Wolraich: Obama at the Gates of... Gates
Dr. C: In Praise of Writing Binges
Maiello: Gatsby Doesn't Grate
|
Wolraich: Obama at the Gates of... Gates Dr. C: In Praise of Writing Binges Maiello: Gatsby Doesn't Grate |
Blowing |
By Garry Wills, New York Review of Books Blog, June 9, 2012
[....] hasn’t the plutocracy already won?
Not yet. There is help racing up over the horizon. The US Census for the year ending in July 2011, showed that white births in America were for the first time a minority compared to those of “minorities” (blacks, Hispanics, Asians). The state legislators seated by the 2010 elections have been fighting this drift with draconian immigration measures and new voter ID laws aimed at blacks and Hispanics, the young and the elderly. This slashing of the voter rolls may give them the edge of victory in 2012. But time is not on their side. It will get harder and harder to disqualify a growing majority of voters from non-plutocratic ranks.
That is why this election matters so much. It can give the plutocrats a seal on their accomplishments. New appointees to the Supreme Court can support drastic reduction of labor rights, voting rights, citizen rights. Further protections for corporate and lobbying power can be fixed by national and state legislators in laws difficult to undo or dislodge. The whole corporate superstructure of our economy can be made “too big to fail,” beyond retrospective regrets or futile tinkering. Finally, the plutocrats given power in 2012 can use their great ally, war or the threat of war [....]
By Judith Durbin via vocativ.com 5/20
Syrian rebels under siege in a strategic city on the Lebanese border are increasingly turning to social media to wage psychological warfare, according to Vocativ analysts monitoring the region.
The town of Al Qusayr has become ground zero in the war between rebel fighters on the one side and the joint forces of President Bashar Al Assad and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah on the other. Some of the most intense fighting has taken place there over the last few days. The New York Times reports both sides consider this battle a turning point in the larger civil war that has been raging for more than two years.
With so...
A collection of links and comments dealing with government spying and intimidation of journalists
By Juan Nagel, Transitions blog @ ForeignPolicy.com, May 16, 2013
[....] The consensus is that Venezuela needs high oil prices just to stay afloat. But if the fracking oil boom results in low oil prices, what does the future hold for the South American country?
Sadly, Venezuelans have nothing else to fall back on. Its private industry is a shambles, and the country is even importing toilet paper. Years of populism have left the state crippled and heavily in debt. The public deficit...
By Aidan Foster-Carter, ForeignPolicy.com Op-Ed, May 20, 2013
[....] Pyongyang's faux rage at Security Council Resolutions 2087 of Jan. 22, and 2095 of March 7, which condemned its rocket launch and nuclear test respectively, recycled similar ludicrous canards it hurled at similar resolutions in 2006 and 2009, calling the Security Council, a "marionette of the U.S." A U.S. plot, and puppet? Hardly: Every resolution has been unanimous. China and Russia water down the wording, but they're on board. It's North Korea versus the world.
And that's just the way they like it. Some believe that all their banging and shouting is just a...
Combine this with your previous news item, and the path to disenfranchise the non-white majority seems obvious.
Which serves only the plutocrats - the elites and bourgeoisie - at the expense of those below them. The common people.
You have probably already read Michael LInd's Salon essay, "The Future of Whiteness". I thought about posting it here in the news section but did not really want to engage on the subject then. Also thought you might post it. Anyway, here is an excerpt about a key demographic point that should, but has not yet, dampened the hip-hip-hoorah-ing over declining whiteness, a sentiment as racist and unbecoming as any of the worst Imperial Wizard, imo:
If Lind is right and the future is beige, practically everyone will have some whiteness about them.
So someone brilliantly thinks that Hispanic doesn't exist, despite people self-identifying with Latin America, Hispanic, Chicano, etc. Or that because there are a few Latinos originating from German stock, that the vast majority aren't brown?
How disingenuous.
I'm not sure Iunderstand where the rest of this is trying to go, so no more comment.
Hopefully, we are going post racial.
