Talk about obnoxious...

[Alram]

They dont pay taxes in many cases. Yes they dont make use of everything the US goverment does for its citizens but do automatically benifit from many services just by living here.

The truth is most do work very hard for only modest pay, but that tends to benifit rich guys more do little for avergae citizens and hurt the US poor. So the only fair thing to look at is taxes.
[right][snapback]106838[/snapback][/right]

In many cases they do pay taxes, but do not file thus not getting refunds they would otherwise be entitled to. They also do not collect social security and medicare benefits leading to an estimated 7 billion per year contribution to a social security surplus.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks for all that you did say, Occhi.  :)    Other perspectives are always a Good Thing™ to hear, even if I don't agree with them.   :P

And, speaking of other perspectives, can we briefly talk about another (apparently) knee-jerk assumption you have?  

You said: 
From a Canuck viewpoint, the one does not necessarily follow the other.   Our Powers That Be have, for quite some time, been pursuing a policy of cultural mosaic, not assimilation.   The jury is still out, IMO, as to the benefits of this approach, but it is by no means all negative or a sign of disunion on other issues.
[right][snapback]106820[/snapback][/right]

I have been saying the following for years: multicuturalism was the demise of the

Roman
Austrian
Russian
Ottoman

Empires.

It may be the core of the demise of the American Empire/hegemony as well.

Occhi

[Guest]

In many cases they do pay taxes, but do not file thus not getting refunds they would otherwise be entitled to. They also do not collect social security and medicare benefits leading to an estimated 7 billion per year contribution to a social security surplus.
[right][snapback]106879[/snapback][/right]

Thats true too.

The current situation is all around bad for everyone except rich Americans(well rich people anywhere wjho own American companies.)

[Jester]

No I am not, Jester, nor are most Americans.  I am American.  Born here of American parents.  I am not an immigrant.  Do you understand that concept?  I have a country, a nation, and its name has no hyphen.

Your self-identification, in this context, is irrelevant to me. I am Canadian, not British-Canadian, or Slovak-Canadian or Balinese-Mongolian-Canadian, but I'm still decended from immigrants. Unless you came over the Bering Strait (and even then, possibly) you or your ancestors came to an already-inhabited land. You are immigrants or the decendants of immigrants, and that is a fact.

The "indigenous" weren't ever American until they chose to assimilate, were conquered, or variously blended into the oddball mix that makes America what it is.  Some chose to opt out, not to assimilate, and live on the reservation and remain "indigenous." [...] This land, my nation, wasn't America until the European migration and mixing made it so, and until a considerable amount of blood was shed to form it, and to bound it: to set its borders.

Being conquerors as well does not change matters. Note: I didn't call it America, at that stage, although it was, having been named such by Amerigo Vespucci long before the USA ever existed. I just said you (or your ancestors) came to this geographical location, and conquered it from those who were already there. Ironically, the people you conquered this particular area from (the border) were Mexicans, who are both Indigenous and European, in parts.

I am not saying, of course, that we should kick out all peoples who came after the first migration. Instead, I think that people have an obligation to be tolerant, remembering that there are almost no completely "legitimate" land claims in this world, yours and mine especially. Let people move where they want, with minimal restrictions, granting voluntarily the rights our ancestors took by force. If liberty is truly the best system in the world, then it should work well enough.

For a guy who likes to quote international law as much as you do, I find your disrespect of my nation's laws slightly hypocritical.

Funny, that weird distinction between international laws and national ones, and how I agree (for instance) with the UN Security Council's legitimacy, and not (for instance) the Saudi royal family's arbitrary decrees. How on earth can I justify an opinion as insane as *that*?

I am disrespectful of your laws because I disagree with them. I am not disrespectful of your process. Do what you like with your borders, and do what you like with your laws. I'm just asking why you don't do something easy, humane and consistent with (a rather generous reading of) your historical ideals. If you want to do something brutal, isolationist and (IMHO) crazy, in the model of Soviet East Germany, feel free. It's your country.

