Religious Breakdown of Senate Amnesty Vote

[William Joyce]

Every Jew in the U.S. Senate, and most Catholics, voted FOR amnesty and against America:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005735.html

Another neo-Nazi website? Nah. This guy's Jewish by birth. Point is, Jews think open borders = safety for Jews fleeing from Hitler. But that's not the case today. Actually, a lot of the garbage flooding into the country includes hostile Muslims unfriendly to Jews.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Every Jew in the U.S. Senate, and most Catholics, voted FOR amnesty and against America:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005735.html

Another neo-Nazi website? Nah. This guy's Jewish by birth. Point is, Jews think open borders = safety for Jews fleeing from Hitler. But that's not the case today. Actually, a lot of the garbage flooding into the country includes hostile Muslims unfriendly to Jews.

Plus I've seen some very "anti-semitic" stuff of the websites of the reconquistas.

they're not nearly as jew brainwashed as your average american.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

From the article.

All of which leads to the question: Can immigration restrictionists make any headway against the open-borders ideology without addressing the ethno-religious components of the support for that ideology? For example, let’s say we find ourselves, as I found myself recently, in a meeting where the immigration of Muslims or Mexicans is being discussed, and it turns out that the people at the table who vociferously object to any immigration restrictions, who indeed say that the very idea of excluding any group is immoral and illiberal, are all Catholics and Jews. Could one civilly point this fact out? Could one say that the Catholics and Jews in that discussion are pro-open borders because they think they are religiously obligated to support open borders, or because they still identify too much with their families’ immigration background, or because Catholics want to bring in lots of Catholic Hispanics? Could one legitimately say that this shows that they are thinking too much in terms of their own group and not of the well-being of the society as whole?

I think the answer is yes. If Catholics and Jews are resting on their Catholicism or Jewishness to support policies ruinous to our society, while using highly emotional and moralistic arguments to silence disagreement, then that ought to be discussed.

This is not a call for ad hominem or bigoted arguments. If an entire group is lopsidedly on one side of an issue, then clearly the opinions of the individual members of that group are not determined solely by a rational concern for the common good leading to logical conclusions individually arrived at (since, if they were so arrived at, the distribution of opinions in that group would be similar to that of the general population); they are determined by something about the group itself. So the group’s history, beliefs, and motives become a legitimate part of the debate. If we can publicly discuss why liberals as a group or agribusiness interests as a group are in favor of open borders, we should be able to discuss why Catholics as a group or Jews as a group are in favor of open borders.

 

[1549]

Catholics in 'da house