected of being an illegal must be accosted and detained if they cannot provide proof of citizenship. Even the most creative defenders have acknowledged that the primary reason for suspecting someone to be illegal is their ethnic appearance.

You might be interested in knowing the Army sees it my way. It is a dirty little secret the conservatives don't acknowledge that virtually every Hispanic looking soldier has transfered, or requested transfer, from Fort Huachuca and the Army is accomodating them. My son has stated that he will resign from the Army rather than take an assignemnt there.

What does that tell you about the state of Arizona?

[Miranda]

Becky: No apology necessary! Welcome aboard!

On Arizona: I sympathize with both of your arguments, but because my response is likely to be lengthy, I will respond in a separate post tonight.

[Jimi]

bILLw,

"But don't make such an assumption of stupidity on the part of the 95% of the blacks who voted for him"

WTF? Where did you get that from? Go back thru the comments and find where I assume "stupidity".

Your F'n delusional!

And you just exposed your hand. Your the one who thinks they are stupid for voting for Obama.

"discriminating against Hispanics"

Find in the law where the discrimination of Hispanics is leaglized? Because I can't seem to find it! There are other Illegal Aliens in Arizona besides Hispanics.

"Support the investigation"

I was refering to Lynn's comment. My comment makes no reference either way.

[BillW]

Good enough Jimi,

If you want to believe the AZ law was aimed at keeping Canadians out, and investigating Muslims is OK, and you agree with Lynn's comments viv s vis Obama and blacks, and insist you are not expressing racist views, that is your call to make. You are on the same side of the issues with a Who's Who of racist organizations, but if you want to see the world the way that lets you sleep well at night that is no one's business but your own.

[BillW]

Miranda - I look forward to what is always a thoughtful opinion. From my standpoint the problem is one of over-simplification. The immigratiion issue is a lot more complicated than people want to think. The easy out is to round up all the Mexicans, send the Army to the border and build a fence. Just as easy is to give them all amnesty. Easy to dump all the Muslims in one bucket and keep an eye on them. Just as easy to ignore the fact that there are radical Muslim sects out to do us harm.

None of those solutions will work, but so long as people refuse to address the difficult, complicated issues and do the hard work of devising solutions that are effective and fair at the same time, the nonsense will continue.

Looking forward to your take on it.

[Becky]

BillW,

How do you propose dealing with the sorts of problems I mentioned above? Illegals from ANY country bring crime with them. How will YOU prevent unnecessary death caused by these people by pandering to them? Do you like having your money reallocated to feed and provide healthcare for drug traffickers when honest, hardworking folks are struggling to make ends meet? Arizona is attempting to deal with these sorts of problems and I applaud them for it. Am I being racist? No. Law must be applied equally to everyone. But by allowing illegal immigration to continue, MY rights and the rights of all US citizens are being trampled on.

[BillW]

Gotta run Becky, but if you think there are only two alternatives: Toss the Constitution OR pander to illegals then you need to study the issue a bit harder. i don't want illegals in the USA any more than you do, Becky. But it is a complicated problem that will require a lot of work and a lot of thought by a lot of reasonable people. Amnesty is stupid. Build a wall, send the army to the border and round up everyone who looks Mexican is even dumber. I can think of a dozen reasons for illegals being in this country. A couple of those reasons involve them being here to commit crimes. Another couple of them are the result of gross incomepetence on the part of the US government. the rest lie somewhere in between. A solution needs to be devised that deals with each of those dozen circumstances in a manner that protects our borders, and is fair to our citizens, and those who are here at our invitation. The AZ law does not do this.

If you want to join the discussion you have to get beyond the unworkable extremes of either amnesty for all, or round 'em all up and throw 'em away. People at the extremes are not going to contribute to the solution - just make a lot of noise.

Same is true with the Muslim situation. There are all sorts of Muslims, and we need to avoid the easy solution of branding them all the same and dealing with them as one entity.

[Donald Pay]

BillW and I don't see eye to eye on many issues. This is one we do. Thanks, BillW., for your defense of American values.