Are you sure those the census bureau and other demographers classify as Hispanic self-identify that way among themselves? Do you not think further subdividing the category between Hispanic-White and just Hispanic, presumably black, makes a difference in future of whiteness calculations?
How are we going "post-racial" when Hispanics push Hispanic unity based on ever increasing numbers? Has the Congressional Black Caucus dissolved itself? Should it?
Hispanic is not a race; its an ethnic group. I suppose the same could be said of White and Black but then they are not subdivided racially as Hispanic is.
I think it would be a good thing if the Congressional Black Caucus either dissolved or at least renamed itself. Identity politics are probably inevitable but maybe an advocacy group should not be racially based especially not if one of the goals is to eliminate racism.
At least you're consistent. I think the black Congressional caucus is still needed - just disheartened that it's not more effective these days.
As for Hispanic, is both closely correlated with a color/race as well as a shared cultural background.
Majoritarian identity politics are both usual and inevitable in a world where there are no black, Asian, or openly gay Senators.
Taking your observation that the category Hispanic is not racial (despite the arbitrary and socially constructed nature of "race"), maybe we could rename the Senate the Caucus of 100 White People, Now Featuring a Decent Number of White Women. Might be a nice reminder for people who mistakenly think that when minorities cluster in an institution, it's "identity politics.". As if only they manifest identity when they cluster.
It's like stores that unironically present "ethnic food" as if majoritarian tastes are the context as to which other foods relate or are compared. Very 1955 way of thinking.
I once arbitrated a matter in which an old white trial lawyer deplored the minor injuries inflicted by a negligent Somali housewife driver on his old white clients. Thinking it might appeal to my biases, he appealed to sympathy for the old man client of his and argued that the old woman couldn't vacuum, injuring his clients because they were (and he gestured expansively at them and emphasized) "traditional people." As presented, it was code for the Muslim lady inconvenienced nice old white folks.
The Somali driver wore a headscarf in the hearing. She looked pretty "traditional" to me. Not sure what that matters, and it didn't affect my ruling or award.
Here's a novel idea, let's keep Senate as the name and think of its members as representatives of their geographic constituencies and not of a political party or special interest group. A very 1786 way of thinking.
Last time I checked, one definition of democracy was rule by majority so naturally its identity is what is usual and customary -- but not inevitable. Associations of special interest groups, including minorities, have been a hallmark of our culture (Tocqueville) from the beginning and while some have had a much harder time assimilating than others, that was the goal -- until recently. Now special interests are encouraged to eternally nurse grudges and harbor resentments even after what had originally separated them from the body politic has been resolved.
Your comment about 'ethnic food' perfectly illustrates how social identity with political identity have been conflated. Before, 1955, the two were different concepts. People did not have to love or even like one another to live together. They were just expected to respect each others' individual rights and obey the law.
As for your anecdote about the old white lawyer and Somali housewife, his bias may have been transparent, but so is yours in the retelling. How could that not affect your ruling or award? Are you saying you ruled against the Somali housewife? You should have called him on his bias which triggered yours and recused yourself from arbitrating the dispute.
---
Afterthought: New Yorkers may think of Sylvia's as ethnic food but down here it is home cooking -- just like Paula Deen's.
The idea that the black caucus is ethnic and an all-white Senate isn't is asinine, Emma.
Yes, I ordered the Somali to pay damages. She was at fault.
Your good old days idea that "now" "special interests" are doing something or other says it all. Special interests have been at it since the rift in the Federalist Party. Eternal grudge nursing? Are you saying that the Congressional Black Caucus persists irrationally past solution to all issues giving rise to it? What?
Who are these grudge-nursers whose problems all got solved? Apparently not white people, judging from our politics today. Nor many other groups. Our politics have always been about special interests and always will be. Pretending our interests are The True Neutral Thing or We Alone Are Altruistic is silly.
Or brownness. Depending on your point of view.
Well the article talks about non-Black as the key marker. So it ain't what you are it's what you ain't.
Whatever they talk about, it's long been "white, brown, black" as our 3 major categories. Obviously "black" means African-origin, not an absolute color, as white & brown have their own fairly obvious interpretations (European-origin whites; Hispanic new world native-mixed browns).
