Arizona is passing a bill that would enable local law enforcement who have recieved no special training the legal ability to question a persons citizenship status and detain them if no proof is shown. It will be unlawful and chargeble to be an illegal immigrant, and even if you are a legal citizen who happens to be brown you will be treated the same.
Here is the NYTimes write-up on the matter. Arizona is my home and I love it, the mountains, the overly satisfying dips in the pool even the burning concrete under bare feet but I cant ignore the open-faced racism. I grew in hispanic neighborhoods, there I was the outsider and treated badly only to grow up and see my friends and people like them treated like criminals simply for being brown.
One guy I know delivers for a small bread company, everyday he makes the trip from Phoenix to Tucson (its quite a way) in a white panel van, in uniform at the same time five days a week and he is pulled over too often. On average he is pulled over three times a week, he has never been ticketed, fined or charged only warned. Warned about following too close, speeding, checking his mirrors, changing lanes to quickly even tire pressure. He laughs it all off, his boss knows its not his fault and he gets paid to sit there and wait for the cop to let him get back to his route but I worry about how brazen the police will become when "reasonable doubt" for illegal status is dark hair and a tan. And not just for him.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
That is scary! I agree that it would probably *catch* alot of illegal immigrants as well, but is the cost worth it? To legalize racial profiling in such a broad way seems callous to the types of harm it could cause in the future.
To me, it definitely isn't worth it. Then again, I don't regard the illegal immigrant population as all that dangerous. I've lived in close proximity to illegal aliens all my life. Some are rather permanent residents, and others are migrant workers who travel back and forth to Mexico seasonally (though the number of those has declined sharply in the last decade). Almost all of them would prefer to be legal immigrants, if they could, but it is not easy to do.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Achilles, you forgot to mention the overzealous sheriff of maricopa county who will see this new law as an open invitation to hunt illegal immigrants and throw them in tent city.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I have already mentioned that I am an Arizonan, in my circles that statement is naturally inferred.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've never seen a very effective plan for controlling immigration. Most of it is either "crazy plan that was born out of fear and distrust of minorities", and "lets just not do anything substantive. While I am very supportive of those who immigrate here to make a life, I also have to acknowledge that the vast majority of all the drugs consumed in this country come through Mexico and those same borders.
I'm not even remotely close to having an answer but I do think it's wrong to castigate those who throw something out there and be without solutions ourselves.
So hypocritically I think this plan is not a good one, and coincidentally many Republicans agree it isn't. But the current system is unacceptable as well.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
I just hope he doesn't run for governor. Ewwww!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It won't hold up in court, and is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Sidenote: At the moment I am considering having a shirt made saying "Possible Illegal Alien" and wearing it on a regular basis, I dont think I will due to many documented cases of police harrassment and retalliation when citizens oppose these kinds of things.
On topic: The real problem is with the Mexican govt. they ignore under-educate and impovrish thier own people knowing that they will flock to a nation that does not turn a blind eye to children who need to eat and grown men willing to work. In Mexico City one is considered to be an idiot if they only speak one language, in the capital of Mexico (located in southern Mexico fyi) everyone can speak english and yet the language barrier is a part of what impeeds many of the immigrants in America from truely dissolving into thier new country. The standards of living between northern and southern Mexico are astonishing, and the Mex govt. keep it that way knowing that thier citizens will continue sending American money to Mexico at no cost the govt. in fact they have been profiting by destroying thier own people. The U.S. has captured more planes from drug cartels in recent years than the Mexican AirForce owns let alone runs, they know all about the problems facing thier citizens and choose to ignore it, good people who turn to criminals and psychopaths to get them across the border just hoping to live another year. They are the people who will arrested in these following months.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Sidenote: At the moment I am considering having a shirt made saying "Possible Illegal Alien" and wearing it on a regular basis, I dont think I will due to many documented cases of police harrassment and retalliation when citizens oppose these kinds of things.
Man, I'd wear it all the TIME
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Unless you had somewhere to be and couldn't afford the time it would take to prove you aren't one.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is JenniK posting on Kwea's computer again.
I would wear it just to confuse people - since I am a blonde, blue eyed American....but if anyone stopped me, I would start speaking to them in Japanese: Sumimasen ga chot'to, Eigo ga wakarimasen! (Romanji of Japanese for "sorry, I don't speak English"). I like to play mind games!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, I'd still wear it, totally. Of course, I don't live in a place where the police would actually hassle me over such a thing. but it would be great if they would!
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Hassle can be a light term in some instances, try having your mother followed home and thrown to the ground by several masked men pointing guns at her all because you demonstrated against Arpiao and attempted to raise money for people fined through discriminatory police action. Or having your own arm broken when refusing to sign something that no one will explain what it is. Yeah hassle just doesnt flesh out those dangers.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I really don't get how the sheriff keeps winning. Isn't the fact that he is crazy pretty well known by now? I could see his initial rise to power- the pink underwear was cute and bologna sounds like a fair meal (I was in high school, maybe jr high when he first gained power and that was what I remember) but since then, the crazy has seemed pretty obvious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I really don't get how the sheriff keeps winning.
xenophobia.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Okay, it's discriminatory. But what should be done about illegal immigration from Mexico/Southern America?
If the United States wasn't connected to Mexico, this problem wouldn't exist. Just like Canada, Americans could pick and choose "ideal" immigrants (i.e, those who offer a net gain for the country and a net loss for their country of origin.) But the connection to Mexico presents a problem, and liberals have declared most of the sensible solutions as unpalatable, as either "nativist" or "racist" or "discriminatory" and so on.
Let's adopt the immigration policy we have towards China and India and so on to Mexico as well please.
fyi, 36% of Mexicans want to live in the United States. Citation:
It feels like if all those Mexicans managed to move here, liberals would be screaming that it's racist to deport them. Also, forcing them to conform to American norms would be discriminatory!
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
It wouldn't be racist to deport them, but forcing them to conform to a different culture would be discriminatory. Also, what are "American norms"?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmmm. How they would tell the difference between tourists and illegal immigrants? Is this a state I should be avoiding?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I really don't get how the sheriff keeps winning.
xenophobia.
Nativists, racists and generally old people because not enough young people vote and the baby-boomers hold the majority anyway. I hope to see my generation expand on the priniciples of equality that we were all taught so recently and seeing as the 08 election brought out alot of young voters I suspect to see more young people voting regularly. It is difficult though, for instance the only person who is a threat to Sen. McCain's office is JD Hayworth who has refused to remove his support of a openly anti-hispanic organization and has been a speaker at an anti-semetic rally alongside Sherriff Arpaio and Sen. Pearce.
Sometimes it really does come down to the devil you know.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Hassle can be a light term in some instances, try having your mother followed home and thrown to the ground by several masked men pointing guns at her all because you demonstrated against Arpiao and attempted to raise money for people fined through discriminatory police action. Or having your own arm broken when refusing to sign something that no one will explain what it is. Yeah hassle just doesnt flesh out those dangers.
Isn't that the kind of stuff that got Mississippi federal attention in the 60s? Maybe someone should be complaining to the FBI about civil rights violations? It worked in Mississippi Burning...
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: It wouldn't be racist to deport them,
Then why do liberals freak out whenever any action is attempted to deport the 12 million or so illegal Mexicans that are already here?
quote: but forcing them to conform to a different culture would be discriminatory. Also, what are "American norms"?
Mexicans are especially dangerous immigration wise because their country is right around the border. These people still maintain relations across the border, and their sort of immigration isn't like the traditional one where someone from Europe left behind everything and TOTALLY left nearly everything. "American norms" are stuff like not dating 16 year olds when you're in your 20s, not having kids as a teenager, not having a fatalistic approach to live, and totally not cheering against the American team when Mexico plays the U.S in L.A.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
conservatives: Deport illegals now!
liberals: Hey man, equality!
conservatives: that doesn't follow, you goddamn idiot.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Mexicans are especially dangerous immigration wise because their country is right around the border. These people still maintain relations across the border, and their sort of immigration isn't like the traditional one where someone from Europe left behind everything and TOTALLY left nearly everything. "American norms" are stuff like not dating 16 year olds when you're in your 20s, not having kids as a teenager, not having a fatalistic approach to live, and totally not cheering against the American team when Mexico plays the U.S in L.A.
Umm... where have you been the last sixty decades? Especially the part about dating teenagers, the rednecks do it, the radical mormons marry them, and rich people all around the world do it. As a matter of fact didnt most everyone in America cheer when we found out sexy female teachers were having sex with pubescant children and remarking "where was she when I was in school haha" I cant help but be reminded of how the Christians killed the Jews to appease God and have Him stop the black plague, everytime this country has a problem we find a new group of new immigrants to blame. It all started with the irish in NYC so long ago and we havent stopped impressing our guilty concious on innocent people. If your kid gets knocked up blame yourself for not raising a more cautious and knowledgable teenager, but no its just so easy to say "insert racial epithet here are ruining this country"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I like how you're unabashedly racist about it, contents, and then attempt to short-circuit that criticism by pretending that wacky liberals get all het up unreasonably about racism. Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
So objecting to illegal immigration from Mexico (already 10-12 million in the U.S, with a third of Mexico's population saying that they'd come to the U.S if they could) is racist. Uhuh.