You might be surprised at how harsh, down here in South Texas, some of the second and third generation Americans of Mexican descent are on illegal immigration.  They have no more taste for it than I do.  They did it right, their families did it right, the hard and lawful way, and are resentful of the freeloaders.

Because they're irritated, you should seal your borders and shoot to kill? Good for them for coming legally, but that doesn't give them the right to dictate policy, nor does it obligate you to their opinions. Also: freeloaders? These are people doing some of the crappiest, lowest paid sweated work in the USA. Calling them freeloaders shows your contempt for them beyond what is warranted. They're lawbreakers, but not lazy ones. (By and large, of ourse. Every group is mixed.)

The "do you understand"s and the "way to perpetuate the big lie"s I'll ignore for now. As I've said before, if you want to argue like that I'd rather bow out than continue.

-Jester

[Jester]

I have been saying the following for years: multicuturalism was the demise of the

Roman
Austrian
Russian
Ottoman

Empires.

It may be the core of the demise of the American Empire/hegemony as well.

Occhi
[right][snapback]106881[/snapback][/right]

Isn't it nice that those oppressive, violent, dictatorial institutions died the death they did?

Perhaps we should concentrate on making a society that is flexible enough to incorporate multiculturalism, rather than imitating the absolutists of the past.

-Jester

[Guest]

All that I will say is this: it must be very frustrating to work in a maquiladora, 12 hours a day, in some cases locked inside of your place of work, for spare change (by American standards), and see that right across the border (often less than 10 minutes away) you would be making 5 or even 10 times as much from the same company, for the same work. 
[right][snapback]106878[/snapback][/right]

Not really. Its worse actually. None of those business are left here in the US almost all all moved to Mexico.

So your option is really - work in the Mexican factory for crap wages or sneak into America and gut chicken, sweep halls or do low skill construction work for much better pay.

SIDE NOTE: I work at a lot of construction sites Mexicans and Eastern Europeans seem dominate 1 task - applying Dryvit - the exterior finish on most buildings.

[Lissa]

Actually, the author is partially right on that last sentense. The US does need immigrants, be they legal or illegal, as the US is presently in a population shortfall. People have projected that the US is short about 37 or so million people from being able to keep things like Social Security up and solvent. If you look at the statistics right now, the US has a birth rate of about 2.4 which barely keeps the population from decreasing. As such, the US does need the tax base from those missing 37 million and the only place we're going to get it from is immigrants as our birth rate is not high enough to make up that shortfall.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Perhaps we should concentrate on making a society that is flexible enough to incorporate multiculturalism, rather than imitating the absolutists of the past.
[right][snapback]106884[/snapback][/right]

Yep, the Jeffersonian ideal. All you have to do is change human nature. I'm sure the geneticists will come up with a way to do that, preferably before the child exits the womb.

Until then, though, most people's reaction to 'different' is hatred. I know, I've seen it (and heard the ignorant rednecks comment on it, thinking we didn't understand English) many times when I was out with my folks and we were speaking Italian.

No. Give me one nation with one language. If a group wishes to uses an additional language among themselves, more power to them. But embracing diversity is another one of those ivory tower ideas based on lack of understanding of how the vast unwashed masses actually behave. The diversity s embraced until the individuals become a mob -- then 'death to those others' becomes the watchword.

And, by the way, how is the Quebec independence movement faring? Do they still want a country of their own where they can speak their own sorta French dialect and don't have to hear that 'bloody English'? How anyone can be a Canadian and not think that language differences are disruptive is beyond my understanding. The problem is so under your nose, and you don't even seem to notice the stench.

--Pete

[Griselda]

Because of a lack of time this week, I'm going to have to post a few scattered ideas rather than formulate a more cohesive post. I will be working ~13 hours/day for the next two days, so I don't know that I'd be able to check in to defend a more ambitious post. That's also why I'm relpying to the thread in general and not to a specific post. I'm sorry that I don't have more time to dedicate to this conversation.

One thing that's always struck me is that one archetypical American hero is the maverick man with a heart of gold who has to defy the bureaucrats and maybe break the law in order to save his family/city/country/whatever. Hollywood is full of that sort of story. In my mind, the archetype is very similar to the stereotypical Mexican man who breaks the law and risks his own life to come to the USA so that he can feed his family. Can't you just see the movie trailer now?