I'd rather discuss, "whatever they talk about," than whatever you think.
Lemming?
Well, of course, but given the recent gloating over a demographic projection about declining whiteness, it seemed more apt to point out that white is not disappearing so much as blending.
As you pointed out above, the plutocrats are about class and control. They really do not give damn about race except as a means to divide and conquer. What I really have trouble figuring out is why the progressive left assists or enables them.
No, not blending - it's just being taken over by Hispanic immigration and a larger birthrate. White of course is not "disappearing" - it's just not breeding as fast and losing influence due to our immigration policy.
Yes, whiteness is blending, as is brownness. Multiracial relationships and families are living and aiding the undoing of stupid retro values. Blending of these arbitrary categories makes people care less about the differences, makes infinite variety. It's subversive and effective in making a newer world that respects diversity. That the census can't keep up is great. The reality of change outpaces the data.
White isn't an essentializable thing that can have influence. And will be less so the more multiracial we become.
As an example of blending, take the current cause célèbre, George Zimmerman. Germanic name, Peruvian mother, even African ancestry on his mother's side, listed as Hispanic, but championed by White America because he shot a black man.
All good and well, but with massive immigration of 1 culture, especially speaking a 2nd language to start, there's much less blending.
Everyone's doing this feel-good-melting-pot stuff to just wave any issues away. (yes, Germans settled in South America as well - show me how Germanic/mixed that heritage is as a significant %. Treasure of Sierra Madre was written by a German immigrant to Mexico, and Mexico's rich telecom guy - Slim whatshisname- is Lebanese or Syrian. Even Peru had an ethnic Japanese as President - but these are singular events, not a sign of a significant melting pot or mucho "blending")
Whites are losing influence to heavy (brown - the Cubans have flatlined) Hispanic immigration. It is changing the landscape tremendously. (yes, parts of the country were already Hispanic since forever, including southern Colorado's influence directly from Spanish colonization, not via Mexico). Others are wholescale occupation, such as the Cuban dominance of Come up with answers as to why it's okay, not just pretend it's not really changing anything.
I live in the melting pot, and it works fine for me. I find the sentence "whites are losing influence to heavy Hispanic immigration" disturbing. It changes things, just like my Irish and German ancestors did en masse in the 19th Century. What the problem is with Hispanic influx changing American politics is not clear to me. Maybe it makes Sheriff Joe's racist policing more difficult, hard to say. Has improved food, culture, diversity where I live. I favor enforcing our immigration laws, but the Southwest is so rich in culture because it's largely Mexican.
There were areas in Chicago that spoke Polish only, spoke Italian only, into the mid20th Century. Somehow Chicago survived. Boston survived a North End like that. Immigrants tend to get the short end of the stick in our history, tend to assimilate over generations and contribute lots to our economy and culture. (Never mind the extent to which American culture uses Mexican labor exploitively, and should have less right to complain about the influx of hard workers that harvest our food, clean our hotels, wait on us, etc.) Yes, we need to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. I even like the wall. I think it works. But that's no reason to fear "white decline" or weird crap like that. I know it's changing things. You seem to regard that as a premise that, if proven, is threatening or bad. That's wrong. Your and my ancestors changed things too. It happens again now. It's the way of things. It's good old days syndrome to think it wasn't always that way, or our ancestors had some right to deflect American culture and today's Mexican immigrant doesn't.
So it goes in our history, and always has.
Yes, we used to have areas of rich cultural influence - our "melting pot" had specific concentrations of Chinese, Mexican, Italian, Jewish, Polish, et al.
Now aside from our traditional Hispanic cultures (which I lived in both in LA & Colorado, gladly, happy enough that I got a degree in Spanish Literature), we'll have them in Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Alabama. Gee, the US of Mexico, I'm so thrilled.
As for "white decline", well, I'm proud of my European heritage and how it took root in the US, with its can-do spirit, innovation, embracing in some ways much more liberal rights. This of course was built also with non-European immigrants, plus Africans brought forcibly, with the model pretty ugly and imperfect, but the concoction is basically free European with heavy African seasoning. [yes, other cultures like China, Indonesia, Brazil have also had some amazing developments of late - this isn't a simple American exceptionalism, just that we're unique]. And it doesn't matter so much the skin color as whether the the pace has time to settle for the next wave of immigrants.