Mexicans are changing America and it isn't racist for others to object to this. They are overwhelming the South West and culturally changing the landscape.
Also, Mexicans have unimpressive human capital. Look at the page for Mexican Americans:
Instead of all those millions of mexicans America would do better to import a people with higher human capital.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote: Mexicans are especially dangerous immigration wise because their country is right around the border. These people still maintain relations across the border, and their sort of immigration isn't like the traditional one where someone from Europe left behind everything and TOTALLY left nearly everything. "American norms" are stuff like not dating 16 year olds when you're in your 20s, not having kids as a teenager, not having a fatalistic approach to live, and totally not cheering against the American team when Mexico plays the U.S in L.A.
Umm... where have you been the last sixty decades? Especially the part about dating teenagers, the rednecks do it, the radical mormons marry them, and rich people all around the world do it. As a matter of fact didnt most everyone in America cheer when we found out sexy female teachers were having sex with pubescant children and remarking "where was she when I was in school haha" I cant help but be reminded of how the Christians killed the Jews to appease God and have Him stop the black plague, everytime this country has a problem we find a new group of new immigrants to blame. It all started with the irish in NYC so long ago and we havent stopped impressing our guilty concious on innocent people. If your kid gets knocked up blame yourself for not raising a more cautious and knowledgable teenager, but no its just so easy to say "insert racial epithet here are ruining this country"
OF COURSE some older men in the United States date 16 year old girls, but at least the mass culture treats that as abnormal. Mexicans do it as a matter of course and they're doing it all the time, ESPECIALLY amongst their lower classes (which is the overwhelming group that comes to the United States.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So objecting to illegal immigration from Mexico (already 10-12 million in the U.S, with a third of Mexico's population saying that they'd come to the U.S if they could) is racist.
No. Merely objecting to illegal immigration from Mexico is not racist.
This, however, is racist:
quote:These people still maintain relations across the border, and their sort of immigration isn't like the traditional one where someone from Europe left behind everything and TOTALLY left nearly everything. "American norms" are stuff like not dating 16 year olds when you're in your 20s, not having kids as a teenager, not having a fatalistic approach to live, and totally not cheering against the American team...
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Mexicans have a fatalistic approach to life -- true.
A sixteen year old hispanic girl will be pursued by waaaay older hispanic men -- true.
Illegal mexican immigrants cheered against America when Mexico was playing America in L.A--true
There's nothing racist in all this.
The only thing that's racist I said is that Mexicans have lower human capital than the Chinese, and that discriminating against Hispanic immigrants in favor of Chinese ones would be better for the United States as a whole. This would be racist, but it would be the sort of logical and common sensical racism that Canada practices. Why aren't Canadians excited about hispanic immigration? Because they know that Hispanics are a net drain compared to other groups. Let's be like the Canadians in regards to immigration (the U.S already is in regards to non-hispanic countries anyway!)
Or at least, let's admit 3 chinese or Europeans for every hispanic as to offset the lower human capital of hispanics.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Liberals like to act like immigration and multiculturalism are good things in and of themselves. No, what's admirable about immigration in the United States is that all those different Europeans assumed (pretty much) the same norms and LANGUAGE. When you have multiple different cultures side by side (and different languages) what you have is FRICTION. Endless immigration from Mexico is creating FRICTION because these people aren't eager to learn English due the simple fact that Mexicans origin is so nearby. And further immigration from Mexico seems to be unlimited. But of course, objecting to these things is racist and nativist.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Mexicans are changing America and it isn't racist for others to object to this. They are overwhelming the South West and culturally changing the landscape.
I have to ask, do you have any personal experiance with the south west? Ive got a life time of it and one thing I know to be true is that this region has had brown longer than it had white. Its kinda hard to change a regional culture that has been in the exact same place since before 1846.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's nothing racist in all this.
How are you defining "racist?" As "Holding racial prejudices I personally don't think are valid?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am getting more and more pissed off at the phrase "unimpressive human capital".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: This would be racist, but it would be the sort of logical and common sensical racism that Canada practices. Why aren't Canadians excited about hispanic immigration? Because they know that Hispanics are a net drain compared to other groups.
Yeah, thats not it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There's nothing racist in all this.
How are you defining "racist?" As "Holding racial prejudices I personally don't think are valid?"
Now your just directly arguing his solopsism, and that wont work because we dont truely exist.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I'm fine if people want to come here, but do it legally. Don't hop a fence and expect us to just grant you citizenship.
I've been going through the process with my wife for 4 years now. She came here as a student from Albania. We met and got married, and had to file a ton of paperwork to get her status changed to a permament resident. We have paid out over $4,000 so far, and will need to shell out another $700+ for her citizenship now. (yay!)
Now if I were an illegal immigrant, I'm not sure I would want to pay the $4700+ for each of my family members to be here legally. But that still doesn't make it right to come here illegally. If my wife and I have to pay the money to be here legally, they should too. THAT is equality.
Now. I grew up here in Las Vegas. My family has been in the southwest since they moved here from Scottland back in the mid 1800's. On ocassion, I like to go out and have a cheap breakfast. When I walk into a Denny's here in Vegas and they are playing Mexican music instead of Johnny Cash and other American artists, it offends me. Denny's of all places! Seeing billboards in spanish irks me as well. I understand it is a marketing thing, but come on. You can keep your culture, but PLEASE learn our language.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So, music, not ok. Language, not ok. Culture, ok.
Are you suggesting that Mexicans re-dub their music in English for your comfort?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can keep your culture, but PLEASE learn our language.
Does "Mexican music" not count as culture?
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am getting more and more pissed off at the phrase "unimpressive human capital".
Compared to immigrants from Asia (which the United States picks and chooses for the benefit of the people already here), Mexican illegals have lower human capital. The average IQ in Mexico is 87. In India, the average IQ is also in the 80s BUT the United States, as mentioned, allows to only let in the brightest Indians (who demonstrated their brightness by getting all sorts of degrees...many of them educated in the U.S) Let us, by all means, allow immigration from Mexico but let's simply apply the same criterion that we do to India. Let us ask, is it good for the United States, in the long run, to have the country flooded by a people with low human capital? Yes, in the short term it certainly is -- illegals make things cheaper, but in the long run, what's the consequences of the country's demographics changing for the worse?
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Schools with a majority hispanic population tend to be problem schools.
Would the same be true of Asians?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Mucus, Tom, you two are completely missing the point.
I'm fine with their music. It just offends me when I hear it in Denny's. If I was in a Mexican restaurant then that music is fine. If I go to a chinese restaurant, I know I will probably hear chinese music. I'm cool with that. There is a lot of Mexican music I like. It is close to Portuguese, and sometimes it makes me remember my time in Brazil.
Let me ask you this. If you were Italian and you went to an Italian restaurant and they were playing Japanese music, would you think it was strange and kind of offensive?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It just offends me when I hear it in Denny's. If I was in a Mexican restaurant then that music is fine.
Um. I'm confused by this. Is Denny's a theme restaurant now, as opposed to just another "family restaurant" chain? I wasn't aware that people went to Denny's to soak up its atmosphere of quintessential "middle America."
I mean, sure, if Denny's were something like Ed Debevic's, or even the Hard Rock Cafe, sure; you go to those places expecting a certain amount of elevator rock. But Denny's? What about the brand suggests "come here for our Top 40 hits!?"
----------
contents, again, how are you defining "racism?" I'm very curious what mental gymnastics you're using that prevent you from recognizing what you're saying as racist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Geraine: No. There are restaurants that serve Japanese food and/or play Japanese music in Italy. Why would I find that offensive?
What's going on with Denny's though?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:When you have multiple different cultures side by side (and different languages) what you have is FRICTION.
Friction is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a productive thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Then why do liberals freak out whenever any action is attempted to deport the 12 million or so illegal Mexicans that are already here?
Well, it might have something to do with the fact that not one action that has actually been proposed would really make a substantial dent in that number, that any such program would cost enormous amounts of money - and conservatives love raising taxes, right? - and last but certainly not least, conservatives hire and benefit from the presence of illegal immigration pretty much on the same basis as liberals do, so their claims of economic outrage ring hollow and sound a lot more like 'get rid of the brown people!'
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Then why do liberals freak out whenever any action is attempted to deport the 12 million or so illegal Mexicans that are already here?
Well, it might have something to do with the fact that not one action that has actually been proposed would really make a substantial dent in that number,
Modify "birthright citizenship" to apply to citizens and legal immigrants only.
Replace all illegal immigrant workers with temporary workers. Thus, if a Mexican wants to work in the United States, he would have to apply for employment and wait to be sponsored by a company, and when he or she is done they'd have to go back home. Liberal Canada already does this.
Then:
-Punish severely any company that continues to hire undocumented workers.
Then you'd have a situation where Ameicans could hire Mexicans for employment without many of the current burdens illegals bring, and companies would have an incentive to hire documented workers.