As with any archetype, there are always counter examples when you start applying actual people to the model. But, I do see a lot of people who would praise Americans who intentionally break what they consider to be an unjust law as heroes, only to be infuriated at those who enter this country illegally because "OMG they broke the law!"

I also wonder why the immigration of Cubans is seen in a different light than that of Mexicans. Even those who supported the return of Elian Gonzales to Cuba, for example, didn't seem the least bit concerned with the fact that Elian, along with many other Cubans every year, arrived in the USA as an undocumented immigrant.

I do understand that the government of Cuba is significantly different than the government of Mexico, and that the USA has a different relationship with each one. But I would argue that the motivation of the immigrants themselves is similar, at least today. While freedom from Communism is certainly a factor (and probably was a primary factor for those who came at the *beginning* of the Castro regime), I would guess that economic opportunity is the primary motivator for both Cuban and Mexican immigrants today.

As far as providing educational services, I would guess that most of the children of undocumented immigrants are US citizens. Say what you will about this policy (yes, I know that this has already been discussed), as a practical matter these kids are here and aren't going to be going anywhere regardless of what happens to their parents. Even though it takes resources to educate these children, I would argue that we as a society benefit from educating them. Whether one feels that the families deserve the benefit is beside the point. They're here, they're citizens, and we will be better off in the long run with a more highly educated populace.

[SwissMercenary]

And, by the way, how is the Quebec independence movement faring? Do they still want a country of their own where they can speak their own sorta French dialect and don't have to hear that 'bloody English'? How anyone can be a Canadian and not think that language differences are disruptive is beyond my understanding. The problem is so under your nose, and you don't even seem to notice the stench.

Last I heard over here, they still haven't made up their mind as to what they actually want.

[Jester]

I'm sorry, Pete, but Canada has worked out phenomenally well, and if you think there's a "stench," we seem to be living with it just fine, which seems to undermine the metaphor somewhat. It's not perfect, but, as Occhi reminds us over and over again, nothing and nobody is. Fact remains, it has worked, it is working, and it will probably continue to work.

There are, and have always been, people from Quebec who want to separate. The movement is at a moderate level right now, and we'll see where it goes. However, even those who are adamant separatists are living just fine under the existing system, and aside from an insignificant handful of crazies, we live peacefully and happily together. If Quebec (or any other part of Canada) ever seriously decides to separate, then my prediction is that it will be bloodless. Too many "separatists" want associations that reflect our peaceful (at least in the last century or so) history, rather than a clean break.

The great unwashed mob has kept its head down for quite some time. If you think ethnically motivated mob violence is right around the corner unless we stick to one language, well, I'd give you better odds as a prophet than most. But I think you're wrong.

Tolerance can be learned. It isn't inherent, and it's never perfect. But establishing one language as supreme doesn't seem to me to be a step in the right direction, at least until we can extend it to the whole world.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Actually, the author is partially right on that last sentense.  The US does need immigrants, be they legal or illegal, as the US is presently in a population shortfall.  People have projected that the US is short about 37 or so million people from being able to keep things like Social Security up and solvent.  If you look at the statistics right now, the US has a birth rate of about 2.4 which barely keeps the population from decreasing.  As such, the US does need the tax base from those missing 37 million and the only place we're going to get it from is immigrants as our birth rate is not high enough to make up that shortfall.
[right][snapback]106886[/snapback][/right]

Immigration as the engine to overcome a modern, secular tendency not to breed, in order to save a Ponzi scheme?

That seems an interesting counterpoint to the fashionable ideal some years ago, ZPG(Zero Population Growth.) The idea then was that overpopulation was a threat to peace, stability, the environment, et cetera. People were encouraged, by the Conventional Widsom, not to breed.

There was some wisdom in that, depending on circumstances. You can see the effects of population pressure in some poorly administrated nations. If they don't have Social Security embedded in their structure, should they pursue ZPG, as there is no systemic incentive to fuel a perpetual tax and dole cycle?

I find your observation intriguing in its policy implications.

