kind of embarrassing.

definitely not classy.

I have a few theories on this, not sure which is correct.

First, it seems to me the press has not attributed this at all to Obama’s move to not deport illegal immigrant children in the US. They are saying it is due to increased Central American violence. I have no idea which is true (maybe a combination?), but is seems too much of a coincidence that the policy change that happened just prior to the border surge had no effect.

Now, was this an unexpected consequence that Obama had not considered, or an ultra-sly attempt to start a confrontation to ensure Hispanics turn out en massed to vote Democratic in the 2014 elections?

I am leaning towards the ultra-sly theory myself. And the Murrieta protestors are playing right into his hands….right smack into Obama’s plan…

Witness the other side that came out to counterprotest.

And I agree with scaredy. The original protesters showed enormous lack of class. Sometimes we forget that we are a nation of immigrants.

And before anyone stands on the “but they are illegal” dogma, well I would be more sympathetic to that argument if Boehner would let immigration reform come up for a vote. But by blocking reform, all goodwill I have for the “illegal” argument evaporates.

[quote=svelte].
And before anyone stands on the “but they are illegal” dogma, well I would be more sympathetic to that argument if Boehner would let immigration reform come up for a vote. But by blocking reform, all goodwill I have for the “illegal” argument evaporates.[/quote]

What specific “reform” are you guys expecting? In reality, that is just a euphonism for amnesty of one form or another.

Ideally, reform would consist of federally mandated use of E-verify (or come up with a better system) but I don’t here anybody talking about that lately.

Meh… I’ve given up on the national issues….Looking at things, the only difference is what special interest group/lobbying group either our government officials are pandering to..

The only thing I care about are the local elections and state elections.Things like SCA-5…

I dunno. Call them whatever you want, but I think the Murrietta situation quite accurately represents the feeling of the vast majority of legal immigrants and natural born Americans. Be nice if more of those folks voted.

It’s like a stranger walking in your front door sitting down to dinner curling up on your couch and saying, “whats for breakfast?” Just because they are here doesn’t make it right. or legal, ahem.

one things for sure; we know Hobby Lobby would whip out their Bible and help him…

Genesis 15:13

And He said to Abram, Know for a certainty that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Genesis 23:4

I am a stranger and a sojourner with you; give me possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.

Exodus 2:22

And she bore him a son, and he called his name Gershom; for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

Leviticus 19:33

And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not wrong him.

Psalms 119:19

I am a stranger on earth; do not hide your commandments from me.

Your Bible Navigator
1. See how the word “stranger” is used in each verse.
2. What makes people “strange”?
3. Can one feel strange in familiar surroundings? Bring one of the verses as a proof text for your answer.
4. What makes you feel strange?

In the Talmud, they understand “stranger” to mean the same as “newcomer” i.e. someone who has chosen to join the community. In other words, someone who feels strange, but wishes to belong.

Our Rabbis taught: He who wounds the feelings of a proselyte transgresses three negative commandments, and he who oppresses him transgresses two commandments. How does wounding their feelings differ from oppressing them?

We make this distinction because three separate negative commandments are stated: You shall not wrong a stranger [i.e., a proselyte] (Exodus 23:9) And if a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not wrong him (Leviticus 19:33), and you shall not therefore wrong each his fellow man (Leviticus 25:17) — a proselyte being included in ‘fellow man.’

But for ‘oppression’ there are also three commandments which prohibit this,” and you shall not oppress him” (Exodus 22:20), Also “You shall not oppress a stranger,” (Exodus 23:9) and “[If you lend money to any of my people whom are of your poor,] you shall not take interest from him” (Exodus 22:24). which includes a proselyte! — So, say instead, that both wounding feelings and oppressing are forbidden by three commandments.

It has been taught: R. Eliezer the Great said: Why did the Torah warn against [the wronging of] a proselyte in thirty-six, or as others say, in forty-six, places? Because he may revert back to his evil ways. What is the meaning of the verse, You shall neither wrong a stranger, nor oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt? It has been taught: R. Nathan said: Do not taunt your neighbor with the blemish you yourself have. And thus the proverb runs: If there is a case of hanging in a man’s family record, say not to him, ‘Hang this fish up for me.’