This course of action will remain unpalatable to liberals as it acknowledges that mass, endless immigration from Mexico is not desirable. The status quo is as much maintained by liberals who react with charges of racism whenever anyone wants to limit immigration from latin America as much as by the dependence of many companies on illegal labor. We can certainly modify the latter but it's doubtful liberals will play along. Anything that stands in the way of 37% of Mexicans moving the U.S will be deemed "racist" and "nativist."
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:When you have multiple different cultures side by side (and different languages) what you have is FRICTION.
Friction is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a productive thing.
Diversity makes residents of a community less civic minded and less trusting of their community members.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It's harder to be trusting of others or trusting of a collective group when the others are very different from you.
That doesn't mean the friction is bad - it just means it has a cost.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: Diversity makes residents of a community less civic minded and less trusting of their community members.
Only if being mistrusting of other cultures is part of your cultures. Which is part of a lot, I'll grant you, but not all.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Diversity makes members of the same group trust each other less as well.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: That doesn't mean the friction is bad - it just means it has a cost.
Wow, you certainly go further than a lot of liberals would.
To continue this reasoning: endless immigration from Hispanic countries has a huge cost.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: Diversity makes residents of a community less civic minded and less trusting of their community members.
Only if being mistrusting of other cultures is part of your cultures. Which is part of a lot, I'll grant you, but not all.
Perhaps being in a community that has the same norms and same culture is a profound human need, and endless hispanic immigration is taking that away from a lot of this country's natives.
What this country needs is a moratorium on immigration from hispanic countries so that we can assimilate the ones that are already here. Italian Americans became more "American" because of the effects of the (admittedly) racist 1925 immigration act. There were no more Italian coming. Spoken italian in the U.S was lost, and consequently Italians in the U.S.A had no choice but to adopt English as their native tongue and consequently became "more" American. The same thing will happen to Hispanics if we stop the flood of hispanic immigration. However, one thing that will happen is that Hispanics, because of their lower human capital, will be more of an economic underclass than Italian Americans, but we can learn to live with that.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm fine if people want to come here, but do it legally. Don't hop a fence and expect us to just grant you citizenship.
Assuming you already have a family member here, but no college degree, the wait time for coming to the US is only a little over 2 decades. No family, no college degree, it ain't happening. Having a job in the US doesn't really help. Hmm- I wonder why anyone would decide to go the illegal route.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Guess what? I'm a mid-thirties, half-Polish Catholic (came over in the mid- to late-1800s)/half WASP (predating the revolutionary war) guy, whose lived in a largely white monoculture unlike any of the other white monocultures around the US, up here in New England. I don't like Mexican music particularly much (I'm more of a rock guy)
IS that good enough bona fides as far as being a member of the "right" culture?
I hereby declare Mexican music, in any location a valid expression of American culture.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm fine if people want to come here, but do it legally. Don't hop a fence and expect us to just grant you citizenship.
Assuming you already have a family member here, but no college degree, the wait time for coming to the US is only a little over 2 decades. No family, no college degree, it ain't happening. Having a job in the US doesn't really help. Hmm- I wonder why anyone would decide to go the illegal route.
So does this mean that Mexican illegals are entitled to residing/working in the United States even if there are policies in place to discriminate against people with no education/valuable skills as immigrants (which applies to every potential immigrant in the world?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:When you have multiple different cultures side by side (and different languages) what you have is FRICTION.
Friction is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a productive thing.
Diversity makes residents of a community less civic minded and less trusting of their community members.
Which is less a problem with diversity than with how some people deal with diversity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Contents, I still want to know how you're defining "racism."
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:When you have multiple different cultures side by side (and different languages) what you have is FRICTION.
Friction is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a productive thing.
Diversity makes residents of a community less civic minded and less trusting of their community members.
Which is less a problem with diversity than with how some people deal with diversity.
It isn't "some people." It's a substantial amount of people, or else Putnam's tone would have been less alarmed.
Diversity is a problem and it has social costs. Now people will have to be trained to endure the negative effects of diversity. "Hmm,", they will think, "diversity certainly makes me less inclined to be civic minded and trustful of my neighbors, but I must force myself to still trust my neighbors and be civic minded. I will just ignore that I wouldn't have to be forcing myself like this if it wasn't for diversity!" Diversity robs people of a natural desire to be civic minded and trusting of their neighbors. It makes things awkward. It has definite, awful costs. And liberals continue to insist on "multiculturalism."
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Contents, I still want to know how you're defining "racism."
Liberals always cry racism. I'm just pointing out that they always use that word to shut down debate about these topics.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
The answer to the problem of diversity, people, is to end all the massive Hispanic immigration, reject any amnesty bills, and to assimilate every immigrant that's already here so that as many people as possible share the same culture. Putnam's data implies that "multiculturalism" is a big fat failure and, moreover, is actually quite dangerous as it could radicalize American natives into overt racism/white nationalism in order to recapture a feeling of shared culture/common values amongst themselves.
I would say grant amnesty only on the condition that we take irreversible steps to end further immigration from Hispanic countries for 60 years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. He has to be kidding or trolling, right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Putnam's data implies that "multiculturalism" is a big fat failure...
I think you profoundly misunderstand the data if that's the conclusion you draw.
And, again, if you're not going to cop to being racist, I'd like to hear you define your version of the word. Unless you're a chicken.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB]
quote: Putnam's data implies that "multiculturalism" is a big fat failure...
I think you profoundly misunderstand the data if that's the conclusion you draw.
I think you profoundly misunderstand the data if you don't draw that conclusion. Certainly Putnam was afraid of people reaching a similar conclusion, which is why he withheld his results for several years.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm fine if people want to come here, but do it legally. Don't hop a fence and expect us to just grant you citizenship.
Assuming you already have a family member here, but no college degree, the wait time for coming to the US is only a little over 2 decades. No family, no college degree, it ain't happening. Having a job in the US doesn't really help. Hmm- I wonder why anyone would decide to go the illegal route.
Get your facts straight. It does not take 20 years to bring over a family member. My wife's aunt brought her mother over from Albania in a matter of 18 months. With no college degree.
Oh and my wife came over here in a matter of a few months. She applied, went to the embassy, got approved, and was on her way. Again, no college degree.
Mucus: I was referring to if you were an Italian going to an Italian restaurant in Italy. If they were playing Japanese music, would you question the music selection, even if it were just to those you were dining with?
Denny's is traditionally considered an "All American restaurant." When you enter one it is not uncommon to see pictures of baseball players, see pictures of American history, etc. This is the reason I was taken back by the music. I've got nothing against the music. I PERSONALLY didn't feel it was appropriate in that setting.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: ... Perhaps being in a community that has the same norms and same culture is a profound human need, and endless hispanic immigration is taking that away from a lot of this country's natives.
Why would Hispanics take particularly more from native Americans than the Europeans did? I think it is also a mistake to assume that native Americans had a particularly homogeneous culture, but thats more minor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, could you define "all american" please and explain what constutes "all american" music?
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: ... Perhaps being in a community that has the same norms and same culture is a profound human need, and endless hispanic immigration is taking that away from a lot of this country's natives.
Why would Hispanics take particularly more from native Americans than the Europeans did?
The Europeans were eager to assimilate and become cultural Americans. Mexicans immigrants, who cheer for Mexico when the team plays against the U.S, are not as ready to become Americans.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: ... Perhaps being in a community that has the same norms and same culture is a profound human need, and endless hispanic immigration is taking that away from a lot of this country's natives.
Why would Hispanics take particularly more from native Americans than the Europeans did?
The Europeans were eager to assimilate and become cultural Americans. Mexicans immigrants, who cheer for Mexico when the team plays against the U.S, are not as eager to become cultural Americans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In what way did Europeans assimilate with native Americans? Sports mascots?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Geraine- I was discussing immigrating from Mexico, not Albania. Waiting lists are different for every country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In what way did Europeans assimilate with native Americans? Sports mascots?
"Assimilate", "annihilate" whatever.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In what way did Europeans assimilate with native Americans? Sports mascots?
Well we did start eating corn, that certainly was a new experiance that we really took to heart.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. He has to be kidding or trolling, right?
Just an observation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Putnam's data implies that "multiculturalism" is a big fat failure and, moreover, is actually quite dangerous as it could radicalize American natives into overt racism/white nationalism in order to recapture a feeling of shared culture/common values amongst themselves.
Putnam rejects this in the article you linked to: "In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise." He describes people as becoming "turtles" - definitely not as being radicalized into anti-immigrant nationalists.
It also says: "His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation."
Diversity does bring challenges, but challenges don't preclude the existence of benefits to diversity, and even Putnam agrees that the challenges entailed are not insurmountable. People often do not like the hard part of being challenged, but in the long run it often turns out to be more positive than negative.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In what way did Europeans assimilate with native Americans? Sports mascots?