While in the past people have integrated, with a large influx, the question of who influences whom most changes. I've gotten used to Cubans being assholes about Havana politics, since they're a 1-issue minority. But we're getting the poorest of the poor from Mexico & Central America, with high birthrate, very conservative stance towards women, versed in 1-party undemocratic politics of the PRI & internal corruption, etc., etc. And they will determine the agenda where they take a large plurality. [hard work is not one of the issues - Mexicans from what I know and see work quite hard, despite stereotypes & insults]
Now, I'm not happy with our oligarchy of Wall Street companies either, or the growing influence of the Koch Brothers and their kin.
Let's just say I'm not happy. I'd like our multi-cultural liberal democracy back, not just "Mexico II - love it or you're racist". I loved the little hodgepodges of Lao & Burmese & Vietnamese enclaves in places like Denver & Texas and Washington DC. The Ethiopian & Eritrean contingents in Vegas & elsewhere. The Cuban & Iranian PhD cabbies you meet because they can't practice medicine here. But for 20+ years it's been Mexican+.
But we're getting the poorest of the poor from Mexico & Central America, with high birthrate, very conservative stance towards women,
I've read about something like this happening before! Yeah verily, we should learn from history about the danger!
About a century and a half later, a lot more of us regrettably have polluted our own alternate heritages by celebrating St Patrick's Day, what a horror, such a damn shame that no one stood up to our culture being altered so much. And hey no one was successful in keeping them from taking over many of our urban police forces until it was too late!
I see what you're saying Perhaps someone should get tougher about Taco Bell, ChiChi's and Casa Maria's having Cinco di Mayo promotions? Better safe than sorry, or our great great grand children will all be celebrating it if one doesn't draw a line No one but real Mexicans should be allowed to partake, to prevent the kind of unfair influence the Irish ended up having by virtue of their numbers.
More seriously-- I'm a big fan myself of balanced legal immigration (including class and education besides national origin,) BUT really, what the heck are you afraid of happening via Hispanic & specifically Mexican immigrants?
Rather than bringing papal rule to Congress, the Irish immigrants ended up as some of the progenitors of American-style-cafeteria Catholicism (far more than my Polish ancestors did, many who remained more holy roller Catholics for several generations.) And despite the Irish influence post-American-revolution, Americans by and large eventually became quite fond of the British again and even of their monarchy.
We do have a existent culture when "they" get here, who ever the unbalanced hordes are at the time, and they have to "melt" somehow to get along. Especially given that they are not in positions of power in the culture when they arrive, not exactly H1-B workers directly influencing our culture through their work, they are mostly real low on the totem pole: illegals, migrant farm workers, service, manual labor and often day labor at that. If their culture is "catching" and influencing, maybe it's because people of other heritage happen to like certain parts of it enough to adopt it. Meanwhile, when they get enough money to raise middle class children, those children are going to rebel against the old Mexican ways just like every other 2nd/3rd generation has before them because "but Mom, we don't live in Mexico, we're Americans"
WE don't want to live like they do in Mexico. IMPOVERISHED
When that occurs the borders will be opened again, to overwhelm the workforce, with cheap labor, to serve the plutocracy
What kind of person looks down upon us American ..... farm workers, service, manual labor; then rationalize, WHEN YOU CUT OUR THROATS,
Speaking of the illegals "Oh they're such good workers" ( only because they work so much cheaper than their American counterparts)
Some Unamericans saying "They'll do work Americans wont do .....THAT CHEAP"
Sounding more like Corporations, explaining why they moved their operations overseas.
Undercutting wages, in order to keep more money in their pockets
"You don't expect a professional white collar person, to pay a decent living wage to the unwashed do you?"