Another way to resolve the alleged population "shortfall" would be to support a mass conversion to Mormonism in America. :blink: That is probably less likely to succeed, when one gets down to details.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Your self-identification, in this context, is irrelevant to me. I am Canadian, not British-Canadian, or Slovak-Canadian or Balinese-Mongolian-Canadian, but I'm still decended from immigrants.

That is irrelevant. You are as native to Canada as a German born in Germany is native to Germany. If you choose to indulge in identity insecurity, that is your problem, please don't presume that I should do the same.

Unless you came over the Bering Strait (and even then, possibly) you or your ancestors came to an already-inhabited land. You are immigrants or the decendants of immigrants, and that is a fact.

That is still a fallacious argument, as I noted before. Part of The Big Lie is the presumption that there was "America" before the European migration west occured. Should I call all British "Germans and Saxons and Danes?" That is who migrated there. No, wait, I should call them Romans, who also migrated there. No, they are British.

"America" and specifically The United States of America, is not merely a piece of land, it is a nation state formed by a particular kind of people. The people, and their culture, is what make it what it is.

Being conquerors as well does not change matters.

Try reviewing about four millenia of Human History.

Conquering changes everything, for short term sometimes, for long term sometimes. For that matter, play is continuous, which is why I feel too many have their blinders on. The "conquest" by the cradle is an old, and well known policy.

The mores and norms of the conqueror change the shape of the society and culture. The Incas aren't much in evidence in Peru, are they? Their culture was over written.

Note: I didn't call it America, at that stage, although it was, having been named such by Amerigo Vespucci long before the USA ever existed.  I just said you (or your ancestors) came to this geographical location, and conquered it from those who were already there. Ironically, the people you conquered this particular area from (the border) were Mexicans, who are both Indigenous and European, in parts.

How about you read Ferenbach's history of Texas, then get back to me. (He also did an excellent treatment of the Korean War.) The Mexicans were heirs of the Spanish, who conquered a land. They in turn lost in the usual fashion: a war. The war, in good European fashion, was resolved by a treaty. Treaties are part and parcel to international law. It changed the conditions of sovereignty of part of a continent, as treaties often do. As a descendent of Enlightenment Europeans, I find your failure to grasp that puzzling.

I am disrespectful of your laws because I disagree with them. I am not disrespectful of your process. Do what you like with your borders, and do what you like with your laws. I'm just asking why you don't do something easy, humane and consistent with (a rather generous reading of) your historical ideals. If you want to do something brutal, isolationist and (IMHO) crazy, in the model of Soviet East Germany, feel free. It's your country.

The "easy" is to enforce the laws already on the books. The KISS principle applies. The isolationist jab is pure, unadulterated garbage. Legal immigration (I think the "quota" for Mexico is annually 300,000ish) would and should continue, in a lawful and orderly fashion. Or is "lawful and orderly" to you, Jester, fascism, totalitarianism, and communism? Are you advocating Anarchy? Make up your mind, please. My nation's borders are recognized under the international law you hold in such high esteem.

Because they're irritated, you should seal your borders and shoot to kill?

I said nothing about sealing borders. Thee are legal and legit border crossing rules and sites all along our border. They are to be used. To enforce that, force is required in my opinion, since recent history has shown that a border is ignored when not enforced.

Also: freeloaders? These are people doing some of the crappiest, lowest paid sweated work in the USA. Calling them freeloaders shows your contempt for them beyond what is warranted. They're lawbreakers, but not lazy ones. (By and large, of ourse. Every group is mixed.)

Do you really know what you are talking about, on the impact of illegal immigrants on the labor market, on crime, on social rot, and on exploitation of humans? As a minor example, the sweat shops in the garment districts of New York are still using illegal labor, who work in appalling conditions, illegally, and illegally oppressed by exploitive, unethical employers.

The "do you understand"s and the "way to perpetuate the big lie"s I'll ignore for now. As I've said before, if you want to argue like that I'd rather bow out than continue.