Oh I see, you're playing a childish semantic game. You're taking "native American" to mean "Amerindian." Whatevs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, contents, I'd like you to define "racism" in a way that would exclude your own statements.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, when discussing immigration, it is very difficult to assume your case is the same as anyone else's or even the average. For example, marry a foreigner while outside the US, you have just seriously complicated the issue. Marry in the US, it is fairly routine. Also, if you are ever arrested for immigration violations, don't pick which INS facilities you will stay at until you have talked to your lawyer. Depending on which facilites you stay at (like if they let you stay with the rest of your family) you can make an hour of paperwork into an unavoidable deportation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Then why do liberals freak out whenever any action is attempted to deport the 12 million or so illegal Mexicans that are already here?
Well, it might have something to do with the fact that not one action that has actually been proposed would really make a substantial dent in that number,
Modify "birthright citizenship" to apply to citizens and legal immigrants only.
Replace all illegal immigrant workers with temporary workers. Thus, if a Mexican wants to work in the United States, he would have to apply for employment and wait to be sponsored by a company, and when he or she is done they'd have to go back home. Liberal Canada already does this.
Then:
-Punish severely any company that continues to hire undocumented workers.
Except the most crucial part of this set, the only one that is absolutely vital to any plan to really deal with immigration...isn't something conservatives are, by and large, fond of. They don't want an equal number of 'temporary workers', they want vastly fewer immigrants for a variety of reasons. Our economy needs those immigrants. The jobs they do have to get done, and Americans are by and large not willing to do them for the currently going right. And we're even less willing to pay dramatically increased prices involved in paying American wages for products and services produced by that labor.
Birthright citizenship must absolutely not be repealed. I can't quite describe how unpleasant - that's putting it mildly - the notion of sticking it to infants because of who their parents are.
quote:Then you'd have a situation where Ameicans could hire Mexicans for employment without many of the current burdens illegals bring, and companies would have an incentive to hire documented workers.
Without many of the benefits they bring, benefits conservatives and liberals alike quite enjoy...well, enjoying. I'm not suggesting this should be a reason not to take action, just pointing out that your casting this as a problem with liberals is misinformed. The problem lies, at the root, with the demand for illegal immigrant labor. That demand is supplied by liberals and conservatives alike...and I do wonder, though I don't actually know, if it's not supplied more by conservatives than liberals.
quote: This course of action will remain unpalatable to liberals as it acknowledges that mass, endless immigration from Mexico is not desirable. The status quo is as much maintained by liberals who react with charges of racism whenever anyone wants to limit immigration from latin America as much as by the dependence of many companies on illegal labor.
Let's get on board with not using hyperbole, first of all. 'Endless'? Immigration from San Marino is endless, too. Second, it is in fact desirable. Our economy desires it. Why do you think they keep coming? Do they keep coming because they don't benefit? Why do they benefit? Because there are jobs for them to do. Economic problems - and this is an economic problem - are primarily sustained by economic reasons, not political ones.
quote:We can certainly modify the latter but it's doubtful liberals will play along. Anything that stands in the way of 37% of Mexicans moving the U.S will be deemed "racist" and "nativist."
Well, it would be helpful if conservatives didn't many times look and sound quite, well, racist.
quote:Diversity makes residents of a community less civic minded and less trusting of their community members.
Case in point.
quote:So does this mean that Mexican illegals are entitled to residing/working in the United States even if there are policies in place to discriminate against people with no education/valuable skills as immigrants (which applies to every potential immigrant in the world?)
What it means is that the way to deal with desperate, grinding poverty that drives people to illegally immigrate probably isn't just to say, "Deport them." Rather like the way to deal with dangerous narcotics isn't to say, "Make them illegal and jail offenders."
---------------
quote:In what way did Europeans assimilate with native Americans? Sports mascots?
Well, we named some bitchin' cities after `em.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In what narrow-minded and uncouthly world is "Amerindian" not a racial slur! And please, desist from responding to a question by simply rephrasing the comment that inspired the question.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB]
quote:Putnam's data implies that "multiculturalism" is a big fat failure and, moreover, is actually quite dangerous as it could radicalize American natives into overt racism/white nationalism in order to recapture a feeling of shared culture/common values amongst themselves.
Putnam rejects this in the article you linked to: "In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise." He describes people as becoming "turtles" - definitely not as being radicalized into anti-immigrant nationalists.
I did not say that people were being turned immediately into anti-immigrant nationalists, I just that they could be primed for it until the right demagogue comes along. That sense of civic malaise brings dissatisfaction, and people might start clinging to movements that promise to make that dissatisfaction go away.
quote: "His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation."
They might -- if people come to conform to the same culture. The 1924 immigration act, racist as it was, had this effect, as all the immigrants that were already here became more American during the years the act was enforced. Americans became more of a same people. If we want to avoid the problems of diversity then immigration (especially Hispanic immigration) must be scaled back so that the ones who are already here can be assimilated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The 1924 immigration act, racist as it was, had this effect...
What exactly made it racist?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How are you defining "American" when you speak of "American culture"?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Im sick of talking to Clive Candy, Im abandoning the topic if not deleting it entirely just to rob him some narcissistic. Have fun kids.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
I have a question.
I was speaking with a coworker of mine from Brazil the other day, and she was telling me all the ridiculous hoops she had to jump through to immigrate. Despite having had to go through the rigmarole herself, though, she was glad our immigration process was so difficult--if it was easier, more people would come here and all too soon it would be just like Brazil here. When I asked if this was such a bad thing, she told me a bit about life in Brazil. She said that there was no way to get ahead there. That all money earned went to food and transportation. That even with a college degree and living with her parents, she was unable to save up enough money to buy a car.
So my question is: is she right? If we did have unrestricted immigration, would we be able to support it? I've always assumed we would be able to, after all, this country was built on immigration. But what do I know?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Let me ask you this. If you were Italian and you went to an Italian restaurant and they were playing Japanese music, would you think it was strange and kind of offensive?
No, I think it's incredibly weird to be offended by something like that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. He has to be kidding or trolling, right?
This is kind of like that part in MST3K's This Island Earth where it's all like "did you notice the peculiar indentations in their foreheads?" "Noooooooooooo"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: Oh I see, you're playing a childish semantic game. You're taking "native American" to mean "Amerindian." Whatevs.
Hold on. What? I'm confused. So you're using "native" to mean a group of Europeans that came over at some ill-defined time before a different group that you call "Europeans" came over? Thats bizarre.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think the Italian restaurant playing Japanese music would just trike me as eccentric, a bit kooky and if it had good food, an extra reason to go. I like places with character. Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ]Except the most crucial part of this set, the only one that is absolutely vital to any plan to really deal with immigration...isn't something conservatives are, by and large, fond of. They don't want an equal number of 'temporary workers', they want vastly fewer immigrants for a variety of reasons. Our economy needs those immigrants. The jobs they do have to get done, and Americans are by and large not willing to do them for the currently going right. And we're even less willing to pay dramatically increased prices involved in paying American wages for products and services produced by that labor.
The economy needs workers. Those workers do not have to be immigrants. As I mentioned already, Canada imports workers from Asia to do jobs Canadians won't do, without promising those workers citizenship. They have to return to their country of origin after a certain time. Why can't we do the same? It isn't necessary or inevitable for Hispanics who want to work in the U.S to be immigrants.
quote:Birthright citizenship must absolutely not be repealed. I can't quite describe how unpleasant - that's putting it mildly - the notion of sticking it to infants because of who their parents are.
Birthright citizenship would apply to legal immigrants and citizens. Hispanics use babies as anchors in order to get legal status. In any case, the problem of "anchor babies" would be solved, if we standardize and enlarge the program of temporary workers from Mexico, by discriminating against Hispanic females of a certain age and the same for males.
quote: Without many of the benefits they bring, benefits conservatives and liberals alike quite enjoy...well, enjoying. I'm not suggesting this should be a reason not to take action, just pointing out that your casting this as a problem with liberals is misinformed. The problem lies, at the root, with the demand for illegal immigrant labor. That demand is supplied by liberals and conservatives alike...and I do wonder, though I don't actually know, if it's not supplied more by conservatives than liberals.
quote: This course of action will remain unpalatable to liberals as it acknowledges that mass, endless immigration from Mexico is not desirable. The status quo is as much maintained by liberals who react with charges of racism whenever anyone wants to limit immigration from latin America as much as by the dependence of many companies on illegal labor.
Let's get on board with not using hyperbole, first of all. 'Endless'? Immigration from San Marino is endless, too. Second, it is in fact desirable. Our economy desires it. Why do you think they keep coming? Do they keep coming because they don't benefit? Why do they benefit? Because there are jobs for them to do. Economic problems - and this is an economic problem - are primarily sustained by economic reasons, not political ones.
That demand can be satisfied, as mentioned, by enlarging the temporary worker program and making every would be Mexican worker go through it. If they don't accept the wages/conditions that American companies offer, they can just stay home. We would get the same benefits as now. But no, it would be racist to do anything other than reward Hispanic illegals with citizenship.
quote: Well, it would be helpful if conservatives didn't many times look and sound quite, well, racist.
Given the flimsy definition of 'racist' that liberals employ to shut down debate, this is pretty much meaningless.
quote:Case in point.
That's human nature, and probably as true of liberals as it is of conservatives.
quote: What it means is that the way to deal with desperate, grinding poverty that drives people to illegally immigrate probably isn't just to say, "Deport them." Rather like the way to deal with dangerous narcotics isn't to say, "Make them illegal and jail offenders."
Well, what message would be sent to the 37% of Mexicans who want to live in the United States if amnesty is ones again granted? Yea, another one would have to be granted in 15 years.
But you're right, there needs to be a solution better than "keep the Mexicans out." Can liberals stomach any alternative solution to letting any Mexican who wants to immigrate to the United States immigrate here?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if we standardize and enlarge the program of temporary workers from Mexico, by discriminating against Hispanic females of a certain age and the same for males...
I love the use of "males" and "females" here instead of "men" and "women," as if they were specimens of Hispanicness.
quote:Given the flimsy definition of 'racist' that liberals employ...
Again, I would be interested in the definition of "racist" you employ. What is it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: Oh I see, you're playing a childish semantic game. You're taking "native American" to mean "Amerindian." Whatevs.
Hold on. What? I'm confused. So you're using "native" to mean a group of Europeans that came over at some ill-defined time before a different group that you call "Europeans" came over? Thats bizarre.
Pssssst. I think he means "white".
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: I have a question.
I was speaking with a coworker of mine from Brazil the other day, and she was telling me all the ridiculous hoops she had to jump through to immigrate. Despite having had to go through the rigmarole herself, though, she was glad our immigration process was so difficult--if it was easier, more people would come here and all too soon it would be just like Brazil here. When I asked if this was such a bad thing, she told me a bit about life in Brazil. She said that there was no way to get ahead there. That all money earned went to food and transportation. That even with a college degree and living with her parents, she was unable to save up enough money to buy a car.
So my question is: is she right? If we did have unrestricted immigration, would we be able to support it? I've always assumed we would be able to, after all, this country was built on immigration. But what do I know?
The unpalatable truth is that this country was built on white immigration and, to set up the country in the first, immigration from a certain corner of Europe with a people that had a certain psychological profile. It isn't immigration in and of itself that defined America but immigration from Europe. The "immigration built America" line is liberal cant. The truth is "immigration from Europe built America."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, I'd like to hear your definition of racism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. He means "white".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hey contents you can answer the question about how you define racism now
it's perfectly fine
you are totally allowed to
you could even do it right now you know
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Again, I'd like to hear your definition of racism.
My definition of racism is treating an individual wrongly merely on the basis of his race.
The main definition "believing one race is better than another" is outdated because natural selection has possibly resulted in different groups of human beings with different average psychological profiles.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Does it seriously disturb anyone else to hear about how we can bring over people to cut our yards, pick our fruit and do the crap jobs no one but the desperate would do, yet still not view them as real people, deserving of more to life than picking fruit? Its like we are discussing renting robots or something, not human beings.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Does it seriously disturb anyone else to hear about how we can bring over people to cut our yards, pick our fruit and do the crap jobs no one but the desperate would do, yet still not view them as real people, deserving of more to life than picking fruit? Its like we are discussing renting robots or something, not human beings.
All the poor people all around the earth are also deserving of a better live, but that doesn't mean we should let them immigrate to the United States.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey. At least we aren't slapping chains on them and cramming them onto boats against their will to bring them here to cut our yards, pick our fruit and do the crap jobs. Hurrah for improvement!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Does it seriously disturb anyone else to hear about how we can bring over people to cut our yards, pick our fruit and do the crap jobs no one but the desperate would do, yet still not view them as real people, deserving of more to life than picking fruit? Its like we are discussing renting robots or something, not human beings.
All the poor people all around the earth are also deserving of a better live, but that doesn't mean we should let them immigrate to the United States.
Yes, we can not help all the poor people, but that doesn't making coldly exploiting them somehow acceptable.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
This thread amuses me, because almost every single illegal immigrant I know over here is a US citizen. They're all working without a visa and not paying any tax.
And guess what? Most of them are doing jobs that the locals won't do, in order to stay under the radar. The world would be a better place if we could all work in the places we feel we need to be in.
And before he starts complaining about other people's English, Contents should probably learn the difference between 'life' and 'live'.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Does it seriously disturb anyone else to hear about how we can bring over people to cut our yards, pick our fruit and do the crap jobs no one but the desperate would do, yet still not view them as real people, deserving of more to life than picking fruit? Its like we are discussing renting robots or something, not human beings.
All the poor people all around the earth are also deserving of a better live, but that doesn't mean we should let them immigrate to the United States.
Yes, we can not help all the poor people, but that doesn't making coldly exploiting them somehow acceptable.
It is the same "exploitation" that liberal Canada does -- an employee worker relationship that's mutually beneficial. But thanks for confirming my point that anything other than granting citizenship to hispanic illegals is racist/bad/unthinkable.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I did not say give all Mexicans citizenship. I said bringing them to the promised land, giving them crap jobs and then sending them back when we are done with them is wrong. And whether Canada does it or not doesn't really determine right or wrong for me.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: This thread amuses me, because almost every single illegal immigrant I know over here is a US citizen. They're all working without a visa and not paying any tax.
And guess what? Most of them are doing jobs that the locals won't do, in order to stay under the radar. The world would be a better place if we could all work in the places we feel we need to be in.
And before he starts complaining about other people's English, Contents should probably learn the difference between 'life' and 'live'.
I'm a horrible speller, and I wouldn't so rude as to complain about anyone's English to their face. In any case, what country are you talking about?
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I did not say give all Mexicans citizenship. I said bringing them to the promised land, giving them crap jobs and then sending them back when we are done with them is wrong. And whether Canada does it or not doesn't really determine right or wrong for me.
But that is the only solution you're basically offering. Unless you're also open massively to reducing immigration from Mexico period. Then we wouldn't have to device a worker program.
If not, then the only solution you're offering is endless immigration from Mexico. (i.e, illegals get here and can't be kicked out because that would be bad/racist.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My definition of racism is treating an individual wrongly merely on the basis of his race.
Ah. Wrongly. There's a significant amount of leeway there, I'd imagine. You can't be a racist jerk, because you're right. Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: I wouldn't be so rude as to complain about anyone's English to their face.
Oh, good.
I live in Spain. (Rivka is right - I'm an immigrant too - legally.)
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: I wouldn't be so rude as to complain about anyone's English to their face.
Oh, good.
I live in Spain. (Rivka is right - I'm an immigrant too - legally.)
Bella, American illegal immigration to Spain is nowhere near as much of a problem as Mexican immigration is to the United States.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oops. Thought I deleted that fast enough.
(Bella's responding to me saying that she's from the UK.)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: American illegal immigration to Spain is nowhere near as much of a problem as Mexican immigration is to the United States
Not suggesting that it is. Just... ironic, I guess. The point is that the more borders we put up, the more hurdles we all have to jump, the more illegal immigrants we make of ourselves.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, the only two possible solutions are unrestricted immigration or a temporary worker program with no end goal of citizenship? Wow, what a limited imagination you have.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, the only two possible solutions are unrestricted immigration or a temporary worker program with no end goal of citizenship? Wow, what a limited imagination you have.
What do you suggest?
Ending illegal immigration from Mexico = bad/racist
Setting up the same worker programs as liberal canada in regards to Mexico = bad/racist/horrible.
Endless immigration from Mexico = ???????
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Amnesty programs with specific requirements (learning Enlgish, no criminal records, etc), worker programs with a path to citizenship attached, reasonable limitations on the immigration policies (so increased but not endless). Deportation is not in itself racist- though the racial profiling that is used in the process often is.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Amnesty programs with specific requirements (learning Enlgish, no criminal records, etc), worker programs with a path to citizenship attached, reasonable limitations on the immigration policies (so increased but not endless). Deportation is not in itself racist- though the racial profiling that is used in the process often is.
Amnesty rewards illegal behavior. It's a nonstarter.
Would these worker programs also apply to immigrants from all over the world or would they be special ones created for Mexicans? Are Mexicans to be privileged over other immigrants/potential workers merely because they're across the border? What should be done about further illegal immigration from Mexico? If someone immigrates here illegally and fathers a child or gives birth to one should that fact allow them to stay? And so on.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Our immigration policy is different already for every country. Being our neighbor already changes how we define our policy towards them.
I would say that Amnesty allows illegal behavior to be a redeemable offense (the specific requirements would redeem the initial illegal behavior), which is fine for me. Just because it is a nonstarter for you, does not make it an actual nonstarter.
Further illegal immigration would be dealt with with deportation, just not deportation based on racist raid policy that sweep up all the brown folks.
Keep in mind, I have yet to be convinced that the illegal immigration at the current levels does any harm. Most economist argue that even subtracting costs of services, the illegals more than pay for themselves. So, there is no current problem to be solved. Should these policies result in negatives to our economy, then I would look at fiddling with the numbers to find the right balance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The economy needs workers. Those workers do not have to be immigrants. As I mentioned already, Canada imports workers from Asia to do jobs Canadians won't do, without promising those workers citizenship. They have to return to their country of origin after a certain time. Why can't we do the same? It isn't necessary or inevitable for Hispanics who want to work in the U.S to be immigrants.
I don't know enough about Canadian immigration to reference it here, and I suspect you don't either. What I do know, however, is that the 'solution' you're offering does nothing for the economic problem: Americans like illegal immigrant labor. We usually don't like it so much when we're presented with one end of the situation, the illegal immigrant, but we love love love the other end, very cheap goods and services. Under your solution, this benefit would quickly evaporate...which is why it will never be seriously supported by conservatives or liberals, among other reasons. Or why it wouldn't last long if, miracle of miracles, it did.
quote:Birthright citizenship would apply to legal immigrants and citizens. Hispanics use babies as anchors in order to get legal status. In any case, the problem of "anchor babies" would be solved, if we standardize and enlarge the program of temporary workers from Mexico, by discriminating against Hispanic females of a certain age and the same for males.
Dude, I don't care what their mothers are using them for. This is the United States. We're not supposed to say, "Screw you because of who your parents are."
quote: That demand can be satisfied, as mentioned, by enlarging the temporary worker program and making every would be Mexican worker go through it. If they don't accept the wages/conditions that American companies offer, they can just stay home. We would get the same benefits as now. But no, it would be racist to do anything other than reward Hispanic illegals with citizenship.
Well, OK, now I know you're a troll and full of crap, and probably Clive Candy too, so I'ma bow out: obviously legal American wages and conditions would not be objectionable to Mexicans. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Unimpressive human capitol? If that were the standard for being an American, I am fairly sure clive/cup/whatever-next-weeks-name-will-be would be among the first to be deported.
Which is the only argument FOR it that makes sense.
Most liberals have issues with deportation because it is economically disastrous, both from an enforcement standpoint and a cultural standpoint. Do you have any idea how many ARE deported per year? I doubt it...that would mean you actually researched FACTS. LOL
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I'm going to work so I'm pretty much done with this thread.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Oh, a quick comment on the "Root for Mexico instead of the US during World Cup Soccer" complaint.
Yeah, that's something only Mexican immigrants would do.
Oh, one of my wife's Grandmothers immigrated from Britain after WWII (with a new German born US GI husband.) She is still a Manchester United fan and would definitely cheer for them over any US team if we ever competed.
Her other grandmother was born in Italy. They lived in the Italian section of St. Louis (called, "The Hill"). That whole part of town would cheer Italy to victory over the US.
Then again they follow the rules laid down by an Italian head of state--the Pope.
Yesterday I helped arrange a celebration where over 100 US Citizens came together to celebrate the birth of a country other than the US. With lots of cheers and congratulations this entire school of US citizens celebrated their difference from the normal US citizen by partying for Israel. It was their annual Israel anniversary party.
Yes, there are people of European ancestry who see their US citizenship as important, but also see their return to Jerusalem as even more important. They defend Israel over the US, even when Israel is caught spying on this country.
You might know one of them.
Lisa.
And I don't believe Lisa has a drop of Mexican blood in her whole body.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Oh, a quick comment on the "Root for Mexico instead of the US during World Cup Soccer" complaint.
Yeah, that's something only Mexican immigrants would do.
Oh, one of my wife's Grandmothers immigrated from Britain after WWII (with a new German born US GI husband.) She is still a Manchester United fan and would definitely cheer for them over any US team if we ever competed.
Her other grandmother was born in Italy. They lived in the Italian section of St. Louis (called, "The Hill"). That whole part of town would cheer Italy to victory over the US.
Then again they follow the rules laid down by an Italian head of state--the Pope.
Yesterday I helped arrange a celebration where over 100 US Citizens came together to celebrate the birth of a country other than the US. With lots of cheers and congratulations this entire school of US citizens celebrated their difference from the normal US citizen by partying for Israel. It was their annual Israel anniversary party.
Yes, there are people of European ancestry who see their US citizenship as important, but also see their return to Jerusalem as even more important. They defend Israel over the US, even when Israel is caught spying on this country.
You might know one of them.
Lisa.
And I don't believe Lisa has a drop of Mexican blood in her whole body.
This would be an excellent post if I ever claimed the concept of duel loyalty was unique to Mexicans.
Look, some groups (like Jews) don't consider the United States "theirs" the same way that christian whites do. They are citizens, yes, but they aren't vital to the core of the country's self-conception which is why they care so much about another country. What the United States is to the descendants of white settlers, Israel is to Jews, i.e, our land. Jews however expect America to be shared by the people of the world but they would never advocate such immigration policies for Israel.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Moreover, groups like Italian Americans today show some ethnic pride in their origin but the idea of an Italian American betraying the United States for Italy is unthinkable because culturally, Italian Americans have become a different people. On the other hand, Jews frequently spy on the U.S for Israel's behalf. If Lisa had to choose between saving ten random Americans or ten random Israelis, it's up in the air which she'd choose. (Actually it isn't. She'd save the Jews.)
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
See this post by Stephen Walt on the problems posed by duel loyalty:
quote:What the United States is to the descendants of white settlers...
Let me know when you've given up pretending you aren't racist, by the way. Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What the United States is to the descendants of white settlers...
Let me know when you've given up pretending you aren't racist, by the way.
Racism is treating an individual wrongly because of his or her race. How am I being racist?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: ... some groups (like Jews) don't consider the United States "theirs" the same way that christian whites do.
How about the non-Christian whites? And how do you distinguish your Christian whites from the large number of catholic Mexicans of Spanish descent, i.e. Christian whites?
quote: ... vital to the core of the country's self-conception which is why they care so much about another country.
Out of morbid curiosity, in your opinion, what precisely IS core to the self-conception of the United States?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's one transparent way to generate discussion fodder for a troll: start with the anti-Semitism out of nowhere.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm not saying we should talk about cookies but
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Racism is treating an individual wrongly because of his or her race. How am I being racist?
Actually, isn't racism jumping to conclusions about people based on their race? You can be a racist without revealing it with actions, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's only racism if it doesn't fit into my tautology about racism. Since it doesn't fit into my tautology about racism, I'm not a racist
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Geraine- I was discussing immigrating from Mexico, not Albania. Waiting lists are different for every country.
I misunderstood you. I apologize.
The way immigration laws are set up and the outrageous amounts one has to pay to come here legally, I agree with you. Its easier and often times less risky to come here illegally.
It doesn't make it right, but I can't say I blame them.
My definition of "All-American" : Hot Dog and Hamburger cookouts, Baseball, Johnny Cash, 50's diners, Grease, Sock Hops, Rodeos, Nascar, Denny's, Johnny Rocket's, and Ice Cream Parlors.
As far as the cost of deportation... I would be interested to know what the cost of deportation is compared to the cost burden of illegal immigrants on our public education system, the healthcare system, tax revenues, etc. Does anyone know of a good study that has been performed?
[ April 20, 2010, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: My definition of "All-American" : Hot Dog and Hamburger cookouts, Baseball, Johnny Cash, 50's diners, Grease, Sock Hops, Rodeos, Nascar, Denny's, Johnny Rocket's, and Ice Cream Parlors.
Jeez, maybe 2/11 of those am I interested in.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What the United States is to the descendants of white settlers...
Let me know when you've given up pretending you aren't racist, by the way.
Racism is treating an individual wrongly because of his or her race. How am I being racist?
How are you NOT?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Yeah, it's not the be all end all list, just things that popped into my mind. Elvis could also be on the list. I'm a fan of only a few of those on the list, but then again that wasn't the intent.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Geraine- I was discussing immigrating from Mexico, not Albania. Waiting lists are different for every country.
I misunderstood you. I apologize.
The way immigration laws are set up and the outrageous amounts one has to pay to come here legally, I agree with you. Its easier and often times less risky to come here illegally.
It doesn't make it right, but I can't say I blame them.
My definition of "All-American" : Hot Dog and Hamburger cookouts, Baseball, Johnny Cash, 50's diners, Grease, Sock Hops, Rodeos, Nascar, Denny's, Johnny Rocket's, and Ice Cream Parlors.
As far as the cost of deportation... I would be interested to know what the cost of deportation is compared to the cost burden of illegal immigrants on our public education system, the healthcare system, tax revenues, etc. Does anyone know of a good study that has been performed?
Let's not forget that most of the people you are talking about, if they WERE legal, wouldn't be PAYING income taxes, their wages are too low. However, they DO generate millions of dollars for the areas they live in via sales tax. Something that is coincidentally "forgotten" whenever this topic comes up....
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Many illegal immigrants DO pay taxes. The IRS is perfectly happy to take their money -- that's what ITIN's are for.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Geraine- no problem. Having heard so many horror stories about immigration (my sister is an immigration lawyer, before in the US, now based in Canada so I hear a lot of stories) I get a little annoyed when people assume the legal method is actually a viable method for most illegal immigrants. Waiting 20 years is just not a feasible option for many immigrants (on top of not having access to legal assistance- my sister is considered dirt cheap in immigration business but I doubt many people could actually afford her rates).
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
Liberals keep saying that the tea-party movement is racist. This charge is nothing but the disparaging version of an obvious truth: the tea-party movement is an ethnic movement. The more endless migration there is from Mexico -- that is, the more Hispanics that are already here aren't assimilated as much as possible (and their cultural differences aren't being reinforced by further heavy immigration from Mexico) the more ethnic tensions and conflict we will experience. Liberals always think they can stop someone they consider a "racist" by labeling them as such, but there may come the time soon enough where whites overwhelmingly just shrug their shoulders at the charge.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Geraine- I was discussing immigrating from Mexico, not Albania. Waiting lists are different for every country.
I misunderstood you. I apologize.
The way immigration laws are set up and the outrageous amounts one has to pay to come here legally, I agree with you. Its easier and often times less risky to come here illegally.
It doesn't make it right, but I can't say I blame them.
My definition of "All-American" : Hot Dog and Hamburger cookouts, Baseball, Johnny Cash, 50's diners, Grease, Sock Hops, Rodeos, Nascar, Denny's, Johnny Rocket's, and Ice Cream Parlors.
As far as the cost of deportation... I would be interested to know what the cost of deportation is compared to the cost burden of illegal immigrants on our public education system, the healthcare system, tax revenues, etc. Does anyone know of a good study that has been performed?
Let's not forget that most of the people you are talking about, if they WERE legal, wouldn't be PAYING income taxes, their wages are too low. However, they DO generate millions of dollars for the areas they live in via sales tax. Something that is coincidentally "forgotten" whenever this topic comes up....
Guess what: if immigrants show up illegally and take jobs, they'll end up paying taxes. That doesn't they should have showed up illegally, and it doesn't mean that the people of this country should have been robbed of the choice to select a better quality of immigrant. Instead of 12 million mexicans, there could have been 12 million high quality immigrants from all over the world. Less hispanic voting block and less ethnic tensions! Plus, probably way more in tax revenue!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: Here is Pat Buchanan's latest column:
Liberals keep saying that the tea-party movement is racist. This charge is nothing but the disparaging version of an obvious truth: the tea-party movement is an ethnic movement. The more endless migration there is from Mexico -- that is, the more Hispanics that are already here aren't assimilated as much as possible (and their cultural differences aren't being reinforced by further heavy immigration from Mexico) the more ethnic tensions and conflict we will experience. Liberals always think they can stop someone they consider a "racist" by labeling them as such, but there may come the time soon enough where whites overwhelmingly just shrug their shoulders at the charge.
Fact 1--quoting Pat Buchanan is pretty much automatic trolling.
Fact 2--The moment that 100% European-descended white people tell people with at least some Native American blood that they have to respect national boundaries that the white people set up (in the Americas), is the moment that those white people lose any moral high ground, or indeed, moral credibility. Period, whitey.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I don't think the Tea Party is racist.
I do think there are a few racist who gather around it as any excuse to attack the black man who dared to be President, but the party itself is not racist.
However, I don't think the Tea Party is ethnic either. The last thing anybody wants to discuss at a Tea Party Gathering is some "Ethnic Cleansing" which is where all this Ethnic talk eventually leads.
I do believe it is very class-oriented. Those with money don't want to give it to the government to pay for programs that mostly go to those without any money. Race and ethnicity is only important as that it can be a cheap and easy way to recognize classes.
Today the rich don't dress that much better than the poor--Jeans and a T-Shirt are comfortable for both groups. So being hispanic, native American, or black is a quick class identifier.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, I don't think the Tea Party is ethnic either. The last thing anybody wants to discuss at a Tea Party Gathering is some "Ethnic Cleansing" which is where all this Ethnic talk eventually leads.
I dunno. In fact, I absolutely agree that, yes, the Tea Party is an ethnic movement -- even though very few of them would be interested in committing genocide. (To be honest, I think defining an "ethnic movement" as one which wishes to discuss "ethnic cleansing" is kind of strange.)
I think it's the absolutely predictable -- if pathetic -- last gasp of people who aren't comfortable with the shrinking influence of WASPs in this country.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't believe they should be able to stop people without cause to check their legal status. Unfortunately, police can always come up with a "cause". I was pulled over for "flickering brake lights". I had a diesel VW rabbit with a cracked header and was pulled over because "it sounded like I excessively accellerated". I asked the cop, "What does velocity sound like?" That rabbit had a top speed of 65 and could only break traction on ice.
When anyone is detained, for cause, their status should be verified. Ever heard of "giving a false name to a law enforcement officer"? Who's verifying the identity of the illegal alien? In my city, 50 people are arrested and released with a $250 fine for "no license". Without identification, who verified that one of the 50 Jose Echevaria Rodriquez's isn't a criminal? They can't check their record or validate their identity. They don't check their legal status either. A fine and released. Legal residents have records.
[ April 20, 2010, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Who's verifying the identity of the illegal alien? In my city, 50 people are arrested and released with a $250 fine for "no license".
What city is that? Because around here, being caught driving without a license involves a court date to say the least. Certainly not just a fine.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Who's verifying the identity of the illegal alien? In my city, 50 people are arrested and released with a $250 fine for "no license".
What city is that? Because around here, being caught driving without a license involves a court date to say the least. Certainly not just a fine.
If you care to take the time to research, here's the link. I know you aren't one to "profile" but click on the long hispanic names and check their charges and release info.
I've only recently noticed the news headlines about this legislation, and I still need to actually read up on it to formulate an opinion on this specific story, but I just want to say, as life-long-resident of southern Arizona, it does really bother me whenever those who are for restricting illegal immigration get broad-brush-painted as xenophobes and racists. I grew up in a conservative home (still identify myself as conservative) so I'd also consider myself on the side of trying to restrict illegal immigration, though I'm seeing it now as a more complicated issue than when I was growing up. I don't care if you're white, off-white, green, blue, black, yellow, maroon, brown, purple (now wait a minute. You got to draw the line somewhere. To HECK with purple people! Unless they're choking...) and/or have an accent, but I do care about rule of law and I would prefer for people coming here to learn English. In any case, I intend to study on it further but I hate when a large percentage of the population get dismissed as racists just because they have a different opinion than others about a complicated issue.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
So, um, Tom, you think the Tea Party movement (besides venting their ethnic/class insecurities at the diminishing WASP influence) might actually be concerned about constitutional limits on government and a rapidly growing national debt like they say? Cause to me those sound like legitimate causes for concern. I haven't been to a Tea Party meeting yet and wasn't really planning to but all these condescending "stupid Tea Partiers" statements I've been seeing/hearing from people lately is doing more than anything else to make me want to get involved with them.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
I'm leery about the tea partier's who claim to be against stuff like the growing debt. I don't intend this remark to be inflammatory, but how many tea party members know the difference between debt and deficit? I'm not trying to imply that tea party members are stupider than others, but my purpose is to question the idea that the average person can even have a weak grasp of public policy. I have spent(and plan on spending) many years studying public policy and economics, learning from trained experts, and getting a degree. Is it feasible that the average person can simply get up and understand what exactly is happening with federal spending?
I ask this because I saw this happen a lot with the health care debates - there were thousands of people protesting the issue without even understanding the basics of insurance policy and economics. I don't pretend to fully understand it either, but I'm not about to get up and take a stand given that I recognize my shortcomings.
Am I simply stupid to require years of learning to understand whats really going on with these issues? Or is it that when most people protest they aren't protesting the actual policy issues, but rather finding solidarity in a group and simply going along with the flow?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Great questions, Jenos.
I would say that all people have the right to express their opinion as they understand the issue to be, and they have the right to change it as more information becomes availble. Those of us who aren't economists still have to get by and do the best we can. I actually think it would be irresponsible of us to leave sweeping policy decisions to others on the grounds that they know what's best.
That said, economics really does make no sense to the average person. Like the recession. We've got a tenth of the country out of work and the news keeps telling me that the economy will eventually grow enough to get new jobs for them. So how does that work? If the other 90% of us are buying and selling at a steady rate and the other 10% are losing money, shouldn't they need a large influx of capital to get them back into the game?
I learned Keynsian economics in school, so I know intellectually that defecit spending is good for a recession. It has a higher multiplier than tax cuts so it's more efficient. I also know that when I run out of money before payday, we pick up some ramen and some mac and cheese and make due - except when we know there's a large bonus in the next paycheck.
So as a non-economist, it's real easy to say, "Hey, the government's out of money. Looks like we need to strip the budget down to the bare minimum to get by or go find that money Madoff stole." As a side note, prosecuting the executives who drove their banks into failure and still got fat bonuses really appeals to me. I do feel like they owe the country that money back - that was straight up legal theft.
But on topic, if the people are making the best decisions they can with the data available, I feel the government has an obligation to tell us why they're right. You'd think "If we stop spending, no one has any money" would be a pretty compelling argument. But what happens next? If everyone's just getting by with stagnant wages and the businesses are all squeaking by on a tiny profit margin, where does the next big burst of capital come from to get the nation back to financial independance from the government? When does spending money we don't have turn into spending money we actually have instead of just spreading around the fake money we owe to Japan and China?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, um, Tom, you think the Tea Party movement (besides venting their ethnic/class insecurities at the diminishing WASP influence) might actually be concerned about constitutional limits on government and a rapidly growing national debt like they say?
I think some individual members of the party might care. I think the vast majority, however, do not, although they've been trained to give lip service to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by daventor: So, um, Tom, you think the Tea Party movement (besides venting their ethnic/class insecurities at the diminishing WASP influence) might actually be concerned about constitutional limits on government and a rapidly growing national debt like they say? Cause to me those sound like legitimate causes for concern. I haven't been to a Tea Party meeting yet and wasn't really planning to but all these condescending "stupid Tea Partiers" statements I've been seeing/hearing from people lately is doing more than anything else to make me want to get involved with them.
Where were they when the government started warrant-less wiretapping, imprisoning without trial (of course they weren't, for the most part, doing that to white people) spending obscene amounts of money on a needless war and giving the wealthy tax cuts instead of paying down the debt when it would have made economic sense to do so?
Their concern for those things would have been considerably more credible had they started protesting 7 or 8 years.
[ April 21, 2010, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For that matter, since many of those issues haven't gone away, where are they on those issues now?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Actually the most recent spurt of Trolls helped me discover what I found untrustworthy in the TEA party movement.
They came to fame during this past years health care debate, where they yelled, screamed, and rudely forced their opinions at public meetings, screaming down others and creating placards and web-sites calling President Obama and others everything from Nazi's to Baby Killers, to base liars.
Then when someone else calls them wing-nuts or even right-wing, they go all "oh, poor me. They are calling me names. I am the victim here, help me."
This self-victimization and crude hypocrisy is just a very big bit of garbage to swallow. Do they have real complaints? I can't tell because of all the PR Pranks, shallow slogans, and cry-baby whimpering that they are doing.
After they call someone a Nazi and a Baby-Killer I find it hard to believe much else of what they are saying.
Finally is their response to more concrete criticism. When its pointed out the taxes have dropped for 90% of the population under President Obama, the response I hear reported from various news sources is.."I don't believe it."
No counter argument.
Just a refusal to believe anything that proves them wrong.
On a local station they were talking to the Tea Party inspired Republican running for office. He was rabidly against health care because it took away our rights.
When asked, "What rights does it take away." he paused. I was expecting a reasoned argument about forcing people to buy a product.
nope.
"By itself it doesn't take away any rights. But if it passes, the next thing the Democrats will do is pass the public option. This public option will slowly destroy the current insurance system, forcing us all to by into the public option. This will destroy our right to choose our own health care."
He was fighting health care law because--it might lead to something else that might cause us to have to buy health care from the government and that might limit our choices? How can you claim "If A then D" when what you really mean is "If A then maybe B which may lead to C which can cause D."
basically what I'm saying is that my trouble with the TEA Party is not their politics but their double talk and hypocrisy.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenos: I'm leery about the tea partier's who claim to be against stuff like the growing debt. I don't intend this remark to be inflammatory, but how many tea party members know the difference between debt and deficit? I'm not trying to imply that tea party members are stupider than others, but my purpose is to question the idea that the average person can even have a weak grasp of public policy. I have spent(and plan on spending) many years studying public policy and economics, learning from trained experts, and getting a degree. Is it feasible that the average person can simply get up and understand what exactly is happening with federal spending?
I ask this because I saw this happen a lot with the health care debates - there were thousands of people protesting the issue without even understanding the basics of insurance policy and economics. I don't pretend to fully understand it either, but I'm not about to get up and take a stand given that I recognize my shortcomings.
Am I simply stupid to require years of learning to understand whats really going on with these issues? Or is it that when most people protest they aren't protesting the actual policy issues, but rather finding solidarity in a group and simply going along with the flow?
Statistics that quote things like debt, defecit and the popular, "percentage of GDP" mean nothing to most people.
The tea party movement arose during a time of unprecedented debts and deficits. I'm as right wing as you can get and I can tell the difference between an annual debt and a total debt. An African American Tea Party member was beaten by SEIU thugs and there was no Al Sharpton to the rescue. The Tea Party isn't racist but it is politically beneficial to brand them as such. There are racist tea party members and racist liberal democrats. If the media can capture a video of one racist at a Tea Party Rally, it'll be all over the news to prove conservatives are racist. 95% of African Americans voting for the African American candidate isn't considered racism. I guarantee if 95% of white people voted against Obama, he wouldn't be president and they would be called racist. White people elected Obama and the Conservative African American Tea Party member who got a beat down has no Al Sharpton outrage.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Interesting. I've heard many Tea Party Supporters and Tea Party Members calling President Obama and the "Entire Liberal Elite" racist or reverse racist, but maybe one or two liberal groups referring to the Tea Party as a racist group.
The Tea Party people keep saying, "its only a rare number of our members who actually are racists, and we try to get rid of them once they show their true selves" yet it only takes one or two folks claiming that the Tea Party is racist before the entire media and Democratic Party are smeared with the claim that they are trying to smear the Tea Party.
The Tea Party attacked political debates with yells and rude behavior, but then keep going back to the "we're being victimized" cry when ever anyone disagrees with them.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
The governor aigned the bill today. I wonder how soon we'll here about the first lawsuit.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I imagine the first legal Mexican who is asked for proof of citizenship will be filing the first lawsuit.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I still wonder how easy it would be for cops to tell the difference between illegal immigrants and tourists (who wouldn't have immigration papers either). I don't think the US even stamps my passport on the way across. Perhaps a state to avoid for Canadians on travel.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't think the Canadian tourists need to worry unless they are well-tanned.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not really, from what I understand, there are many mainland Chinese illegal immigrants going through Arizona which could be confused with Chinese Canadian tourists.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Canadians may not get their passports stamped; people going through immigration control at the airport do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure how that helps (also, when travelling, one might leave their passport in the hotel safe as well making the situation even worse. Could be quite a hassle)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I didn't say that it does; I just responded to your comment.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Aren't you required to carry your passport with you, when in a foreign country? Otherwise, it is much less satisfying for Immigration Officers to say, "Your papers, please!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: Ah
MC: I don't know if you're being sarcastic. But generally no, like so:
quote:Your passport, cash and credit cards are most secure when locked in a hotel safe.
Honestly, unless you are driving a vehicle, I can't see any situation where you'd be required to carry ID, let alone proof of citizenship.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Though Lord knows the cops back home tried to claim it was required by law. *sigh* Got to love small town cops with nothing better to do.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I don't think the Canadian tourists need to worry unless they are well-tanned.
Yes, because all Canadians are white.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:I don't think the Canadian tourists need to worry unless they are well-tanned.
Yes, because all Canadians are white.
While it can be super fun to get a good case of righteous indignation going, the point is that this isn't tourist profiling, it's Mexican profiling. Nobody needs to worry because they're from another contry, they just need to worry if they look Mexican.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Which some Canadians do, because they're Mexican. I used to know a bunch of Mexican, Columbian, Cuban etc... Canadians. Mostly brown, some with accents. Some of whom might have gone on vacation to Arizona, but now, I guess, won't be able to.
ETA - Mucas, of course. But I was replying specifically to MightyCow's 'No need to worry unless they're Mexican' statement. Obviously, being Asian could be an issue too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MightyCow + Bella Dee: Or Asian.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have to admit, it's a bit odd to see you getting on someone else's case for being unduly righteously indignant, MightyCow:)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I have to admit, it's a bit odd to see you getting on someone else's case for being unduly righteously indignant, MightyCow:)
I guess I should be flattered that you've lately taken to stalking me, just to make inane insults in response to my posts, but honestly it's kind of creepy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you must be stalking an awful lot of people on Hatrack if that's your definition of the word.
As for whether or not I'm really stalking you...
Aside from today, the last time I even spoke to you was nearly a week ago, rejecting the notion that you 'don't have a problem' with people praying. If you're of like mind with King of Men, and if you're not you only have yourself to blame if people think so, then you most certainly do have a problem with people praying.
In the past ten posts I've made here, over a period of six days, two or three have been to or about you. One was expressing amusement at your rejection of righteous indignation when it's clear you enjoy it too, another was in response to a pretty pointed yet unsubstantiated insult ('the irony is so thick...'), and the third was the one I described above.
So, like I said, if that's stalking...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Don't let actual facts stop you from thinking that, MC. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It just struck me what I dislike about this law.
Its not the Racist/Profiling/boo-hoo its gonna hurt the Hispanic community that has gotten all the attention. We already have Conservative AM Radio defending all of that, and calling it bogus as loudly as they can scream.
Its the simple anti-American thing--Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Those the police suspect are being forced to prove their innocents. The police don't have to prove that anyone is guilty, but those questioned must prove that they are innocent.
That goes against the most basic fiber of our judicial system, and it is on those grounds I expect this law will be taken to court.
You have the constitutional right not to incriminate yourself. Does refusing to show your "papers" equal a refusal to incriminate yourself?
Some argue that if you do not have papers then you are not a citizen then you do not have rights. That is a very narrow definition of inalienable rights. But if you are a citizen must you legally present papers that prove your innocents?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)