I'm a lawyer, you're a tile setter/ concrete finisher, therefore I'm better than you, learn to stay within your caste"
"If you don't want to remain a lowly peasant, go to college, and you can become like us"
As for the cuisine, ....... Buy a cookbook; .......it's less disruptive on OUR American LABOR movement.
Yes, we can take lessons from our agricultural past and try to apply them to the post-industrial service economy. Brilliant idea.
At one point, factories in South LA for printed circuit boards with cheap labor and carcinogenic fumes made a lot of sense. Only problem now is that all that labor's either south of the border or more likely 6000 miles to the west.
The rate of Mexican immigration from the last 40 years outpaced the record Irish immigration in the 1800's. 1/10th of Mexico's population now lives in the US. 30% of all immigrants are Mexican.
If they move into monocultural neighborhoods, they don't have to "melt" to get along. Just because every other 2nd/3rd generation has melted into the US, if the size of the bubble is big enough, there's not much reason to melt other than desire.
What's to worry about? How about relative performance of immigrant groups aside from other issues raised?
http://anepigone.blogspot.cz/2007/12/ranking-performance-of-immigrant-groups.html
Interesting site. I bookmarked for future exploration. Thanks.
Looking at AE's favorite books, I'd be hesitant to blithely accept his or her opinion about immigration:
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Murray & Herrnstein),
Tower of Babble (Richard Stursberg),
The Clash of Civilizations (Samuel P Huntington, "It is human to hate." ),
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (Amy Chua),
Death of the West (Pat Buchanan),
Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster (Peter Brimelow, Forbes senior editor and Natl Review contributor)
I stand by what I said: it looks interesting.
Yes, I Googled and it popped up - not my daily reading, but made a useful point.
Your equation of Mexican immigrants with illiberalism doesn't make any sense at all. The liberal coalitions in Nevada and Arizona are a scattering of white libs and Mexican-Americans. Take them away, and no Harry Reid, no Rep. Raul Grijalva, who is a first generation Mexican-American co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus who is more progressive than anyone you will ever get elected statewide in our 100 White People Senate descended from those liberal can-do gringos. The white ranchers and suburban folks in Nevada and Arizona are very conservative. Add to that that New Mexico is one of the most liberal states in the country, has a woman governor and is majority-minority. It's a great place. Mexico has enlightened attitudes about gay people, respect for extended family and social responsibility, all of which enrich us here. It's just poor is all. Poor people, as you may note, historically break liberal, not authoritarian-conservative. That's for the rich folks who make money and tend to run the world.
In Tucson, there are Mexican-American women in political leadership, and great respect for women. The Arizona legislature has promulgated some of the strongest restrictions on abortion anywhere -- through white conservatives, opposed by the white libs and Mexican-Americans. But then, I live here and you don't, so this may not be obvious to you.
Your reaction to the scattering of Mexican immigrants in the South and upper Midwest is "Gee, the US of Mexico, I'm so thrilled"? Seriously? How many of those can-do Caucasians want to pick fruit in SoCal? (Nada.) We create the economics to staff our low-pay jobs with Mexicans and Mexican-Americans and conservatives lament that the slave wage labor doesn't look or sound like grandpappy. That's not right. More than that, you typically roll out all these often strident arguments against what you see as American imperialism. But it's American money and weapons that have turned Mexico into a lawless narcostate. Maybe your love for humane foreign policy should get acquainted with your annoyance at the exodus of Mexican immigrants our lack of one toward Mexico fosters.
What are they paying ?
Did picking cotton pay better?
No it's people like Eric Holder, who may have had an agenda, to create a warlike atmosphere, so that giving amnesty would seem the reasonable thing to do.
Surely you cant expect the poor Mexicans caught in the middle of this war, to stay in Mexico.
So Eric give the Narcos the newest and most powerful weaponry (Fast and Furious) and the newly amnestied Mexicans, will be voting for the great savior Obama.
Give them weapons fast, theres an election coming up?
Here's a somewhat academic look at lower Mexican assimilation (based on lower English take-up even among younger immigrants & other markers) - NBER.org
You can see significant Hispanic enclaves in Georgia, Massachussetts, Jersey, Chicago. Sure, not as much as lands directly across the border, but a big change in expansion patterns in the last 2 decades. (New Mexico yes
We're of course not talking about So Cal fruit labor - that's been under control for 50 years or more. Yes, we can tie immigration into some moral question about US consumption of drugs and narcotrafficing, but then we might as well tie in global warming and alfalfa growth to be complete. (Presumably we created all corruption in Mexico & Latin America inclusive, right?)
But the basics are that highly concentrated immigration does not automatically lead to assimilation, but to maintenance of a cultural bubble. This includes the immigrant Mexican tendency to birthrate 1 point higher than that in Mexico, as stuck in a lower economic & educational bracket. But we can wish and presume that within a few generations the majority will have adapted to become successful, entering engineering and science fields and contributing the same to American productivity, yadda yadda yadda. Moving from the American Dream to the American Fantasy.
We had cultural bubbles for Italians, Poles, Chinese, and others. We have some now with Mexican immigrants, true. I guess you're skeptical where that will end up in 20-40 years based upon your sense that these folks are "stuck" in failure or modestly higher birthrates. Did the 19th Century Irish have a higher than normal rate of birth, compared to the Daughters of the American Revolution crowd? I'm sure those of longer descent and residence here said the same things about the Irish influx then. From poor, famine ravaged Ireland, Catholic folks, high birth rates, yadda yadda yadda.
We are of course talking about the successor forms of work to SoCal fruit picking. Hotels in the west. Agriculture and manual labor jobs. Hotel jobs. Same deal, same racial concentrations in low-level jobs others won't do. I see it everywhere out there.
As far as fairness to others from American weapons, a topic about which you've written, who died more in the last five years? Collaterally killed persons in American drone strikes against suspected al Qaeda, or persons killed by American weapons smuggled into the hands of narco-lords in the Mexican drug wars? Americans like their recreational drugs, just like they like a sense of safety. They get these things from poor people in other countries, no? These are the people whose emigration you're lamenting.
Glad you dropped the illiberalism point. Rep. Grijalva would beg to differ with you, and it's the bubbled people you lament who elected him. The 12 million America can't send back are here to stay. Wishing for those Good Old Days is truly the American Fantasy, I'll make the best of this reality instead.
Typical response from a white collar professional?
As long as they are not competing for your job?
"First they came" For the American laborers job, and I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a common laborer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
Eventually A Man, illegal immigration does affect all of those who can truly call themselves .....
Americans.
Peracles, to the extent your scribbling makes any sense, I would say you and your right wing/libertarian hacks from the Hoover Institution/National Bureau of Economic Research and the GWB administration are not going to send the 'Mexicans' back where they came from, anymore than historical schemes like those of former Confederate officers like Senator Morgan sent back Blacks to Africa as part of the deal to hand over the Congo to King Leopold after the Civil War (see King Leopold's Ghost)
I venture to guess that Edward Lazear would not last a summer day doing the work many Hispanic immigrants do 6-7 days a week, regardless of their fluency in Englsh, and he and his ilk at the 'think' tanks funded by right wing billionaires would be less missed if they departed the nation than an equal number of hard working Latino laborers.
We don't have to send them back.
Either they return on their own or face criminal charges for violating a sovereign nations immigration laws.
Don't blame law abiding citizens, for criminal behavior.
12 million illegals can transform Rocky Point into a modern city.
A tourist destination.
http://www.rockypointmexico.com/
Except; The American labor movement fought hard, for 8 hour workdays/40 hours a week.
We sure as hell don't need Hispanics, undercutting our gains.
Seize the business assets of employers who hire more and more illegal workers. We sure as hell don't need cheapskate employers, undercutting our gains.
Donal, your idea has merit.
The employers have stated, the E - Verify hasn't worked properly, so they are excused.
Any ideas?
The problem is not E-Verify, it is that employers really want cheap, immigrant workers:
Like Bush, R-Money used to be in favor of a guest worker program. R-Money was even in favor of amnesty not that long ago. Once he's elected, he'll probably be in favor again, because his party is in favor of guest workers:
I cant think of any Americans crying about the guest worker program for AG industries.
We don't need a guest worker program for the construction trades.
The only problem I see with the statement
"when no U.S. workers are currently available."
"At the wages we want to pay" ?
Better yet, have Mexico sell us the region around Rocky Point.
The region would become the modern day Ellis Island.
Immigrants would work to transform the region; until the application for citizenship was approved and the immigrant, not being a burden on Americans, would eventually be cleared to become citizens of the United States.
The Hispanics can apply for citizenship, as they work to construct a channel, to create a Port in Yuma.
The immigrants can work to transform the region into another Imperial Valley. Food for their hungry city and the surplus for US consumption.
Rocky point would need hotel workers, fire and police protection, teachers, laborers all sorts of trades would be needed.
As the 12 million potential immigrants learn to be self sufficient; on land purchased by the US Government, for the benefit of those seeking citizenship status. A win win for both sides
Americans get nice beach front property and possible inland port; illegals have a way to receive citizenship; while they work for it.
I said specifically Mexicans work hard, so stop with the nonsense.
Letting 30 million more in will not lead to a melting pot or improve US standard of living.
If Korea or Burma on our border, would be be obliged to accept 30 million Koreans or Burmese to not be labeled as "Send Blacks to Africa" types?
(ps - Liberia was settled by returning slaves, and there were several black leaders at the time who pushed for return as greater freedom - how do you square that?)
But I seldom see folks on the left defining what's reasonable immigration, or thinking that illegal immigration is a problem (it's only employers' fault? if I pay a nanny under the table, I'm responsible for a wave of 11 million illegal immigrants?)
What's the future of our immigration policy? I've said I want a balanced growth of Ethiopians, Indonesians, Tahitians, Aussies, Nepalese, Georgians, Turks, Romanians and Germans.
There's already a Latin America - it's quite big and nice and has good music - I can arrange tickets for you to go visit or live if you so desire. Like any sampler, it's nice to have our Chinatowns and LA barrios and Polish neighborhoods for piroshki. But I'm able to look in the future and say I don't want a population dominated by 1 ethnic group/nationality/whatever, but instead if I'm going to lose my unethical white man's burden exploitive colonialist edge, I want to lose it to an amalgam of new peoples, not just to someone else's unethical, exploitive colonialist edge.
[Of course it's funny to hear people defend being open to Mexico as enlightened, when that culture was founded on colonialism, exploitation much greater than ours, with its effects continuing to this day. But if they just cross the border, they'll act differently, honest.]
Save your breath .
No matter how many times you explain, how you want legal immigration and you want others besides just Mexicans, they'll call you a bigot or some other odious name
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious,
while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
I said I favor the wall and think it works. I agree that illegal immigration has economic costs that can outweigh its benefits. That is easy.
But your broadsides against "Hispanics" taking "our" gains go past that, and to me are quite ugly. I didn't call you a "bigot" or "other odious name." That's a very whiny thing for you or anyone to say who is calling out an ethnic or national group, and not merely illegal immigrants. You said in essence that I'm not a real American and am an out of touch white collar guy.
The economic costs of excessive illegal traffic through Arizona, unreimbursed by the feds, are truly significant. It likely cost Tucson a Level One trauma center. I understand. But that doesn't justify the human costs and discrimination visited on those immigrants who contribute positively to our society with hard work and paying taxes, and/or who are here legally and should not be tarred with the brush of burdening others without benefitting them. Everyone, including any immigrant, is entitled to the dignity of being viewed as who and what they are, and for who and what they contribute, and your broad-brush comments about groups demonstrate no respect for that principle, putting aside your pretense to being a better American or more injured than me or anyone else by illegal immigration. Whatever floats your boat, dude.
Nobody here has attacked legal citizens; so stop with your strawman arguments, intended to broad brush anyone opposed to Hispanics who are here illegally.
It isn't the color of the skin that makes the man, it's their character and if you are here illegally, you are not entitled to jump ahead of other ethnic groups seeking to become Americans.
Being Hispanic doesn't grant you special privileges, above all other ethnic groups. Or did you think it did?