If you buy into the Big Lie, and then use it to support your argument, then I will point that out.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Until then, though, most people's reaction to 'different' is hatred.  I know, I've seen it (and heard the ignorant rednecks comment on it, thinking we didn't understand English) many times when I was out with my folks and we were speaking Italian.

That was in a country that values and promulgates assimilation. :) I hear a multitude of languages spoken every day, here. And I am not seeing any hatred expressed over it.

No. Give me one nation with one language. If a group wishes to uses an additional language among themselves, more power to them.  But embracing diversity is another one of those ivory tower ideas based on lack of understanding of how the vast unwashed masses actually behave. The diversity s embraced until the individuals become a mob -- then 'death to those others' becomes the watchword.

Perhaps. You live in your ivory tower and I get mine. :) I do live in a highly multicultural city - more so than any other in the world. There just are not enough of any particular one to allow for that 'death to the others' mentality. They are all either very small minorities or part of one big concept - a Canada that embraces tolerance. Guess which one they all seem to be choosing?

And, by the way, how is the Quebec independence movement faring?  Do they still want a country of their own where they can speak their own sorta French dialect and don't have to hear that 'bloody English'?  How anyone can be a Canadian and not think that language differences are disruptive is beyond my understanding.  The problem is so under your nose, and you don't even seem to notice the stench.

--Pete
[right][snapback]106898[/snapback][/right]

Nice try on the button pressing, Pete. :) But you are betraying a woeful ignorance of what is going on in that Quebec independence movement. It ain't about language. It is all about getting more money out of the Federal government, and it has been so for a long time. The French language has been merely a lever in the age-old game of power juggling. The Separatists actually do not like multi-culturalism, because it erodes their 'special status' and hence the credibility of their claims for 'more'.

[Occhidiangela]

That was in a country that values and promulgates assimilation.  :)  I hear a multitude of languages spoken every day, here.  And I am not seeing any hatred expressed over it.
Perhaps.  You live in your ivory tower and I get mine.  :)  I do live in a highly multicultural city - more so than any other in the world.  There just are not enough of any particular one to allow for that 'death to the others' mentality.  They are all either very small minorities or part of one big concept - a Canada that embraces tolerance.  Guess which one they all seem to be choosing?   
Nice try on the button pressing, Pete.  :)  But you are betraying a woeful ignorance of what is going on in that Quebec independence movement.  It ain't about language.  It is all about getting more money out of the Federal government, and it has been so for a long time.    The French language has been merely a lever in the age-old game of power juggling.  The Separatists actually do not like multi-culturalism, because it erodes their 'special status' and hence the credibility of their claims for 'more'.
[right][snapback]106921[/snapback][/right]

Got it, on the 'victim status' and "Other People's Money" approach, we have plenty of that here in the Lower Forty Eight.

The issue in Quebec may not ALL be about language, I'll trust your reporting on that, but the conflict is partly about language, just as the reconquista attempts down here in the Nueces Strip is partly about language, since language is an extremely important element of cultural and group identity, and group identity drives some politics.

See Hugo Chavez and his recent decision to purchase armaments from Spain. See also the special relationship between the US and the UK, "even though we are separated by a common language," per Churchill. ;) The politics of language is, in my experience, used to separate and Balkanize. The French are a particularly arrogant in that regard, in NATO and in their chauvinistic, Francophone efforts internationally. I am not sure how much that thread of French character is present in Quebec, if it is indeed present. My colleagues in the Canadian forces seemd to think it was present in spades. That is anecdotal, to be sure. A dozen oro so Naval officers and Air Force officers make for a narrow sample size. :whistling:

The Dutch are a notable exception, not the rule, in the "learn five languages by the time we leave high school" model of development. Me, I think it is a great model, but in that regard my voice is in the minority.

Put in a somewhat different light, about 15% of the planet's speaks Chinese. Should the Chinese beadmonished to stop teaching their own language, since it is anti-assimilationist to do so and they are behaving as arrogant chauvinists? ;)

I think not. Eight hundred pound gorilla's are notoriously uncooperative.

Occhi

[Jester]

On most of my point, I think I've said all that needs to be said. I'm not questioning your sovereignty, and I'm not engaging in some perverse identity crisis. Our fellow lurkers may draw their own conclusions.

However, I would challenge you to spend a week in Peru and still tell me the Incas are gone. Quechua and Aymaru speakers are the largest slice of the population pie, almost the majority of the population. The indigenous cultures we call the Incas are still very much alive, although rather irritated about 500 years of colonial domination. Evo Morales in Bolivia shows they aren't gone, just suppressed.

On Texas, I take it you mean T.R. Fehrenbach's "Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans"? I'll give it a look.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

On most of my point, I think I've said all that needs to be said. I'm not questioning your sovereignty, and I'm not engaging in some perverse identity crisis. Our fellow lurkers may draw their own conclusions.

On Texas, I take it you mean T.R. Fehrenbach's "Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans"? I'll give it a look.

-Jester
[right][snapback]106933[/snapback][/right]

Yes, that Fehrenbach. He's very good. I may be able to find a copy in a used book store around here, for cheap. If I can, I'll send it to you. :)

As to the Incas, and Peru, the cultural struggle you allude to is yet another manifestation of the Clausewitz quote in my sig, Jester. A cultural war is still a war, sometimes fought under arms, and sometimes "by other means." ;) Likewise the reconquista I alluded to further up.

Play is continuous.

I suggest also that the "Inca culture" is inferior, in the 21st century context, to what has since replaced it. Consider David Brin's critique of "Romantics" that Shadow posted a few months back. (The topic at the time was IIRC LoTR, but Brin's essay about the Romantics is germane.)

The "it was better 500 years ago" fantasy ignores that play is continuous. More iconoclasm to little useful end. I would not have thought you a champion of a reactionary agenda. I'll also argue that the true struggle is about power, and group identity.

Hey, wait, isn't that where we came in on this conversation? :whistling:

Occhi

[Jester]

Two things.

First, you seem to be reading a great deal into what I'm saying. I'm quite sure it isn't all there.

Second, Mr. Fehrenbach's book doesn't seem to have gotten particularly great scholarly reviews, with one councelling quite specifically that this shouldn't be anyone's first book on Texas. (Also, he apparently wrote a rather sloppy book on Mexico, which doesn't exactly endear him to me.) I'll read it if you really recommend it despite all this (I may read it anyway) but do you perhaps have another source that might serve as well?

-Jester

[Jim]

Will civil war be our voice?

Hi,

Not sure if it was CNN or FOX this past week, talked about a CIVIL WAR 2 with the Mexicans here in the USA. I can't find this discussion even tho I Googled...did find this interesting read :P

(SNIP)

It is clear that the Bush Administration will draw some sort of line in the sand with their new Mexican slave labor policy. But the rhetoric here in the Pacific Northwest has become increasingly elevated in the past week and uniquely not from the socialists.

I only say this as someone who was born and raised in the southwest so I know all too well about the Mexican flags being shoved in peoples faces. I know all too well about their machismo (the other night on Fox that Mexican professor from UCLA wanted to physically hurt Michelle Malkin, he couldn't stand a woman telling him anything). I also know ALL too well about their violence and lack of reason and nazi-like dedication to MEXICO. I grew up having to make concessions on simple things like intelligent rhetoric, knowledge and patriotism to my country just to fit in! These are the demands being made by these nationalist transformists...they seek their atzlan, their la raza unida-Do we just hand it over? Do we just let our administration destroy us?

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or  INTERNAL INVADER.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

Accept nothing less than deportation! They attempt to lose deportation in a mountain of rhetoric citing logistics...But I propose, what cost is the law? Will civil war be our voice? (SNIP)

http://forums.hypography.com/social-scienc...-civil-war.html

ps: I live in Mesa AZ :wub:

[Doc]

At first, the land was populated by brown skinned peoples. Then the white man came, made war, and stole the land. They lived there, on their stolen land, smug and secure in their imperialistic ideology that the brown skinned peoples would never again rise up against them. They lorded over all they could see and believed their empire to be secure.

Now, they cry foul about some invader to their lands and the circle is complete. And this old man just can't stop laughing at this whole thing. Heh, reap what you sow, the whirlwind comes for you.