Cuccinelli rewrites Statue of Liberty poem to make case for limiting immigration

Theo, really?

Cucc rewrites a line in the poem and then he says he isn’t rewriting a line in the poem, but answering a question. He modified the poem.

He’s also said the poem only applies to Europeans.

Really bad.

1 Like

Why do you imagine the poem reflects immigration policy, it hasn’t from the beginning. We always turned away people for a multitude of reasons.

Was he responding to a question or not? Was it a set-up, for your headline?

The poem does not reflect immigration policy.

It is aspirational. It’s who we are as a nation of immigrants.

If he had left the poem alone and simply said we want people who can be self sufficient, I wouldn’t agree but wouldnt be upset with him, either.


That’s what we were so moved by as overseas visitors to the Statue (and Ellis Is) a couple of years ago. America like the rest of the colonised countries, was never perfect but the diverse nature of the invitation to ‘all men’ just seems very in the spirit of indiscriminate Christianity. The idea of discriminating against certain races and religions when making immigration policy is so ugly.

1 Like

Are we doing that?

1 Like
1 Like

From your article:

The latest presidential proclamation - which was issued in September - bans nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.

It also covers travellers from North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela. But lower courts had already allowed those provisions to take effect.

Chad was removed from the list in April…

…Why were those countries chosen?..

The latest travel ban says that the countries “remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory”.

There are 57 Muslim-majority countries in the world. This would not seem to prohibit Muslims in general from immigrating.

We have done that sort of thing; it is part f our history.
It is looming in our present.


To cut to the, cam you tell me what you think constitutes evidence for " looming"?

You made the statement. You may be providing evidence or reason for your statement. You may also provide the definition of the word you used.

Why? A nation is defined by it’s culture and religion. Surely a healthy view of one’s own country would be to favour a continuation of that which you are; instead of following a policy of others who wish to make it something it is not.

It is no secret that the numbers of immigrants being forced on the West will drastically challenge what the West is to its core and threaten the continuation of it’s existence and this immigration policy is made by those on the Left (undemocratically) who detest Western culture and religion and even it’s people under the cover of a new politically correct (supposedly universally minded) religion which seeks to redefine not only good and bad but ugliness and deplorability also.

So what is the religion and culture of the US? Where I live, I can go and have Italian food one day. Some cities even have neighborhoods that were settled mostly by Italians. The next day I can go and have Chinese food and a town near me has a Chinese temple that was built in the 1800s for all the Chinese who came to America to build the railroads. And the day after that, I can go and have Mexican food. And I’ve gone to a Japanese restaurant recommended by some friends of Japanese descent whose family has been here in the US for several generations, although a few of them who are American born got put into internment camps during World War II. And many of my ancestors were originally Puritans who came from England almost 400 years ago and became New England Yankees. But some of my ancestors came from Germany.


No it’s not. A nation is defined by its sovereignty, which comes from the recognition of other nations.

Culture and religion change, and often radically, within a nation.

This sounds like you are trying to justify keeping out people who aren’t like you. That’s basically the definition of nativism, which has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. It’s also a frequently used way of trying to cloak racism, which is a sin (please note: I did NOT claim you are racist, just that you used an argument frequently used by racists).

I assume by this you really mean the US, Canada, and Western Europe? Because other than sharing a hemisphere, there isn’t much culturally similar about Paraguay and Luxembourg that I am aware of.

Who are these undemocratic people on the left? I assume, possibly incorrectly, that you just mean politicians with which you disagree.

Also, how do these people detest “Western culture and religion?” Do you mean they have different ideas than you? And also, what is western religion? You know that there are Muslims, Jews, and many others in the hemisphere. And there are Christians in the east too. There simply is no “western” religion.

You’re going to have to be more specific here. I think this just means you don’t like some people’s views on immigration, and thus they are bad people. But please, correct me.

All in all, I think your immigration views, like many people’s, might be based on the idea that some people are naturally better than other people. It’s almost like you think some people have better culture and better religions because of where they are born. That is, of course, objectively untrue, but what you wrote certainly seems to point in that direction.


And it’s not as if immigration has only gone one way into places like Europe. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, hundreds of thousands of Europeans settled in the coastal cities of Egypt and Tunisia and Morocco and the French invaded Algeria and it turned into a province of France. Thousands of Frenchmen settled there. Those coastal areas were once quite cosmopolitan.

I think most people mean the legacy of parts the Northeast USA. Not Florida (Spain), Maine (France), Oregon( Russia), Caifornia (Spain), Texas (France, Spain, take your pick), etc.

1 Like

I did make the statement. You asked for evidence. It is not at all clear to me what you would consider evidence for “looming”. That is why I asked so that I would be able to supply things that you yourself would consider evidence, and not waste time supplying things that you don’t.

What did you mean to imply when you used the word? Supply a small amount of evidence for that. I’ll let you know if it suffices . . .

As I said, I am not not interesting a protracted process of discovery of what you have in mind. If you are unwilling to lay out the metaphorical goalposts in advance, the game is totally uninteresting.

You asserted it. What did you mean, and what is your evidence? Not that difficult!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit