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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?)
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, could you define "all american" please and explain what constutes "all american" music?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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
Geraine- I was discussing immigrating from Mexico, not Albania. Waiting lists are different for every country.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, contents, I'd like you to define "racism" in a way that would exclude your own statements.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
