bradleybadly wrote:thegreekdog wrote:(3) Do you think the concerns illustrated in #2 are the same concerns that the American establishment in the 21st century has regarding Mexicans? Because I think they do. And I think that the concerns of the American establishment in the 19th and 20th centuries regarding immigrants were unfounded and hyped up. So, I think the American establishment's concerns today are unfounded and hyped up. And I do live in an area with a lot of Mexican immigrants (yes, New Jersey has them).
OK, this is where I definitely disagree. There was no previous history of land being taken from Europeans and the Irish prior to their immigration to the United States. This is an important point because there is a history of war between the U.S. and Mexico over Texas, and parts of the southwest.
The current wave of illegal immigration to the United States from mostly Mexicans (when it comes to the southern border) have large elements of people who believe in the Reconquista ideology. They believe that those states acquired from those battles actually belongs to them and that the U.S. (people) are intruders. This is an ideology of revenge and wanting to take over that land. Just a few years ago, there was a sign up in L.A. which said that Los Angeles belonged to Mexico. It had to be taken down later when it was reported by the news.
Another point, European and Irish immigrants didn't hide behind American flags during marches while claiming that they were the only true owners of this land. European & Irish immigrants didn't come to this country and start flying their native flags while simultaneously disrespecting the American flag by flying it upside down. European & Irish immigrants didn't threaten to murder American policemen if they weren't awarded entitlement monies. These are not isolated incidents. That's how the two immigration eras are different. European & Irish immigrants were willing to assimilate, and made efforts to do so to get rid of stereotypes put on them. This current wave is outright hostile towards Americans.
I picked up on this because, though it might surprise you, I agree. But, let's be careful here. Or, just acknowledge the "elephent in the room". The line between that and xenophobia is pretty slim. I don't believe you are xenophobic or illogical about this. However, well.. no names, but, some who post here definitely are. AND, the problem is they use almost the same rhetoric. The hear the debate waged by folks like you, greekdog and myself and hear their own message. The subtleties are very, very important. This is why, I think both greekdog and I have thrown out the racist lable on occasion. There are many times it fits, even if there is also a very legitimate debate here. The big difference is context, history and intent.
So, I agree that this wave is different. I disgree, well maybe not disagree, just want to emphasise something different about previous waves of immigrants. For one, the segregation was mostly not voluntary. For a long time, Chinese people were largely excluded from living outside Chinatown in the Bay area of San Francisco. Italiens, etc ... all faced rejection initially. It was xenophobia, combined with fear of diseases and so forth. (I think we all basically agree there). Still, their answer was to come here and, mostly, teach their kids to "be American". My grandfather refused to teach my mother his language. My father refused to teach me his language. ( I learned it later, but not from him. ) Both said "you are American, you don't need that language". My father remembered his young cousins (he worked on his uncle's farm here) going to school and being teased. He did not want us to endure that.
That changed in the 70's. After the civil rights movement, culture became OK. In many cases, it seemed, still seems as though anything BUT being white American is OK. Part of that gets tied up in "PC" idiocy, part of it gets tied up in affirmative action fights. Then, in "walz" this group of hispanics who throw all that out. They see no need to "capitulate". They SEE any requirement to learn English, etc as an attack, as capitulation. This is why that flag incident in San Francisco, blew up and resonated with so many people. Yes, the boys were, in one sense "just stupid kids wanting to make trouble". BUT, they also represented a whole sense in California that suddenly, this willingness to be accepting, to tolerate other cultures is being turned against us when it comes to the hispanic population. Black Americans are somewhat surprised to see it creaping up. These new Mexicans have suddenly achieved, in a few years, what they have wanted for generations. (and yes, there is a lot of bitterness there from all sides.. many whites feel that blacks, too, have been given a leg up only to turn around and well, use that to knock down whites in some kind of "revenge").
OK, so to this new law.
First, even though I believe your arguments are real and true, the arguments that this is about encroaching armed gangs, letting mass murders in, etc.. that is just not accurate. Ironically, the threat that you list above is actually far greater as well as being more true. I mean, crime is crime. NO ONE likes it, the battle is
relatively easy, relatively uniform. You have "bad guys" and honest folk. The "bad guys" give the rest of us trouble, but if we unite, including with those who are here illegally, we can win. Not as easily as walking across the street, but it can/will be done. Every immigrant population has brought new waves of criminals for a lot of complex reasons. Not least is that countries sometimes have an easier time getting rid of criminals. And, well, that type can take advantage of anything. It is the nature of crime and criminals to ignore rules and laws.
So, the REAL problem is culture. Now, when I say that, I do not, as you did not, mean that in the xenophobic sense. That is, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with cafeterias serving burritos instead of kielbasa or hamburgers (never mind that burritos are often not truly Mexican, but "Tex-Mex" or "Cal-Mex"), etc. The problem is when this new group comes here and, as you illustrated above, as can be seen all over California and Mexico, whites, speaking English and even support of our country, be it through symbols like the flag or other ways, is pushed out. It is particularly a problem when it is done so quickly and, it seems, often times even with the encouragement of our own government. Spanish-only classes is both a prime illustration and a prime battle ground. The problem is that these are, too often NOT "bilingual" education, despite that name. In truth, they create a parallel education system within our own country. They perpetuate the idea that its perfectly OK for KIDS (not talking elderly or even older people who have trouble learning new languages) to live and grow up here not speaking English. The thought that often crosses my mind is "why do these latino-american advocates think Mexican kids are so much more STUPID than the rest of us". I mean, I myself learned my father's tongue through "immersion". I have helped many an immigrant and exchange student learn English/learn customs, etc. Mexicans see that as all not just "unnecessary", but too often see it as outright negative and harmful. THAT is just wrong.
OK, I again got a bit off topic, but not really. How does this relate to the law and why, if I believe all that, do I still insist that this law is the wrong type of step, why do I insist that we need more legal means for Mexicans to come here?
Mostly, it comes down to effectiveness. I disagree with greekdog in that I don't think letting people come here to work needs to automatically lead to citizenship. I do agree that we need to be a bit cautious in that. I also think that perhaps we need to make the requirements for citizenship a bit stiffer. (I would like to see this paralleled in our schools, so that kids who grow up here and pass high school also meet those requirements..and much more).
Examples:
MUCH, MUCH wider "guest worker" program. If 10,000,000 people are working, then we need 10,000,000 permits.
The problem then is kids. In that I think we need new solutions. Forcing parents to leave kids behind in conditions that are too often less than excellent, that too often wind up being far longer than parents initially intent. I propose a couple "out of the box" solutions. One is just to let the kids come here, be educated in our system, BUT require their parents to pay for that education. Because the workers are mostly low wage earners, it would be assessed as a tax that employers would pay. Part would be an extra payment, so that hiring someone not a citizen would cost an employer just a bit more (something like 25 cents and hour more for lower wage earners). I would require that anyone coming here have insurance. The minimum type of insurance would cover emergency care and transport back to the home country. Tied in with this, I can see creating hospitals just over the boarder specifically geared for this population, but that would have to come up more or less on its own. (insurance for coverage at those places would naturally be cheaper). In some cases, because kids not born here might not automatically get US citizenship, while they would absolutely learn US standards, citizenship requirements, etc just like any other child, there might be a program designed in conjunction with the Mexican government to "orient" the kids to Mexico and so forth. In other words, these kids would be equipped to be US-friendly citizens of Mexico or to become Mexican-friendly citizens of the US, depending. Neither country benefits by having a generation of kids who is not allowed to stay here, but is unable to live truly in Mexico.
Anyway, I could go on, but won't.
I basically agree with greekdog, except that I don't think "legal" needs to mean "citizen".
bradleybadly wrote:The bigger point, which you haven't really addressed though, is this - if you're going to say that the act of crossing the border illegally isn't doing any harm then why don't we just stop enforcing all borders, whether they be your house or any type of property line?
thegreekdog wrote:Because, really, immigrants help society... as we've seen in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Immigrants who are willing to enter this country
legally and assimilate are helpful.
Illegal immigrants who disrespect our borders, fly our flag upside down, tell us that we're on their land, and promise to shoot our police unless they get free entitlement money don't.
Remember that you started out this thread by saying it was about brown faces and brown people. Do you have any idea how offensive that is?
Thanks for reading this anyways. Hope I don't get banned but I feel pretty strongly about this and thought it was necessary to stand up to the original charges of racism thrown at us by yourself and player. To your credit, you've restrained from going down that road anymore.[/quote]
Again, when I refer to racism, I was refering to a specific person. I don't believe that everyone who supports this law is racist by a long, long stretch, BUT, the problem is that it is very much the kind of law that racists use to their advantage. To too many people, it IS about racism, even if they refuse to admit that.
Beyond that, I think there is a point at which all of us are a bit racist, a bit xenophobic. To a point, its even OK. I mean, at some level, if I say I like the Steelers, then I am saying they are superior just because they live near me, etc... it is a kind of bias in a way akin to racism. BUT, few people are going to go out shooting people, or even denying others jobs because they happen to be Bengels fans instead of Steeler fans (I am not either, in truth, by-the-way). Race needs to be about at that level. I can dress the way I like, eat the foods I like, listen to the music I like and you can do as you like. We each can think, in a sense, that our tastes are "superior" (well, they are ours...), but as long as we don't take it too far, its OK.
This law might superficially seem to be addressing a problem. It IS a response to a real problem! However, it is a response that looks at the wrong cause, that won't be truly effective and that will wind up harming far too many of the wrong people. It won't really catch terrorists and true criminals, people intent on doing others harm. It will catch the guy who was being forced off his land by factors he could not control, who is eager and willing to work, but feels the only place he can do that with success is up here. Those are not the ones who are really and truly harming us, not for the most part.
When it comes to the Mexican "cultural"/"political" aggression, this law will only make it worse. People in the past may not have been initially welcome, but they did enter our society. When all people want to see is folks who don't speak English or who have brown skin, then they feel rejected. In the past, that might have meant creating their own communities, isolating themselves among their "own kind" (their own perception). Today, it means this new group goes out and marches, demands and pushes the rest of us out. We DO need to "push" back, but we need to do it in more positive ways, through education, through opportunity and not by increasing discrimination and perpetuating hatred. While I don't believe you yourself hate, I do believe this law encourages and engenders hatred. It gives the too many racists who do exist the power to do as they wish, without regard for the real and true impacts of their hatred.