I suppose to make it fair we'll have to let 12 million Chinese and another 12 million Vietnamese enter the country and all the other ethnic groups found around the world, no questions asked.
Maybe 12 million French folks believe they should have first position, to come to America? Maybe 12 million Brits, believe they should be first? Of course 12 million Africans could claim they should have first rights?
I'm sure they'll all pay taxes too?
All these other ethnic groups should be allowed to come to America; because "the Hispanics got away with it."
Evidently the Hispanics believe they were better than all other ethnic groups?
"We're exempt from obeying the laws of the United States, we're Hispanic"?
I know it's an easy thing to do, but I wish there was a way we didn't have to make 'white' synonymous with 'plutocracy' ...
Me too.
I get into two different modes.
The apocalypse is upon us.
Nothing really changes.
The Supreme Court following the death of what I thought was pure Evil (Renquist) has sunk to newer lows.
Where are we gonna be following another two or three NAZI's on the Supreme Court?
Let the blending begin:
Does that mean that the die is cast? Or, that the dye is cast? Hmmmm.
I am never going to live that one down, am I? LOL
I am not teasing at all. I thought it was quite interesting that the phrase, 'The die is cast', could be used with alternate meanings for 'die' and for' cast, both. When you used the word 'dye' the other day I googled it and found that using 'dye' is an archaic way to use the expression but it is the way some have done. I was tickled to find that your usage, even if an error, was another valid way to use the phrase.
"The dye is cast, meaning: the tint has been poured, and the water cannot be clear again."
“But once the dye had been cast, there was no washing it out.”
"Once a cloth has been dyed darker it cannot ever be dyed back to a lighter shade".
In this particular case it just seemed to fit using any of the two [so far] meanings applied to the words 'die' and 'cast' or using their homonyms. There cannot be another phrase in the English language quite like this one.
As a Plutocrat might think
Step 1 .... get the people and the government to turn a blind eye to enforcing the existing immigration laws and you open the border, so workers can put pressure on indigenious labor; rights. Decent pay with benefits.
the more workers than jobs and the wages go down.
Besides with an unemployment rate of ++8 1/2 % ; workers will be glad for a job and they wont even think about making demands upon the Corporations. Push for amnesty.
Maybe those corporations that located overseas might consider returning, once the American worker learns to accept less?
Step 2 .... create fear and panic, so you can put in place, LAWS that you were always trying to implement any ways, but didn't have the basis for attempting until; you could get the Nation to cut their own throats first.
The plutocracy, (the minority) didn't speak up...... why should they?
The blind working class wont see, they were manipulated to do what the plutocracy wanted them to do.
Like leading sheep to the slaughter.
First you let em all in.... then you reign them all in.
NAFTA, WTO ... FREE TRADE
"The thing about tariffs is, they do the trick". Keynes.
As to the black caucus, when Bloomberg stops concentrating on arresting 17 year old blacks it will be time for it to dissolve. Don't hold your breath.
So Congress passed a series of immigration laws
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/history/legacy/ins_history.xml
At every opportunity, the exploiters of labor, have tried to overturn or ignore the will of the people.
1) WE THE PEOPLE don't want an "avalanche of cheap labor."
2) WE THE PEOPLE don't want this "influx of foreign cut-rate workers,"
Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves; he did it to contain slavery's economic advantage
3) WE THE PEOPLE don't want "economic conditions to deteriorate in some areas".
WE ABOLISHED THE SLAVE STATES FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
Why do we want to return to those days? So Corporations can make more profits?
The more Mexicans in a region, the better for manufacturing to relocate there?
Corporations and manufacturing leaders: "Screw you in the N.E. and Rust Belt regions; relocate to the Southwest where there is plenty of cheap labor, besides TACOs are delicious.
Frijoles and free
cheaplabor; kind of a good thing; NO?"Si Senor manufacturing patron (boss) ; I work real cheap and so does my brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and their brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and their brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, "
"Si Senor you'll make mucho denario; more than you will with American workers.
See my new comment below, Resistance.
Still hot news for some participants on this thread even though it's from more than a month ago--could be it's time to find someone else to argue about: