posted
I'm not calling anyone a klansman. I'm asking people to notice and realize on a gut level that the things they say are exactly like the things said by groups of people with whom they may not identify strongly.
Perhaps this will cause them to rethink the whole civil rights movement, and understand better the opposition point of view. I'm not sure. I just know this rings in my ears as something entirely familiar that I have heard many times before. And I remember where I heard it. I think that should be significant to those who are making these arguments. I'm just asking them to think about how much they sound like the majority of whites in the south during the civil rights movement, and to ponder if there are any parallels here, and decide what their grandchildren will think as they look back at the videos of this time.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: In Houston, the Spanish speakers far outnumber the English. I thoroughly enjoy the multitude of foreign languages that I hear from day to day. It makes me wish that I had been raised bilingual, but I've had to learn enough to communicate. So it would be a good thing if more languages became common in the US.
What's crazy to me is that in my time in Barcelona, I always ALWAYS had the impression that the people who spoke English were considered more educated and better off. There they try and learn as many languages as they can, and here we get all phobic about how we're going to somehow be usurped by "foreign" cultures.
I never met a Spaniard who would rather speak English when I could speak Spanish, and I never met an older Catalonian who wasn't doing me a favor by speaking Spanish instead of Catalan. They don't lose their cultures by learning other languages, rather their understanding of our culture puts them at a huge social advantage.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Educated people should know at least two languages, and most (worldwide) know a goodly amount of three or more. What's the deal with learning more languages, anyway? It's fun and interesting, and not that hard!
-Thus says the ignoramus who only knows one. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: All the while this huge influx of people is changing the culture. Foreigners, criminals now, changing the culture and language of the US. I resent that a little. These people are not guests, they are gate-crashers.
Though I understand that this is commonly the source of some angst, exactly what about the current American culture is so worth defending?
The language will survive on its own, and if we need to learn Spanish to get along with our neighbors, we won't be doing anything we aren't asking them to do in return. Did the floods of immigrants who came through Ellis island from the old countries change the culture for the worse? Or did they shape it and make it better, adapting to life in a new place, just as the place adapted to them living here. That's us, that's where we ALL come from.
The introduction of the horse into the Americas by the Spaniards transformed many native American cultures in less than a century. By the time the English colonies were being founded, the horse was a beloved animal in North America, did the native Americans bemoan its existance for making their lives easier? It was a far different thing from what colonization did, and that's what we are talking about: a new element in our culture, not a colony of foreigners in our yard.
Only mass sudden immigration from small focused community groups causes the kind of insularity your afraid of; and though it can and will happen, it can also be avoided with care. So I agree that the issue of immigration needs looking after, but it doesn't need discouraging.
Keep in mind to that the "huge influx," is partly a product of perception. Like polls that routinely show American fear of crime rising in the last quarter century, while crime rates drop steadily, its not altogether certain IMO, how much immigration has been made an issue simply because 24 news nets need SOMETHING to talk about. I'm not saying I know, but I am saying I feel very deeply that news services today have it completely in their interest to have Americans like you and me running around and scaring the crap out of each other like chickens with our heads cut off. This surprisingly sells ad-space.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: Have the whole world move here, that would be fine with me. But there needs to be one language that unifies America. We are a nation of many different ethnic breeds, religions, cultures... the two things that bind us together are the Constitution (and assembled documents) and our common laguage.
It doesn't have to be English, but there must be one laguage that everyone speaks. Otherwise we will fragment.
Why do we need to have one unifying language? You state this as though it were an established fact, when it simple is not. Switzerland has 4 official languages and has survived as a Union for longer than the US.
I'm on the fence on this issue. I don't think Switzerland is at all a good example. Switzerland is the size of what, New York? It wouldn't matter if it were the size of Texas, it's still a small country, and thus if there were a dozen official languages, people aren't going to be that far removed from wherever they are speaking them. Thus, they will probably have to grow up with some familiarity with those languages.
I think there needs to be one unifying language, though I am not against there being other languages. Having English be the standard language is just practical. A nation the size of America, with a population the size of America's needs to have a single language that is considered official for everyone to HAVE to know. If Hawaii switched to the original Hawaiian language and stopped speaking English, and we made Hawaiian on official language of America, it makes it A. Hard for Hawaii to take part in America, economically, politically, socially, culturally, etc. While I think it adds some luster to America's culture, it's also creating a sub-culture that is removed and outside of the mainstream, and that can be dangerous.
Tatiana -
While I agree that in the past, and to a lesser extent now in the present, our immigration quotas and what not have been racist, I don't necessarily think a lot of what is going on right now is racism. If America were being overrun by 11 million uneducated Frenchman, or Germans, the argument would still be the same. People aren't arguing they should all go home just because they are dirty, brown Mexicans who are inferior to us (at least, the vast majority aren't).
But let me ask you this, were we to let them ALL stay here, while at the same time not allowing an unlimited number of Africans, Asians, and Europeans in as well, wouldn't others call that racism as well? Either you treat everyone the same, or you throw the doors open and see what happens. The second thing will never happen, ever. The first thing is what the anti-amnesty people are fighting for.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might find India an interesting example. There are currently 16 official languages, and over 800 languages spoken in the country. Its doing all right, overall .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, I don't really care who once said something similar. I'm not that person, nor do I condone those ideals. Just because there is some surface similarity doesn't mean that anything else is the same.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point, this whole thing for me has nothing to do with race or culture. It is all about laguage. When I say culture I mean laguage. America is better mixed, but only when we can all speak to each other.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While English is quite common in India, hardly everybody speaks it. (Though it does have I think the second largest population of English speakers in the world). This rather undermines your argument that the mere presence of a moderate population of Spanish speakers would lead to violence (edit: I'm not sure if this is exactly your position, though it seems to be from your examples; I'm more going for connotations of violence to the state, not necessarily physical violence).
In particular, see my previous note about Pakistan and Bangladesh. When one tries to make speakers of a different language second class citizens, much as you seem to be advocating, then violence erupts. That's what happened in Pakistan to a large extent, that's what happened in Spain to a large extent. I know of few better ways to create distrust and unease than to attempt to near-forcibly coopt a population linguistically.
As for Quebec, while there are certainly tensions, I don't exactly see Canada as a weakened state about to collapse. In fact, they seem to be getting along pretty decently (absent what are mostly a few noisemakers) with two major languages. Another, better example of a state with two languages (mixing to various degrees) is New Zealand.
posted
I understand that there needs to be a unifying, official language, but I fail to see why Americans learning a compulsory second language in school, to cater to our neighbors, would actually wind up hurting the State as a whole.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
People aren't arguing they should all go home just because they are dirty, brown Mexicans who are inferior to us (at least, the vast majority aren't). [/QB]
Another peice of evidence to show that Hatrackers are hardly representative. I think quite a few people really feel that way. No way for me to prove it, and who's going to admit to a stranger that they simply don't like Mexicans? Yet I think there is an element of this that always comes into play. After all this is the same country which banned immigration from China because they were an "inferior" race. And kept mishegenation laws on the books until the 1960's. No I think racism is still a factor to be reckoned with. (Though admittedly not something you can easily lobby against or even identify all the time).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: I understand that there needs to be a unifying, official language, but I fail to see why Americans learning a compulsory second language in school, to cater to our neighbors, would actually wind up hurting the State as a whole.
You fail to see a reason because one doesn't exist IMO. But hey, its not just to "cater" to anybody. Alot of the population in California (my home) is hispanic, with roots in hispanic culture and history and literature in Spanish. Why shouldn't we all enjoy the literary and musical accomplishments of our latin forebears? Seems if you can't speak Spanish, you might be missing out on some good stuff.
What people who are phobic about other languages and cultures hate is the fact that they can't prove that learning a foreign language somehow retards your understanding of your own. Learning Spanish actually TAUGHT me alot about linguistics, and there was plenty room in my brain for both languages in the end. This is about the only situation by the way, where people actually expect you to believe that learning MORE will somehow hurt you.... How interesting! Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was playing Carlos Vives the other day when my older friend came over. She raised her eyebrows and said "that sounds like the music I hear at my house", and laughed. I told her it was great, that she should listen to it. She's moving because her apartment complex has become home to many immigrant families, and to apartments which house what we consider a large number of immigrant men in each apartment. Apparently one way it's possible to live on $7 or $8 an hour and still send money home to family is to live with 10 or 12 other guys in one apartment.
It's hard to tell what percentage of it is racism and what percentage comes from things like more trash and cigarrette butts lying around, and more drinking, and other differences that stem from income levels, or from having large numbers of men without families living in close proximity.
She's someone who grew up in the north, and would presumably look at "white flight" in the south as being a racist-motivated thing. What she is doing now, though, is white flight.
My country largely made it through the racial injustices of the past, with grace and luck, and by the skin of our teeth. We already made all these mistakes. We don't need to set up a new underclass. I don't want to see my country repeat the same grievous mistakes that we were smart enough and lucky enough to fix last time without a major upheaval, or I should say with only a major political upheaval. This time we all know better. People who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
I grieve deeply to see this happening again.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's someone who grew up in the north, and would presumably look at "white flight" in the south as being a racist-motivated thing. What she is doing now, though, is white flight.
No, it's not. It's quality-of-life flight, and there's a huge difference. Quadrupling (or more) the density of a development will make for a very different setting, and someone who selected a complex because it had one feel is not engaging in white flight.
BTW, white flight wasn't primarily in the south. It was a much bigger phenomenon in northern, midwestern, and western cities.
Further, large parts of white flight were triggered by real estate agents who would sell one house to a black family, then buy the entire block after whites panicked. It was motivated by greed, racism, and an expectation about what would happen to the quality of life in a neighborhood, not what had already happened.
This is a very different dynamic than the racial injustices of the past, and those who learn the wrong lessons from history will make things worse, not better.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that binds us together as Americans is not a homogeneous culture or a single language, it is a shared adherence to an idea. You know the one. That truth we hold to be self-evident. If the people who are trying so hard to get here share that idea, they can only do us good by reminding the rest of us not to take it for granted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Dagonee on the white flight idea. Tatiana, I'm afraid that you are looking at the current situation through lenses tainted by what happened in the past. Yes, there are many people who want Mexicans to go home simply because they are dirty Mexicans, but there are also reasonable, well-educated people who are not reacting on a gut-level racist sentiment, but on well articulated and thoughtful ideas. There is a difference between leaving a neighborhood because a black family moved in and you believe this will drive down the land value and leaving an apartment complex because it has become overcrowded, loud, or otherwise unpleasant for living. This can be a decision made completely seperate from racial considerations, and calling it white flight might be unfair to your friend.
In the same way, it is possible to hold a view on Latino immigration that calls for strict, or in fact nominal, enforcement of the laws of the United States of America. It is unfair to attribute racist sentiments to someone who holds that view simply because there are others who are racist. I'm in favor of having a language everyone can speak, but outside of areas of high 1st generation immigrant concentration, I don't believe this has yet become a problem we need to worry about. There are 293 million people in this country, and the vast, vast majority speak communicable English.
I've lived and worked with racists of all types, from those who hate blacks to those who hate whites to those who hate Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, or any other form of humanity. Racism is a horrible thing, no matter which end you are coming from. Those who are against immigration in general due to racist sentiments have a serious problem. Those who are against ILLEGAL immigration for reasons that have nothing to do with race do not.
posted
prolixshore, I think you all are seeing the past with tainted lenses. I was there. What did you think, that most white southerners were just inherently bad people? I tell you it was the same then as now. And the answer is the same now as then.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little unclear what you're saying the answer is? Are you saying that unrestricted immigration (except for requirements such as convicted felons or something) is necessary to avoid racism?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, many people are pushing for punishment out of proportion to the degree of lawbreaking this currently is (a misdemeanor).
Second, many are also pushing to make it a worse crime; that's not merely being against breaking the law, that's for reimagining illegal immigration as a worse crime, which is very different.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu is right. Huge difference between saying that commiting crime X is going to be a 7 on the Bad Scale instead of a reasonable 4, and saying that since we are thinking the crime is more important, why not Make it Crime Y, which will allow us to punish people more severely. (All figures quoted from the Hague Convention on the Bad Scale )
How can we justify re-writing the law to make it harsher, when the nature of the crime changes not at all? It would be different if, for instance, you changed the law in New York so that flying an airplane in between buildings is a worse crime, because that is a reaction to the fact that this has become a more grievous offense. Illegal immigration is no more or less a criminal act than it was 25 years ago, the circumstances are the same (well not really the same, but not radically different).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: First, many people are pushing for punishment out of proportion to the degree of lawbreaking this currently is (a misdemeanor).
Second, many are also pushing to make it a worse crime; that's not merely being against breaking the law, that's for reimagining illegal immigration as a worse crime, which is very different.
Yes, but Tatiana's blanket condemnation applied to those who want to keep it the same type of crime.
quote:How can we justify re-writing the law to make it harsher, when the nature of the crime changes not at all? It would be different if, for instance, you changed the law in New York so that flying an airplane in between buildings is a worse crime, because that is a reaction to the fact that this has become a more grievous offense. Illegal immigration is no more or less a criminal act than it was 25 years ago, the circumstances are the same (well not really the same, but not radically different).
Because people think the previous law is too lenient, as witnessed by its utter lack of deterrent effect? Or because they think the circumstances have changed in the last 25 years as witnessed by the increased stratification of income?
I'm not saying either is true, but, once again, until people start acknowledging the concerns people have instead of cavalierly dismissing them, there will be no progress in the debate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. I never proposed making the crime a different crime or making the penalty harsher. In fact, I would oppose both of those things on strictly legal grounds, yet Tatiana's statement that my beliefs are somehow racist still stands. I take offense at that, having never been called anything remotely like a racist in my life. You cannot dismiss people like me just by calling me racist. You could try to say that I am jaded because of my criminal justice and law enforcement background, and dismiss my opinion that way, but not by calling me racist.
I am for a decent guest worker program, like we see in other countries. I am even for a rewrite of the immigration laws, taking a fresh look at that old quota program, and streamlining the process to ensure that the people who want to immigrate feel doing it legally is a viable option. What I am not for, in any case or in any sense, is illegally immigrating to this country. I am not for making your first act upon entry to our nation an act of breaking the law. That applies to all people, everywhere.
I don't see why we should cover for people who break the law simply because they had good intentions, or just wanted to make some money for their family. They still did it in a way not allowed by our laws. They should still face the legislated punishment for breaking those laws.
posted
I do think Tatiana's perspective is extreme.
Regarding the penalties for illegal immigration, I see no reason a punishment commensurate with the misdemeanor (note that it wasn't even that for visa overstays, a substantial portion of the illegal immigrant population, until recently) can't also exist with programs attempting to move illegal immigrants to being legal immigrants. After all, if the act of legalization requires positive effort, it is in a very real sense an attempt to undo the wrong.
One potential system would be to create an intermediate, probationary status illegal immigrants could join, admitting illegal status, paying a fine, and becoming subject to monitoring for meeting certain conditions for staying. If one fails to meet those conditions, one gets kicked out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding the penalties for illegal immigration, I see no reason a punishment commensurate with the misdemeanor (note that it wasn't even that for visa overstays, a substantial portion of the illegal immigrant population, until recently) can't also exist with programs attempting to move illegal immigrants to being legal immigrants.
Any advantage that illegals are given over law-abiding would-be immigrants is a de facto reward for their criminality.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying anyone is racist. I'm saying your justification of "saving our culture" is the same as that of mainstream whites in the South before and during the civil rights movement. That was their reason for opposing the changes. It's up to you to decide how to characterize that response. All I'm saying is that it's the same response in either case.
The answer I see, to clarify my post above, is that we ahould realize that our culture is changing, as it changes all the time, and determine to move ahead with a free society in which the human rights of all people are respected, and everyone's labor is valued.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
One potential system would be to create an intermediate, probationary status illegal immigrants could join, admitting illegal status, paying a fine, and becoming subject to monitoring for meeting certain conditions for staying. If one fails to meet those conditions, one gets kicked out.
This was done with the Chinese population in San Francisco in the early 20th century, I don't remember the year at the moment. It helped to seriously get a handle on what was then the huge problem of illegal immigration to Chinatown, and it legitamized thousands of working immigrants.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to wait tables and while most of the time the staff was fine with a rep taking a day off now and then there were certain holidays (Mother's Day, Father's Day and Thanksgiving especially) where they had a no call out rule. Everyone who was employed by the restaurant was scheduled for a shift on those days and the only reason someone could call out was if they were sick. Even though they didn't usually require it, on those days if you called out sick you had to have a doctor's excuse.
Of course, SC is an at will employment state so you can be fired from any job at any time for any/no reason so...
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, that you're working for a business. If everyone employed by the company just decided not to go to work one day business would suffer, especially if you work in the service industry. It's not like they can just shut down for the day because their staff wants to be elsewhere.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Who says anything about giving them an advantage?
How is being allowed to stay here not an advantage, unless we allow the immediate uncontrolled immigration of everyone else on the planet as well?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they're only allowed to stay here after paying a fine and completing fairly stringent conditions under observation. Its not all that hard to qualify for legal immigration, we've just kept the numbers far too low. Putting even a moderate requirement on illegal immigrants if they want to become legal presences in the country quickly negates the notion of advantage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
